Mr. Speaker, this is a very difficult area but one in which I have been very clear to my constituents in Etobicoke North.
When we had the legislation dealing with same sex benefits, I and a number of other members who sit in the House fought for the preamble which stated that this should not change the definition of marriage which is between a man and a woman.
We need to allow for the appeal to take place. I gather from the Minister of Justice or the committee that there might be a review of this issue but I for one am not very anxious to change the definition of marriage. In my view, if people are of such an inclination that they need to have a relationship and the only way to have a meaningful relationship is with someone of the same sex, then I say that the most important thing in life is to have a meaningful relationship. However, I do not believe that this relationship needs to be recognized by the state as a marriage. I think marriage was designed for a purpose, which is the procreation of children.
While my views may not be popular with everyone, I have been fairly consistent in what I have said to constituents who have a concern about this.
We need to let that play out through the court system. Whether the province uses a notwithstanding clause, I hope it will not need to do that. As legislators we will deal with this in the way that Canadians intend us to do.