House of Commons Hansard #240 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was senate.

Topics

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

NDP

Svend Robinson NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I do not want to unduly prolong the debate, but there is a procedural issue here which is a serious one.

As I understand it, the hon. member during the course of debate had put forward an amendment, had moved and seconded an amendment to the motion which was before the House. He then sat down having concluded his intervention in the debate.

He subsequently rose on a point of order and sought the consent of the House to put forward a different amendment. Perhaps the Chair could assist us but as I understand it, it is not in order to seek to put an amendment before the House when rising on a point of order.

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:50 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

The hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas has a point. I am going to consult with the clerk and we will sort this out.

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:50 a.m.

Reform

Gary Lunn Reform Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas is challenging the rule of the Chair when it has already ruled. That is inappropriate and he is not permitted to do that when the Chair has already ruled on the point of order.

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:50 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

The Chair is not so insecure that he cannot take guidance from wherever it comes.

The hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas is quite correct. On reflection, we had on debate recognized the original amendment from the hon. member for Surrey Central. The member had taken his place and did subsequently rise on a point of order. It is established procedure that an amendment cannot be introduced on a point of order.

Therefore the first amendment stands. The second amendment is not receivable. We will now look at the first amendment.

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:50 a.m.

Liberal

Marlene Catterall Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have confirmation of the Chair's willingness to be flexible and review its decisions.

I do want to be quite clear. I understood that the hon. member moved a motion during the debate and that is the one that stands according to your ruling. However, I also heard you say that the other member had proposed a motion during his speech in debate which is not before the House. Can we have that clarified?

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:50 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

No, that is not the case. It was on a point of order that the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas brought to the attention of the Chair a procedural error. This is being rectified. It is better to be rectified now than at 10 o'clock tonight.

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:50 a.m.

Reform

Randy White Reform Langley—Abbotsford, BC

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what that amendment was. Could the Chair please confirm it for me?

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:50 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

To the House leader of the official opposition, I do not have a written copy of the second amendment which is not going to be introduced. I could return the first amendment to the hon. opposition House leader.

The clerk has brought to my attention that the Chair has yet to receive the original amendment. Until the original amendment is received by the Chair from the hon. member for Surrey Central, the debate will be on the motion as presented.

For clarification, the Chair does not have an amendment at this time.

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

Reform

Randy White Reform Langley—Abbotsford, BC

Mr. Speaker, let me clarify this. My colleague from Surrey Central introduced an amendment. He had a written amendment here which he tried to subsequently introduce. There is no other amendment. We do not have another amendment here.

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

We will check the blues and we will take the time necessary to do so.

In his debate the member for Surrey Central presented an amendment verbally to the House. The normal procedure is that that would be signed and presented to the Chair. If the Chair does not receive that, then we do not have it and we go to the original motion as presented.

Therefore, because we do not have an amendment the debate is on the original motion. It is not an amended motion. There has been no amendment presented to the Chair.

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

Reform

Gurmant Grewal Reform Surrey Central, BC

Mr. Speaker, I signed one amendment. I gave it to the clerk and the clerk has it. It has been presented to the hon. Chair.

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

The member for Surrey Central says that he signed an amendment. Apparently the amendment he signed has been given to the Chair. That was the second amendment presented to the House. It is not an amendment receivable by the Chair.

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

NDP

Bev Desjarlais NDP Churchill, MB

Mr. Speaker, it may come out as a question but I certainly have a comment.

The hon. member indicated that he is a fairly recent immigrant to Canada. He said that people come to Canada because of the definition of marriage and that this is of great value to him. I recognize that it is a value.

Another reason a good many people come to Canada is because of the persecution they face in their own countries. They may be in a same sex relationship and may not be given the same opportunities to be treated fairly as is what happens in Canada under our charter of rights.

To bring the marriage issue and the term marriage up as being the most important thing and then to slam same sex relationships is not the way to go about doing this. A number of Canadians believe strongly that those in same sex relationships should have all the benefits of other Canadians but they feel a great affinity to the term marriage because of how they have perceived marriage through Christian beliefs and through the unity of their partnerships.

I would suggest rather than be divisive that Reform take a serious look at its approach to things. The member should consider seriously the real reasons people come to Canada. It is not just for the term marriage.

SupplyGovernment Orders

June 8th, 1999 / 10:55 a.m.

Reform

Gurmant Grewal Reform Surrey Central, BC

Mr. Speaker, there are many reasons that motivate prospective immigrants to Canada.

One reason is the definition of marriage with family as the cornerstone of our society. What is a family? How do families begin? The definition of marriage is the one we are debating here. Prospective immigrants view the definition of marriage as it is stated in the law and which we are here to reaffirm today as one of the reasons.

That was one of the reasons I came to Canada. With due respect, this is the definition of marriage. It is between one man and one woman. That is what we are here to reaffirm today.

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

NDP

Svend Robinson NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's colleague, the member for Calgary Centre, has referred to gay and lesbian families, the families of two gay men or two lesbian women who are raising children as gender deprived parenting. He said that these families are somehow deficient.

Does the hon. member for Surrey Central agree with this attack and this insult on families in Canada who happen to be made up of two women and their children or two men raising children? Does he agree that this is, to use the words of his colleague, gender deprived parenting? Does he also agree, presumably, that a single parent family in which there is only one woman raising children or one man raising children is a gender deprived family and similarly is a defective or a deficient family?

Will the hon. member for Surrey Central explain why he is apparently agreeing with this appalling attack on families in Canada who happen to be made up of gay and lesbian people raising children?

SupplyGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

Reform

Gurmant Grewal Reform Surrey Central, BC

Mr. Speaker, what we are debating here is the definition of marriage. On this side of the House we are not against anyone or anything. We are here today simply to reaffirm the definition of marriage as a marriage between a man and a woman. That is the only issue we are debating today.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

NDP

Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC

Mr. Speaker, I heard the member speak about immigrants coming to Canada. I was recently at the citizenship court and heard the judge speaking to new Canadians who were swearing the oath of allegiance to Canada and becoming citizens. The citizenship judge in Vancouver told them that the most important thing about becoming a Canadian was understanding diversity and equality.

I was very surprised to hear the comments from the member that somehow the particular view that the member holds would be enforced on all other Canadians.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

Reform

Gurmant Grewal Reform Surrey Central, BC

Mr. Speaker, my constituency is one of the largest constituencies in Canada. I have a diverse population in my riding. I am here to represent my constituents. They have been calling to tell me that they want to reaffirm the definition of marriage as a marriage between a man and a woman.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

Edmonton West Alberta

Liberal

Anne McLellan LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, I rise to respond to the motion this morning on behalf of the Government of Canada.

Let me clearly state that the Government of Canada will be supporting the motion in the House today. The fact that we will be supporting the motion should come as a surprise to no one. I would like to thank the hon. member for tabling the motion for the consideration of the House and for giving the government the opportunity to clarify our position on this important issue.

We on this side agree that the institution of marriage is a central and important institution in the lives of many Canadians. It plays an important part in all societies worldwide, second only to the fundamental importance of family to all of us.

The institution of marriage is of great importance to large numbers of Canadians, and the definition of marriage as found in the hon. member's motion is clear in law.

As stated in the motion, the definition of marriage is already clear in law. It is not found in a statute, but then not all law exists in statutes, and the law is no less binding and no less the law because it is found in the common law instead of in a statute.

The definition of marriage, which has been consistently applied in Canada, comes from an 1866 British case which holds that marriage is “the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others”. That case and that definition are considered clear law by ordinary Canadians, by academics and by the courts. The courts have upheld the constitutionality of that definition.

The Ontario court, general division, recently upheld in Layland and Beaulne the definition of marriage. In that decision a majority of the court stated the following:

—unions of persons of the same sex are not “marriages”, because of the definition of marriage. The applicants are, in effect, seeking to use s. 15 of the Charter to bring about a change in the definition of marriage. I do not think the Charter has that effect.

One may then ask why we are here today and why we are using the already limited time of the House to debate a motion, on which, I suspect, there will be no fundamental disagreement inside or outside the House.

I am aware, as are other ministers, that recent court decisions and resulting media coverage have raised concern around the issue of same sex partners. It appears that the hon. member believes that the motion is both necessary and effective as a means to keep the Government of Canada from suddenly legislating the legalization of same sex marriages. That kind of misunderstanding of the intention of the government should be corrected.

Let me state again for the record that the government has no intention of changing the definition of marriage or of legislating same sex marriages. No jurisdiction worldwide defines a legal marriage as existing between same sex partners. Even those few European countries such as Denmark, Norway and Holland, which have recently passed legislation giving recognition to same sex relationships and extending some of the same benefits and responsibilities as available to married spouses, maintain a clear distinction in the law between marriage and same sex registered partnerships.

Norway's ministry published a statement in 1994 that makes this distinction clear. Although a same sex relationship may have many of the same needs, the Norwegian government clarified that it, the same sex partnership, can

—never be the same as marriage, neither socially nor from a religious point of view. (Registered partnership) does not replace or compete with heterosexual marriage—(and the) opportunity for homosexuals to register their partnerships will not lead to more people opting for homosexual relationships rather than marriage.

I fundamentally do not believe that it is necessary to change the definition of marriage in order to accommodate the equality issues around same sex partners which now face us as Canadians. The courts have ruled that some recognition must be given to the realities of unmarried cohabitation in terms of both opposite sex and same sex partners.

I strongly believe that the message to the government and to all Canadian governments from the Canadian public is a message of tolerance, fairness and respect for others.

For those who remain concerned, I would point out that recent surveys of young people indicate that marriage has not gone out of style in Canada. The majority of young people still expect to marry. The marriage rate is still similar to that of the 1920s, although a rising number are re-marriages, and that Canadian marriages still on average last longer than those in the United States.

The motion speaks of taking all necessary steps to preserve the definition of marriage in Canada. While I and the government support the motion, I feel strongly that marriage is already very clear in Canadian minds and in Canadian law, and that there is little that the House must do as a necessary step to in any way add to the clarity of the law.

Marriage has fundamental value and importance to Canadians and we do not believe on this side of the House that importance and value is in any way threatened or undermined by others seeking to have their long term relationships recognized. I support the motion for maintaining the clear legal definition of marriage in Canada as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

At this time I would like to move an amendment to the motion. I move:

That the motion be amended by inserting after the word “steps” the words “within the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada”.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:10 a.m.

Reform

Eric C. Lowther Reform Calgary Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe that the seconder of the motion is required to be in his or her seat when he or she seconds. The member was not in her seat at the time of the seconding and I therefore think you should consider the motion null and void.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:10 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

As a matter of interest, I checked with the clerk on exactly that point no more than 30 seconds ago. I was informed that the member needs only to be in the House, recognized by the Speaker as a legitimate member, and to be anywhere within the purview of the Speaker.

The amendment is in order and is accepted. The debate is on the amendment.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:10 a.m.

Reform

Gary Lunn Reform Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister of Justice for supporting the motion. I also agree with her comment about marriage being an important institution.

She posed a couple of questions in her speech. She asked why we are here today and then put out the suggestion that it is a redundant motion.

I went to sleep last night thinking about the motion. Often in the House we get so caught up in the day to day activities and with what is in the press that we sometimes lose focus on the truly important issues. Sometimes things create a life of their own. As we have seen many times through the courts on various issues, completely separate and apart from this, they do create a life of their own and the courts are left to interpret.

Does the Minister of Justice agree that parliament is the supreme lawmaker of the country? Is it not very important for the courts to get a very clear, simple message from the Parliament of Canada on where we stand on this issue? In the past in many cases we have not done that and we have left it up to the courts to shape the law of the country. The Minister of Justice and I both recognize that happens all the time.

Does the Minister of Justice not think that this will send a very clear signal to the courts on where the Parliament of Canada stands on the issue?

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

Anne McLellan Liberal Edmonton West, AB

Mr. Speaker, I think the point I have tried to make on behalf of the government is that we do believe that the definition of marriage is clear. It is clear in the law of Canada and it was the courts that made the definition clear.

As I indicated in my comments, the definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman is found in the common law of our country and the common law of our system of law. It is also found in the civil law of the country. This is clear and we are therefore able to support the motion as presented by the official opposition. If it is believed that some clarity is required around that, so be it.

We thought perhaps we could spend our time debating other issues as opposed to that on which there is clarity in the law.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:10 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

You have no idea how much I enjoy the opportunity to stand and interrupt the Minister of Justice because when we first met 10 years ago I could not interrupt her. However, this time I can.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:15 a.m.

NDP

Peter Mancini NDP Sydney—Victoria, NS

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister and is with regard to the amendment that has been moved in the House.

I think she would agree with me, given the nature of the amendment, that jurisdictional controversies in terms of authority, be it federal or provincial, is extremely clouded in this area. I quote from Professor Hogg:

The federal power in terms of regulating marriage has been largely undetermined.

In terms of the main motion there is some question as to the power and jurisdiction of the federal government. Would the minister agree with me on that?