Debates of Sept. 16th, 2003

Supply

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have always believed that the people who crafted our charter and crafted our laws were people of great wisdom who saw society as a very large issue, and that they crafted certain clauses, especially section 1 of the charter regarding reasonable limits, to enshrine the possibility that institutions that have been with us in the long term should be protected, that reasonable limits should be put on it to prevent the fact that societal mores, which evolve at a tremendous pace, should not interfere with basic institutional frameworks that have been with us, in this particular case, over the millenna. This is why I disagree fundamentally with the Ontario Court of Appeal, which compared marriage to banking and criminal law, as if marriage is one of those things that evolves, that today it is marriage between a man and a woman plus marriage between people of the same sex, and tomorrow it will be marriage of three, four, and five people together, because society evolves that way.

It seems to me that we should have exercised far more caution. We should have taken the step that the British have taken, which is to say this is an institution that has been there for thousands of years, so let us take our time and look at it deeply.

There have been judgments, but there is still the Supreme Court. We could have appealed. It would have given us two years to have debates here in the House of Commons to find solutions that would respect the rights of one another. I do not think we have done this, and because of a hasty, injudicious decision, we are now faced with tremendous polarization in society and, if the example of my riding is such, then I think this society is deeply into a malaise and is very polarized on this issue.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the most insurmountable obstacles for politics and political activity is cynicism. We as parliamentarians often encounter cynicism in the general public.

Roughly fifteen years ago when I started to become involved in politics, I saw a man from another party rise the National Assembly and say, “Rights are rights are rights”. This man, a minister at the time, is now the member for Lac-Saint-Louis in the House of Commons.

What happened to the man who said, “Rights are rights are rights”?

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that man is still around; he stands tall and believes fundamentally in the issue of human rights more than ever. I want to explain my position.

The context of and reason behind what I said in the Quebec National Assembly in 1988 was totally different from the current debate. I could turn the question around and say that, to me, the current definition of marriage, which dates back several thousands of years and was universally accepted by all the major religions and by all the people on Earth as the union between a man and a woman, is a given right that must be defended.

That is why, in the Canadian constitution, in the Charter of Rights, section 1 provides for reasonable limits. Earlier I quoted the Ontario court that said we could not invoke the constitution in matters of marriage, which put the former justice minister in contradiction with the Ontario court since she believed it was a clear and well established constitutional issue. The court ruled that this was not possible, because the constitution has to be flexible since society's traditions and customs constantly evolve. The court gave the areas of banking and criminal law as examples.

Marriage is much more than law. The Ontario court said that it was a legal issue, but it goes beyond the law. It seems to me that traditional marriage, the definition of marriage, is a complex web of natural law and moral, religious, legal and sociological elements—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Order, please. The hon. member for Parkdale—High Park.

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the current law with respect to marriage in Ontario is absolutely clear and was confirmed by the Ontario Court of Appeal on June 10, 2003 when it upheld the lower court's decision in Halpern v. Attorney General of Canada, et al.

The then existing common law definition of marriage, the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, was found not only to violate the dignity of persons in same sex relationships, but was found to violate equality rights on the basis of sexual orientation under subsection 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court, acting within its jurisdiction pursuant to section 52 of the Constitution Act, reformulated the common law definition of marriage as the voluntary union for life of two persons to the exclusion of all others. Therefore, the current legal definition of marriage is the voluntary union for life of two persons.

As noted by Mr. Justice LaForme in a lower court decision in the Halpern case, the former legal definition of marriage has its roots in the common law and the statutory marriage laws of England. It is generally understood that in common law the definition that is routinely referred to is found in the statement of Lord Penzance in the 1866 English case of Hyde v. Hyde and Woodmansee. That definitional statement of Lord Penzance reads as follows:

I conceive that marriage, as understood in Christendom, may for this purpose be defined as the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others.

It is important to bear in mind that we are talking about a definition of marriage that dates back over 137 years ago to 1866. Society has evolved over the last 137 years. It has not remained static and the courts have assisted Parliament in their complementary role of addressing fundamental societal issues as they have evolved, especially with respect to the rights of Canadians to equality before the law.

For example, in 1929 the Privy Council ruled in the Edwards case that women were persons and therefore could be appointed to the Senate. In 1989 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in the Brooks case that it is illegal to discriminate against women who are pregnant. In 1992 in the Schachter case, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that under the Employment Insurance Act fathers had a right to paternity leave to stay home and take care of their children.

In the same way that society has evolved, so has the societal concept of marriage. For example, in the last 20 years the rights and obligations of common law marriages have evolved. As Justice Blair noted in the lower court decision in the Halpern case:

Experts on all sides of these proceedings confirm that societal concepts of marriage have changed and marriage is not a static institution within any society.

Mr. Justice Blair further noted:

The common law does not remain static. Its very essence is that it is able to grow to meet the expanding needs of society.

To deny same sex couples the right to marry is to deny them access to one of the fundamental institutions of our society. The new common law definition of marriage does not create new rights; it simply ensures equality before the law. Changing the old common law definition of marriage is not only about acknowledging how our society has evolved over the last 137 years, but it reflects the fundamental Canadian values of fairness, tolerance and non-discrimination.

This change in the definition of marriage is a reminder to all Canadians that it is not acceptable to discriminate. We as Canadians have always prided ourselves as being an inclusive and just society, a society which values diversity in all of its many forms and which respects minority rights.

I have heard many of my colleagues speak of how they have been inundated with calls, letters and e-mails which clearly demonstrate that public opinion is against changing the definition of marriage. I too have in fact been threatened. Last week I received a letter from the pastor of a church down the street from my constituency assuring me that if I chose to support this legalization, and I quote “not only will you lose my vote, but I will do my best to encourage the entire community not to vote for you. I can assure you that you will not even receive 10% of the support of the community because of your position”.

I have also seen that some polls have indicated there has been a decline in support for a new definition of marriage. While polls may be useful, we cannot get lost in them. If we slavishly followed public opinion, we may end up inadvertently over-emphasizing the decisions of some media editors, but more important, we would endanger some of the values that we are proud of as Canadians. For example, the protection of minority rights, language rights and the rights of the first nations are fundamental as to who we are as a people. The different concerns of Canada's regions are also centrally important to us, but the actions taken to protect these interests might not always be shown as the most popular.

It is also interesting when one talks about this issue in the family. My children do not understand what this debate is all about or why we are even having it. For them, same sex marriage is a basic issue of equality, tolerance and respect for other people's rights. My eldest son David, who is 22, also reminded me this summer that we keep talking about the institution of marriage, institutions, institutions, but he said, “You are forgetting, Mom, that what you are talking about is people. You are talking about individuals and how demeaning it is to be denied rights that exist for others”.

Two years ago when we passed the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act, my daughter again asked me why we were discriminating between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples because by doing so we were hurting the girls in her school who did not have a traditional mommy or daddy or did not have the traditional Kodak family.

I fully believe and endorse the government's decision that it is the right time in our history to open marriage to include same sex unions. It is also required if the equality provisions of the charter are to be met. Extending marriage to same sex couples does not take away any rights from opposite sex couples, nor does it erode the significance or sanctity of marriage. On the contrary, it provides more Canadians with access to this fundamental institution of marriage. Same sex partners are seeking the same legal recognition of their commitment as other couples are.

In the Ontario Superior Court decision in the Halpern case Mr. Justice LaForme also held that charter infringement could not be saved by section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. He specifically noted as follows:

It cannot be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. The exclusion of same sex couples from the right to marry serves no identifiable pressing or legitimate governmental objective.

To conclude, I would like to address the issue which some of my colleagues have raised about finding some alternative status for same sex couples, which is tantamount to marriage but is not really marriage. I do not believe that this is an option. It falls short of true equality and I believe would not withstand a further charter challenge.

Subsection 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is clear:

Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination--

As I see my time is running out, I would like to conclude with the very eloquent words of Mr. Justice LaForme, which echo what I also truly believe:

It is my view that any “alternative status” that nonetheless provides for the same financial benefits as marriage in and of itself amounts to segregation.

This case is about access to a deeply meaningful institution--it is about equal participation in the activity, expression, security and integrity of marriage. Any “alternative” to marriage, in my opinion, simply offers the insult of formal equivalency without the charter promise of substantive equality. Again, an “alternative”, I find will only provide a demonstration of society's tolerance--it will not amount to a recognized acceptance of equality.

[Jay Hill, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting here all day long and appreciate the opportunity to make a couple of comments and ask the hon. member a question.

I listened quite intently to her speech. I guess the problem I have with it is that, if I understood it correctly, her main points were along the lines that she feels quite strongly, and I believe in her sincerity, that this is an issue of discrimination, it is an issue of fundamental equality. I think she called it true equality.

I want to use an analogy that one of my constituents remarked to me some time ago. He talked about two pieces of furniture, a table and a chair. They are made out of the same wood and have the same grain. They both have four legs and are used for the same purpose, but they are not the same. They are not equal. No matter how much one might think they are the same, they are not.

I wonder if there is not some middle ground here because as she said, the country is deeply divided on this issue. We all recognize that, both sides of the argument.

I do not believe that redefining marriage is a way to address what she views is discrimination. I think that by redefining marriage and changing the age old definition of marriage, which is the union of one man and one woman, it will discriminate against those who believe in that definition. While they want to avoid discrimination on one hand, that discrimination might apply to others.

Would the member not agree that there are ways to address this through civil unions or domestic registered partnerships? It is already happening at the provincial level without redefining marriage in statute.

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what is important and fundamental here is that we as a federal government also ensure that there is uniformity across the country. In B.C. and in Ontario the law as it currently stands today is the union of two persons. It is no longer the union of a man and a woman. I think we need to take a leadership role to make sure that equality exists throughout the country and not leave it to piecemeal. To have anything less than true equality is not acceptable.

I think that is one of the main things that the justices were saying when they looked at this issue with respect to registered partnerships. It is sort of equal, not quite equal. If we look at segregation, it tends to segregate people.

What we are asking for here is the basic rights that are provided by section 15 of the charter, the right to have access to that institution of marriage, the right to make the same type of commitment that marriage involves and the right to participate in that. That is what we require and it is the only solution that there is here. It has to do with equality before the law for everyone.

[Betty Hinton, Canadian Alliance, Kamloops, Thompson And Highland Valleys, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there were seven provinces and the territories that did not agree with the interpretation that is being put forward today. I would also like to point out that there is nothing stopping same sex couples from enjoying a committed relationship. They enjoy all the rights and privileges as common law couples do in the country.

For my part, rather than putting my own views forward, I put out a questionnaire to my constituents. Eighteen hundred people responded, and we must remember that was in the midst of my riding being on fire, so 1,800 responses is a pretty strong response. Ninety-three per cent of those people who responded are in favour of maintaining the traditional definition of marriage.

Therefore, I would like to ask the member, is she basing her views, the way she is going to vote, on the views of her constituents, or is she basing them on her background as a lawyer?

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to reply to the question because in my riding there is overwhelming support for the current law in Ontario which supports the union of two persons. Yes, I am also basing my vote and how I will be voting against the motion today not just on being a lawyer but on the belief that what I am doing is the right thing. It is the right thing for all Canadians and it is right that all people be treated with equality before the law.

[Keith Martin, Canadian Alliance, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am sharing my time with my colleague and friend from Fraser Valley.

I stand today with some degree of ambivalence on this issue. I will get to that a little later. In the grand scheme of things how important is this issue, given the more pressing issues that are affecting Canadians from coast to coast?

The issue at hand is whether we should change the definition of marriage and whether it should include individuals of same sex or whether we should keep it in its traditional definition of those who are of opposite sex.

There are two sides to this issue. I want to stand back and paraphrase, as my colleague from northern British Columbia mentioned, can we accommodate both sides. Can we accommodate the notion that homosexual couples can be loving and caring and live in relationships and should be treated in the same fashion as those of us who heterosexual or does it have to change? Can we respect the traditional definition of marriage while still respecting the right of homosexual individuals to live in long term relationships and receive the same benefits and rights as those who are heterosexual?

I believe we can. I believe that this is an issue of respect for both sides. In doing so, both sides can be respected.

I believe also that the radicals on both sides will never be accommodated. Of course that is the situation in most arguments.

Someone mentioned that this is equivalent to the days when women could not vote, the days south of the border when blacks could not vote, that certain groups could not receive the same benefits as others, that they were truly discriminated against on the basis of tangible benefits to the individual or group.

I would argue that is not the issue here today. I defy anyone in the House to tell me that in changing the definition of marriage that somehow it will change in some way the inequality that has taken place between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples. Is there a tangible benefit that would be accrued to homosexual couples by changing the definition of marriage? I would argue that there is not one.

In the dark days years ago homosexual couples, as capable as heterosexual couples of living in committed, long term, dependent, loving, caring relationships, did not have access to the same financial benefits as heterosexual couples had. Thankfully those days are over. Homosexual couples do receive the same medical benefits, pension benefits, survivor benefits as heterosexual couples.

For individuals living in a long term relationship, the issue at hand is not the gender of the two people involved. The issue at hand is one of dependency and a long term situation. Thankfully the days when that discrimination took place are over.

However that is not what we are talking about here today. We are talking about simply changing the definition of marriage.

My colleague, who was formerly a Reform member, Ian McClelland, put forth a very intelligent bill in the 1993 to 1997 Parliament calling for registered domestic partnerships. Registered domestic partnerships would be based on two people regardless of their gender who chose not to get married in the traditional sense. They would be defined and enshrined in a partnership and would acquire and accrue the same financial and tangible benefits as those who lived in a marriage situation.

If the House had chosen to take the situation at hand seriously, addressed the issued and adopted the solution by my colleague, Ian McClelland, then we probably would not be debating this motion here today. The issue would have been dealt with in a respectful and fair fashion by both those who believe in not changing the traditional definition and those individuals who believe the definition ought to change.

I suggest that the government of the day should indeed pursue that course which I think would be respectful of both groups.

Few issues have created more calls to my office than this one.

I decided to say to the people of my riding that I would vote according to what they told me. That did not include those who called my office in an unscientific fashion. I polled randomly the people in my riding. Of the thousands of letters I sent out, I received a significant number back. Of the letters I received back, 120 people said to change the definition of marriage and 420 people said not to change it. That is the way I will vote.

At the end of the day I hope we get to an era when sexual orientation does not matter. Those individuals who choose to shake one's hand and say that they are so-and-so and they are heterosexual are irrelevant. Similarly, those people who are gay and try to introduce themselves as homosexual do not matter. A person's sexual orientation does not matter. What matters is that we are loving, caring, considerate and responsible and that we are individuals who give toward society, who try to be inclusive and are tolerant. Those are the qualities I argue are important for individuals, societies and groups and I hope we focus on that.

We like to somehow castigate the judges, but the judges have taken their decisions because the House has failed to deal with this issue. We need not and should not be slamming the judges because they are doing what Parliament has failed to do. If we had been on the ball and taken our responsibilities seriously to deal with issues both controversial and non-controversial, not only would we have done the job that the Canadian public asked us to do, but we would have done what was right. We would be responsible and we would be dealing with the issues that the Canadian public has asked of us and for which it pays our salaries.

I also want to say that I am deeply angry and frustrated. This issue has dominated the House for a long time. It dominates the media. I just came back this summer from seeing children who had been prostituted on the streets since the age of 11 to feed their parents IV drug habits. They are now in their teenage years and they are HIV positive, they have hepatitis and they are still on the streets. I was dealing with people who had mental disorders and who lived on the streets. They have fallen through the cracks. They are subject to violence and die by their own hands or sometimes by other's hands.

I just came back from West Africa two nights ago where I saw children who had their arms chopped off by rebels. I met women who had been gang raped. I met orphans who had watched their parents hacked to death. I saw many children who had watched their parents burn to death. I saw people living in a toilet.

The House should be dealing with those issues and others. We should be dealing with the people in our country who cannot get a job. We should be dealing with the individuals who are aged and live at home in quiet desperation and pain because they do not have access to the health care our system should be providing. Some individuals who gave to their country and fought in wars cannot get access to home care and live sometimes in their own excrement because they do not have anybody to care for them.

Is that the Canada we want? Are those the issues with which the House is dealing? No, it is not. It is a shame and a pox on all in our House in my view that we debate this issue, important to some, but in the grand scheme of things there are many larger issues of life and death that are affecting Canadians and indeed people in other parts of the world with which we are not dealing.

Why are we not dealing with the number one issue that Canadians care about, which is health care? Why do we allow the Senate report, which is an excellent report, and the Romanow report to sit collecting dust? Why are we not having a meaningful debate on our defence forces so we can give them the tools to do their job?

My time is up, Mr. Speaker, but I just ask the government, in the lukewarm, pea soup legislative agenda that it has introduced in the House, why is it not dealing with the issues that Canadians care about, that mean something to Canadians and can relieve their suffering, their pain and will save lives?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member has raised some interesting points. Looking for that respect for the differences between Canadians is extremely important and to deal with this in a sensitive and respectful fashion is very important, as is the aspect of registering civil unions, et cetera and protecting that definition of marriage, which I think is at the essence of the debate that has been going on, not only in Parliament but in Canada.

I noted during the member's discourse though that in referring to relationships between two people he left out the one element of the procreative factor. The Ontario Court of Appeal identified three foundations of marriage being: the commitment, the contractual and the procreative. However I am sorry but they summarily dismissed the procreative aspect because gay persons could have a child through a previous marriage or through adoption and therefore it really was not an issue. Quite frankly, it is an issue.

My grandmother passed away this summer. She had 3 daughters, 10 grandchildren, 14 great grandchildren and 3 great-great grandchildren. Canadians I think understand that there are some differences, that it is related to the procreative element of marriage and that is something to be celebrated in Canada and around the world because it is the basis on which society sustains itself.

I would appreciate the member's comments.

[Keith Martin, Canadian Alliance, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if procreation was a prerequisite to marriage, then we would not be marrying people over the age of 45 or infertile couples, and yet we do. Although historically that has been stated as a reason for defining marriage in its traditional sense, in actuality it is not, as one of the members from the government said very eloquently on the more complex reasons for the traditional definition of marriage. I would refer people to the member's eloquent comments in talking about its structural and historical reason for defining.

If by maintaining the status quo, it is somehow going to deprive homosexual couples of a tangible material benefit, then I would not vote in the way I expect to vote. I would vote to change. At the end of the day equality and access to tangible benefits between couples, regardless of gender, should be a cornerstone of our country, and it is simply an attitude of fairness.

However many of us would argue that the reason to maintain the status quo has to do with simply a traditional definition rooted in a respect for those with a certain view while still respecting those who would like to see a change but allowing them to have the same access to the tangible benefits that those of heterosexual couples accrue.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the hon. member is aware of this but I have a copy of a letter sent to me which was dated August 10, 1999 when the present Minister of Health was the then minister of justice. At that time she had received I believe a petition about changing the definition of marriage. She wrote a letter to the gentleman in B.C. and explained to the man that his concerns were serious however the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others was already the clear law in Canada, and she stated she would like to take the opportunity to clarify why.

The minister said that the definition of marriage in federal law was not in a statute passed by Parliament but was found in the federal common law dating from 1866, the British case of Hyde and Hyde v. Woodmansee. She said that the case had been applied consistently in Canada and stated that no marriage could exist between two persons of the same sex.

I do not know if the member is aware of that.

However since 1999 the present Minister of Health, who was the then minister of justice, has stated unequivocally that marriage is between man and woman and can not be between anyone else. I cannot understand why she would even think of voting in favour of this. Can the member understand it?

[Keith Martin, Canadian Alliance, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak for the Minister of Health in what she chooses to do, but let me just briefly say this. I really hope that we as a House can get back to work and back to dealing with issues that really matter to people's lives in a blood and guts fashion. I hope that we will start dealing with reform of our health care system. I hope we will start dealing with ways that we can improve the unemployment system in our country. I hope we will be able to improve our own situation internationally. I hope we will start dealing with the real issues of terrorism and security, of which Iraq has little to do with. I hope we will start dealing with these issues that have an impact on the lives of Canadians. If we do that, we will be doing our job and will be making a meaningful impact on the lives of average Canadians.

[Chuck Strahl, Canadian Alliance, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca that there are other issues that we should be dealing with. It is certainly because of a lack of action on the part of the Liberal government that we must deal with this issue here today.

It is not a matter of choice on our part. It is the fact that the Liberal government has failed to appeal recent court decisions. It has failed to bring in, as the member himself has pointed out, legislative options that could have been considered in this House. It has failed, frankly, over the last decade, to deal with difficult social issues that it seems to want to defer to courts, tribunals and so on. We must deal with this because time is of the essence and the federal government itself has bypassed Parliament and that has made it necessary here today.

This summer I enjoyed watching a French film entitled La grande séduction . It is a funny film. Even with my limited French, I did enjoy it a lot. It is about a fishing village on the east coast and its wild attempts to convince or seduce a doctor to take up residence in the quaint but secluded town. For the characters in the movie, almost anything and everything went. It was fair game, as far as they were concerned, in their efforts to keep the young doctor from finding the truth about what was actually happening in the town where the fishing had all dried up and there was not really much of a future for the young doctor.

It is much the same with the debate on the redefinition of marriage. All sorts of arguments are being offered to convince the public that it is necessary to change the definition to include homosexuals. Sometimes their arguments are impassioned; usually they are sincere. But the important thing, in reality, is that the Canadian public is being seduced—as in La Grande Séduction —by the Prime Minister's office and the Liberal Party.

It is true that there are other top of mind issues that have been in the news all summer long. We think of the SARS crisis, the forest fire crisis in British Columbia, mad cow disease and so on. But it is essential, because of the lack of action by the Liberal Party, that we deal with this idea of redefining marriage because it has been building momentum all summer.

Canadians want it dealt with and in a place where they can see what is happening, not behind closed doors in the Prime Minister's Office or in the courts through a ruling they read about in the newspapers instead of it having been done in public.

Proponents of the new definition to include gay couples have been encouraged by recent court rulings while opposition to it has been the single biggest source of mail and phone calls in my office for weeks. It is important to Canadians.

Most of the arguments and the people making them have been reasonable and thoughtful, on both sides frankly. I appreciate hearing all views, but I cannot help but conclude that those arguing that we have no choice but to proceed with redefining marriage are part of that grande séduction. They are trying to convince us that it is just the way it has to be, that there is no choice, that parliamentarians have their hands tied, and we simply must proceed as the federal government insists.

Many folks cannot understand how we found ourselves in this dilemma. Parliament supported a Reform Party--now the Canadian Alliance--motion in 1999 stating that marriage should be the union of one man and one woman and that the government should take all necessary steps to defend this definition.

Most people, when they looked on after 1999, looked at the facts. The Prime Minister and the member for LaSalle—Émard supported the motion. The current and past justice ministers supported it. The current health minister and former justice minister supported the motion. They all supported it and we all naturally assumed that they would do it.

The last bit of chicanery, the last part of the grande séduction, was to put together a committee to travel the country. Many members in the House have done that in an honest attempt to find the compromise solution that the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca argued for, and I think properly so. The committee tried to find some way through this quagmire in a thoughtful way by listening to Canadians and experts on the subject.

However, that Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights was not allowed to even table a report or alternative, or a suggestion to the House of Commons. There was no follow through on taking all steps necessary. We are not talking about using the notwithstanding clause. We are talking about appealing the lower court decisions, asking for important input from Canadians and from parliamentarians, and coming up with thoughtful and considerate ways of dealing with what is obviously a big issue to many people, including the courts.

Instead we are told that we cannot discuss it, cannot vote on it, that we are not going to have further debate on it, and that it has to be the way the cabinet says. Perhaps the cabinet should have listened to the then justice minister, the current health minister, when she said during the 1999 debate:

Let me state again for the record that the government has no intention of changing the definition of marriage or of legislating same sex marriages...I fundamentally do not believe that it is necessary to change the definition of marriage in order to accommodate the equality issues around same sex partners which now face us as Canadians.

Absolutely. I agree with that statement. I did then and I do now. We need to be creative and get at it in a way that respects people on all sides of the debate, but it is not necessary, as the minister herself said, to redefine marriage in order to do that.

The Liberal government's promise to take all necessary steps to preserve the traditional definition of marriage has now been broken dramatically. Its new promise--we heard it again today from the current justice minister and he was passionate about it in his question and comment period--is to protect the right of religious organizations that refuse to marry same sex couples. That is the new promise, but needless to say such promises are not much comfort to those who have considerate, thoughtful but differing views.

The shelf life of a promise of a federal Liberal cabinet minister is less than four years. That is why there is a concern. People say they just do not trust cabinet ministers in the long term.

What about the courts, charter of rights, or the legal framework under which these decisions are made? It is important to remember that when the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was brought in and adopted, Parliament voted specifically not to include sexual orientation in the charter because it felt that was a good issue to be debated and decided here as a social issue affecting all Canadians. It is something that should be debated here. Even the current Prime Minister made the argument when he was justice minister that that was the way it should be done.

The Supreme Court has not been seized with this in the sense of asking it to define marriage, but when it ruled on this in the Egan case it said absolutely that marriage was a special relationship worthy of special protection. If the Supreme Court wants another reference to it to get another opinion that would be fine, but the last word it said on it was exactly that. The Supreme Court said it was a special relationship worthy of special protection.

To simply throw our hands up in the air, as the current Prime Minister and the Prime Minister-in-waiting from LaSalle--Émard have done, and say we cannot do anything because the courts have told us what to do and our hands are tied is not acceptable to me and it is not acceptable to millions of Canadians who expect a debate to take place on the floor of the House of Commons with a stand up vote, freely taken and freely given, so we can all stand and be accountable for our actions on both sides of the House. It is not acceptable to simply say the courts have decided so what can we do.

Another part of La grande séduction is the argument that opposing the redefinition of marriage makes one intolerant or worse. I heard that again this morning and that is repugnant to me. Certain ministers on the Liberal side and other members down this way have said that if we do not accept their argument we are bigots.That is not debate.

I have heard from thoughtful and concerned people on both sides of the House and they are not saying they will not listen to the arguments coming from down there or from a member of the homosexual community. As far as I am concerned those Liberal members are not worth listening to. It is unacceptable in the House of Commons that differing views from thoughtful and caring people who want to find a solution and a way through this quagmire, who respect people on both sides of the debate, are not allowed to voice their opinions and are instead shouted down as bigots or worse. That is not acceptable in the House of Commons.

I welcome thoughtful debate on divisive issues and difficult issues because this is the place to have it. That is what civilized people do. Some of parliament's finest hours have come after an agonizing debate and a thorough airing of divergent views.

What most offends me during this period of time is the growing tendency on the part of the Liberal Government of Canada to take every divisive issue, whether it is sexual orientation, the redefinition of marriage, what we should do on international agreements and tribunals, what we should do with reproductive technology, or what we should do with any divisive or difficult issue, and hand it off to tribunals, unelected courts, unelected people, international groups, ex-parliamentarians and so on, and not make a decision here in the House of Commons where it should be taken.

It is not acceptable for members to say, as one of the Liberals said last week, that it is offensive to stand and be counted. It is part of La grande séduction to say that we do not have to stand and be counted. We should stand and be counted. We will be standing and we will be counting tonight. When that decision is taken, people will see not only what we have said but how we stood in the wall and in the breach for what we believe in. We have to justify it. We have to stand. We will be counted tonight.

[John Harvard, Liberal, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to stand and be counted. I say with great respect to the member who has just spoken that I profoundly disagree with him, but I certainly respect his position.

The proposed legislation enshrines religious liberty. The legislation says any church, any mosque, and any religious organization that does not support same sex marriage does not have to be a part of same sex marriage. They do not have to conduct any kind of ceremony with respect to same sex marriage. I am glad that we have that in the legislation because I can assure the House that if we did not have that kind of religious liberty I would not be supporting it, but I do.

I am sure that the member believes in religious liberty as well, but what does he say to the United Church of Canada which has evolved like so many institutions and now is in favour of same sex marriage? What does he say to the Unitarian Church of Canada? What does he say to the Quaker's of Canada who want to marry same sex couples? Will he deny them that religious liberty?

[Chuck Strahl, Canadian Alliance, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would say three things to that. One is that it is interesting that the member who just spoke supported this same motion in 1999. He felt it was a good idea at the time and has changed his mind now. I do not know what has changed. If it is a principled decision he is making, I do not know what principle has changed over the last four years. I would suggest none. In fact it is exactly the same motion. Nothing has been changed.

Second, the promise in the proposed legislation, which we are not dealing with today and which has been referred to the Supreme Court, there is a line about protecting religious institutions that choose not to marry same sex couples.

On Wednesday we will be dealing with Bill C-250 which would add sexual orientation to the list of protected groups under the hate crimes legislation. If that goes through I guarantee that someone will bring forward an argument that not agreeing to marry someone of the same sex constitutes an infringement on their rights and an identifiable hate crime under this section of the law if that legislation passes on Wednesday, which is a good possibility.

I would say that it is faint reassurance to say to people that it is in legislation so they can be confident. Many people are not even confident given the charter protections, let alone legislative protection, because they see it as a win for the government, not something that we can count on in the long term. That is a problem that will not satisfy, not just the religious groups but it will not satisfy people who just want to believe in one thing and not the other. However not even being allowed to say it is a serious concern, not only for religious groups but for society at large.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

I wish to give one of the hon. members who has not yet spoken today an opportunity to do so.

The hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska.

[André Bachand, Progressive Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in the same vein as my Liberal colleague, I would like to remind my hon. colleague from the Canadian Alliance that his leader, after oral question period—not concerning Bill C-250, but rather the bill he will introduce this week—made it very clear that if a church in Canada, any church at all, marries two people of the same sex, that is illegal. Is that what religious freedom looks like in Canada?

After oral question period, the leader of the Canadian Alliance said that if churches marry same sex couples, it is illegal. But for religious freedom to be protected, it goes both ways.

What does the hon. member think of his leader's remarks?

[Chuck Strahl, Canadian Alliance, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think we are talking about two separate issues. What we are talking about is if an organization of whatever sort wants to hold a meeting and say that it declares the following, it can do whatever it likes. There is nothing to stop anyone from doing whatever they like. What we are talking about is the definition of marriage under federal statute. That is our job. Churches will do as they will. They have meetings, their own constitutions and they will decide internally about their own policies and what they will do and who stands in the pulpit, who gives an oration and that is their business.

I would encourage people to vote for the current definition and work toward an understanding in a compassionate way to deal with other relationships. As the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca said, we must find another way to deal with other relationships that are important, that are part of a changing and evolving society but not to attack the institution of marriage in order to do it. It does not help anyone's case to say that he or she must have something that was started in the misty past of the dawn of history in legislation or else it is not fair. That is not true. It is an evolving society. We must have evolving institutions but that does not mean we have to redefine marriage in order to do it.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas, Health; the hon. member from Saskatoon—Humboldt, Employment Insurance.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Scarborough East for agreeing to share his time with me as I acknowledge this issue which is occupying a great proportion of Canadians' collective consciousness. It is a debate where everyone has a usually firm opinion.

I would even add that this debate gives rise to more than argumentation, reasoning and ideas. It also gives rise to strong emotions, since morality, social conscience and religious beliefs come into play, whether we will or no.

It is therefore with some trepidation and with humility that I engage in this debate hoping to encourage a dialogue between groups and individuals of deferring views, and to encourage understanding, not only among colleagues who will be called to vote on the issue, but also among our constituents to whom we are all ultimately accountable.

As members of Parliament, we must look at all issues from a number of different perspectives, since we are simultaneously individuals, elected representatives and lawmakers. For the hon. members, in my opinion, examining these three roles is essential when establishing one's position on topics like the one now before us.

It is up to Parliament to protect minorities and it does so by first debating and then passing legislation. It does so when members of Parliament strike a balance between the three roles they play when they consider, not only their personal beliefs but also the opinions of their constituents and the implications for our constitution, our charter and all of the laws they encompass.

Personally, I am a Canadian citizen, a native of Ontario and a child of francophone parents. This is an important aspect of my life, since I have often fought long and hard—and sometimes still do—to obtain certain fundamental rights, such as the right to be educated in my mother tongue. As a result, I became very aware of the reality faced by minorities. This was primarily before the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was adopted.

I want to recognize the contribution of a Premier of Ontario, the Hon. Bill Davis, without whom francophones would probably not have access to a high school education.

This was before the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which was adopted in 1982. People knew at the time that it would have a major impact on our society. It did, in fact, have such an impact.

The charter that we adopted is of great importance in my life and in the lives of numerous individuals and minority groups. In the application of the charter and laws that have been adopted since, we as a society have learned to live and let live, and to respect that others may and will have different points of view. I have also learned to be proud of my country and in its capacity to evolve, to accept and then to embrace change both pre- and post-charter.

Various fundamental decisions have been mentioned, such as giving women the right to vote. No one would dare consider reopening this for debate today.

Remember the flag debate. It was divisive, but today we are all proud of the flag.

The same is true of the decriminalization of homosexuality in 1969. No one I talked to since this debate began has suggested that we go back to the way things were in 1969.

On the issue of marriage, I think that there has also been an evolution. That is why I am talking about it today. I think that most Canadians agree that marriage is not just an institution to ensure procreation and the survival of the species. It is also a social institution covered by legislation and by comprehensive jurisprudence to protect spouses and their offspring, if any. Finally, it is also an institution by which a couple seeks love, a shared life and understanding.

As members of the House of Commons, we have a responsibility to represent the will of the citizens of our ridings to the best of our abilities, citizens who come from all walks of life, who adhere to different political philosophies and who hold every opinion imaginable. In this sense, the views of the majority must be carefully weighed and given precedence when they do not impede on the rights of the minority.

This brings me to the point that, in addition to representing the many points of view of my constituents, I was also elected to make decisions. Of course we always do our best to make the right decision, in other words, the decision that best represents the will of the public we represent.

The wonderful thing about this responsibility for making decisions is that the final decision always rests with the public we represent. If the people in my riding are unhappy with my decisions or my votes, they can choose, every four years or less, not to re-elect me.

Judging from the correspondence, the telephone calls, the e-mails, the conversations I have had and the comments I have heard since the Ontario Court of Appeal precipitated this debate, a majority, albeit a slim one, but a majority of the constituents of Ottawa—Vanier are in favour of recognizing the rights of homosexuals to marry.

Polls published in different papers, undertaken by different companies, have tended to indicate that is so. Therefore, in the case of Ottawa—Vanier, I believe I uphold both the will of the majority and the rights of the minority by being in favour of extending the right of marriage to same sex couples.

There is the issue of member as legislator. Before beginning my work, I took an oath, and from time to time, I have to think back to this oath to uphold the Constitution, the laws of the land and democracy.

I had to do so in two cases where I intervened in court proceedings to help people who were appearing before the courts to have their rights upheld, namely in the Montreal rally case, and now in another case that will soon be heard: the Quigley case, which pits an individual against this parliament.

I must perform my role as legislator with respect, responsibility and balance. In terms of respect, I would like to refer to the religious aspect of the word “marriage”. I think it behooves us to protect the ability of religious groups to discriminate, to say that they will not offer the sacrament of marriage to homosexual couples, based on their own beliefs, the way the Roman Catholic Church does with divorced couples, or other religions.

We must also protect the ability of a religious group to say yes, we agree to recognize same sex couples, the way the United Church does.

Because the charter guarantees freedom of conscience and religion, this freedom must be available to all and not just to those who accept, or do not accept, same sex marriages.

Then there is the aspect of responsibility. There is no doubt whatsoever, under the Canadian constitution, section 91, subsection 26—which I imagine we are now all familiar with—that the matter of marriage and its fundamental conditions falls under the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada. It is also a matter of national uniformity on this. As a result, when the constitution was drafted in 1867, this matter was designated as a federal responsibility.

I have read the court interpretations of the cases in Quebec, British Columbia and Ontario, and accept them. I am applying my own reasoning. I also believe that the charter is very clear, and this is what is seen from a reading of these decisions. The charter is very clear; we cannot discriminate, we cannot have a separate regime unless we invoke the notwithstanding clause, and that is a debate for another day.

Finally, we must seek some balance. This leads to this criterion, where I believe it is possible for Parliament, with one law, to respect the charter, that is the civil aspect of the word marriage, to recognize that all couples, whether of the same sex or opposite sexes, must be able to be married, because this is a contractual matter, and to also recognize the religious meaning of marriage and to protect that, in order to protect the ability of the various churches and sects to discriminate.

I think that the legislator would in this way have attained a respectful and responsible balance, and this law would then meet the charter test and the section 1 test. I would just like to quote section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which reads as follows:

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

I therefore believe that all of the elements are in place in order to be able to effectively fulfill our triple role as MPs and to create a situation with which the large majority of Canadians can identify and feel comfortable.

Finally, I wish to share with colleagues that the notion that this Parliament should deal with this legislation is one that I share. I have heard many colleagues mention today that they would prefer that Parliament be seized of this bill instead of sending it to the Supreme Court for reference. I share that view and I believe that if we as parliamentarians were seized of that legislation and passed it, it would stand the test of the charter and section 1 of the charter.

Business of the House

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among House leaders and I have a series of motions which I would like to propose to the House. All of them have been agreed to by House leaders of the various parties.

The first one is, that the division on report stage of Bill C-34 be further deferred to immediately before any deferred division on private member's business at 5:30 p.m. on Wednesday, September 17, 2003.:

The division was scheduled for later this day. In other words, the motion is to defer that vote until tomorrow.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.