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

12:30 p.m.

Reform

Monte Solberg Reform Medicine Hat, AB

Mr. Speaker, of course it is true that there is an exclusivity about marriage as we traditionally define it, which means that all other relationships are outside of that institution. I do not believe that constitutes discrimination, at least not in the most negative sense that the opponents of this point of view would use.

I think no matter what we do on this issue, it has to come before this place. It is ridiculous to see these decisions being made so often today by the courts. Ultimately, the courts cannot establish the mores of the country. That has to come from the people. We, as their representatives, have to give voice to that. Those decisions should be made here in a free and open debate.

My friend mentioned that the government will support the motion. If my friend is an independent parliamentarian, I am surprised to hear him say that the government will decide that. I would expect that individual MPs will make these decisions for themselves. That is typically what happens in a free parliament.

While I appreciate that this is probably what will happen, I simply want to point out that in a sense he is saying that no matter what the minister said, he would be going along with it. I hope that is not the case.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

Reform

Charlie Penson Reform Peace River, AB

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest and I thought the member for Medicine Hat made a very well informed presentation. The member spoke about the affirmation of marriage and I really agree with that.

There was a couple in my riding who had their 60th wedding anniversary last year, Harold and Ruby Reiswig. They renewed their vows in a reaffirmation about the important institution of marriage. It sent a very strong message to their friends and family about the importance of that.

The phones in my constituency are ringing again today supporting this resolution and—

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

That seems like a good spot to interrupt. The member for Medicine Hat has 30 seconds to respond.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

Reform

Monte Solberg Reform Medicine Hat, AB

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from the Peace River country. I know he is a real champion on these sorts of issues.

I simply want to say that this is a chance for the Parliament of Canada to reaffirm its vow to this traditional definition of what constitutes a marriage. I encourage members on all sides to do exactly that today.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

Ahuntsic Québec

Liberal

Eleni Bakopanos LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to address the question submitted to us by the official opposition, namely the conditions for a marriage to be valid.

It seems that our friends over there are particularly concerned that nothing be done to change the existing law, particularly the rule that marriage may be contracted solely by two persons of the opposite sex.

Today I would like to address this question within the very specific context of our government's initiative, which dates back several years now, aimed at making federal legislation and regulations fully compatible with the civil law of the province of Quebec, the province in which I was elected. The government considered, and continues to believe, that it is important to take the necessary steps to ensure that this valuable Canadian aspect of bijuralism is reflected in fact.

What is bijuralism? It is the term that has been used for some time to describe a situation that has existed in Canada since the passage of the Quebec Act of 1774, namely the co-existence within one territory, Canada, of two contemporary legal traditions, the British-inspired common law, and the Roman-inspired civil law.

Since 1994, the year in which the new Quebec Civil Code, adopted in 1991, came into effect, during the reign of Quebec Minister of Justice Gil Rémillard, the Minister of Justice for Canada carried out numerous preliminary studies on thirty or so complex issues, with a view to best ensuring compatibility between federal laws and the new Civil Code. It is important to note that this reform affected more than 80% of the rules in the Civil Code of Lower Canada, which had been in effect up until then, and dated back to 1866.

The federal government then proceeded to hire experienced legal experts as well as engaging the services of a number of professors of law and other experts. These were consulted then, and will be again now, on the numerous questions raised by such an undertaking.

In order to set the stage, let us say that of the 700 laws in the body of federal statutes, over 300 will have to be amended in the coming years to ensure compliance with the distinctive nature of Quebec's civil law, in both letter and spirit, of all the laws passed by this House.

One of the most difficult questions the civil code section of the federal Department of Justice had to examine involves pre-confederation provisions, that is, those passed by the legislature of United Canada prior to Confederation. Although this is only one of the 30 studies released by the federal department in relation to its work, it is interesting to note that it concerns much more legally complex subjects, which have up to now been essentially not tackled.

While the Constitution Act, 1867, gives parliament the legislative authority over marriage conditions, the government had to give some thought to the impact of repealing some 300 sections of the civil code of Lower Canada dating from 1866 in a whole range of areas, including the one that we are concerned with today and to the way to ensure the necessary legal continuity.

Another basic principle of the long job undertaken by the civil code section of the Department of Justice is to not change existing law except to the extent and only when harmonization with civil law requires it.

Canada's legal minds have therefore had to analyse the question of repealing some dozen sections of the civil code of Lower Canada on marriage in order to decide whether they should be re-enacted and if so, how.

The institution of marriage is historically, as I said earlier in my short history lesson, culturally and by definition a heterosexual institution. In Quebec, a fundamental condition of a valid marriage has always been that the two people involved are of the opposite sex. That condition is inherent in the very institution of marriage.

In its 1994 Civil Code, the Quebec legislature restated the rule whereby only a man and a woman may enter into marriage. This rule can be found in article 365 of the Civil Code of Quebec.

This is also reflective of the state of the law in all other Canadian jurisdictions. This is also part of the reason why we moved an amendment this morning to make the difference between the federal and provincial jurisdictions.

The opinions of our experts led us to propose a number of substitute clauses in Bill C-50, four of which have to do with marriage. These clauses concern age, consent of the partners, and dissolution of marriage, and ensure that enforcement of these provisions is limited to Quebec.

It should be noted that this work has involved broad consultations with associations of jurists in Quebec, i.e. the Quebec bar, the Chambre des notaires, and the Quebec chapter of the Canadian Bar Association, as well as the Quebec justice department. These learned bodies have all had an opportunity to examine the provisions of Bill C-50, including those having to do with marriage.

In fact, representations were made to us by the Quebec justice department, urging us to use the wording of article 365 of the Civil Code of Quebec in clause 4 of the bill, so that harmonization of the applicable rules would be as consistent as possible.

We can therefore see that all necessary precautions have been taken by government legal experts to ensure that the rule of law, which is well established in our country with respect to what constitutes a spouse, is not inadvertently changed.

The government has taken all the necessary steps in Bill C-50 to ensure that the current definition of marriage in our society would be implemented in a uniform manner across the country.

I would like to respond to comments made by opposition members. If the government has never expressed any intention to change the legal definition of marriage, then what is the point of the Reform Party's motion? That is really the question today.

As a parliamentary secretary, I have often been privy to matters in the House dealing with justice issues. I see the Reform Party as unfortunately attempting to continue to either spread fear or to pit, which is more dangerous, Canadians against each other. I see it as a divisiveness in terms of pitting same sex partners against heterosexual partners or pitting Canadians of other origins against other Canadians. This constant attempt to divide society has to be one of the most despicable things that I have heard in the House and, in my opinion, it continues with the motion. It constantly tries to make and score political points by confusing the issue.

There is no issue here. The Minister of Justice was clear this morning that the government has no intention of changing the definition of marriage. It has never said that it would and she put that on the record this morning.

I ask Canadians who are listening to this debate to ask the question of themselves: Why was the motion brought forward in the House?

I will be sharing my time with the member for Mississauga South.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

Reform

Rick Casson Reform Lethbridge, AB

Mr. Speaker, I listened to about 95% of not a bad presentation and then the last 5% got a little crazy, I think.

I have received over 100 phone calls in my constituency office in the last two days in support of this motion and in support of what we are doing today.

People are concerned about this because of the confusion that has been created by recent rulings. It is not clear to people where parliament stands on this issue and for the member to say it is irresponsible for us to bring the issue to this place is not acceptable.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

An hon. member

It's cheap politics.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

Reform

Rick Casson Reform Lethbridge, AB

That's wrong.

The fact is that Canadian people are concerned. There is no other issue on which I have received this many phone calls from people in my riding.

It is important to Canadians that this be discussed and that parliament reaffirm that the definition of marriage as it exists is the one we will stand by.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

Liberal

Eleni Bakopanos Liberal Ahuntsic, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am also a member of parliament and I also receive phone calls. A lot of time those phone calls are made because Canadians are misinformed. I would like to say that they are misinformed by the fact that these types of motions are brought forward. They lead to confusion.

Yes, people want to know where the government stands. I am not debating the fact that we should not have a definition of marriage. As the minister said, there is a definition of marriage.

As parliamentary secretary I have been privy to a lot of discussions in the House about the role of the judiciary, the role of the rule of law in the country, something which I believe Her Majesty's Official Opposition has never respected.

The hon. member made a comment earlier about the minister hiding behind robes. That is a totally irresponsible comment, that the Minister of Justice should not respect a decision made by the highest court of the land, the Supreme Court of Canada.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

An hon. member

The rule of law.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

Liberal

Eleni Bakopanos Liberal Ahuntsic, QC

The rule of law has never been respected, unfortunately, and every time we want to change a decision made by the highest court we turn to parliament. This is not a police state where the government runs the courts; this is quite the opposite. We respect the courts. That is what the government has shown. That has not been the intent of Her Majesty's Official Opposition.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

Reform

Eric C. Lowther Reform Calgary Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's position. I do not agree with it, but I appreciate it.

Really what we are trying to do, and I want to help her understand it, is assist the government in showing some leadership on this issue.

The courts themselves have asked for direction from this House on these issues. I am referring to a case in Ontario in which a judge said “The fact that there was a dissenting opinion in this case”, which was a case having to do with marriage, “indicates that there is indeed confusion about whether marriage could be between people who are not of the opposite sex. Again, there is a need for parliament to show leadership and give guidance on the issue”. Those were the words of the judge. The courts are looking to the House to give direction on these issues.

Did the Liberal government intend for spouse to be redefined as the courts have done? We do not know. Is it going to wait for the courts to redefine marriage or will it step up to the leadership role that people expect of it and which the courts are calling for?

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

Liberal

Eleni Bakopanos Liberal Ahuntsic, QC

Mr. Speaker, I do not think anybody has said in the House that we want to stifle debate.

There has been a pattern created, whenever a decision has been by the highest court of the land, that Her Majesty's Official Opposition chooses, when it dislikes that decision, to ask that parliament act.

I do not believe that is the role of parliament. The role of parliament is to ensure that we have the best legal minds in the country to interpret the type of legislation that is adopted by the House.

I will repeat what the minister said this morning. There was never any intention by the government to redefine marriage.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Reform

Charlie Penson Reform Peace River, AB

Mr. Speaker, it is my feeling that the highest court of the land is the Parliament of Canada. I wonder if the hon. member would disagree or agree with that.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Liberal

Eleni Bakopanos Liberal Ahuntsic, QC

Mr. Speaker, the highest court of the land, if we are talking about the Supreme Court of Canada, is a place that we should all respect. I dare to say that often in this parliament I have not heard respect for the best legal minds that we have in the Supreme Court of Canada given by Her Majesty's Official Opposition.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Liberal

Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON

Mr. Speaker, this morning when I watched the news a representative of a particular group said “It is sad that parliament will be debating the continued discrimination against a certain group of people”.

I came into the lobby this morning and a staff member walked in. It was quite quiet in the lobby. The staff member made a comment to the effect that “The motion today is about marriage. Boy is that boring and inconsequential”. It is neither boring nor trivial. In fact it is a very important motion. It comes down to some fundamentals.

I often hear in this place talk about the broader issue, which no one wants to mention, about the proverbial line in the sand. The line in the sand, apparently, for many has to do with marriage. That is the line in the sand.

Policy by its very nature is discriminatory. It has to be discriminatory. Otherwise we would not need laws to identify who is included and who is out, who gets benefits and who does not. Policy by its very definition, by its very nature, is discriminatory.

To say that is to raise the issue of the context of discrimination. Earlier I spoke about the definition of discrimination. It is clear that if we look to many sources we will see that discrimination has negative connotations, prejudice, bias, victimization and so on. It also has the connotations of distinguishing between groups or favouring or identifying distinctive characteristics. There are other applications. In our laws we have many forms of discrimination which discriminate in favour.

I will highlight a couple of examples. On the income tax return for Canada there is a line for old age security. We get it because we are 65. It is age discrimination. It is in the charter of rights that we cannot discriminate on the basis of age, but we do discriminate because if a person is 65 they receive old age security. It is discrimination in favour of seniors.

Why is someone not here saying that we all have to be equal? Should we not all be equal?

What about disability benefits? There is discrimination in favour of those who are disabled.

There are a number of provisions for things such as investment income. A couple can pool their income. One can invest all of theirs and declare all the income. A single person with a partner cannot do that. There is discrimination on the basis of recognized partnership.

Alimony is another example. Another is registered pension plans, RRSPs. We can buy a spousal RRSP which can be rolled over upon death. These are all discriminatory in favour of a particular group.

If we look at child care expenses, we discriminate in favour of those situations in which both persons in the union are working. They receive a deduction, which is not available to those families who have one spouse providing direct parental care. It is discrimination, but it is discrimination in favour of something.

On that point I look back at history. It was brought in initially to take care of the situation of lone parents, because of that unique situation where there was hardship. It was a social benefit. It was not an employment expense. There is a debate on that as well.

There is an age for the non-refundable tax credit. When a person is 65 they receive it. There is the Canada pension plan, the transferability of tuition fees and education amounts. I could go on and on. That is simply from the Income Tax Act. We could imagine how many examples there are in our system of taxation and of benefits which are discriminatory by their nature. They are discriminatory at the discretion of parliament, reflecting the social values and the will of the Canadian people.

We should not talk about discrimination solely in the context of a negative. I think it is important for the House to stop using the word discrimination and start talking about valuing. How do we value things?

I have heard members of the NDP today, from Burnaby—Douglas, Churchill and Vancouver East, all demand that we need equality among people. The equality they are seeking is equality of individuals. NDP members are asking for the equality of individuals as represented by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and our constitution. They want individuals to be the lowest common denominator.

Everyone should be treated the same, but the issue is, if we are going to treat everyone the same in regard to the context of this debate, it will then lead to the question of how we treat everyone with regard to all of our other tax laws and policies. Should we not treat everyone the same? Should we not reduce ourselves to the lowest common denominator? Should we not just be a vanilla society? Should we not just say that relationships do not exist in our laws? Why do we not just say that we are all individuals? There is a very good reason. It is because we are a society and a society, by definition, is more than a collection of individuals. There is a synergy in a society. There are certain things that happen.

Some will object to my doing this, but I want to note that the Archbishop of Toronto, Cardinal Aloysius Ambrozic, wrote a letter concerning Bill C-78, which, as members know, has something to do with this issue. He talked about the family. We have not talked about the family yet and whether we put the family on a pedestal because the family has an important role to play. I would throw in that there is one definition of family that we all have in common, which is a child with a biological mother and a biological father. That is the family.

The Cardinal referred to the family. He said “They and their children constitute the family—the original cell of social life”. He quoted Pope John Paul II:

In their primary mission of communicating love to each other, of being co-creators with God of human life, and of transmitting the love of God to their children, parents must know that they are fully supported by the Church and by society.

We are here representing the interests of that society, not a collection of individuals. In fact we are also here very delicately trying to defend the family, trying to defend that fundamental basic unit of society without which we would cease to exist.

There is a special role. It is the procreative role that a couple has, a man and a woman. It is that role which we hold very dear, which we put on a pedestal, of which we discriminate in favour. It is why we have spousal benefits, spousal transfers, survivor benefits and all kinds and manners of benefits for the family.

I challenge anyone in this place to look at history, at the debate on all of those items on which some would say there is discrimination, to find one example of anybody who suggested that the reason it was being done was to be detrimental to some other group.

The debates underlying the laws of Canada are clear that discrimination within our system is affirmative discrimination. We discriminate to reflect values. If we did not do that then it would be a vanilla society. It would be a society which has no values, no vision for a millennium, nothing to pass on other than we are all individuals.

The issue here also has to do with the courts. Some believe that the courts have made law to the exclusion of parliament. Some believe that the courts have gone too far, that the pendulum has swung too far. Some are calling for parliament to stop the pendulum and to revisit this issue. Are we going to discriminate?

The very definition of marriage, to the exclusion of all others, which has been part of British common law since 1866, is discrimination: “to the exclusion of all others”. However, it is affirmative discrimination on behalf of the Canadian people who value and cherish and have great pride and joy in the Canadian family.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1 p.m.

NDP

Bev Desjarlais NDP Churchill, MB

Mr. Speaker, I have to comment on the lowest common denominator. I am sad to say the member for Mississauga South sort of reached the lowest common denominator by suggesting that the only recognition of family in Canada is of a biological father, a biological mother and a child. That certainly might be his narrow minded vision of a family, but I would suggest a great many families out there are not biological children or biological parents.

Canadians have recognized over the years that the definition of family needs to go beyond biological mother and father. Part of the reason for that is that families of biological mothers, fathers and children have not always been perfect. The relationships among those families have not been perfect. Because of the imperfections, families do not stay together as biological mothers, fathers and children. Changes have to be made. The numbers were great enough that there was an understanding among Canadians that family could not just be considered in that way.

I take this opportunity to say once again that the term marriage should be all that it is, but it is quite clear to me that the Reform Party and the member for Mississauga South have an underlying agenda. It is not just the term marriage. They are talking about Canadians rehashing the whole issue of whether or not same sex relationships should have any benefits and any recognition. That should not be the case.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1 p.m.

Liberal

Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON

Mr. Speaker, I believe the member misheard me. I did not say the exclusive and only definition of family is child with biological mother and biological father. If the member would check the blues, she would see that I said that there is one definition which we all have in common. I bring that to the attention of the member. It is different.

With regard to another agenda, I raised the points not to stir up the pot, as it were, but rather to suggest that the definition of marriage is discriminatory in favour of heterosexual couples. It is affirmative discrimination. Some are suggesting that affirmative discrimination is okay. Others are suggesting that discrimination against same sex couples is negative and should be thrown out. There is a debate pointer.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1 p.m.

Reform

Jason Kenney Reform Calgary Southeast, AB

Mr. Speaker, like the member for Mississauga South, I attended the last Liberal Party of Canada annual convention.

We heard earlier the Minister of Justice say that this was not an issue, that it was redundant. I have the Liberal talking points put together by some nameless hack which say that if the government has never expressed any intention to change the legal definition of marriage then what is the point of Reform's motion and that clearly it is just part of a continuing attempt to fear monger, et cetera.

I was at the last Liberal Party convention as was the member. I remember a resolution being passed by the Liberal Party of Canada which strongly urged the federal government to recognize same sex marriages in the same way that it recognizes opposite marriages in its distribution of benefits.

Could the hon. member comment on the remarks of the attorney general that this is not a relevant point when her own party, the party of which he is a member, voted to change the definition we are seeking to uphold through the motion today?

SupplyGovernment Orders

1 p.m.

Liberal

Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON

Mr. Speaker, the member will know even from his own party that the party membership passes resolutions, many of which are in contradiction to each other. They do not form government policy. They are there on an advisory or on a discussion basis. They are not binding on the party, and the member will know that.

I take the opportunity to point out that I think the debate should take on a view or a focus which talks about what we value. We have to talk about being for things and not against things.

In my speech I tried to identify that there are certain things we value in society such as healthy stable families with children who provide the future of society. Those things should be valued to the exclusion of others simply because of the most special role the family provides. I support them and I discriminate in favour of the family.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1 p.m.

Liberal

Marlene Catterall Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON

Mr. Speaker, I must very respectfully disagree with my colleague and his definition of family. Frankly my husband and I are family whether we do or do not have children living with us or whether we ever had children living with us. His narrow definition is one I do not accept.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:05 p.m.

Liberal

Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON

Mr. Speaker, I will repeat the same answer I gave to the other member. I did not define the family exclusively and that is it.

I said very clearly, and I will repeat it again, that there is one definition of family that we all have in common. For everyone on the face of the earth the common denominator is a child with biological mother and biological father. That is not speculation. That is not some wild idea. That is a fact.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:05 p.m.

Reform

Chuck Strahl Reform Fraser Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to enter into the debate today on the issue of marriage and its importance to society.

As we get into things such as definitions, the roles of marriages and families and so on, we should withdraw a bit from some of the debate and reflect upon the joyous state of marriage which many people enjoy and covet in a free society.

Personally speaking, I just celebrated my 24th wedding anniversary. I often say that the years I spent before I was married were the only wasted years of my life. Since then it has been pretty good. What we are debating today is:

That, in the opinion of the House, it is necessary, in light of public debate around recent court decisions, to state that marriage is and should remain the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, and that Parliament will take all necessary steps to preserve this definition of marriage in Canada.

The reason it is a delight to have the motion before us today is that it affirms marriage. It does not say that it is against anything. It does not say that we belittle other relationships, but there is only one marriage. A marriage is the union of a man and a woman as recognized by the state. It may be a church wedding. It may be a common law wedding. It may be a justice of the peace. The fact is that a marriage is a union of a man and a woman, and a glorious union that is. Again we are affirming that today.

We are asking parliament to step up to the voting line to say where it stands on the issue. We have read a lot in the press about different court decisions and about different positions in response to petitions. We have heard comments from different parties about their reluctance to agree and so on. Now is the opportunity to step up, as we will do that later this evening, to say whether we in favour of this, yes or no. It will be my pleasure to step up to say this is the definition of marriage.

Someone earlier asked about the definition of family. Our party has defined it but not loosely. It is pretty easy to define family. Family is those people who are related by blood, marriage or adoption.

Is a single mom with some kids a family? Yes, by blood. What if she adopted a couple of kids? By all means. What about a single father? Of course. Those are families, and we recognize that. Our party recognizes that and affirms that they play an important role in society. That is another great debate. Today we are affirming that marriage is a union of one man and one woman as recognized by the state. That is what this is about.

Why should we bother with this debate? I believe the courts and society in general look to parliament to set the pace and the agenda not only for legislation and human rights tribunals but also for the courts. The courts often state that they are looking to parliament and legislatures for guidance on issues like definitions contained or not contained in legislation.

When I gave a speech about the supreme court in my home riding a while ago, I mentioned that some people were exasperated, with some justification, with how pervasive rulings had become and how much they influenced society and parliament.

While I agreed there was cause for concern, I said that the greater concern was weak-kneed, yellow-bellied legislators who do not have the courage to step up and say what needs to be said in legislation. They should step up to the batter's box and tell the supreme court not to worry about a definition in the immigration law or in the spousal benefits law or in whatever law it might be because we will give it to them. We are not afraid of it because we had a good debate on it, took a vote on it, and Canadians through their House of Commons decided and gave direction to the courts.

When people get annoyed with the supreme court I ask them to pause for a second. While they may be annoyed with the supreme court, they are also annoyed with legislatures and legislators that do not do their job in this place and in provincial legislatures across the country. That is where we should expect good, intelligent debate and where decisions should be made and carried to the courts, not the other way around.

The next point is allowing Canadians to be heard on the subject. I debated with the member for Burnaby—Douglas this morning on Canada A.M. . He was proposing that God be removed from the constitution. I took the opposing view and we had a debate back and forth about whether or not it should happen. The only thing we agreed on was the need to have and to allow good debate on a controversial topic.

He may want to remove it. More power to him, if he can convince somebody. Personally I think an overwhelming majority of Canadians would agree with my position. Whatever, the place to debate controversial subjects is not in the back rooms of a courthouse. By all means bring it here for Canadians to discuss in their House of Commons. We should not be afraid of any of that.

At one time I had an experience with the unique position of marriage as opposed to common law. It was at a funeral held for a solider, a constituent of mine who was killed during a land mine exercise in Bosnia. He married the lady of his dreams just before he went there. They had a ceremony. He went over there and he was killed in a land mine accident.

I remember his commanding officer saying to me that it was fortunate the couple had married before he went away because now they could help her. They could look after her. They could extend the open arms of friendship, which any human being would do for another human being, but because of the unique marriage relationship it would not involve a two year waiting period or a court case. There was a marriage certificate. I do not know whether it was a civil or a religious ceremony. It did not matter because the marriage ceremony brought with it a sanctity recognized by this place about the important role of marriage in that the survivor would receive survivor benefits from the Canadian Armed Forces.

It was a very emotional ceremony during which the colonel pointed out the unique role of marriage in society. We could leave that funeral and say to one another that at least she would be well looked after, at least by being married they had sent a message to Canada and in return our Canadian parliament said that it respected that and would help her in her time of loss in a material way, a small way.

I am thrilled that we can talk about something as positive as marriage today, that we can affirm it and the role of this place. There are other legitimate relationships of all kinds, but today we are talking about marriage and the need to preserve that definition. I am glad the Minister of Justice has said she also agrees with that.

Let us put aside other relationships and their importance for another debate on another day, but on this day Canadian parliamentarians will stand to be counted on the definition of marriage and talk about the positive, important role of marriage in society.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:15 p.m.

Liberal

Janko Peric Liberal Cambridge, ON

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the member's excellent speech. In my point of view, marriage is not just a contract between a man and a woman, it is more than that.

I have been married for 29 years. When my wife and I entered into our marriage, we made a commitment to each other that we would share good and bad things for the rest of our lives. More than that, to me as a Roman Catholic, marriage is a holy sacrament.

I ask my hon. colleague, how has marriage expanded in his view, not only as a contract, but from the spiritual side? How would he look at it?

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:15 p.m.

Reform

Chuck Strahl Reform Fraser Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question.

For the purposes of this debate I talked about the technical definition of marriage, which is the union of a man and a woman as recognized by the state. In other words the state recognizes that there can be a civil ceremony with a justice of the peace and so on.

What the member is talking about of course is a church wedding, a church marriage. People make a vow not only about the recognition before the state, but they also make a vow based on their faith in God and the scriptural perspective they bring to it.

I agree with the member that many people, I would suggest most people, when they enter into a marriage contract, do not think of it in terms of what one or the other can get. They enter into it in the traditional faith perspective of the two shall become one. It is not just a case of having a prenuptial agreement and splitting things up later if it does not go right. Most people enter into it in a very serious and solemn way. It is a joyous but a solemn occasion where they say “You and I are getting together. We are not getting together to split things down the middle; we are getting together so that we two shall become one”.

I agree with the member that most people on their marriage day make that commitment because they want it to last forever. I agree that is why most people head into it. That is why the tearing apart of a marriage when it does not work out is so traumatic. It is said that when it comes to stress, it is next to a death in the family. There is nothing more stressful than a separation in a marriage.

That is why the things we can do here to promote and encourage marriage and to help—