Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who just spoke asked why we have to take things back to the dark ages. What I want to do is bring this to the 21st century.
I wish I knew who wrote this but apparently it is anonymous. For the record, I want to indicate that there are four classes of people. There are those who do not know and do not know that they do not know. They are foolish. There are those who do not know and know that they do not know. They are simple and should be instructed. There are those who know but do not know that they know. They are asleep, and we should wake them. The fourth are those who know and know that they know. They are wise and we should listen to them.
There are many Canadians who fall into the fourth class. They know that they know. It has to do with marriage. They know what the institution of marriage is and they know that they know that. They also know what the definition of marriage is: the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. They have told us that in thousands of letters, thousands of faxes, thousands of phone calls and thousands of e-mails. That is why the minister brought in an amendment to the bill.
We need clarity on this bill. Why do we need it? The way the government will vote on this particular bill will determine whether it really believes in democracy or whether it simply wants to promote its particular agenda.
Is it the people that the government will listen to, or will it ignore the representations which have been made and pursue an agenda it has set for itself in the interest of a particular position it wants to advance?
There are three points I want to make in the time left to me. The first is the need for clarity in legislation. The second is the need for a clear expression of the intent of parliamentarians as to what they want the courts to interpret in terms of law. The third is the need to recognize the significance of the message we send to society. It is for our children that we send this message.
The importance of the meaning of a word reminds me of a passage from Alice in Wonderland : “When you use a word it means what we choose it to mean, neither more nor less. It is simply a question of who is the master, that is all”.
The other side of that coin is that whoever determines the meaning of a word is the master. That suggests then that the master in Canada is the court, which decided what marriage should mean.
What it ought to be is that we as parliamentarians better define what that meaning is if we want to be the master of the intent of what is meant and how we want the courts to rule. We had better decide, not the courts and not the judges.
As a parliament, we need to clearly express what we intend marriage to mean. I have already indicated what various people in Canada have told us what it ought to be.
I want to move on to the next point which is for our children. I notice there are five hon. members from the government side of the House listening. I congratulate them for being here. I want to register the point about the message parliament is sending to people. That is do we really want to look at what the people have told us they want marriage to mean or are we going to put it somewhere else? We need to be careful in this matter because it will establish the truth of what we believe. Are we a democratic institution or are not?