Mr. Speaker, the member made two points and I would like to reply to him on both.
The law is quite clear and has existed for 150 years in common law. It is exactly what marriage is and the House reaffirmed that definition within the last year. It is merely being emphasized, and not changed, by being put in the preamble of the current legislation. As a good legislator I do not like to be redundant. If we already have law, we do not have to have more law that says the same thing.
The hon. member also referred to the study on children. It is important to note that we have children in our society in all kinds of family situations who have problems. We put far too much emphasis, and the party opposite is the worst for doing it in my view, on punishing children when they get into trouble with the law rather than supporting and helping children whatever their family situations.
We have to pay a lot more attention to young children in our communities. As communities we have to be far more supportive of the development of children and of the families that raise them, and perhaps particularly of lone parent families who have extra stresses on them. One parent may be trying very hard with an inadequate income to raise children and deal on his or her own with all the pressures of parenthood. They are not getting enough support from their society.
Perhaps the party opposite with its new name would want to take a new approach to children who do get into trouble that deals with helping and supporting them, rather than punishing them when it has gone too far. Denying them benefits as children within whatever kind of family does not contribute to help those children grow up well.