Debates of March 21st, 2005

Civil Marriage Act

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Madam Speaker, listening to some of the members speak to the bill reminds me of that old statement, “If you stand for everything, you actually stand for nothing”.

The debate on Bill C-38 is vitally important because of the huge consequences it would have for Canadian society. The definition of marriage is a social issue as opposed to a rights issue and, therefore, is a matter for Parliament and parliamentarians to decide.

The Minister of State for Multiculturalism, the member for Richmond in British Columbia, assured the electorate in the 2004 election that he would defend the traditional definition of marriage at all costs. The member won the 1997 election and then lost in 2000 because he had lost touch with his constituents.

The riding of Richmond is very multicultural, with a majority of ethnic Chinese who believe strongly in traditional marriage. This legislation places the minister in a pickle. The Prime Minister is now telling him that he must vote with cabinet and oppose the traditional definition of marriage.

If the member for Richmond has any principles he will resign from cabinet. If the Prime Minister has any principles he will free his cabinet to vote their conscience.

The member for Richmond has been silent in the House of Commons and is marginalized if he continues to dither. His weakness will grow daily in the face of strong constituency opposition to the Liberal government position on marriage.

The bill has virtually no chance of passing the House of Commons if cabinet is free to vote their conscience.

For a member, such as the member for Richmond, to value the perks of office more than defending what he and his constituents profess to believe is unconscionable. He could do a huge public service and break the log-jam of cabinet discipline that is being used to pre-empt the public will.

I will be the first of many to congratulate the member if he makes this choice and I will have zero respect if he does not. He has already waited longer than prudence would dictate.

The vast majority of new Canadians support rights, multiculturalism, the charter and the traditional definition of marriage. Bill C-38 makes no attempt to accommodate their values. The Liberal government is proposing to remove the traditional definition of marriage and labelling it a violation of human rights. This is a threat to religious freedoms and multicultural values enshrined in the charter.

I have had several opportunities to present petitions in the House calling on Parliament to preserve the traditional definition of marriage. On February 25, I presented 7,000 signatures collected by the Canadian Alliance for Social Justice and Family Values Association. This was in addition to the 22,000 signatures I presented earlier from this same group. This Vancouver based group, with the majority of their members drawn from the ethnic Chinese community, collected 29,000 signatures asking Parliament to protect and preserve the current definition of marriage. Many of the petitioners are in the riding of the member for Richmond.

I do not believe that Bill C-38 is a necessary piece of legislation. I have supported and I will continue to support the traditional definition of marriage. In this position I have been successfully consistent through four general elections. What the Liberal government is practising is a charade.

While the CPC as the official opposition is allowing and encouraging a free vote on this issue, the Prime Minister is insisting on cabinet support for the bill. This is adding to the democratic deficit which the Prime Minister once promised to abolish. Instead, he now owns it.

The Prime Minister misled Parliament on missile defence when he said that no decision had been made when it had already been made and communicated to the U.S. administration. The Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of National Defence added their weight despite knowing to the contrary. The Prime Minister now owns the democratic deficit. It is time for the Liberal cabinet to be urged to vote freely on this matter of personal conscience.

I believe there are people of goodwill on both sides of this issue. It is also my belief that any government action that directly affects this institution should, first, only be done with the clear and overwhelming support of Canadian society, and second, should seek to have minimal impact on the institution to avoid unintended consequences.

From the volume of correspondence I have received on Bill C-38, it is clear to me that there is no consensus in Canada for this drastic societal change to be made. The majority of correspondents, certainly from my constituency, are strongly opposed to the legislation.

The bill would profoundly affect the institution of marriage and Canadian families by changing the very definition of the relationship that is at the heart of both of these institutions. I am very concerned about the possible unintended consequences of this drastic social change: first, that the institution of marriage and, by extension, the family, could be weakened by the bill; and second, that religious freedoms could be infringed upon.

My fear is that tampering with the long held definition would weaken the institutional framework that supports the traditional family and the raising of children. When marriage is valued, it is an institution in which parental couples will sacrifice their personal situation for their children. When the institution of marriage is not valued in this way, one or more of the parents are more ready to abandon their responsibilities.

The special nature of marriage has proven over time that it is a cultural value that should not be dismissed due to court decisions in the absence of a federal statute defining marriage.

The issue at hand is not the Charter of Rights. It is Bill C-38. The only court that can definitively rule on the constitutionality of the traditional definition of marriage is the Supreme Court and it has not done so. The Supreme Court has explicitly refused to rule on the constitutionality of traditional marriage and has given the matter back to Parliament. This is a matter that ought to be debated and decided in Parliament, not in the courts.

The legislative vacuum on this issue has caused confusion and has forced the courts to rule without the guidance of Parliament.

Instead of hyperbolic statements about absolute rights, the House should try to find a moderate approach. This is the approach that the Conservative Party leader and much of the Conservative caucus are pursuing. We can find a balanced approach that would recognize same sex unions with rights and benefits due that relationship but still protects the traditional definition of marriage. The majority of Canadians can and do support this approach. Granting all the legal rights and benefits to same sex partnerships that the government grants to married heterosexual couples represents a middle position, a position that is in contrast to Bill C-38.

In 1999 the Deputy Prime Minister said in the House:

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.

She has betrayed this statement by her subsequent actions. Parliament is as free today as it was in 1999 to preserve the traditional definition of marriage while accommodating the demand for equality by same sex partners.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak on the legislation on civil marriage. It goes to the very heart of our values as Canadians to end discrimination against each other, to treat individuals with equality and particularly to ensure that the law treats every person with equality.

As I have considered this issue, I have been heavily influenced by an important lesson I learned many years ago from my daughter. Karen was only nine when she first heard about the terrible treatment suffered by Canadian citizens of Japanese origin: how homes had been seized, families separated and men and women interned.

She was obviously disturbed by learning how these individuals and families had suffered and finally said, “Mom, what really bothers me is that maybe if I had been alive then I would have thought it was okay”. That moment has given me a principle which has been a guide for many of my life and political decisions.

Will this decision stand the test of time? Will generations to come look back on what we do today with shame or with approval?

There are many periods in our past which we can only look back on and wonder that our leaders of the time could have thought those things seemed okay. Usually they involved discrimination against a minority, often out of fear and often out of contempt for a group of fellow citizens, our fellow human beings, who were regarded as inferior and not quite worthy of the same treatment as the majority.

We interned Canadians of Ukrainian origin during the first world war. We imposed a head tax on Chinese immigrants and then excluded them entirely. We interned Canadians of Italian origin during World War II. These are times we can only look back on with dismay and wonder that they seemed okay at the time.

When Canada closed its doors to Jews fleeing persecution and almost certain death in Nazi Germany, this was surely one of our darkest moments, yet it appears that these actions were considered okay at the time.

We have discriminated based on race. We have discriminated based on ethnicity. We have discriminated based on religion. There was even a time when Roman Catholic marriages were not considered legal in Canada. Jewish marriages were not considered legal. It was considered okay that women were persons under the law in matters of pains and penalties, but not in matters of rights and privileges.

What a debt of gratitude we owe to five brave and determined women who challenged the prevailing opinion and the law of the time to establish the full personhood of women. How much we owe to those who ignored dire predictions of social upheaval and fought for the right of women to vote. How much we owe to those who worked to change the accepted rules of the time that women had to quit their jobs when they got married or pregnant.

In Quebec for much of its history it was considered okay that a francophone Quebecker, no matter how capable, had virtually no chance of becoming the manager, vice-president or president of the company he or she worked for.

Because we looked back on our history and saw the injustices that were done, we adopted a Canadian Human Rights Act. We adopted a Charter of Rights and Freedoms and enshrined it in our Constitution to protect minorities against arbitrary treatment, even from Parliament and the legislature.

Throughout history homosexuals too have faced contempt and discrimination, forced to live secret lives lest they be ostracized, fired or evicted from their homes. There was a time in Canada when homosexual relations were subject to the death penalty, and until the 1970s they were a criminal offence. Until very recently, a man or woman could be denied compassionate leave or pension benefits because a partner of many years was not of the opposite sex.

I understand that it is difficult for some to accept that a man can love another man or a woman another woman as most of us love someone of the opposite sex, yet the bond between two people of the same sex can be as profound, as committed and as life fulfilling as any heterosexual union.

Many protest that marriage is for procreation. If that were the case, I should not be allowed to marry at my age nor should many who are unwilling or unable to have children.

I reviewed my marriage vows. They did not say anything about procreation. What I promised was to love, honour and cherish my husband exclusively, through good times and bad, for the rest of our lives. For two people of the same sex who love each other enough to make such a profound public commitment to seek in each other fulfilment and completion, I say welcome to one of our most important social institutions: marriage.

I believe this decision will stand the test of time, that generations to come will approve of our including our fellow human beings fully and equally in the life of our country and our society.

Having carefully considered the views of my constituents on both sides of this issue, I intend to support the bill. It is consistent with my values as a Canadian and as a human being to treat every other human being with respect, with dignity and with love.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, with respect to Bill C-38, the Prime Minister has one thing right, that is, at stake is the kind of nation we are today and the kind of nation we want to be.

The legislation invites Canadians to go down a road they do not wish to travel and to accept as a nation a fundamental change to the traditional definition of marriage, a change the majority of Canadians do not wish or choose to accept. This does not bode well for Canada.

The Prime Minister does not wish to submit this issue to a referendum and he does not care what the majority of Canadians think or feel, but should the bill succeed, it will happen whether he likes it or not: at the ballot box in the next election. The issue is too big and too important for the justice minister, the Prime Minister and his enforcers to decide. It will be decided ultimately by the people of Canada, ordinary men and women who believe in the traditional definition of marriage.

Although our liberal courts and the Liberal Party of Canada would like to describe this as a rights issue, an equality issue or a dignity issue, it is not. If anyone is confused on this issue, it is the Prime Minister himself.

It is amazing when there are no guiding fundamental principles in play how, one step at a time, one can come to a place of confusion. Who would have thought just a few years ago that we would be having the debate we are having today? Even the then justice minister, Anne McLellan, had stated as late as 1999--

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

Order, please. The name of a member of the House is not mentioned. Members are referred to by position or by riding.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

The then justice minister, as late as 1999, said:

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.

She then said:

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.

It was right then. It is right now.

What has changed?

Once again, in 2000 the minister stated, with reference to marriage being the relationship between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, “It has served us well...”. It still serves us well and it should not change.

She stated:

We recognize that marriage is a fundamental value and important to Canadians....Important matters of policy should not be left to the courts to decide.

It should be decided right here in the House of Commons.

This is not an issue of whether gays and lesbians can vote or whether they can serve in the military, and it is not an issue, as the member for Burnaby—Douglas says, of whether gays and lesbians can drink at the same water fountain or ride on the same section on buses or be on the same beach. If these matters were an issue, as some say they are, it would lend credence to the Prime Minister's arguments relating to equality rights and dignity of the person.

The core issue here is the redefinition of a known term so as to include someone who would by the very nature of the fundamental meaning of the term not be included. By reformulating, redefining, diluting or extending the definition of marriage, it has made it mean something other than what it is and was. Marriage essentially is the union of two people, a man and a woman, who consummate their relationship by sexual relations with the potential to procreate.

To change the definition to suit the whim or needs of anyone is not equality. It is catering to the current political thought at the expense of those who actually believe the definition is important and meaningful to them.

The very essence of marriage, its inherent nature, is by definition an opposite sex institution. If we change the very essence of the meaning of marriage, we have destroyed the institution as it is known.

In 2003 in a British Columbia Court of Appeal case, the Attorney General of Canada argued that “legal marriage does not discriminate in a substantive sense because gays and lesbians cannot achieve the ends for which marriage exists”.

This was also referred to in a statement by Mr. Justice La Forest in Egan v. Canada in a 1995 Supreme Court of Canada case, where the justice stated that the essence of marriage:

--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. In this sense, marriage is by nature heterosexual.

In the Hyde v. Hyde case, which has been referred to by many politicians and judges alike, seldom has this passage from the judgment been quoted:

Marriage has well been said to be something more than a contract, either religious or civil; to be an institution.

Marriage is not religious marriage or civil marriage. It is an institution. It is more than just a contract between two people. The judge in the Hyde case clearly indicated that.

The Prime Minister and others make the distinction between religious and civil marriage and then deal with civil marriage as if it were something less, and I would suggest only for the purpose of making the real decision easier and getting them off the hook with religious leaders. The reality is that when the Prime Minister changes the definition of marriage it affects all marriage, whether it is religious or whether it is civil.

What the Prime Minister is doing, and he is being less than frank about it, is embarking on a profound change to the meaning of marriage. The time tested definition of marriage should not be simply set aside because somebody has a different idea about marriage. There may be many ideas about marriage, but an idea does not make it so. Ideas have to measure against what marriage in fact is.

Marriage is more than just a committed, loving relationship. To redefine it to mean something less than it is, simply put, is to embark on a slippery slope. While it is true that courts have veered from these defining characteristics of marriage, it does not mean that they are right in doing so.

In fact, the basis courts use to make the decisions they do are subjectively based and based on their perception of society. What gives them the right to be the sole arbiters of this important issue?

In the most recent Supreme Court of Canada case, where the Prime Minister tested the waters by referring pointed questions to the Supreme Court, the court essentially held that “our Constitution is a living tree which, by way of progressive interpretation, accommodates and addresses the realities of modern life”.

In other words, things change as society changes. That is the problem with our society. That kind of reasoning allows for an anything goes philosophy. If the courts and politicians start redefining and accommodating a meaning of a thing to suit their own purposes, we could come to a place where the original meaning is lost and the end has no resemblance to its beginning and, in fact, can come to mean the opposite. This path is wrong, ill-advised, ill-conceived and we need to stop it.

Some things in society are solid and foundational, and some things are right and not wrong, and they require no judicial tinkering or political invention or intervention. These are best left alone, in fact protected and defended. Our country will be better for it. The traditional definition of marriage must and should be protected and will be protected from this side of the House.

The Prime Minister, after confusing the issue here as one of equality and rights, now tries to justify, by his inaction, the reason for his position now. He says that the definition of marriage has been changed by courts in seven provinces and one territory. Where was the Prime Minister when he had an opportunity to appeal those decisions and did not? Where was the Prime Minister when the courts had no federal legislation defining the capacity to marry and struck their own course to deal with the common law definition of marriage? Why did the Prime Minister advocate his constitutional responsibility, a responsibility that would have allowed him to define the capacity of marriage in line with his 1999 thinking so the courts would have a basis upon which to make the decisions that were before them?

He now uses his inaction to justify his present position and that this is the law of the land and he cannot do anything about it. In fact, the Supreme Court of Canada refused to rule on the all important fourth question, which was whether the heterosexual definition of marriage was constitutional. However it did say that Parliament had the ability to legislate with respect to the capacity of marriage which would include the definition of having it heterosexual. It did not rule on the constitutionality of that issue as the government's stated position was that it would proceed regardless of what answer the court gave. This is an example of the arrogance of the Liberal government.

The Prime Minister would like to divert attention from the real issue by saying that the notwithstanding clause needs to be used. It does not need to be used until the court rules on it and this party has the opportunity to legislate as does the government on that issue.

The Prime Minister's argument that religious officials are protected by not being required to perform same sex marriages is a very narrow point. It is a red herring and a small comfort to religious leaders, this especially so given the Prime Minister's and the former justice minister's flip-flop on maintaining the traditional definition of marriage. Any religious rights would surely clash with equality rights and everyone knows in such a battle the outcome would be uncertain.

My leader said, “There are fundamental questions here. Will this society be one which respects the long-standing basic social institution of marriage, or will it be one that believes even our most basic structures can be reinvented overnight for the sake of political correctness? There are some things more fundamental than the state and its latest fad”. That is the traditional definition of marriage.

He went on to say, “...marriage and family are not the creature of the state, but pre-exist the state”. We as a state must uphold and defend the traditional definition of marriage.

It is truly a significant time in the history of our country and indeed it is a time where at stake is the kind of nation we are today and the kind of nation we want to be.

As the Prime Minister has stated, “the gaze of history is upon us”. Whose vision of the future of our nation is the correct one? There is no doubt about that and the people of Canada will see to it. The Prime Minister has it wrong. Canadians will see to it that he has it right.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me as well to have these few minutes to speak on this matter, which could well be called a highly sensitive one. That is why the debate must be carried out with respect to all in this House. Personal attacks against certain members, or ministers, such as we have just heard, are not necessary. They are, moreover, excessive, since there will be parliamentarians of all parties in this House who will be on opposite sides with colleagues in their own party. This is an essential point that must not be lost sight of in this debate.

I will state my background. I have been married for 34 years. I am a grandfather. My wife Mary Ann is known to most of my colleagues here in this House. I am a practising Roman Catholic living in a francophone rural community. I intend to vote in favour of this bill. That will perhaps surprise some people, but that is too bad.

In my view this is a question of rights. These rights have been established and defined by the courts. Some criticize the Deputy Prime Minister, saying that as Minister of Justice she said one thing before the court gave its ruling and then said another after the court gave its ruling. Obviously, the judgment of a court has changed the definitions. Otherwise, we probably would not be having this debate. That is clear.

There is no need to attack colleagues because of what has happened. Instead, we must talk about our vision and what each and every one of us thinks is the best option for the future in this matter.

That is why I am speaking today. Is it a question of changing the definition of marriage in my province? Not at all. Same sex partners are getting married today, they got married yesterday and they will get married next week. It will change nothing in my province. In seven provinces and one territory in Canada, nothing will change. It is an existing practice.

Did those who have just made partisan comments mention that this will not affect these provinces and this territory? It is as though we were setting out to redefine something that did not exist before today, but that is not true.

Since this decision has come down I have received marriage invitations in my own constituency from people of the same sex. However I have not attended because I am not ready for that. I do not know if I ever will be but that is another matter. It has nothing to do with that. It has to do with what the courts have decided is a fundamental right, which is why we are here.

Many years ago the courts in this country decided on other issues of rights. Yes, as the member said, the Supreme Court made decisions. I am glad the hon. member across heckled that because I want to refer to the persons case where in fact the Supreme Court had decided against. The issue was appealed to the judiciary committee of the Privy Council at the time which reversed the decision of the Supreme Court and decided that in terms of the British North America Act a woman was a person. The question was: why not? That was the decision that was given at that time.

Once that decision was rendered in 1931, did we ask ourselves the question: Does a majority of the people agree with the decision taken before we decide to put it into effect? Or, more appropriately put: Did the majority of the men, who were the only ones who counted, agree because prior to that presumably women were not persons? Were they somehow polled? Did we receive petitions? Did we decide in that way before determining whether the fundamental right that had been decided upon was going to proceed? Of course not.

At the beginning of my remarks I said that I have been married for 34 years to my wife Mary Ann. I wonder, if in 1931 the House had decided not to respect that decision that was handed down at the time, whether my wife Mary Ann would have the same rights today as I do. Would my daughter Julie, who worked here on Parliament Hill, and many of my colleagues on this side of the House and on the other side know as well, have the same rights as I do?

I think the answer is clear. I am quite certain that if they would have achieved that equality it certainly would not have occurred at that point. It would have taken longer if at all. We know that is the answer.

This has nothing to do with whether I like the decision that was handed down by the court. We vote on many things that we like and we vote on many things that we do not like. The issue is not whether we like it. It is whether it is right, which is why this issue is so important. It is important for us not to spend our time attacking each other but to talk about the importance of the issue.

Notwithstanding my background and notwithstanding everything else, I made the decision to take this opportunity to say where I come from on this issue. It may be from a totally different vantage point than many other members. It is for a totally different reason perhaps some would argue, but I hope at least that my rationale is valid. I say to the House that all of us have to look at it that way.

Yes, I have received letters, some nice, some no so nice and some threatening on both sides perhaps, although clearly more threatening with one particular point of view. I have seen all of this over recent months. I have seen attempts to plug up the e-mails in my office with thousands of them on one day, as if that would be a determining issue as to what are rights. Are rights determined by those who can plug up our e-mail? Is that the way in which we are going to govern this great country? Is that the way in which we have done it in the past?

I want to hear my colleagues tell me about the use of the notwithstanding clause in all of this. That is important.

Many same sex partners are already married. If we were to vote against Bill C-38, we would presumably not want them to have that right, which is already available in the province where I live. Are we going to unmarry those people, and by what process? If it is the position of some hon. members that it is wrong, then surely the ones who are married now are in the wrong. How are we going to revoke that? Do we use the notwithstanding clause?

I do not know whether I will ever vote in favour of using the notwithstanding clause for anything. The day that I do, I hope it will never be to revoke the rights from those who have received those rights by the courts of this great country. That is not where I stand. It will never happen that way as long as I have anything to do with it and as long as the people of Glengarry--Prescott--Russell decide that I am the person who should be here to represent them in the House.

Sooner or later we will all belong to some group or some minority. Somehow we will all be in that kind of situation. If we start revoking the rights of minorities, then the question we must ask ourselves is: who is next? Sooner or later it will be every one of us and every one of those we love and care for. Let us not do that. Let us stand up for what is right. For my part, I believe, respectfully, that what is right is to vote for Bill C-38.

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this very important issue that is of such great concern to many in my riding of Edmonton East and indeed right across Canada.

I would like to comment on the speech made by the member opposite earlier. We certainly believe that this issue should be in the House of Commons. The disappointment is that, unlike 1931, it is here with a whipped vote. It has an influenced vote on the frontbenches. It has an influenced vote on other parts. It has an influenced vote on other parties in the House too. That is very disappointing. This is exactly the place where this issue should be if there is going to be a question on it, but the fairness of the vote would be best.

Historically, marriage was recognized by the common man to be the cornerstone of existence itself. Marriage, as we know it now, became entrenched in society. Religion embraced marriage and the family unit as a significant sign of God's blessing for the world as a unique individual gift. Marriage is known and taught throughout the world by the vast majority of the people on earth as both a sacrament and vocation. The marriage debate taking place in the House, however, has once again allowed a special light to fall on marriage, its very meaning and essence.

Canadians are supportive of our multicultural society, particularly our emphasis on the equality and rights of all individuals. This issue of redefining traditional marriage to include same sex couples, however, is not an issue of individual rights but of collective rights. The collective beliefs of the vast majority of Canadians from across the world's cultural communities is that the traditional definition of marriage is a union of one man and one woman. This debate has this time caused Canadians to rally to the defence of natural marriage.

As we speak, coalitions, fraternities, groups, organizations and ethnic communities are forming and growing roots of discontentment on this issue throughout our nation. For one of the few times in the history of Canada, the people of Canada, with a single purpose, are uniting to define the traditional definition of marriage from what is being recognized as an orchestrated attack by the government on the institution of marriage, the bedrock of Canadian society.

I wish to refer to excerpts from just one of the many new declarations and mission statements made available by citizens who are now rallying to the defence of marriage. This declaration speaks to the heart of the issues and the matters at hand and should be recognized by the House as representative of the view of many citizens across Canada. It is entitled “A Declaration on Marriage” and is made available by Enshrine Marriage Canada through Robert Picard, president of the Canadian Foundation for Ethical Government. It states:

Marriage and the family are universal. All human beings are born of a mother and begotten by a father. This is a universal biological reality and the common experience of all people. The state supports the institution of marriage because it promotes and protects the father-mother-child relationship as the only natural means of creating and continuing human life and society.

Marriage means one man and one woman. Marriage in Canada has always been defined as “the union of one man and one woman,” the chief function of which is to promote the biological unity of sexual opposites as the basis for family formation. Governments may want to support other relationships, but these should not be called “marriage,” or confused with it.

Marriage is centred on children. Marriage is a child-centred, not an adult-centred, institution.

Marriage rests on four conditions. Marriage is a solid social structure resting on four conditions concerning number, gender, age, and incest. We are permitted to marry only one person at a time. They must be someone of the opposite sex. They must not be below a certain age. They must not be a close blood relative. Those who satisfy all these conditions--each of which safeguards the well-being of children, the family, and society--have a right to marry. The removal of any of them threatens the stability of the whole structure.

Marriage is about more than equality. All government policies are intentionally preferential. If we want welfare or veterans’ benefits, or child-support, or marital benefits, we have to qualify for them. Such policies are ordinary forms of distributive justice through which, for its own good, the state discriminates in favour of some people, and some relationships, and not others. So an absence of “equality” is not a good argument against such policies. As same-sex partnerships already receive the same benefits as marriages, however, something else is at issue: an attempt to persuade the public that such partnerships are of the same value to society as marriages. But they can only be made so by denying the unique contribution of marriage as a biologically-unitive, child-centred institution.

Marriage belongs to the people. Marriage is an institution that has arisen from long-held beliefs and customs of the people that are prior to all states and all courts, and are essential to the very fabric of society. Any attempt by unelected officials of the courts or by any other branch of government to claim ownership of marriage, to alter it without the support of a significant majority of the people, or to diminish the father-mother-child relationship in favour of the state-citizen relation, usurps the natural rights and freedoms of the people and constitutes a serious breach of the public trust.

This pivotal issue has brought unity to the people of Canada in recognition that they can no longer take their constitutional freedoms for granted. Further, it has brought with it the realization that all of us, as citizens of Canada and as human beings, must come to the aid to support our family values and the institution of marriage, and those who choose this definitive, child-centred relationship as their lifelong vocation.

Same-sex relationships could be publicly recognized, as could opposite sex, long term economic relationships through the use of such concepts as registered domestic partnerships, or whatever term is decided.

The redefinition of the word marriage cuts to the core of so many Canadians' lives that it boggles the imagination that it would even be an issue today. The Liberals, in their quest to re-interpret all things to fit their myopic vision of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, do so without regard to the sensitivity of Canada's faith, cultural, and collective citizenry.

For those who recognize the importance of how the lessons of history affect the present, I would remind them that the Charlottetown accord was supported by the government of the day, but failed when all Canadians had the opportunity to have a voice, to have a vote in a national referendum. Even the issue of embodying a distinct society recognition for Quebec failed to have the support of Quebeckers, the minority affected.

In 1999 the House of Commons held a free vote to support the definition of traditional marriage as the union of one man and one woman, which carried by a great majority.

Today, shamefully, many members of the House of Commons will not be allowed to vote freely. Members will not be allowed to represent the people who have elected them to be their voice. The Liberals, the Bloc and the NDP are stacking the deck of true public opinion by forcing members to vote only by party line. It is very evident that the only way true public opinion will be heard is in a national referendum, where once again each and every Canadian will have a voice, a vote.

It is clear that it is time we heard from all Canadians on this vital social issue. With that in mind, I have brought a preamble to a petition. I think it is worth reading because this is the question that many Canadians are feeling they should be asking in order to have their say. It begins “Whereas the historical, cultural, traditional and natural definition of marriage in Canada has always been the union of a man and a woman, we, the undersigned, petition Parliament to call for instituting a national referendum to ask the people of Canada directly if they wish to redefine marriage.

I refer again to my comments where I said that in 1931 a free vote in the House on a very important social issue was a good way to have it and the way that it should have be done. However, I have a great fear today, with indications from around the House from various parties, that it will not necessarily be a free vote. I feel that perhaps citizens' initiatives of other formats should be considered as well.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Madam Speaker, I find it interesting to listen about free speech, free votes, when the members in the official opposition had to have their speeches vetted. The comments I am about to make have not been vetted. They are reflective of my opinions, after much deliberation with my constituents on an issue which is extremely important to me. I will be speaking from the heart.

In the last year and a half civil marriage has been extended to gays and lesbians in Ontario, and I have had a lot of time to reflect. When I ran in the last campaign and decided how I would approach this issue as somebody who aspired to sit in the House and be a representative of my constituency, two factors weighed prominently for me and that I articulated. The first was the protection of religious freedoms as guaranteed under subsection 2(a) of our charter. The second was equality for all Canadians, which is also protected under our charter.

I take that document very seriously. It is a document that I think needs to be a guiding force in the decisions that we make in the House. Wearing pins that call it stupid certainly does not add anything to the debate. It is a great document and it is worth considering as we move forward in this process.

The first question is on the issue of protecting religious freedoms. There are a couple of things that are worth mentioning. Subection 2(a) of the charter, which is very clear, is also further reinforced within this legislation under clause 3. It states:

It is recognized that officials of religious groups are free to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs.

It also is stated in the preamble, as follows:

WHEREAS nothing in this Act affects the guarantee of freedom of conscience and religion and, in particular, the freedom of members of religious groups to hold and declare their religious beliefs and the freedom of officials of religious groups to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs.

That is pretty clear. In fact there was legislation in the Province of Ontario that was very similar along these lines and many different religious groups came out and said that it was dead one, that it was exactly what they wanted to see to ensure their religious rights were protected. We have done the same thing and I feel very comfortable in that.

For those who are not even comforted in that very secure wording and also subsection 2(a) of the charter, we have further protection. In fact, the issue of divorce is a perfect analogy in this regard.

When we look at the issue of divorce and remarriage, not so long ago the church would come out and rightfully say that within the Bible it stated that it was a mortal sin to get divorced and then remarried because that was considered adultery. The church had a great concern at that point in time that it would be overridden and the state would force the church to perform remarriages. That never occurred and it never took place. The respect of that distinction remained and we dealt with the issue of divorce in totality.

We have on the one hand the protection of religious freedoms, and we know that is assured. I outlined all the reasons why it is absolutely assured. What is the next issue? It becomes the question of equality. Why is it not a question of equality, although some question that it is a matter of equality? I do not feel it is absolutely and fundamentally an issue of equality.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Clarington—Scugog—Uxbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, late last December we asked the Minister of Canadian Heritage about her role and responsibilities regarding the Canadian broadcasting system.

The official opposition has seen little evidence that the government is up for the job. It does not have a clearly defined plan for the broadcasting system in Canada and if the government had articulated a plan for the new communications environment, Canadians would have greater confidence in its stewardship of our broadcasting system.

When I was a CRTC commissioner, we knew that digital technology would dramatically alter our communications environment. We knew that Canadians would be using new technology and devices not seen before. The U.S. government established its policy framework for the digital age 15 years ago. Here in Canada the government has done nothing. Consequently, the CRTC has been establishing national policy as it deals with each individual application.

Today we have a situation where, without any broad policy direction from the government or a review of its radio broadcasting policy, the CRTC has gone ahead and heard subscription radio applications. In other words, we have decisions being made within a vacuum. Without a plan and updated policies established by elected members of the House, we continue to see government appointees determining the future of Canadian broadcasting.

I also want to point out that if the minister and her government are not up to the job, we are ready to take over. Currently the situation is compounded whereby the boards of key industry organizations are in flux. The CBC has lost its chair, two other board positions have lapsed and one other will lapse within months. At the CRTC the government has left the Maritimes and B.C. without representation. Who is really in charge?

We have no clear government policy or plan for this sector, not even for today and tomorrow. As the environment changes and technologies are advancing, it is imperative that we have a map of how our broadcast system is to unfold.

Last December the minister said that the CRTC and the CBC were independent of the government, and so it should be. However, her responsibility is to lay out a plan and clear policy directions within which these agencies should move forward. The government must do more than merely respond incident by incident. If it had been listening to the demands of Canadians and aware of the realities of the environment, it would not have had to use taxpayer dollars to create an emergency task force to deal with the introduction of foreign language services such as RAI.

Why does the minister not fulfill her responsibilities to lay out tomorrow's vision for this sector? Will the government present a clear, comprehensive plan for the future of Canadian broadcasting in Canada so that it is the government and not the CRTC determining our future. Will the minister insist that the review of the telecommunications sector, announced in the budget, will include consideration of how broadcasting will be delivered and affected in the new world of broadband delivery and competition, not only in telephony and data but also in video? If not, then its inaction will force Canadians to access their desired services using new technologies and bypass the Canadian system.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank all members of the House who support the CBC, as I do, and its central role in the vitality of culture and identity in Canada.

It gives me great pleasure to talk about concerns expressed regarding the comments of Robert Rabinovitch, president of the CBC, published in La Presse on December 8, 2004.

In his interview, Mr. Rabinovitch expressed the view that the Minister of Canadian Heritage could not intervene directly in public television programming. He also stated, “The CBC is a public service, not a crown service”.

Allow me to respond directly to Mr. Rabinovitch's remark. It is neither the minister's mandate nor her responsibility to intervene in the programming of a crown corporation such as the CBC. Moreover, as the president states in the article, “[The Minister of Canadian Heritage] says things in the newspapers, but she has never phoned to tell me to change a program she dislikes”. Later in the same article he said, “I have been here for five years, and in those five years, I have never received a call from the minister about programming”.

As the member can see, Mr. Rabinovitch's remarks indicate that the ministers of this corporation have always respected the CBC's independence from the government.

Let me refer to two acts that are essential to the understanding of the roles of the Department of Canadian Heritage and the CBC.

The Broadcasting Act, 1991 stipulates that the Canadian Broadcasting system should safeguard, enrich and strengthen the cultural, political, social and economic fabrics of Canada; encourage the development of Canadian expression; maintain and promote the national identity and cultural sovereignty; and inform, enlighten and entertain Canadians of all ages, interests and tastes. The act also specifies that the system must be owned and controlled by Canadians, that the programming be drawn from local, regional, national and international sources, including educational and community programming, that they be offered in French and English and that there be a national public broadcaster, a single regulator and a single system.

In pursuing these objectives, federal policies and programs are set up to support the creation of distinct programming that reaches in every community and reflects their realities in all their diversities. The system is also a window on the world and offers the Canadian public the best programming in the world.

The other act, the Department of Canadian Heritage Act, establishes the mandate that the department carries out in the cultural and community life of Canada. The Minister of Canadian Heritage is responsible for policies and programs relating to broadcasting, among other things. The Canadian heritage portfolio, composed of the department and 19 crown corporations and agencies, including the CBC, plays a central role in supporting cultural and community activities in Canada.

The departmental agencies and crown corporations in the portfolio are among the principal Canadian institutions supporting artistic and cultural expression. The Minister of Canadian Heritage ensures that the main orientation of the agencies and crown corporations in the portfolio support the government's goals and priorities.

Given that, it goes without saying that the Minister of Canadian Heritage, as the individual responsible for the entire Broadcasting Act and policy, is called upon to make comments, perhaps comments which provoke reaction. However, expressions of opinion or doubts as a minister is not interference in the day to day activities of a corporation like the CBC.

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Clarington—Scugog—Uxbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, as we have indicated, the minister does not act. She talks and she talks through the press. It is very clear that she thinks she does not have to respond either in the House, through committee or through delivering on policies and reviews for which we have been waiting, and we have been waiting for the Copyright Act.

I would suggest that the minister chooses the press to indicate what she believes is Canada's broadcasting policy. I think English Canada would be very interested to know that the minister indicated in the French language in the French press that she received hundreds of invitations every day from people inviting her to events. She indicated clearly that she gave priority to those invitations from Quebec. We believe these kinds of things should not be dealt with in the press but should be dealt with here in the House. We think we need good policy and plans.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would also like to point out that in the recent budget the government confirmed the importance of public broadcasting in this country by providing the CBC with an additional $60 million. This was in addition to the nearly $1 billion in funding for the CBC already committed by the government in the 2005-06 main estimates.

In addition, the CBC has been exempted from any cuts to its budget under the government-wide expenditure review.

The Department of Canadian Heritage and the CBC are two distinct and legitimate entities that nevertheless work together to safeguard, enrich and reinforce Canada's broadcasting landscape and culture. Moreover, as the individual responsible for the Broadcasting Act and as stipulated in the Department of Canadian Heritage Act, the minister violates no act by expressing a personal opinion on the CBC's programming.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Madam Speaker, a little review of the history of this question is in order before we get to the substance of the debate tonight.

On December 9 I asked the then immigration minister, now the backbencher for York West, two questions. I asked how many ministerial permits the minister issued in total during the last election and how many she issued to individuals affecting her own riding. As Hansard demonstrates, the former minister blew off the question at the time saying that the Ethics Commissioner would report on whether or not she broke the rules.

Of course, since then more details of ethical lapses have emerged, including illegal campaign donations and allegations of more permits for politics. I note that the former minister has denied the second instance of permits for politics and is attempting to clear her name in civil court on this allegation.

The former minister has already been convicted in the court of public opinion and has been dismissed from her post by the Prime Minister. Notwithstanding her dismissal, there remain unanswered questions about the former minister's conduct, questions that go to the heart of the ethics and accountability that the government upholds.

First, how many ministerial permits did the former minister sign for people in her own riding and people working on her campaign? How many has she signed in total across Canada? This matters because it may be that the former minister not only does not belong in cabinet, but also perhaps does not belong in Parliament at all.

Second, what exactly did the Ethics Commissioner report back to the government? Did the former minister violate the ethics standards of the government? What laws, if any, were broken? Subsequent to receiving the commissioner's report, were the RCMP called upon to investigate further is another question I would like answered.

Would the government table the commissioner's report? If it has been submitted, will it do it now, or would the government prefer that the commissioner be called before the ethics committee to testify? If the commissioner has not reported back, could the government explain why it has taken such an unusually long time to do so? It has been four months since the commissioner was called upon to investigate.

Some might suggest that the matter has been dealt with, that the former minister was fired and that resolves the problem. But the matter has not been dealt with. The Prime Minister knew about these ethics violations for weeks before he chose to act. In fact, he became complicit in the attempt to avoid accountability for the former minister's actions. The public has since learned that his office gave strict orders not to accept the resignation of Ihor Wons so as not to give the impression that there was wrongdoing.

That raises further questions about the ethics and accountability of the entire government. This was not just one minister abusing her position, but the chief minister defending the abuse. Why would he do this? What did he have to hide?

In fact, that leads me to wonder if other ministers and MPs may have been involved in this permits for politics scheme. Of course, if there was no such scheme it would be very easy to prove. I challenge the government to do so.

The government simply needs to release the statistics for ministerial permits on a riding by riding basis. There is no violation of the privacy of any person in releasing these statistics. We do not need names of individuals, only quantities broken down by riding. There is no violation of the Privacy Act in releasing such details.

Again, I challenge the government to come clean and tell the truth about what happened in York West last election. I challenge the government to tell the truth about the abuse of ministerial permits, and the full extent of the Prime Minister's involvement in this permits for politics scheme. I challenge the government to tell the truth about the former minister's ethics violations.

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

Madam Speaker, the hon. member will know from a previous response to this type of question that the Department of Citizenship and Immigration tables a report to the House of Commons by November 1 of each year with the information on the number of temporary resident permits that are issued in Canada at ports of entry and visa offices abroad.

The vast majority of permits are issued by officers with delegated authority to make decisions without any ministerial involvement. They are done on a case by case basis.

The preliminary numbers for last year show that 13,575 permits were issued. Such permits are issued to foreign nationals rather than to members of Parliament. Therefore there is no breakdown on a riding by riding basis.

The hon. member will also know that the hon. member for York West did a great deal more than simply ask the Ethics Commissioner for confidential advice. The Ethics Commissioner in fact has been given a mandate to examine how permits were issued and whether there has been any abuse of that power. This is what the hon. member for York West asked the Ethics Commissioner to report on to the House.

In response to the member's question about why it has taken so long, I have been advised that there has been an illness that has delayed the process of this work. The final report will be forthcoming.

I believe in the interim that Canadians are prepared to put their faith in the rule of law and in the time honoured principle that someone in this great country is innocent until proven guilty. Canada of course has been built on these principles and they are principles which we should always continue to pursue.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Madam Speaker, Canadians do have faith in the rule of law but they do not have faith in the Liberal government.

One thing that has become clear in this process is that the government appears to be hiding something from Canadians.

Let me remind the House that last December the former minister was asked time and time again what her involvement was on these issues. Her response was to wait for the Ethics Commissioner to reply.

This evening my hon. colleague has reminded us that it was a confidential report that the former minister requested from the Ethics Commissioner. Yet last December she was declaring in the House to wait for the Ethics Commissioner to reply. Now it is acknowledged that it is a confidential report.

The question remains, will we ever find out what the Ethics Commissioner has to say about these ethics violations? Although reports are given to Parliament on a yearly basis on how many permits are issued, it is regrettable that they are not broken down riding by riding. However, that does not limit the government in giving us that information.

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to review some facts with the hon. member regarding this matter.

The truth is that temporary resident permits are issued in a transparent manner that requires the Government of Canada to provide the House with just what we were mentioning, full disclosure every year.

Today's system is eminently preferable to the discretionary entry system that we had before the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act which did not require any such disclosure.

The Government of Canada is firmly committed to providing Canadians with all transparency that such an important program demands. That is what we have done.

The hon. member for York West has also asked the Ethics Commissioner to report to the House on whether she adhered to the principles of fairness, transparency and compassion which are so clearly the cornerstones of this program.

The Ethics Commissioner is now doing his job and I suggest that the hon. member should let him do it.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James, MB]

Madam Speaker, in December of last year I asked the government why it had cancelled a program seven times that would have helped recognize foreign trained professionals. I would like to raise this question again tonight.

It is interesting to note that the Liberal government cut $25 billion from the health care system. Due to a complete lack of leadership from the Liberals, we have seen a perpetual state of dithering on allowing more professionally trained foreign individuals to practise in Canada.

Due to Liberal neglect, Canada's health care system faces a looming personnel shortage. The numbers of doctors, nurses, technicians and other practitioners are increasingly inadequate to meet our aging population. This significant problem demands a solution. The Liberals love creating problems but it seems that only a Conservative government will be able to fix them.

An important step toward solving the looming health care resource crisis would be a more fair and efficient system of foreign credential recognition. Everyone has known this for years, yet the Liberals have done nothing about it, and continue to do nothing about it. It took a backbench MP to finally introduce a bill to change the status quo.

Two weeks ago I raised this issue in the House during adjournment proceedings. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance replied that the government was establishing a fund to reduce wait times, part of which would address the human resource crisis.

Since the Liberals took power, wait times have increased drastically and personnel shortages have loomed even larger. The Liberals should apologize to Canadians for allowing the system to deteriorate to a point where such measures are necessary.

What the hon. member neglected to mention two weeks ago was that the trust fund would be nothing more than another Liberal slush fund masquerading as a public policy tool. Yet again the government has shown utter contempt for the well-being of Canadians by manipulating health policies to suit its own nefarious ends.

I would like to draw the attention of the House to paragraph 7(3) which states that the finance minister may pay money into the trust “at the times and in the manner that the Minister of Finance considers appropriate”. In other words, he could funnel any amount of money into this arm's length trust whenever he felt like it. This trust will not reduce wait times as much as it will increase the Liberals' ability to fudge budget numbers.

This bears a striking resemblance to the numerous foundations established by the government that end up being used as holding funds for unspent taxpayers' money. Even if the Liberals' intentions were honest, they are obviously unable to do what the fund was set up to do.

We need to train more foreign doctors. Its seems like a lot of money that the Liberals have committed, but it is money that will be spent over five years. We have to open our system to foreign trained professionals. Why is the Liberal government not doing that? It should apologize for the disaster which the health care system is in today.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development]

Madam Speaker, we know that Canada's competitiveness and well-being depend on how well and how quickly we develop and apply the skills of all Canadians.

Immigration is essential to Canada's continued social and economic growth, labour market development and success in the global economy. Between the years 2011 and 2016, immigration is expected to account for 100% of Canada's net labour force growth.

We support initiatives which address real and anticipated shortages in a range of sectors, working in cooperation with industry, education and provincial and territorial partners. The Government of Canada is acting to attract, select and integrate skilled immigrants so that they can maximize their potential and fully contribute to Canada.

The foreign credential recognition program was first announced in budget 2003 and has been supporting priority activities since that time. Budget 2003 and further investments in 2004 amount to a total of $68 million over six years. Through the foreign credential recognition program, we are working with provinces and territories, regulators, sector councils and other partners to accelerate the recognition of work experience, credentials and skills obtained abroad.

Through the sector councils we are bringing together business, labour and education stakeholders in key industries to develop solutions which address skills and labour shortages in significant areas of the economy. The government has doubled the amount of funding for sector councils to strengthen and expand the network so that more Canadians can benefit.

We are focusing our initial efforts on some key occupations experiencing skills issues, namely, engineers, physicians and nurses. We have been actively supporting the work of the international medical graduates task force, with provinces and territories, dealing with the integration of international medical graduates into the Canadian physician workforce.

This year alone the government has announced up to $3.5 million in projects with the Medical Council of Canada, the Canadian Nurses Association, the Canadian Aviation Maintenance Council and the Public Policy Forum. These activities demonstrate our ongoing commitment to attracting and integrating highly skilled immigrants.

This program will benefit all Canadians because it means that immigrants and foreign trained Canadians will be able to fully contribute their skills and talents to Canada.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James, MB]

Madam Speaker, the answer provided by the member is simply not acceptable. The fact is that since 1993 under the Liberal government wait times have doubled. Since then no action has been taken to deal with this issue and that is probably why a backbench MP from the government introduced a bill to move along the issue of credential recognition. It took a backbench MP to do this. That demonstrates the lack of leadership by the Liberal administration.

The fact of the matter is that the Liberals have had over 10 years to deal with this problem and they have done nothing. From coast to coast in this country, there are well trained doctors driving taxis, which is a testament to the incompetence of the government.

Can the member just please apologize for the Liberal dithering and--

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Madam Speaker, I recognize the fine work that members of the caucus have done on this issue over a period of time. They have truly influenced the way the government works.

As I have mentioned, we are working with provincial and territorial governments, regulatory bodies and employers to find ways to reduce the underemployment and unemployment of foreign trained professionals.

As I said, the Government of Canada is acting to attract, select and integrate skilled immigrants so that they can maximize their potential and fully contribute to Canada through a range of settlement and integration programs, through language training and through a fast track system for skilled workers with permanent job offers in Canada.

The member mentioned a backbencher. I listened to her debate and I applaud what she is doing to help the government in this very important area.

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:59 p.m.)