Debates of Feb. 21st, 2005

Civil Marriage Act

[The Speaker]

Can we transfer the time to the hon. member for Fundy Royal? He will start now. He has lost only a minute of his 20 minutes.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to participate in this debate on Bill C-38, the civil marriage act. It has been interesting to hear comment from all sides of the House on what is a very important issue.

On February 16 when the Prime Minister began this debate, he stated that it was an important day. In that respect I am in agreement with the Prime Minister. However, that is where my agreement with the Prime Minister ends on this issue.

This is an important debate. The decision we make as a Parliament will have a profound impact on Canada and the rights and freedoms we cherish.

First, I would like to explore the government's principal rationale for moving forward with redefining marriage at this time.

I listened carefully to what the Prime Minister said last week in his speech and also to what he did not say. What he did not say was most telling. The Prime Minister never once said that he actually supported same sex marriage. He talked at some length about the charter of rights and about the supposed need to change the definition of marriage in order to conform with lower court rulings, but he never actually said that he himself supported same sex marriage.

From a political standpoint it is perhaps understandable why he failed to do so. This is because the Prime Minister himself stood in this House six years ago and voted for a motion to protect the definition of marriage. He voted for a motion that pledged the House of Commons to use all necessary means to defend the definition of marriage. That is the same definition that has existed in Canada since Confederation and is universally known throughout cultures, countries, religions and communities.

For the Prime Minister now to openly utter the words “I support same sex marriage”, would beg the question: why, then, did he support the exact opposite position less than six years ago? Why did he stand in the House and promise to Canadians to protect the institution of marriage? Why should anyone in Canada trust any promise he makes about protecting freedom of religion and freedom of conscience in Canada now? For that matter, why should anyone trust him at all?

Instead of openly admitting to having changed his position, the Prime Minister has attempted to hide behind particular lower court interpretations of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Prime Minister now argues that the government simply has no choice, that the courts have spoken and that the government is compelled to act. This is completely false. It was the Liberal government itself that refused to appeal the various lower court rulings on same sex marriage. That was a conscious and deliberate decision. Indeed, it was a decision made within the highest order of government, within cabinet itself.

The same government that in 1999 pledged to use all necessary means to defend marriage made a deliberate decision to break that promise and simply accept a lower court's findings. It made a deliberate decision to suddenly begin to argue that in fact the definition of marriage that has existed for millennia is now somehow unconstitutional.

The Liberal government went so far as to stack a parliamentary committee that was considering advising the justice minister on whether to appeal a certain lower court decision. Suddenly the government decided to shift positions and argue that the charter of rights had to be interpreted to mean that some sex marriage was a fundamental right enshrined in the charter.

How can something that was not considered a fundamental right just a few years ago, and indeed has never been considered a fundamental right anywhere else on earth, suddenly become a fundamental right? In fact, the United Nations Human Rights Commission ruled just in 2002 that it is not necessary to change the definition of marriage to accommodate equality concerns.

Is it now the Liberal government's position that countries which handle same sex relationships differently are somehow violating fundamental human rights? Are countries like Finland, Norway, Sweden, France, New Zealand and the United Kingdom going to be targeted by our Prime Minister as human rights violators? That would seem to be the logical conclusion of what the government is now arguing.

It is ludicrous to argue that a few court rulings by a handful of lower court judges must now serve as the sole justification for fundamentally altering a social institution that has served as the bedrock of our society for centuries.

Indeed, the Government of Canada itself argued a similar point less than two years ago in a factum it submitted to one of the marriage cases. It said:

In a constitutional democracy, it is the legislature, as the elected branch of government, that should assume the major responsibility for law reform. Major revisions of legal text, i.e. the common law, with complex or uncertain ramifications are best left to the legislature.

In other words, decisions of immense social significance should not be made flippantly. There must be a meaningful dialogue between the judiciary and the legislative branches of government.

The legislative branches are under no obligation to simply accept individual rulings by lower courts without challenging them. Indeed, an extremely dangerous precedent is established when they begin to do so. However that is exactly what the federal government has done in this instance.

I believe that the evidence is clear that the Supreme Court itself has signalled as much to the federal government in its response to the government's reference questions. When the government submitted its reference case on same sex marriage it asked, very specifically, whether the traditional definition of marriage was constitutional, and the Supreme Court of Canada did not answer that question, in effect turning the issue back to elected members of Parliament.

The court made the ruling despite the fact that the Government of Canada was now arguing that the traditional definition of marriage was unconstitutional.

The failure of the Liberal government to live up to its solemn promise to Canadians has left us with no final legal opinion on the traditional definition of marriage. Not only did the Liberals fail to take all necessary steps, after the court of appeal decision in Halpern, they failed to take any steps. Even worse, they began to argue on the other side against those seeking to maintain the definition of marriage.

Oftentimes it is the case that the Supreme Court of Canada has overturned a Court of Appeal decision in favour of the reasoning in a lower court. Therefore there is the very real possibility that the Supreme Court would have upheld the traditional definition of marriage had that Court of Appeal decision been appealed.

For instance, the Supreme Court of British Columbia, in a recent EGALE marriage case, and the Divisional Court of Ontario in 1993 both upheld the traditional definition of marriage. The B.C. case reads:

Same-sex and opposite-sex relationships are, at their core, demonstrably different. They cannot be equated except by changing the deep-rooted social and legal relationship around which Canadian society has evolved and continues to evolve. Because of the importance of marriage in the Canadian context, past and present, the salutary effect associated with the preservation of its opposite-sex core far outweighs the deleterious effect resulting from the refusal to provide legal status to same-sex relationships under the rubric of marriage. That is particularly so when the practical effect of recent legislative change has been to remove or minimize, where possible, the differences between the relationships as regards day to day living.

Further, the Supreme Court of Canada has never indicated in any ruling, and this was alluded to earlier, that the traditional definition of marriage was unconstitutional.

To the contrary, the Supreme Court last commented at length on the constitutionality of the definition of marriage. In the Egan decision on marriage, Justice La Forest clearly stated:

But its ultimate raison d'être transcends all of these and is firmly anchored in the biological and social realities that heterosexual couples have the unique ability to procreate, that most children are the product of these relationships, and that they are generally cared for and nurtured by those who live in that relationship.

He upheld the constitutionality of the traditional definition of marriage and said the marriage or relationship could quite rightly be identified as being a union of one man and one woman.

The fact that the Supreme Court of Canada may have upheld the traditional definition of marriage as constitutional is, in my opinion, one of the reasons that the government did not appeal the lower court decisions as normally would be the case. This has led to what anyone on any side of the issue would agree is a patchwork of legal realities across our country that we are currently seeing.

The evidence is quite clear that it is the Liberal government and not the courts that is now interpreting the charter to read same sex marriage rights into it. It is a deliberate policy choice that has been made by the government. It is not a policy that has been forced on the government by the courts, certainly not the Supreme Court.

The position first adopted by Parliament in 1999, when a true free vote took place, was very clear: same sex marriage has never been a fundamental right under Canadian law; it is not a fundamental right today; and no matter what the Prime Minister may claim, legislation that is coerced out of Parliament today cannot make it a fundamental right in the future.

We are beginning to see some of the grave implications as a result of this move by the government to change what the word marriage means.

In the Halpern decision, before the Liberal government switched sides in this debate, in typical Liberal fashion, the Attorney General of Canada submitted evidence to support the traditional definition of marriage. The factum of the attorney general in that case reads:

Marriage has always been understood as a special kind of monogamous opposite-sex union, with spiritual, social, economic and contractual dimensions, for the purposes of uniting the opposite sexes, encouraging the birth and raising of children of the marriage, and companionship.

The Government of Canada in its factum further warned of the negative consequences of changing an institution as fundamental to our society as marriage. Page 10 of that factum reads:

A profound impact on each of the universal or nearly universal features of marriage, leading to the loss of cultural norm of opposite-sex marriage;

The further de-stabilization of marriage privately and publicly by breaking the sense of constancy in its mission--“the most durable union through which to bear and raise children”;

It was in 1999 when Canadians relied on promises from the then justice minister and now our current Deputy Prime Minister. It is alarming to see the change in the government's position.

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.

That is a quote from the then justice minister and our current Deputy Prime Minister.

She said further:

I support the motion for maintaining the clear legal definition of marriage in Canada as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

It is a flip-flop of the most immense proportions.

In justifying that position, she said:

We on this side agree that the institution of marriage is a central and important institution in the lives of many Canadians. It plays an important part in all societies worldwide, second only to the fundamental importance of family to all of us....

In essence, the Deputy Prime Minister put the full force and power of the government behind that promise as justice minister. Parliament, in turn, through an overwhelming cross party vote clearly signalled its intent on the matter as well.

What is the Deputy Prime Minister saying today? She is simply dismissing the promises made by both the executive and legislative branches of government in 1999. Last week, as I watched the debate, she seemed to shrug her shoulders as if to say “well, things change”.

This 180° change of position could have the most alarming of consequences. It makes the most fundamental guarantees and promises of the Government of Canada completely unreliable. In fact, it makes them utterly worthless. All of the assurances made now by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice about freedom of religion and freedom of conscience are simply without substance.

For instance, in his speech last week, the Prime Minister said:

...in no church, no synagogue, no mosque, no temple--in no religious house will those who disagree with same-sex unions be compelled to perform them.

Will we be standing in the House in 5 years, 10 years or 20 years from now reading that quotation back to the Prime Minister or the Minister of Justice of the day and have the Minister of Justice shrug and say “Oh well, things change?”

What the Prime Minister does not want Canadians to know is that the Supreme Court of Canada has already found that the provisions of Bill C-38 that purport to protect Canadians' fundamental freedoms are outside the jurisdiction of the Government of Canada and are therefore unconstitutional.

One would think, in light of that, that the government would have left those provisions out. They are simply meaningless. However that is not what the Prime Minister has done. The Prime Minister's efforts to sell his agenda to Canadians seems to know no bounds, including putting hollow and misleading provisions in the legislation.

Regrettably, given what we already know about how the courts balance equality rights and religious freedoms, we have to conclude that it is highly likely and highly probable that, for example, the charitable status of religious based institutions that refuse to recognize same sex unions will increasingly be called into question. Religious based institutions, schools and charitable and other organizations will increasingly be taken before human rights tribunals. We are already seeing this. This is not some slippery slope that may happen some day in the future. It is happening today, simply for believing what they believe.

It is also instructive to examine other comments that the Prime Minister did not say. He did not say that his government would protect freedom of conscience for individuals and organizations who cannot support same sex marriage because of their beliefs. Members of the House should ask themselves if the Prime Minister had anything at all to say to the dozens of marriage commissioners across our country who have already lost their jobs because same sex marriage conflicts with their religious beliefs.

The deputy leader of the government in the House has already stated quite clearly that civil servants with responsibilities in this area should be sanctioned or fired if they do not go along with something that violates their most personal beliefs. What does the Prime Minister have to say about any of this? Nothing at all, just as I believe he will have nothing to say when other Canadian rights are trampled as a result of this legislation should it pass.

What the Prime Minister has not been saying in his words he is signalling with his actions in the House. He has already denied any dissenters in his cabinet who may oppose the bill on grounds of conscience a free vote on the question. The Prime Minister who came to power under the promise of addressing the democratic deficit has done everything he could to prevent this issue from being debated, from Canadians having input, and now, when a bill is finally brought before the House as a fait accompli, he is telling his cabinet ministers and certain parliamentary secretaries they must vote this way. They are being told simply they can support the policy shift or they can resign their positions.

That may soon be the choice that many ordinary Canadians face as well, for if a member of the cabinet of this House and many members of Parliament cannot be protected, cannot voice their concerns freely, then how can we expect that other Canadians' rights will be protected?

If the bill passes we will be redefining marriage in a way that Canadians do not want and do not believe is necessary to address equality rights. We know that no national court in our country, certainly the Supreme Court of Canada, or in the world for that matter has ever said that this is a fundamental right. As a matter of fact, the United Nations has not said that this is a fundamental right. If we look at where Canadians' views are on this, they believe in equality for all Canadians and they believe we can address all equality concerns without fundamentally altering an institution that has been the bedrock of our society and the world societies for centuries.

I will be opposing Bill C-38 in its current form and I encourage all members to consider those implications when they deliberate on whether they will support the bill.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, after listening to the member I feel compelled to ask a question that I believe has received very little clarity from both the member and from his party, and it centres on the issue of the over 5,000 licences that have been lawfully issued to gays and lesbians across the country.

I would like to know, from his standpoint and that of his party, whether they plan to have those licences, which were issued lawfully, taken back. Is their message to Canadian gays and lesbians, who are planning to get married in the near future, that they should stop their marriages because they would be acting contrary to Canadian law?

I would like to know his viewpoint on this issue because it is a fundamental issue about whether we will be taking away licences that have been issued and taking away rights from Canadians.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting dilemma in which the Liberals have put Canada. The normal course, as anyone who follows judicial cases at all would know, when one loses at the court of appeal in our country, one appeals to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Supreme Court of Canada is the only judicial body whose decisions apply to all the provinces. The various court of appeal decisions, including the one specifically in Halpern decision in Ontario, do not apply to the rest of Canada. By not appealing the court of appeal decision in Ontario, the Liberal government has created a patchwork of legal realities, where in some provinces same sex marriage is legal and in some provinces same sex marriage is not legal.

It is very much a situation that the Liberals have created.

We have been very firm that we will not be taking rights away from anyone. My personal position is that we should define marriage, as I have said, and continue to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Our party has put forward a proposal to extend all those equality rights to same sex unions. Therefore, there will be no loss of rights should the bill be defeated.

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member spoke with concern and passion about the civic marriage officials who issue licences and who expressed their concerns. I think the hon. member is likely aware that at the recent federal-provincial-territorial justice ministers meeting this came up as an issue in terms of how to ensure those concerns would not come to fruition.

In talking with the justice ministers from Quebec and Ontario, the two most populist of our provinces, they indicated that they had numerous marriage licences issued without any particular problems. Obviously, they have managed to find an accommodation.

Many provinces and territories I am advised have already amended their laws to add specific protections for religious freedom. For example, Quebec has done this to protect religious officials who refuse to marry a couple. Others actually provide within their legislation an exemption for religious organizations as part of their human rights code.

Does the hon. member think the provinces and territories should go ahead and pursue this line to ensure they protect their officials, as it appears such protections are available and do work?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would say some of that discussion is cold comfort to the people who have already lost their jobs. Those marriage commissioners were the front line.

I asked the Prime Minister a question in the House before the Christmas break. He became quite excited and leapt out of his chair because I questioned him on that very issue. Canadians who have been working in the same job for years are all of a sudden being pushed to the margins. Because their personal beliefs, the beliefs with which they came into the jobs, which were fine when they first applied for and received their positions, are no longer valid, they are therefore non-compliant and they do not fit into Canadian society any more.

I appreciate the question. In light of what the federal government is doing, I would encourage provincial governments to do everything they can to protect their citizens. There is a federal sphere and a provincial sphere. There really would be no way to contain the impact that we would make at the federal level by changing the definition of marriage. No way should we be pushing a problem that we have created onto the provinces.

We already have seen individuals lose their jobs. I mentioned charitable organizations in my speech. What about the Knights of Columbus which is currently before the B.C. Human Rights tribunal because it does not want to sanction a same sex union? It runs completely counter to its value system of what a marriage is, yet there is an attempt to thrust that view on to it. There has to be a balance.

The Liberal government has failed to achieve that Canadian balance. As Canadians we are all interested in equality and fairness before the law. The majority of Canadians and the Supreme Court have never said to change the definition. Apparently at the United Nations, it is not the opinion of any body, any national court or any international court that we have to change the meaning of the word “marriage”. It is an institution that existed long before Canada was ever conceived of or thought of. Yet somehow we, as a country, are taking it upon ourselves to change what the word “marriage” means to address these concerns when the Canadian public believes these equality concerns can be addressed without changing the definition of marriage.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I posed a question earlier which still needs an answer. It is a simple yes or no question. There has been a right conferred on gays and lesbians across the country. Over 5,000 of them already have a marriage licence. Is it the Conservative Party's view or its policy to take away those licences, which were legally issued, from gays and lesbians across the country?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I firmly believe and support the position we have taken. It is a compromise position. It is a reasonable position. We would extend those same rights, benefits and obligations while upholding the traditional definition of marriage. I do not know what is so hard to understand.

An opposite sex relationship and a same sex relationship are two different kinds of relationships. The one is marriage and the other will have the same rights, benefits and obligations. If he were to poll Canadians, as we have done, he would see that Canadians do not believe we should change what the word “marriage” means simply to address those rights.

I cited a court decision that said a lot of those equality rights could be addressed without changing the definition of marriage. That would be my opinion on the matter, and that is the position we put forward.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, some of the input we have received is the concern about the impact on children to the extent that if procreation is not to be considered and that in vitro fertilization or other reproductive technologies are available, what impact that may have on the raising of our children.

Would the member like to comment on that?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I have read some of what was discussed at the justice committee in the past when they held their deliberations. What the experts told us was they did not know what the future impact would be on children.

The few things we do know is, first, it would be a virtually unprecedented step to change what the word “marriage” means. As a society in Canada and throughout the world, we know marriage to mean the union of one man and one woman. Most children are the product of that relationship and are raised by that relationship. We do not know what the long term impact would be on changing the meaning of the word “marriage”.

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to join in the debate on the matter today before the House.

The member for Fundy Royal has said that it will have a profound impact on Canada. I totally agree with him. It is remarkable that Canada is having this debate. Very few countries are having a debate of this profound nature. It relates in some ways to the way in which we see ourselves as a society and as a country, and how we try and strike individual liberties, freedoms and inclusiveness for all of us.

I am proud of the fact that we are having the debate. I am proud of the respect we have for one another for the tremendously difficult disagreements we have over this. I am proud, at least in my belief, that this will prevail in the end because it is the right thing to do and it is the right time to do it.

I am proud that the government has introduced the legislation. In my view it is in the best of the Liberal traditions, that is a commitment on behalf of government to change society in a way that individuals are protected and that they can affirm and develop themselves to the best of their possibilities in society.

I was very proud of our Prime Minister's introductory remarks, which the hon. member for Fundy Royal mentioned. We heard him discuss in a dispassionate way the nature of the legal framework within which we live. It is not only a legal framework and a charter, but more than a legal framework. It is a framework, and I will come back to this, which seeks to create an atmosphere of mutual respect, comprehension, tolerance and one in which society can progress. We heard the Prime Minister put forward a compelling case, a case founded on our charter, our law and our tradition of mutual respect for one another.

We heard the Leader of the Bloc Québécois speak. We all have to remember when he said:

—the religion of some should not become the law of others.

How long has it been in human society where the religion of the some is the law of the others? How many of us, as we sit here in the 21st century, can recall centuries before when that was the profound reason for social strife, the disruption of society, the civil wars, the terrible religious wars of Europe of the 1630s, the religious wars in France, and the civil war in England? All of this arose largely because some people felt that the moral values of the some had to be imposed by the law on others. Clearly, we have an obligation to determine what are our moral laws. We as a Parliament must consider that.

However, the bill seeks to do that within the context of a charter and I would like to come back to that. First, let us look at what the bill is and what it is not. It is a bill about civil marriage. It is a bill about the state's obligation to create a framework within which individuals can participate in society and fulfill themselves. It is about the state's role. It is not about the role of churches. It is not about the role of religion. That is, as the Supreme Court of Canada has said, for the churches to determine.

I happen to belong to the Anglican Church which is struggling with this matter in a very deep way. This is a matter which is extremely troubling. It is a matter which is causing extreme anguish as people in my church and in other faiths seek to find an answer to something that our colleagues across the way have said is of profound importance for us.

However, let us not try and use the bill. Let us not distort the nature of the bill. Let us not talk about churches. We have allowed divorce in the country for a long time. No one has ever brought a case before the court to require the Catholic Church or any other church that does not wish to recognize divorce to recognize a divorce.

I do not believe it is likely, particularly given the statement of the Supreme Court of Canada, the British Columbia Court of Appeal, the Ontario Court of Appeal and others about religious discretion and religious control, that there is any likelihood or any possibility whatsoever that such an action would be successful.

The hon. members opposite cite cases where they say it is going to be tried and people will bring lawsuits. There will be people who will bring lawsuits, but that is not to say they will be successful.

We have here the clearest statement of the highest court of the land saying that the charter protects religious liberties and religious institutions will make their own choice.

We are debating here in the House the obligation of this Canadian country of which we are so proud and so determined to make one of the greatest countries in the world. That is what we are talking about and not about individual religions which are a part of the mosaic of this state. It is the accommodation of that mosaic which is very important.

I remind members of the House that there are religious organizations, whether it is the United Church or others in this country, that do wish to give affirmation to the opportunity of people of the same sex to get married.

Therefore, let us leave to religion what is religion and let us talk about the state's role and what is the state. How did we get here? We got here because in the 1980s we made a profound decision in this country. We chose to fetter, if I may say that, to restrict, and to control our parliamentary democracy by an overguarding reach of a Constitution which would determine which were the basic rights, fundamental rights and freedoms of Canadians.

One of the basic rights contained in that document was the obligation of the state not to discriminate when it deals with its citizens. An obligation which can only be overridden by section 1, where it is the imperative necessity for the preservation of the state.

I happen to believe, and I am not like those on the other side of the House, that we are fortunate to have chosen this path. I happen to believe that we did the right thing in saying that when we created a Constitution and defined rights and liberties within that, that we gave to our courts the obligations, the duties and the privilege of interpreting that Constitution.

As they have interpreted, a society has evolved. It is a parliamentary democracy which is now part of a constitutional democracy. In that respect, I cannot accept the comment by the member for London—Fanshawe that our courts were being arrogant when they came to the conclusions they did. They have had cases that have dealt with this matter for over 15 years.

Year after year they have pronounced on the reality of the statements. Unlike my friend, the member for Fundy Royal, who says that the Supreme Court of Canada has not pronounced upon this, I totally disagree with him.

The Minister of Justice and other members of the House have said and 139 lawyers, professors and learned people in the law have written to the Leader of the Opposition to tell him specifically that the Supreme Court of Canada has pronounced itself when it affirmed the judgments of Ontario, British Columbia, Quebec, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan Yukon and Newfoundland and Labrador that restricting civil marriage of opposite sex couples is unconstitutional under the equality provisions of the charter and, therefore, created a legal framework for these marriages, which has established vested chartered rights in the citizens of those provinces.

The member for Fundy Royal would not answer the question from my friend, the member for Davenport. The question remains. The Supreme Court of Canada has spoken of the vested rights of citizens who have been legally married by virtue of authority granted to the state under legal rulings of the highest courts of their provinces. What does the opposition say to us it will do with those people? Will they be thrown into limbo? Will their marriages, which are legal today, be illegal tomorrow?

The hon. member for Fundy Royal says we are not taking rights away from anyone. There are 5,000 couples in this country, and there will be more before this debate is finished, whose rights will have to be taken away if the members opposite are successful in proposing what they propose before the House today. That would be a tragedy for Canadian society.

I suggest to the House it is clear that this is a matter of law. The Supreme Court has pronounced. However, this is not just a matter about legal considerations. I believe it is a matter of fairness in society. It is also a matter, frankly, about economics.

In my own city of Toronto I have done many investigations since becoming the member of Parliament for this riding. I have spoken with people at the University of Toronto and people at many firms, some of which oppose this idea, but over time they have all given similar rights to gay and lesbian couples. The obvious reason they do it is because they want to ensure that they can hire the best people available.

The fact of the matter is that one of the benefits of being open and tolerant to people with diverse points of view and cultural backgrounds is precisely what being modern is all about. The city of Philadelphia in the United States has been seeking recently to create a sense of itself as being gay friendly. If we read the literature, it tells us that being gay friendly is not just about trying to attract a certain group of people to go to the city. It is a signal about being open, the fact that it can bring anybody into the city, somebody who will go there to work because they feel comfortable, are not discriminated against and can contribute, whether they be a computer programmer, an artist, a lawyer or anything else.

When we pass this bill, we will be sending a message to the world that Canada is open to people, Canada is tolerant, Canada is willing to say that individuals can affirm themselves to their fullest, and Canada will be saying it is ahead of where modern society is going. That will make all of us on this side of the House proud indeed and it is something which I believe is absolutely essential for us to do.

We have heard a great deal in the House about the nature of multicultural societies. I know something about multicultural societies. I happen to live in a riding which has a very rich mixture. I happen to know many of the people in that riding, many of whom have cultural hesitations about this matter, who feel that it is not part of their religious tradition, who would not wish to see it as a part of their family.

However, those same people know that they have had the privilege of coming to this country and living in a society with a constitutional protection such that while it might apply in this circumstance as something they disagree with or would not practise themselves, they know that those same rights will protect them when the time comes. That is the essence of what the charter protection is all about. It protects all equally. It will sometimes protect somebody who we disagree with, but as Voltaire once said, “I may disagree with what you haveto say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it”.

The point about the charter is that it has to apply equally to all. In my experience, the multicultural communities that I have the privilege of working with in my riding, with their rich different cultural backgrounds, are uniformly of the view that they want the protection that the charter offers them and they are willing to offer that charter protection to others.

I can say something else about my riding and I am very proud of it. I recall years ago when I first was elected. We have something called Gay Pride in Toronto. I think maybe other cities and countries have pride as well. Twenty-five years ago it was a political event. People protested about being discriminated against. Today it is one of the biggest events in downtown Toronto, as I am sure my colleagues from the city of Toronto who are here today would agree.

Grandmothers and children from every race, every multicultural society, and every facet of Toronto are there participating. Why are they participating? They are participating in something that is a celebration of our common humanity, our tolerance and respect for one another, and our ability to get along. Go and ask the grandmothers who are there with their children watching Gay Pride in downtown Toronto. The members here are telling us that this is going to end society, that it is all going to come to a terrible end. Ask them what they think as they bring their children to an event which celebrates our common humanity. That is what it is all about. It is about our common humanity.

I have been in the House now for many years. I have heard the statements that society is never going to survive, but we heard the same arguments when we talked about the Criminal Code changes. We heard the same arguments about the Human Rights Act changes. We heard the same arguments about Bill C-23, giving equal status and extending pensions to common law partners. In fact, we have heard these arguments over and over again, that the institution of marriage is threatened, society will never be the same, the traditional difference, children will no longer respect their parents, and this will be the end.

We have heard it so often. We have to reflect and look back in history. The same arguments were made when we brought in divorce. The same arguments have been made every time there has been an important social change.

I would like to read something to my colleagues on the other side of the House from a former Conservative MP who is also a research professor at Wycliffe College, the University of Toronto, which is an Anglican college. His name is Reginald Stackhouse and he had this to say in an article he published in the Globe and Mail :

As a Canadian, I don't have to agree with gays and lesbians. I don't have to approve their marrying. I just have to respect their right to do it and live their lives in a peaceful, open way. Showing that respect is something I should do for the common good, not just for the rights of gay and lesbian individuals. This country is a better place to live for all of us when we acknowledge we can be different without fighting about it. Or repressing it. Or even pretending it isn't there. That's not easy for some people. Deeply held moral values can motivate their wanting to use the arm of the law to advance them. But persuasion is morally better than coercion. Anyone who doesn't think so should look around the world.

Experience also teaches us that many of the fears people hold are not justified. In my own lifetime, Canadians have learned to live with a succession of changes in lifestyle, each one feared as the first step on a slippery slope. Yet we have remained “a peaceable kingdom”, a place envied around the world by men and women eager to live where they can be free. Not so that they can wallow in sin.

Just so that they can be themselves.

But that has not made Canada a wasteland of godlessness. We have opened up Sunday. We have decriminalized contraception, abortion and homosexual activity. We have given ready access to divorce and remarriage. In six provinces and one territory, we already have same-sex marriage. But we also have a vigorous spiritual life.

If all the country's worship services are added together, they can still outdraw the total attendance at all our sports events--even when the NHL is playing. So, as a Christian citizen, I am not going to urge my MP to vote “No”. This country is the world's best place to live because we accommodate one another. The Fathers of Confederation showed it when they fashioned a Constitution that accepted differences. Our MPs can show it again.

I had an opportunity some months ago to be at Toronto City Hall. I was there with the mayor. On that occasion several hundred people of same sex had obtained marriage licences to celebrate the fact that they were able to get married. It was no different from any other day when groups of people get together and celebrate their ability to pledge allegiance to one another, to one another's future, the same emotions, the same concerns about where they are going, the same angst that one has and yet the same thrill that this commitment is being made.

Something quite remarkable happened at that event. As I stood there watching, I was asked if I would say a few words. A young American stood up on the stage. He said that he was there with 20 of his American friends, all of whom had come to Canada to get married. This young man from Boston said something quite extraordinary. I mean this in no way critical of the United States, but I am quoting him, he said, “For me the Statue of Liberty has moved from my country to Canada as we come here today to celebrate our individual and collective liberties”. Everyone in that room stood up and sang O Canada .

Mr. Speaker, you and I know that Canadians are not demonstrative as a rule, but I was proud of that group. I was proud of that moment. I will be proud when this bill is passed and we can all say the same thing: our country is a beacon for liberty; our country is a beacon for individual rights, freedoms, respect and tolerance for one another.

[Paul Forseth, Conservative, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the spirit with which the minister has carried forward the debate, but I would caution him not to overstate and mischaracterize either the Conservative position.

In the spirit of tolerance that he talked about, I wonder if he would have the political humility to make his case to the voters in his riding, engage the debate in his community and then provide a vehicle for his constituents to instruct him how he should vote. We talk about rights, but this is also a matter about how society shall be structured and the democratic ability of the community to decide how it shall be structured.

I am wondering in that spirit of optimism in the future, about being at peace with our neighbour, if the definition of marriage truly should be changed, if it should have the consent and support of Canadians. He should be able to make that case appropriately to the community. Is he doing anything to engage the community? Is he doing professional polls, having town hall meetings, or whatever to obtain the political consent of his community about this matter?

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very legitimate question. I want to assure the hon. member that I have been engaged in my community.

In fact if he checks my voting record, he will see that on every occasion when this matter has come before the House, I have consistently voted that I oppose retaining the traditional definition of marriage because I believe for the reasons I have set out before the House today, that it impedes the ability of society to make progress. That has been my consistent position since 1993 when I was first elected. I have been re-elected every time with increasing majorities.

I would like the hon. member to note that in my riding by the way, given the nature of my constituency, I have sent a householder to every member of the riding clearly laying out my perspective. My constituents know my perspective. They have known it for years. Yet I will tell the hon. member that in the last election I got the highest majority I have ever had. Curiously enough my Conservative opponent, who only had 6,000 votes which is unusual for my riding, actually was a woman who said that she agreed with my position.

My constituents recognize that this is the way we have to go. They have problems with it, of course they do. But I am comfortable with the fact that I have been consulting my constituents and they have consulted with me in the results in the last election. I recommend that the hon. member look at those results.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Mr. Speaker, if same sex marriage is really about human rights or upholding charter rights, as the minister insists, why did top Liberals vote in favour of the traditional definition of marriage in 1999? We all know who they are. They are the Prime Minister himself, the Deputy Prime Minister, the House leader, I could go on and on, ministers who are on the front bench across the way.

We have quotes from the one who is now in the role of the Deputy Prime Minister. She said:

The definition of marriage is already clear in law in Canada as the union of two persons of the opposite sex. Counsel from my department have successfully defended, and will continue to defend this concept of marriage [in the courts].... I continue to believe that it is not necessary to change well-understood concepts of spouse and marriage to deal with any fairness considerations the courts and tribunals may find.

[An hon. member]

That was a Liberal?

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

A Liberal said that, the present Deputy Prime Minister in a letter dated April 24, 1998. The former justice minister who is now the Deputy Prime Minister, went on to say, “For us and for this government, marriage is a unique institution. It is one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others. We also want to ensure that unmarried relationships, be they same sex or opposite sex, are treated fairly and treated the same”.

In respect to a motion that was before the House in 1999, the very same individual lined up with a bunch of those other ministers on the other side of the House, the Prime Minister himself no less. That motion read:

That, in the opinion of this House, it is necessary, in light of public debate around recent court decisions, to state that marriage is and should remain the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, and that Parliament will take all necessary steps to preserve this definition of marriage in Canada.

The fact is that Liberal members have made statements and then have reversed themselves radically. They have stated themselves clearly and emphatically, and then have reversed themselves just as emphatically. In view of that fact, I ask the minister, how are we to believe and take to heart and trust anything that the Liberal government across the way would say to us on this or any other matter?

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I can only speak for myself. As I told the hon. member and his colleague, I consistently have always voted the way I have. As I explained to my hon. colleague, my constituents have always known my voting record and where I stand on this issue.

I urge on the hon. member the fact that people evolve. Ideas change. The courts themselves I do not think would have ruled the way they did in recent years immediately upon the passage of the charter, for example. I think that people and society evolve. They analyze what is the right thing to do. We seek to change opinions if we believe that they are wrong.

I think this government has rightly been guided by the Supreme Court, to which we asked to reference, and has been rightly guided by the courts of all the other jurisdictions in Canada that ruled the way that they have. Our obligation surely as law makers is to seek to understand not just our own attitudes and our own views, but how the law fits within the overall framework of the society in which we live. As I pointed out earlier in my speech, that framework is established by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I would ask my friend to be tolerant of those, like those in his own party who intend to vote for this legislation, and recognize that they too have struggled with this and see this as a culmination of a charter issue, but also an issue of the affirmation of the rights of the individual and recognize that people will change, people will work to understand what they should be doing. All of us on all sides of the House on this issue are struggling to do the best we can for our country and our conscience.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there have been a number of court cases with regard to a section 15(1) challenge, all of which have been resolved under section 1, about reasonable justification. The last one was the B.C. Supreme Court in the fall of 2001 in which Justice Pittfield ruled that there was reasonable justification in a free and democratic society.

Could the minister tell us why is it that we can have a series of no decisions, no to the petitioners, time and again, just like in the referendums in Quebec, but then we hit one yes and all of a sudden everything changes?

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is right. I used to practise law, and I was involved in cases where a trial judge in a lower court would rule one way, five judges in the Court of Appeal would rule the same way, and then three judges of the Supreme Court of Canada would overrule them. That is the legal system.

The hon. member is suggesting one person was overruled. This was not some isolated case. This was the Court of Appeal of Ontario, of British Columbia, of Quebec, of Manitoba, of Nova Scotia, of Saskatchewan, of Yukon, and now of Newfoundland and Labrador. The Supreme Court of Canada said that all of those judgments were valid and granted vested rights to those people who had been married under those judgments.

I think it is a bit ingenuous to suggest in the House that somehow this was a minority legal opinion. It was not. It was the overwhelming legal opinion of the highest jurists of the land. It was one of the reasons that caused the attorney general in previous times not to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. It was said to be an irresponsible act. In fact the attorney general had advice that the appeal would be lost.

As the chief law officer of the crown, the attorney general is obliged to give the best legal advice to the government not to take frivolous appeals and not to take litigants through cases in the highest courts of the land when it is known that the judgment will go against it. The attorney general of the day examined all the judgments and said that the prevailing legal opinion clearly was that the restriction in the Constitution was unconstitutional as held by all the courts that I referred to.

It is not fair to suggest that this is a minority view. On the contrary, this is the overwhelming majority view as set out by the courts.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-38. I have to say there were times when I thought this would never happen. There seemed to be so many delays for political reasons or to accommodate a political agenda.

I am very glad that finally this bill is before Parliament and is being debated. I hope very much that the bill will be approved and that it will not be so drawn out that somehow it gets lost again, because I think it is probably one of the most important pieces of legislation that we will deal with for a very long time.

The first thing I wish to say is that I am very proud of our leadoff speaker on this debate, the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas, who rose in the House last Wednesday and spoke with such great courage. He shared with us very personal information about his own life as a gay man and about his partner of 24 years, Brian. As I listened to that debate, I felt very proud to be a member of this caucus and this party where our leader, the member for Toronto—Danforth, has been so clear on what the position of the NDP is.

I wish to thank the member for Burnaby—Douglas for speaking out in such a strong and forceful way and for I think really giving a human face, a real face, to what this debate is about. I am also very proud of our leader, who has done the same thing.

For me this debate is not about tolerance. I listened to the comments of the Minister of National Defence a little earlier. He said he would be very proud when this bill passes and I would certainly agree with him. I think he made a very fine speech. I too will be very proud when this bill passes, as I hope it does.

But I think it needs to be said that Bill C-38, if it were left to the Liberals and the Conservatives, would not pass. It really begs the question as to the reality. We have a Prime Minister who on the one hand has spoken about the values of human rights, dignity and respect to the Canadian people, but on the other hand has allowed his own members to have a free vote. I think that is unfortunate.

I listened to the minister of defence and the questions and comments that came later and I must say that to me this bill is not about some notion of tolerance. I actually do not even like that word; that we somehow tolerate other people who we see as different from ourselves. There is a sense of judgment in that, in saying that we will tolerate someone on the basis of their beliefs.

To me, this bill and this debate are about rights. This is about dignity. This is about individual liberties and individual choice.

I would also like to recognize the work that was done by the former member of Parliament for Burnaby—Douglas, Mr. Robinson. I think it was two or three years ago when I stood in this House to support his private member's bill on same sex marriage. Certainly in Canada Mr. Robinson has been at the forefront of the campaign, the movement and the struggle for gays and lesbians to seek equality. In the early years, when he first came out, the work that he took on was very difficult and very painful for him. Certainly there was a backlash. The courage he displayed has allowed many of us to come forward and has paved the way for gay and lesbian rights in this country. The work that was done needs to be remembered, recognized and valued.

I was also very proud to be part of the press conference on Valentine's Day, February 14, with the member for Burnaby—Douglas and the Bloc member for Hochelaga. The three of us engaged in a press conference because we wanted to speak out as gay and lesbian members of the House. We wanted to talk about our own lives. We wanted to put that before the House.

Although there were some tough questions and we were dealing with a situation that was sometimes confrontational and controversial, I was very proud. I think what we were trying to say was that we wanted this debate and this issue to be about dignity and respect. That was the message that we brought to the press conference and that we bring to this debate.

I was here last Wednesday, February 16, when the debate began. I listened to the Prime Minister. I actually really appreciated the history that he gave about the charter and equality and where it has come and how it has evolved. I think it was very important to put that on the record.

I also listened to the leader of the official opposition, the leader of the Conservative Party. I think he spoke for more than an hour. The thing that struck me most about his speech, even though some people may believe it was a very eloquent and a very heartfelt speech, is that it was very unreal. It was very out of touch with the lives of real people in Canada.

In fact, today I was on the radio debating with a Conservative member, the member for Cambridge. As we were debating this bill he told me and the listeners that he felt the speech of his leader was something like a doctoral thesis. I guess he was very impressed with the speech. He thought it was very academic and from his perspective he thought that it covered all kinds of legal points. He likened it to a doctoral thesis.

He then went on to say in the radio debate and interview this morning that he felt the bill before us was talking away his rights, a Conservative member's rights, in terms of marriage and the institution of marriage. I have to say that I had some real trouble understanding the meaning of this argument and where it was going.

I certainly did not see the speech from the Conservative Party leader as a doctoral thesis. Maybe it would serve well as some doctoral thesis, but to me the debate fundamentally comes down to dealing with the reality of people's lives and how we as a society treat people, especially minorities.

We have had all of these very significant court cases, and the legal route and the litigation that happened were incredibly important because they paved the way for this debate to happen, but at the end of the day, after all the legal arguments are said and done, I think what we are dealing with is a matter of people's individual choices and lives and what we choose to do in terms of getting married or not.

So when the member for Cambridge today said that this debate for him was about taking away his rights, I have to say I really do not understand that. I do not understand how strengthening and enlarging the definition of civil marriage is taking away anybody's rights.

As I said before in the House, this bill on same sex marriage is not about forcing the member for Cambridge or the member for Calgary Southeast to marry a man if they do not want to. There is nothing in the bill that creates harm. There is nothing in the bill that undermines the institution of marriage.

On the contrary, as the member for Burnaby--Douglas pointed out so beautifully in his speech, this debate and this bill are about actually strengthening the institution of civil marriage. This is about strengthening people's commitment to one another.

To come back to the Conservative leader's speech, what I was struck by, as I said, was the lack of humanity. If the debate is only about theoretical legal issues, and if that is the only part the Conservative leader can attach himself to, if that is the only way he can debate it and reconcile whatever is going on in his mind, then I think he has really missed the point. He has missed it on the basis of what is happening out there for a lot of people. I wanted to make that point.

In fact, what the Conservative Party offers up to us is this notion of a civil union. I have heard this so many times from different Conservative members and I have to say that we have to reject this notion.

If years ago there had been a debate about ending marriage as we know it as an institution and if the debate for everyone was about us all going to a civil union, then I think that debate would have had some merit, but at the eleventh hour to bring in an argument and to rest one's case on the idea that a civil union is going to do it is a really false notion, and I think people see it that way, as simply a rationale and a smokescreen to negate the real issue here, which is about equality in marriage.

If the institution of marriage is good enough for straight people, if it is good enough for a man and woman, then why is it not good enough for two women or two men if they choose to make that decision?

Then we have the member for Calgary Southeast. I have had some debate with the member. An article in The Globe and Mail today states, “MP doubts social benefit of same-sex marriage”. As for seeing the arguments that are produced there, I guess we could spend several days just debating how ridiculous they are, because he is resting his case on the idea that marriage is primarily or only about producing children, about procreation.

I think there are so many reasons why that is completely invalid. To begin with, all of us know couples, married people, who either choose not to have children or who maybe cannot have children. Are we saying that somehow their marriage is not to be validated or that it is not real? In fact, there are same sex marriages and same sex relationships where children are procreated. There are all kinds of families out there. There are different kinds of families. They have children or they do not, or parents are the biological parents or they are the adoptive parents. To me this is the whole point of the debate: it is to recognize the reality in our society that a family is not just one thing as defined by the Conservative Party of Canada. It is not that narrow.

The Minister of National Defence said that people evolve and decisions evolve. I would agree with that. It seems that only the members of the Conservative Party, which as we know dropped the word progressive from its name, are not able to evolve with this. They are denying many people in our society the same kind of respect, dignity and choice that other people have.

To rest one's case on the procreation argument is to rest it on a very false premise. I would recognize, though, that there are other members in the party. I read the article by the member for Calgary Centre-North, which appeared in his local paper or maybe in other papers, and I very much appreciated that the member had the courage to write an article and say where he stood: that he respected choice, dignity and people's rights and that he was in favour of the bill. I know that he is in a minority in his own party. There are a few others there as well. I very much respect that and the fact that he had the courage to speak out.

In terms of my own position, I do want to say that I do not see this as a debate about tolerance, as I said, or about destroying tradition or undermining other people's rights. In fact, what I believe is that one can actually be against same sex marriage and vote for the bill. I believe that is possible, because to me what this bill is about is our duty and responsibility as members of Parliament to uphold people's rights and choices.

I do not believe it is up to me as a member of Parliament to say to another couple that they have no right to get married. I think it is very possible that one can be opposed to same sex marriage for religious reasons, cultural reasons or personal reasons, whatever they might be, it does not matter. That choice is not taken away from those members, but I see a distinction between that and what our roles and responsibilities are as members of Parliament.

There are 308 of us and we have a very privileged position in this place. I believe that one of our core roles is to uphold the values of our society in terms of people's rights and their choices. I come here as a member of Parliament, no matter what my personal views are, and my duty is to uphold those rights for equality.

I would really encourage members of the Conservative Party to think about that, because at the end of the day surely it is my choice if I wish to marry my partner who is a woman. That is my choice to make as long as I am doing it within the bounds of civil marriage and so on. I cannot understand and I cannot see how any other member of the House or the state as a whole has a right to deny me that choice if I want to make that choice, if I choose to live common law or if I choose to be married with my partner who is a woman. To me, that is a very fundamental question in this bill that has been put forward.

The other question I want to deal with is the question of religious freedom. I know that members of the Conservative Party have raised this time and time again. I understand that within the faith community there are different points of view. There are some religious institutions and churches that feel very comfortable with the idea of same sex marriage and are actually willing to perform same sex marriages within a religious setting, churches such as the United Church of Canada, and I think that is great. But there is absolutely nothing in the bill that would force any religious institution, any synagogue, mosque, temple or church, to perform a same sex marriage if it did not want to.

The whole idea that this is somehow infringing on religious freedom is politically motivated. I am trying not to be negative in the debate. In the spirit of what others have said, I am trying to be very positive. I am trying to stick to the high ground. There have been some points where I have felt pretty damn mad about some of the comments made and the way the debate has taken place. There has been a political agenda. There has been an attempt to be divisive. There has been an attempt to go into ethnic communities try to divide people. Let us be clear. The bill protects religious freedom in every way. For anyone to say contrary is misrepresenting the bill.

We are getting thousands of e-mails, letters and faxes every day. We read through the ones that we can, but some go into the recycle bin. Some have been pretty vicious and others have had some pretty nasty messages in them. Some of them are quite hilarious and I have to laugh at them.

One that came forward said, “Even our Canadian goose mates for life. Let's learn from nature. Please vote to preserve the sanctity of marriage“. My response to that one might be something like Daffy Duck is no basis on which to base the principles of marriage.

Another one said, “Get control. You're an elected member of Parliament in a democratic country, therefore you are responsible to all Canadians, not your party. Use the authority that Canadians have given you to vote against Bill C-38“. I agree with that one. I am voting on the basis of upholding democratic choices for Canadians. It is funny how we interpret these things.

Another said, “Where is it going to end? End it now by voting against same sex marriage”. This message really plays into people's fear. Fear does exist in some communities. People are worried about losing their sense of tradition. Rather than MPs fueling and exploiting that fear, we have a responsibility to tell Canadians that this is not about fear. It is not about something ending. It is about something beginning. It is about extending the celebration of love and commitment into a civil institution of marriage. This is not something we should see as an end. We should see it as a great beginning.

I hope the debate on Bill C-38 will be a full and respectful debate, but I hope it does not go on forever. At some point we have to get the bill through. We have court decisions. Same sex couples are marrying every day, and we cannot go back and undo those marriages. I hope at the end of the debate we will recognize that we are reflecting the views of Canadian society and its values of dignity, respect and equality. Our party will be voting for the bill.

I want to thank all of the same sex couples who have devoted their lives to bringing us to this point. Many people put themselves on the line, both financially and personally, in terms of litigation. We should be grateful to them for the work they have done. I am speaking about groups like EGALE and Canadians for Equal Marriage which have done a tremendous amount of work. Let us now do our job and make sure that we vote for Bill C-38.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in the Supreme Court decision on the reference questions, paragraph 60 states that, “Absent of unique circumstances to which the Court not speculate”, religious freedoms under the charter are protected.

I know that all members are aware that issue of religious rights and the protection of those is a principal matter of concern for many Canadians. In the event a case came before the courts challenging the right of a church to deny marriage to a same sex couple, what would the member's position be on that?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to speculate on cases that may or may not come forward. In fact, there are cases already that have to do with church property, which may be a separate question.

I am not a lawyer, but I would not vote for the bill unless I believed it protected religious freedom. I believe it protects religious freedom, and I think that is a very strong feeling in the House. If anything came later which somehow violated that, I think another debate would take place here.

That is my feeling about it. I support this bill on the basis that it protects the rights of individual Canadians and it also protects the rights of individual Canadians when it comes to religious freedom.

[The Deputy Speaker]

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 follow: the hon. member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, Health; the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst, Employment Insurance; the hon. member for Elgin—Middlesex—London, Government Appointments.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to work with the member in committees. I have enjoyed some of the collaborations we have had with respect to some of the ventures in the committee work for the House of Commons over some period of time.

I want to respond to her in respect of one remark she has made. The member for London—Fanshawe made a comment with respect to it earlier. In particular she made somewhat negative remarks maligning a colleague of mine, the member for Calgary Southeast. It had to do with his remarks on the procreative element of marriage.

There are indeed several constituent elements of marriage. It is not just one thing. It is two people loving and living together. There are other things that make it up as well, one being the continuation of society. I would say gently to her, but I say it nevertheless, that when we look at society around us, yes indeed there are couples who do not have children, some by reasons of sterility. I have spoken with such couples. We know their heartache and heartbreak. We know other couples where for reasons of choice, career or whatever, it does not allow for children in their particular lifestyles. Simple logic would tell us that those are the exceptions that prove the rule.

Most heterosexual couples will and do have children at some point during their relationships. We know heterosexual couples have children and that is the rule. There is the exception to it. As the member opposite said, we know in homosexual relationships that is not a possibility. It is plain and simple. It is the birds and bees. We learned that very young. She is aware of that.

We do not want to be deluding ourselves on this point. For the continuation of society, some would strongly make the point, as did the member for Calgary Southeast, the procreative element is a necessary part of marriage. We can have other kinds of relationships that may not include that, but it is the exception which proves the rule when couples do not have children.

I want to correct for the record that very clearly our party believes, as does the member who was referenced from my party, that those marriages are every bit as valid. Heterosexual unions with no children by reason of sterility or choice are valid marriages and will continue to be. That is the view that my party strongly takes in respect of that. We have never said otherwise.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member that clearly most heterosexual couples have children. But so what? What point is the member trying to make? The issue and controversy were created because the member for Calgary Southeast suggested that somehow was the reason for marriage and that other kinds of marriages were, therefore, invalid. If married couples want to have kids, that is wonderful. There are also couples who are not married who choose to have children.

The problem I have, and I put it back to the member, is why he is so intent on creating this little box and either one fits in it or one does not. It seems to me that marriage is also about diversity. It is about different kinds of relationships, whether it is between a man and a woman who have children or do not, or adopt children or whether it is between two women who have children or do not. Why can he not accept that?