Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to debate Bill C-23. As my colleague has just pointed out, this is a very important issue. I do not think there is a member of the House who has not received a lot of correspondence on this issue.
The people of my constituency of Medicine Hat have spoken with one voice on this issue. They have made it very clear that they are fundamentally opposed to Bill C-23.
As my colleague has pointed out, we have had a tremendous amount of correspondence, more on this issue perhaps than on any other issue. I want to make it very clear that when I speak today I am speaking on behalf of, I believe, a huge majority of people in my riding who have serious concerns about Bill C-23.
Why are Canadians concerned about Bill C-23? That is the question we need to answer. I would argue that the reason people are concerned about Bill C-23 is that it would change the fundamental institution of marriage by stealth. There is no big open debate. We have not had a committee travel the country to gather input from Canadians on how they feel about changing the definition of what is one of the most fundamental and important institutions, not just in Canada but in all of civilization.
As we have known it in this place until recently, the definition of marriage is the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. That is the tradition that Canadians hold very important. It is part of our tradition. What is tradition? As Chesterton said, it is the democracy of the dead. It is the pronouncement of all the generations which have gone before. They said that tradition dictates that the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others is the definition of marriage.
Now the government, in reaction to a court decision, is preparing to change that. We offered it the tools to set aside marriage and to protect it so that it would not be redefined by this legislation, which leaves open the possibility that the definition of marriage would be changed ultimately by courts. When we offered it the chance to protect marriage, what did it do? It refused.
In my mind what it has done, very disingenuously, is offered an amendment to its legislation which would give the appearance of protecting marriage and all of the various statutes affected by this omnibus bill, but in reality it would not protect marriage at all. In fact, we have a legal opinion which states that. My colleague just mentioned it, but I will mention it again because it really boils down to this.
As I said at the outset, this will end up in the courts. That is where this will be decided. Let us listen to what constitutional experts are saying. This opinion is from David M. Brown who is a partner in Stikeman Elliott. He is a constitutional lawyer and a eminent scholar of these sorts of issues. He said:
If Parliament intends to state that, as a matter of federal law, “marriage” is the “lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others,” then in my opinion (the Minister's amendment) does not achieve that objective.
He goes on to say:
As previously stated, (the Minister's amendment) is not an enacting section—it will not bring into force any legally binding definition of “marriage”. By contrast, if the Bill was amended to enact a definition of marriage for each of the particular acts referred to in the Bill, then Parliament would be giving a clear indication of its intention to the courts and to the public at large.
Again, that is David M. Brown, a constitutional scholar and expert giving his judgment of what the government is proposing in the legislation. I point out that he makes reference to the fact that if there were a specific definition attached to every statute, then it would be clear and the courts and the public would understand that we are proposing to set aside this definition of marriage as it is traditionally understood.
The government has refused that. Government members across the way have refused it. Some in the past have spoken up and said “We believe that we should have that definition in the bill”. Now some of them, I believe, have been mollified by this red herring, straw man, or whatever it is, in what amounts to the preamble of the legislation which Mr. Brown, the constitutional expert, said would have no impact on really protecting the definition of marriage.
It is a chimera. It does not exist. There is no protection in this legislation for marriage as we traditionally know it. That is the first point that we want to make.
The second point is that the benefits which would be extended would be extended on the basis of conjugal relationships. What does conjugal relationship mean? It does not say in the legislation. In the Oxford dictionary it says “Of marriage or the relation between husband and wife”. In this legislation conjugal seems to mean, I guess, any kind of sexual relationship between any two people. That is what it seems to mean. It is vague. The justice minister interpreted it one way. The Secretary of State for the Status of Women interpreted it in a different way. It is important that Canadians understand exactly what the government is getting at. Again, the legislation in my mind is left ambiguous as part of the government's strategy. That will leave it open for the courts to decide in the future, which I think is wrong.
I think we abdicate our responsibility as legislators when that sort of thing happens, but it happens all too often when it comes to this government. We are legislators elected by the public to decide these issues. We should decide them based on clear definitions. We should establish the definitions. We should talk to the public and find out where they are on these issues. We should not try to essentially sneak legislation through and call on the courts to decide for us later. That is an abdication of our responsibilities, and it is wrong. That is another reason we should be concerned about this legislation.
I want to shift gears for a moment and touch on something which others have touched on, which my colleague from Calgary—Nose Hill touched on a minute ago, and it is on the language that surrounds this debate. Every legislator here wants to do what is right in their mind. They want to do the right thing. We should be mindful of that, even if we profoundly disagree with other people's points of view.
I absolutely reject some of the language I have heard coming from some of my colleagues in this place who say “When you oppose this you are hateful” or “you are intolerant”. What does tolerance mean? Let us get to the bottom of that.
In my mind it means when we honestly are prepared to hear another point of view; suspend our own judgment, our own feelings on the issue for a moment and hear the other point of view. After we have heard it, considered it and thought the thing through, then we make a judgment. We decide one way or the other.
It does not mean that we are indifferent to what goes on, which is what some members seem to imply. They seem to say that we should be indifferent, that we should not respond when someone wants to do something which fundamentally, in this case, would change the definition of marriage. If we respond in the negative, then we are intolerant. That is crazy. We have to do our job as legislators. That means carefully thinking these things through and making a judgment ultimately.
When we make a judgment, that does not mean we are hateful or intolerant; it means we have decided. We have made a judgment, which is what we are called upon to do as legislators.
I urge those who are suggesting that people who do not agree with them are intolerant or hateful to lose that language and get down to the serious job of debate. If they do not like what they hear, I suggest they debate the issues instead of throwing words around which is so easy to do and which cuts off debate. I think that is what we are called upon as legislators to do.
I will summarize by saying that the people of my riding are profoundly opposed to the legislation. The definition of marriage as it is has served us well for millennia, for all of civilization. The people in my riding intend to keep it that way. They want to preserve that definition. I am doing my job today as I stand up for the people in my riding. It is certainly in accord with my own personal views when I say that we must preserve this definition of marriage. It is fundamental to society. I urge members across the way and around the House to vote in opposition to Bill C-23.