Madam Speaker, I rise at this time to speak to Motions Nos. 1 and 3 which are in my name on behalf of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party and to speak in opposition to the remaining motions in Group No. 1.
When I rose at second reading on Bill C-23, the bill which is now before the House at report stage, it was to congratulate the government on recognition of the committed loving relationships of gay and lesbian people and to congratulate the government on recognizing that instead of fighting statute by statute in the courts it would do the right thing and extend equal benefits and equal obligations to gay and lesbian people involved in relationships.
I noted at the time that while the bill extended significant equality there were still some remaining steps on the road to full equality, that the provisions of the immigration law and regulations must be clarified to recognize gay and lesbian relationships. I pointed out as well at that time that the federal common law which denies the right for gay and lesbian people to marry is still clearly in my view discriminatory.
The minister spoke shortly before me at second reading. She spoke eloquently about the importance of equality and, with equal passion, she made it clear that Bill C-23 had nothing whatsoever to do with marriage or the definition of marriage.
That same minister appeared before the justice committee at the first hearing of the justice committee on February 29 and she was clear and unequivocal. In response to a question from a member suggesting that perhaps there might be a definition of marriage included in the bill, the minister said “There is no need to put it in here because this does not deal with the institution of marriage. There is legislation, the Marriage Act, which deals with the institution of marriage, but this does not and I do not think it would serve society well to confuse the two in this legislation”.
What we have seen is a shameful collapse by the Minister of Justice to the pressure of her own backbenchers, the so-called family caucus in the Liberal Party, which some have called the dinosaur wing of the Liberal caucus, working in coalition, in this unholy alliance, cette coalition incroyable, between the Reform Party on the one hand and the Liberal Party on the other.
It is no surprise that many of the Liberals who have spoken out against the bill are the same Liberals who spoke out against equality in the Canadian Human Rights Act. I see the member for Scarborough Centre here. He has been very clear. He does not believe in equality. He voted against it in the human rights act and he is voting against this bill as well.
What we have seen is a response by the Liberal justice minister, a quite shameful and cowardly response by the justice minister, to a campaign of fear, of distortion, of lies by too many people in the public and those, in some cases, in the House.
I got a press release from the member for Yorkton—Melville. He said that Bill C-23 should be renamed the death of marriage act. This is from a Reform Party member. I am sorry, it is the Canadian Alliance now. They say they have changed, but I ask you, have they really changed when we hear this? Here is what the Canadian Alliance member had to say: “In the 1950s buggery was a criminal offence. Now it is a requirement to receive benefits from the federal government”.
That statement was made by the Canadian Alliance/Reform Party member. I suppose it is no surprise when one of the leading candidates for their leadership, Stockwell Day, talked last week about homosexuality as a choice. I guess that a person would pour milk on their breakfast cereal one morning and decide “Hey, I think I am going to be gay”. Or, “I think I am going to be straight”. That is a brilliant analysis by Stockwell Day, the same person who referred to homosexuality as a mental disorder. I guess we should not be surprised that this kind of amendment would come from the Reform Party.
What is absolutely shameful is that the Liberal members would support it, and not only support it but initiate that particular amendment, and that they would do this without any consultation whatsoever. The national lobby group ÉGALE, Égalité pour les gais et les lesbiennes, Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere, voiced their anger and concern that after they testified in good faith before the justice committee, relying on the representation of the minister that marriage was not an issue addressed by the bill, the repeated statements by the minister that this was not something we had to deal with, ÉGALE did not in any way respond to this campaign of fearmongering and homophobia. ÉGALE felt a sense of betrayal when the minister introduced this bill, as indeed I and other members felt. They said that in fact the proposed amendment before the committee fundamentally altered the tenor, purpose and potentially the constitutionality of the legislation.
What this amendment effectively does is to send a signal to gay and lesbian people that our relationships are inferior, that they are not as committed, not as loving and not as worthy of recognition in the eyes of the law as all other relationships. That, in my view, is a shameful concession to the forces in the Reform Party who have argued that point.
I want to make it very clear that there were some members of the Liberal Party who spoke out against this in committee. The member for St. Paul's spoke eloquently. It will be interesting to see how other Liberal members vote on this amendment, how the member for Toronto Centre—Rosedale, the member for Vancouver Centre and others will vote on this issue of fundamental equality.
I also wish to thank the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve for his support to the amendment. I know that one quarter of the Bloc Quebecois members have even voted against the principle of this bill, which is highly regrettable, but the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve has supported the amendment.
Let us be clear what this is about. This is the first time in a federal statute that we are defining marriage in a way that would exclude gay and lesbian people from access to marriage.
The current definition of marriage is one that dates back to an 1866 decision of the British courts, back to a time when marriage had a very particular meaning. For example, in 1866 men were allowed to beat their wives as long as they used a stick that was no wider than their thumbs. That was the definition of marriage then.
Marriage was for life. We know that many argued that divorce would somehow be the end of marriage. We have heard since then other alleged threats to marriage, such as contraception. Interracial marriage was only struck down in the U.S. in 1967, and 19 states had laws on the books in 1967 barring interracial marriage.
I have to ask, what is the threat? Is marriage such a fragile institution that if we allow the choice, and I emphasize that, the choice of gay and lesbian people to marry, that somehow it will collapse like a house of cards? I do not think so.
I want to be very clear that I speak today on behalf of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party in support of access of gay and lesbian people to marriage. I believe that this amendment of the government will be found to be unconstitutional and in violation of the charter of rights and freedoms. Indeed, an eloquent dissenting judgment of Judge Greer in the case of Layland and Beaulne struck down the definition. The government did not make any meaningful attempt to defend it in committee.
The Canadian public in an Angus Reid poll in May of last year showed that a majority of the Canadian public support this recognition. The Netherlands is moving ahead.
I urge all members of the House to rise above intolerance and homophobia, to reject the campaign of fearmongering, to appeal particularly to Liberal members to do the right thing, to recognize the diversity of Canadian families, to recognize that our relationships as gay and lesbian people are just as loving and just as committed, and that we should have that choice. To deny us that choice is not only deeply offensive and demeaning, but I believe is unconstitutional as well.
For that reason I proposed an amendment to delete the definition of the government, or at the very least to delete the words after “marriage”, to ensure that that opportunity would be available for gay and lesbian people to marry.