Debates of March 24th, 2005

Civil Marriage Act

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to unequivocally support Bill C-38, the civil marriage act, and to urge colleagues in the House of Commons to attend to the swift passage of the bill to create uniformity of the current law with respect to marriage across Canada.

It is trite to say that the current legal definition in Ontario, the province which I come from, is the voluntary union for life of two persons. This definition was confirmed by the Ontario Court of Appeal on June 20, 2003, when it upheld the lower court's decision in Halpern v, Canada, Attorney General, et al. The then existing common law definition of marriage, the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, was found not only to violate the dignity of persons in same sex relationships, it was also found to violate equality rights on the basis of sexual orientation under subsection 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Courts in seven other jurisdictions have already found that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms requires that civil marriage be available to same sex couples as well as opposite sex couples. Moreover, last December the Supreme Court of Canada said and we agree, that it was preferable that Parliament create uniformity of the law across Canada. We believe that the federal legislation is the best way to provide a clear Canada-wide approach, and the government will not allow the balkanization of marriage.

For many Canadians and many parliamentarians, acknowledging and accepting this new definition of marriage is a difficult issue. I too acknowledge that this new definition represents a very significant change to a long-standing social tradition and institution. However, long-standing customs and traditions are not reason alone for our laws not to evolve and reflect the reality of our society as our society evolves.

Let me begin to explain by first looking at what the history of the definition of marriage is and where it came from. The definition of marriage has its roots in the common law and the statutory marriage laws of England. It is generally understood that in common law, the definition that is routinely referred to is found in a statement of Lord Penzance in 1866 English case of Hyde v. Hyde and Woodmansee. That definitional statement of Lord Penzance reads as follows:

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

Let us stop here for a second. It is very important to remember that this definition of marriage dates back over 139 years ago to 1866. I am sure that there is not a person in the House that would not agree with me that our Canadian society has evolved significantly over the last 139 years. In fact, neither the law of our land nor our society has remained static.

It is also important to note that when the Supreme Court of Canada rendered its decision in the reference on the legal capacity for marriage for civil purposes, the court specifically reviewed the 1866 definition of marriage and noted its reference to “Christendom”. In doing so, the Supreme Court of Canada commented as follows:

The reference to “Christendom” is telling. Hyde spoke to a society of shared social values where marriage and religion were thought to be inseparable. This is no longer the case. Canada is a pluralistic society. Marriage, from the perspective of the state, is a civil institution. The “frozen concepts” reasoning runs contrary to one of the most fundamental principles of Canadian constitutional interpretation: that our Constitution is a living tree which, by way of progressive interpretation, accommodates and addresses the realities of modern life. In the 1920s, for example, a controversy arose as to whether women as well as men were capable of being considered “qualified persons” eligible for appointment to the Senate of Canada. Legal precedent stretching back to Roman Law was cited for the proposition that women had always been considered “unqualified” for public office, and it was argued that this common understanding in 1867 was incorporated in s. 24 of the Constitution Act, 1867 and should continue to govern Canadians in succeeding ages.

It was indeed that famous persons case, to wit, the case known as Henrietta Muir Edwards and others versus the Attorney General for Canada and others, that in 1930 the House of Lords held that the British North America Act planted in Canada a living tree capable of growing and expansion within its natural limits.

It was also in that same decision the court did not accept the argument that because certain customs had been in existence at a time when a law had been passed, that those customs now precluded a different interpretation of the law.

The Attorney General had argued, when the law regarding persons was passed at common law, a woman was incapable of serving a public office. However, the House of Lords noted:

The fact that no woman had served or has claimed to serve such an office is not of great weight when it is remembered that custom would have been prevented the claim being made or the point being contested.

The House of Lords then went on to say:

Customs are apt to develop into traditions which are stronger than law and remain unchallenged after the reason for them has disappeared.

The court concluded, by saying:

The appeal to history--in this particular matter is not conclusive.

I would respectfully submit that these arguments are equally applicable to those individuals who would invoke the notwithstanding clause to enforce the old common law definition of marriage. Customs and traditions are challengeable and the appeal to history is not only not a conclusive argument but one that does not take into account the evolution of our society or the realities of today's society.

There is no doubt that change from traditions and customs always invokes debate. In fact, there is historical evidence to that effect. I suppose it would be trite to say that history often repeats itself.

In preparing for my intervention today, I went back to read the debates that occurred in 1918, when the House of Commons debated women's suffrage and whether women should be entitled to vote.

Although those debates occurred almost 100 years ago, the arguments made in 1918 are almost the same arguments that are being made today. In fact, I would very respectfully submit that the arguments being made today against Bill C-38 are similar to the ones made against women's suffrage. Many are made on very emotional, passionate grounds, but without any evidentiary proof whatsoever of alleged consequences.

I would like to quickly share with members, because I know my time is limited, what Mr. Fournier said in 1918, with respect to women's suffrage:

This bill, with respect to woman suffrage, which is now under our consideration, is only one of the forms of feminism which are now spreading throughout the world. The question may be asked whether all the laws which have opened the liberal professions to women and which conferred upon them the right to vote, or to be elected to Parliament, have had any beneficial results on the progress of civilization, or have advanced the happiness of humanity. It is our urgent duty as law-markers to examine this bill with the greatest care, and not to accept as necessary a radical reform, the advantages of which of which have not been clearly demonstrated. I for one say that it will be a great error if, on the pretext of giving a transitory liberty to a class, we should bring down women from their throne at the fireside, where natural law has placed them to fulfil a divine mission. If the consequences of this moment to take women from the home and to lead them into the public arena where men are disputing great questions, are good, it is evident that we must vote in favour of this bill; but if, on the other hand, it can be proved that those consequences would be evil for the country and regrettable for the home, it is our duty to vote against it.

I would submit that the debate speaks for itself.

To conclude, it has always been my belief that to deny same sex couples the right to marry is to deny them access to one of the fundamental institutions of our society. The new statutory definition of marriage does not create new rights. It simply ensures equality before the law.

Amending the old common law definition of marriage is not only about acknowledging how our society has evolved over the last 139 years, but also reflects the fundamental Canadian values of fairness, equality and non-discrimination. As the Prime Minister has noted, this legislation is about the kind of nation we are today and the kind of nation we want to be.

I know and I believe, as the Prime Minister said, that there are times when we as parliamentarians can feel the gaze of history upon us. They felt it in the days of Pearson; they felt it in the days of Trudeau. We, the 308 men and women elected to represent one of the most inclusive, just and respectful countries on the face of the earth, feel it today.

I feel privileged to have the honour to be part of this momentous period of Canadian history which confirms our charter and our values as a Canadian society. I know that my decision to uphold the charter and minority rights is the right decision. It is also a decision which I know my children, David, Lara and Alex, will always be proud of.

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to stand on behalf of the people of Yellowhead and contribute to this amendment debate on a very important issue.

This is a crucial issue for millions of Canadians, including many of my constituents who treasure the institution of marriage. It is a significant issue, not only for those who are seized by it but also for all Canadians. Marriage is a foundation of our society. A redefinition of marriage will have important long term consequences for the institution of marriage, for children, for religious freedoms and for society.

It is appropriate that this issue be debated in this House; however, it is unfortunate that the government has allowed for the courts to drive the agenda on this matter. It is troubling for Liberal cabinet ministers who have gone back on their solemn words and their votes to affirm the traditional definition of marriage. It is also worrisome for a democracy where a Prime Minister is forcing his cabinet to ignore their consciences and constituents by forcing through this piece of legislation.

I have listened closely to the views of my constituents on this issue, and with me, a great majority of them affirm the traditionally received definition of marriage as a lifelong union between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others. In my remarks today, I want to speak in defence of marriage and I will raise a number of concerns about the Prime Minister's plan to redefine marriage.

What is marriage? Marriage is an exclusive union between a man and a woman, and it has been recognized for thousands of years. It is an institution that pre-dates modern states and it was recognized by most of the world's cultures and religions. The received definition of marriage serves as a bond between a man and a woman and between generations. It unites men and women and provides an environment for children to grow and flourish.

Marriage between a man and a woman is a vital, integrated force in our society. It is the basis of family, long recognized as a fundamental social unit in our society. We do grave disservice to marriage when we reduce it to a matter of contract and rights. To reduce marriage to a contract between two adults is to neuter the definition of its real meaning. Intrinsic to marriage is the unity of male and female. If male and female no longer matter, then why should other aspects of marriage really matter, such as an exclusive, lifelong commitment? Why does the government consider some aspects of marriage intrinsic but others not? It is on very weak ground.

Marriage is about more than just numbers of partners involved. Marriage is about more than a modern notion of romantic love. It is about more than equality. Marriage is not an issue of fundamental human rights, but basic human rights include freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, freedom of association and equality under the law.

Same sex marriage is not a human right. No country in this world recognizes same sex marriage as a human right, not even Belgium or the Netherlands, the only two other countries that have same sex legislation on marriage. Marriage is a gift. It is a treasure. It is not a prize to be won through court rulings or a change in the law.

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and it has stood the test of time and place. Many Canadians are willing to extend benefits to other kinds of domestic partnerships, but they recognize that marriage is something distinct, a unique bond or a covenant between a man and a women.

With the majority of my constituents, I too affirm the traditional definition of marriage, and I will oppose this bill with everything I have. I also oppose this bill because the redefinition of marriage threatens freedom of religion, itself a fundamental right recognized in the charter. I am especially concerned about the implications of this bill for religious officials and religious institutions. Religious freedoms are already under attack in this country. A series of court decisions and rulings by human rights tribunals have determined that religious freedoms of a number of individuals and institutions have been challenged. I would like to give a couple of examples.

Toronto printer Scott Brockie was fined $5,000 by the Ontario Human Rights Commission for refusing, on religious grounds, to print material for a Toronto lesbian and gay archives.

There is another case. A Catholic high school in Ontario was forced to allow a gay couple to attend a high school prom, a clear violation of the Catholic teaching. All too often, when so-called equal rights push up against religious freedom, it is the latter that is cast aside.

The bill before us carries us further down the road of marginalizing religious freedom and expression in this country. The government says that religious officials will not be compelled to perform same sex marriage ceremonies. That is very generous of them, is it not? This is only one of the many possible impacts oN religious freedom flowing from the redefinition of marriage. It is the law of unintentional consequences.

We are already seeing marriage commissioners in a number of our provinces, including Newfoundland, Saskatchewan and British Columbia, being compelled to affirm same sex marriages or lose their licence. The bill does not protect these officials. It does not protect them because it cannot. The solemnization of marriage falls under provincial jurisdiction.

The government's deputy House leader thinks that is just fine, that it is not a problem with them losing their jobs. We do not. What else can we expect from this legislation? Churches or temples may be forced to rent out their halls for same sex marriage receptions. In fact, there is already a pending case in British Columbia where a branch of the Knights of Columbus are under fire for legitimately refusing to have its hall used for a same sex wedding reception. It will be interesting to see how that ruling comes out.

The charitable status of religious institutions which oppose same sex marriage may be revoked. Religious schools and charities may be forced to hire or retain employees who are in same sex marriages. Last, but not least, is the concern of religious officials that they may one day be ordered by the courts to sanction same sex marriages or allow them to be performed in their churches, mosques or temples.

The bill includes a declaration claiming that officials of religious groups are free to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs. However, the declaration carries no legal weight because the solemnization of marriage is a provincial jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court says that the guarantee of religious freedoms under subsection 2(a) of the charter is broad enough to protect religious officials from being compelled by the state to perform civil unions and religious same sex marriages that are contrary to their religious beliefs. However, the court does not exclude the possibility of the unique circumstances which would override this guarantee.

Given the tendency of the judges to view the charter as a flexible document in which the rights can be read in, and given the pattern of so-called equality rights trumping religious rights, there is a legitimate cause for concern.

It is the freedom of religion in conscience that most other rights depend on. The redefinition of marriage bill is yet another threat to religious freedom in Canada. Marriage commissioners are already being fired in some jurisdictions. The charitable status of religious institutions could be taken away, and the outlook for religious officials and institutions to maintain their teaching and practices on marriage remains uncertain. For these reasons too I oppose the redefinition of marriage and this bill.

The Supreme Court has not ruled on the traditional definition of marriage. The court handed it back to this Parliament. The Prime Minister and the justice minister have turned their backs on marriage. We will not.

Our amendment to the main motion seeks to preserve the traditional definition of marriage and to extend to civil unions, especially under law of the provinces, the same rights, benefits and obligations as married couples have. We are also seeking substantive protection for religious officials and institutions in the context of federal law. Our position seeks a reasonable compromise, one that would be accepted by most Canadians in this country.

Marriage, as the union of a man and a woman, is a cherished institution in Canada and around the world. Not all marriages are perfect of course, but on balance marriage is an institution that richly benefits men, women, children and society. We tamper with marriage at our peril.

Redefining marriage will have numerous consequences. Some of those are already with us. Others, to be sure, will emerge in the passage of time. Among those is likely to be the ongoing erosion of religious freedom in Canada.

Australia went through the same situation a year ago. There was a groundswell of support against changing the law. Defence for the traditional definition of marriage swelled up in that society and so it backed off. This is what I would advise the government to do in this case as well.

I urge all members of Parliament to carefully consider what is at stake. I urge my colleagues not to rush ahead. I urge the Prime Minister to show true respect and allow his cabinet ministers to vote their consciences and for their constituents. I urge Parliament to affirm marriage and protect the freedom of religion in Canada.

[Paul Devillers, Liberal, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate today on Bill C-38, the civil marriage act.

This is clearly an issue of equality of minority rights under the charter. I have been very clear and consistent with my constituents on this issue. It is an issue that was around prior to the last election. In the course of that campaign, at all candidate meetings and other meetings that I specifically arranged, such as with the Knights of Columbus in my home town of Penetanguishene, I made sure I explained to them, prior to casting their votes, that I would be supporting any legislation that came forward after the Supreme Court reference dealing with this issue and treating it strictly as an equality issue and minority rights issue in defence of our charter.

First, I would like to go over a bit of the history of the charter and how it came to pass. We often hear concern that the courts are governing the country through judicial activism. In fact, the courts are only exercising the authority given to them by Parliament to interpret certain provisions of the charter. We have to remember that and consider it as a basic exercise in democratic will when the Parliament of Canada passes a charter and then puts in a strong independent judiciary to protect basic freedoms and rights from the whims of partisan politics.

As time passes, parties come and go with different perspectives, but our basic fundamental rights and freedoms remain. They need to be protected in an independent fashion and that was the thinking of Parliament at the time the charter was passed.

We now have a manifestation of the implementation of the charter. It states that every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination. On the issue of same sex marriages from the civil perspective, that is what this legislation is intending to do.

The reference to the Supreme Court that I mentioned previously also had a question dealing with another provision of the charter, that being freedom of religion. The reference, in the opinion of the Supreme Court, does in fact confirm that the churches will remain and retain the right to marry couples that are in conformity with their religious beliefs and would not be compelled in a religious ceremony to marry couples that they feel is not appropriate for religious purposes.

We hear concerns being expressed from time to time about the sanctity of marriage being put in issue by having a law that civilly recognizes same sex marriages. I suggest that it is very clear that the sanctity of marriage is that which comes from the religious ceremony and religious perspective and the churches are being fully protected in making those decisions.

We hear concern about the fact that churches will not be protected, that they will be obliged to perform ceremonies with which they disagree. All I can do is refer to my church, the Roman Catholic church, which had and still has the policy of non-ordination of women. We know that women have been declared equal in every facet of our society. The equality provisions of the charter apply fully to women, yet no one has ever brought a court application to compel the Roman Catholic church or any other church that does not ordain women because of section 2 of the charter which says that under the freedom of religion provisions it is in the domain of churches to make the decision as to who they ordain and who they do not.

That was an example of the assurances people should have. The courts will recognize the freedom of religion provisions in the charter and ensure they can function in conformity with their religious beliefs.

The civil side is another matter. The charter and the courts have interpreted that to mean that our society must allow complete equality and not a separate category of civil union.

When I speak with my constituents I frequently refer to the civil remedy of divorce. If we are concerned about the institution of marriage, then we should be concerned about the real threat to marriage, which is the civil remedy of divorce, which has existed for quite some time. It is recognized by some churches but not by others. Some churches will remarry divorced people and other churches will not and yet society has found a way to function. People have the opportunity to belong to the church that conforms with their personal view vis-à-vis the civil remedy of divorce. I equate that to civil marriage as opposed to religious marriage. It is up to the individual to seek the type of marriage, whether it is a civil marriage or a religious marriage, in accordance with their personal beliefs.

Some people have proposed that the notwithstanding clause be used to overturn the court decisions that have found it unconstitutional or against the charter to deny civil marriage to same sex couples. The notwithstanding clause is there to protect rights. I agree with the Prime Minister when he said that the notwithstanding clause was something that he would consider using to protect the churches' right to refuse to marry same sex couples if ever the courts were to determine that they should be forced to marry them but that it should never be used to remove the rights of same sex couples to have access to our civil institutions like everyone else.

I have another concern.

I am a member of the franco-Ontarian linguistic minority. If we can successfully make the argument to set aside the charter on the issue of civil marriage because it is a moral rather than a legal question then, in the case of minority language rights, we could suggest dropping official languages policies in this country because they are too expensive. It is a question of savings. That is the risk.

I believe it is very important always to defend the charter since it is there to defend everyone in our society. That is the issue.

One of the reasons I ran for Parliament was that I could see the challenges to the charter coming. During the vote on the opposition day motion in 1999, I was one of the 55 members of Parliament who voted against the preservation of the traditional definition of marriage. I saw it then and I see it now as an attack on the charter.

For those reasons I am pleased to say that I will be supporting Bill C-38.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as the representative of the people of Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, I am pleased to rise to defend marriage as the union of one man and one woman and to explain why we will not be supporting Bill C-38.

For many, the most compelling reason to support the government's legislation to expand marriage to include same sex couples is the belief that it is a matter of human rights. In fact, according to some, including the government, it is a matter of fundamental human rights.

We all share the desire to be a nation that recognizes and promotes human rights and fundamental freedoms but is same sex marriage one of them? If it is, then it is clear that I and all Canadians should support this initiative. But is it? That is the question before us today.

To answer this question, one might start with the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights which, in its preamble, declares that “recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world”. These are noble sentiments with which all of us agree.

One could consider the more recent United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The covenant is composed of 53 articles that cover much of human experience. The sixth article, for example, states that every human being has the inherent right to life. Another, article 9, affirms that everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. Clearly, these are fundamental human rights. However does the declaration or the covenant include marriage as a human right? In fact, they do. Article 23 of the covenant affirms, “The right of men and women of marriageable age and to found a family shall be recognized”.

The declaration of human rights also adds that men and women, without limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family.

According to this, it would not be discriminatory for the state to disallow a marriage because an individual has not reached full age, while it would be discriminatory to disallow a marriage because of race, nationality or religion.

What about on the basis of gender? Although gender is not explicitly mentioned, would it not be reasonable to interpret the article to mean that it would also be discriminatory to disallow a marriage between two individuals simply because they are of the same sex? In my opinion, no. Let me explain why.

First, if we read both the covenant and the declaration, we will notice that every other article that relates to persons uses words like “everyone” or “no one”. Only in these marriage articles will we find the gender specific words “men and women”. By any accepted principles of interpretation, that distinction must be considered significant.

Further, the article also says that these men and women have the right to marry and found a family, clearly something that was considered the outcome of a heterosexual union at the time of the writing of the declaration and covenant. Skeptics might disagree with that interpretation and argue that it could still mean two men or two women, because partners in same sex relationships can and do found families.

However, that is not how the United Nations Human Rights Commission itself interprets it. In the now well-known Quilter case in 2002, the commission received a complaint when the New Zealand court of appeal denied that the prohibition in New Zealand's bill of rights against discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation implied a right to same sex marriage. The appellants argued that the New Zealand high court decision was a violation of the international covenant on civil and political rights. What was the outcome of that case? The Human Rights Commission rejected the complaint.

Clearly, it was not a matter of fundamental human rights to the one body on earth whose raison d'être is their preservation.

Frankly, I can understand the argument of the Liberals that this is so clearly about human rights if it had not been so unclear to them just a few years ago. In 1999, during a debate on this issue, the Deputy Prime Minister, then the minister of justice, made the following unequivocal statement:

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.

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.

Members of Parliament on both sides of the House of Commons overwhelmingly supported the traditional definition of marriage. If it is a matter of fundamental human rights, then that day in 1999 this chamber was filled with human rights abusers.

Some will counter that times change and Canada's Supreme Court has decided that refusing marriage to same sex couples is discriminatory and a violation of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but has the court made that ruling? In fact it has not.

It is true that courts in several provinces have reached that decision but they had also previously reached contrary decisions indicating that the matter is not as black and white as some assume. However because the federal government decided not to appeal, those lower court rulings were never tested by the Supreme Court.

One might ask, did the Supreme Court just last December not rule that the traditional definition of marriage contravenes the charter? No, it did not. First of all, it was only a reference, not a ruling. Second, although the government specifically asked for an opinion on whether the opposite sex definition of marriage was a violation of the charter, the court declined to answer, leaving the matter instead to Parliament.

That is not to say however, that the Supreme Court has never offered a judgment on the definition of marriage. It has. Its most recent ruling is in Egan in 1995 when Justice La Forest concluded:

Marriage has from time immemorial been firmly grounded in our legal tradition, one that is itself a reflection of long-standing philosophical and religious traditions. 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. In this sense, marriage is by nature heterosexual. It would be possible to legally define marriage to include homosexual couples, but this would not change the biological and social realities that underlie the traditional marriage.

Justice La Forest has identified the crux of the debate. If marriage is inherently a heterosexual union, then it cannot be considered discriminatory to exclude same sex couples from it.

It is my conclusion then that inclusion of same sex couples in the institution of marriage is not required as a matter of fundamental human rights or because it is discriminatory not to do so. However, although not required, would it not be possible, as Justice La Forest said, to legally define marriage to include homosexual couples? Yes, it is possible if as a society we choose to do so, but that decision will need to be based on criteria other than human rights.

Some will base their decision on their religious world view and in a pluralistic country I cannot see how that is inappropriate. The fact of the matter is there are religious people on both sides of this debate, as there are irreligious people. Others will base their decision on their personal experience within their own family and circle of friends. Still others have grown tired of the debate and just do not care, but that is not an approach that I can responsibly take.

While it is appropriate and helpful to consider the issue from a variety of other viewpoints, I also need to look at the legislation from a public policy perspective. In fact I believe that members of Parliament are negligent in their role as policy makers if they do not do so. Let me elaborate.

The debate is not about human rights. It is about marriage. It is not just about redefining the word marriage. It is about reconstructing a historically heterosexual social institution that has served as the cornerstone of human society for millennia.

The key question then is whether this is good social policy or not. Actually I ask the same questions of this legislation that I ask of any other. Will this be good for Canada? Will this make Canada a better country? Has this initiative been sufficiently studied to be confident that there will be no unintended consequences? Is there broad public support for this initiative?

After reflecting on these questions for months, I am not convinced that this will be good for Canada. It is not just enough to say that nothing will change as the government is saying. Can we change a fundamental social institution without significant consequences? Apparently the government thinks we can, but many social scientists disagree.

The debate before us is not about human rights. It is not about one's opinion of homosexuality. It is not about traditionalism versus modernism. It is not about religion versus secularism. It is about marriage and what we want it to become.

Instead of continuing down this pathway that leads to an uncertain destination, let us strengthen our resolve to respect the fundamental dignity of all human beings regardless of sexual orientation, while at the same time working to support and nurture the historic institution of marriage between one man and one woman. We can do both. In my opinion, we must do both.

[Tony Ianno, Liberal, Minister of State (Families and Caregivers)]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to participate in this debate as the member of Parliament for Trinity—Spadina and the Minister of State for Families and Caregivers.

In my view, we are not just debating civil marriage. We are helping to determine the nature of civil society, because how this issue is resolved will have an important impact on the place of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canadian life. The charter is a reflection of the commitment that all Canadians made to each other, a commitment built over many generations. It is a clear statement of Canadian values shaped over this country's history. Hopefully there are fewer and fewer opportunities in the life of a nation when people must stand up for issues of basic human rights.

I was moved early in life by injustices displayed on daily television screens and in the media; by the days when blacks in the United States and unfortunately many immigrants in Canada faced unimaginable barriers in their daily lives; when books like Black Like Me expressed the life of discrimination; when laws were justified as being equal but separate; and when inspirational leaders like Martin Luther King Jr. were standing up to fight against bigots who wanted to keep white supremacy alive.

Our society has evolved. Respect for human rights has grown and the charter is an important part of that. Today civil marriage for gays and lesbians is the law in seven provinces and one territory, constituting roughly 85% of Canadians. Bill C-38 will ensure that all Canadians have the same rights across the land. The bill will also reconfirm that religious institutions have the right to practise their beliefs with freedom.

My constituency is no different from others in Canada. Many of my constituents and supporters support same sex marriage. Many do not. Many Canadians may have difficulty in accepting homosexuality but do have faith in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Support for the charter is overwhelming. It is a common denominator for Canadians. By talking to people about the issue from that perspective, I have had success in changing the way they look at it.

Once they realize the Charter of Rights and Freedoms allows for freedom of religion and that churches, mosques, synagogues and all other religious institutions will be allowed to practise their faiths freely, they understand. A civil marriage is applied for at city hall. A religious marriage is applied for in one's church, synagogue, mosque or individual religious institution.

Religious institutions determine the parameters for religious marriages. In a pluralistic society the parameters of civil marriages are determined by Parliament and legislatures, along with our courts, to ensure equality, fairness and justice for all citizens.

The charter is there to ensure that minorities, the weakest in our society, are protected. Extending rights to others in no way takes rights away from anyone. When the majority can decide for the minority without regard to the charter, it creates a dangerous situation. If the decision is made to use the notwithstanding clause, which is the only way to change the law in those eight jurisdictions, it sets a dangerous precedent which allows for a slippery slope. It could then be used by the majority whenever it wanted to suspend what is right and just, whenever the majority decided it was expedient. All minorities in our country would become vulnerable.

Our nation has come a long way in its growth. As a respected centre of human rights, Canada has evolved from the days when Chinese people were charged outrageous fees, the head tax, to come to Canada for the privilege to work, and when their spouses or family for many years thereafter were not allowed to immigrate.

We are all too familiar with the time when women were not persons, were add-ons and not able to vote, never mind sit as parliamentarians; when Canada showed no compassion in 1914 and did not let a ship of Sikhs land; when in 1939 over 900 Jews aboard the SS St. Louis , fleeing the Nazis, were turned away from our country, condemning many of them to the Holocaust.

We choose many examples of a way of thinking of the past we would sooner forget. That is not the nation we are now proud of and take pride in. We believe that Canada is the best nation in the world. In our pluralistic society our Canadian values of humanity, tolerance of diversity, opportunity, compassion and decency are a way of life.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms helps perpetuate these values. It protects the traditional institutions in a way that makes us proud. If it were not for the charter, someone who wears a turban could be denied the opportunity to serve in one of our most treasured institutions, the RCMP, because tradition dictated otherwise.

The charter is one of the reasons that Canada is globally respected for the ability to shape a national partnership in which we all can participate. I can testify to that respect. I accompanied former prime minister Jean Chrétien to Portugal when that country was the head of the European Union. Many leaders of other nations were present. They asked how it is that Canada works with so much immigrant diversity while in their own countries, despite relatively little immigration, the Europeans were having such difficulty with discrimination. I was introduced by the then prime minister who explained that I, as a first generation Canadian, was a prime example of our Canada. I pointed out what I believe is one of the bedrock reasons for Canada's achievement. For us, diversity is not a liability; it is an asset.

Overwhelmingly, Canadians recognize the value of bringing together people of many backgrounds, beliefs and lifestyles, and giving each of them the opportunity to contribute to their own unique strengths. It is our very diversity that breeds harmony. We learn from each other. We build on each other's strengths. We love the nature of our country and we are committed to making it work. We encourage citizenship, education and participation in the political process. That, I explained to people from other countries, is Canada's underlying strength: our celebration of diversity and respect for one another.

That is a wonderful legacy to inherit and one on which we have an obligation to build. That is why, as long as I am able to, I will always stand for the weakest in society. I will always work to ensure that no one is left behind and that every Canadian, no matter their background, colour or creed have all the rights that each of us wants for ourselves and our loved ones.

This brings me to Bill C-38. This bill does not take anything away from anyone. Rights do not become less precious when they are shared. The bill ensures that all Canadians receive the rights they deserve from a nation that is respectful, tolerant and compassionate. It ensures that we treat all Canadians as we want to be treated, as we would want our children to be treated. Perhaps that is the best way to look at it.

Imagine how we would react if it were one of our children seeking respect for their rights. If one of my four children came home one day and said to me, “Daddy, I am gay”, I would want to look him or her in the eye and say, “I love you and support you without reservation and will do everything I can to make sure that you are accepted as an equal member of our society”. I would want my children to know that I took the opportunity on the day that I could be counted, in the highest institution of the land, to stand up for our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Remember, Mr. Speaker, that today you may be part of the majority, but one day you too might be part of the minority. It is very important that we protect all in our society. In voting for Bill C-38 I will be voting to ensure the charter's place for all Canadians.

Marriage

[Paul Devillers, Liberal, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, over 10,000 Canadians have expressed their support for human rights and the right of same sex couples to marry in an electronically gathered petition presented to my office.

This petition, showing strong support by Canadians for what seven provinces and one territory have already deemed as a human rights issue, granting same sex couples the right to marry, was headed up by Ms. Ann Stephenson, a constituent of my neighbouring riding of Barrie.

Ms. Stephenson's incredible effort to gather over 10,000 names from across Canada was driven by the fact that her own provincial member of Parliament for Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford, when asked, refused to recognize the views of his constituents that showed their support for same sex marriage, all the while gathering support for his own petition that denies human rights to same sex couples.

Ms. Stephenson's efforts are commendable and should not go unnoticed. As parliamentarians we need to acknowledge the fact that there are many Canadians who strongly support the right of same sex couples to marry.

Haldimand--Norfolk

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to some special people in my riding of Haldimand—Norfolk, who have recently been recognized for making our communities a better place.

Congratulations to Cindy Huitema and Ian Van Osch, Haldimand's farm woman and farmer of the year.

Ditto to Norfolk's Annie Zaluski, a retired strawberry farmer.

A toast to Port Dover's Walt Long, my hometown's citizen of the year.

In Delhi, hats off to pharmacist and friend John Stanczyk and student Jeremy Wittet.

Congratulations to Hagersville's Heather Peart, a future farm leader, and to Hewitt's Dairy for being named Haldimand's business of the year.

Kudos to Caledonia's Barry Snyder and Jim Martin, as well as to Simcoe Composite School principal Bob Foster and Lynda Bain of Dunnville.

I wish to thank them all for their selfless dedication to our communities.

Alderney Landing

[Michael John Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, arts and culture reflect the soul of a community and contribute greatly to its economic well-being. This is especially true in my riding of Dartmouth—Cole Harbour.

Alderney Landing is a hub of activity related to arts and culture. It is the home of Eastern Front Theatre where local writers such as former MP Wendy Lill use their creative talents to write and produce plays.

Alderney Landing is home to the annual Atlantic Writing Awards, one of the best municipal writing awards in Canada started in 1999.

Alderney Landing is also a focal point for community groups and school productions, including the Black Music Awards. It houses an art gallery that highlights local artists and is the home of the great multicultural festival of Nova Scotia.

Next week I will be attending the opening night production of the play Satchmo , written and directed by Hans Boggild.

I want to congratulate the Alderney Landing Board and its chair, Paul Robinson, and the staff, Bea MacGregor, and the rest, for their dedication and support of arts and culture which is so important in maintaining a vibrant community.

Course de la banquise Portneuf-Alcoa

[Guy Côté, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the second annual Course de la banquise Portneuf-Alcoa, an ice canoe race, took place on February 12.

Nearly 200 canoeists in 35 teams in the competition category and 6 recreation teams put their skills, endurance and willpower to the test to cross the ice-covered St. Lawrence between the Portneuf marina and Pointe-au-Platon, in Lotbinière.

Over 2,000 spectators came out to encourage their favourites and support this event, which promotes athletic performance, the great outdoors, our traditions and recreational tourism.

Such an event would be impossible without the support of volunteers, the municipality of Portneuf, the excellent work of the dedicated organizing committee and its visionary general director, Pierre de Savoye.

Congratulations to all the teams and, of course, the winners deserve a special mention: Croisières Lachance as best recreational team; Choix du Président-Solnat as best women's team; Ciment-Québec won the company challenge award; and Château Laurier-Junex won in the competition category.

Charlottetown

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate my hometown of Charlottetown for being one of the seven national winners in the Winterlights Celebrations.

The Winterlights Celebrations encourage civic pride, neighbourhood and heritage awareness, and beautification through a national competition. These celebrations are a winter version of the communities in bloom program held each and every summer.

Volunteer judges evaluated the cities on the decoration of public, private and commercial properties for festive celebrations, winter activities and visual presentation.

A major attraction in Charlottetown this year was the first annual Jack Frost Children's Winterfest. Volunteer involvement and projects like turkey drives, the work of the food bank, and toys for tots also contributed to Charlottetown's win.

Charlottetown placed first in the category for cities with a population between 20,000 and 50,000. In 2002-03 Charlottetown won in the capital cities category.

I would like to offer my congratulations to the people of Charlottetown.

Liberal Party of Canada

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in the most recent Leger marketing poll, politicians were once again ranked as the least trusted of all occupations, even below lawyers.

I probably should not have been surprised to receive a letter from a constituent in which he called me a “thief and a liar”. Unaware of having stolen anything or lied, I asked him to explain what he meant. He wrote back to say that “thief” and “liar” are just synonyms for “politician”. I think he had me confused with a Liberal.

Yesterday the hon. member for Thornhill said that at our convention the Conservative Party was debating issues that the Liberal Party had decided upon decades ago. She is right.

While Conservatives made a commitment to do what is in the best interests of Canadians, the Liberal Party decades ago decided that it would do what is in its best interests. While Conservatives made a commitment to spending taxpayers' money as prudently as if it were our own, decades ago the Liberal Party decided that the money was its own and it is not about to give it back.

Heaven help us all if the Liberal Party of today is the party of tomorrow.

Paul Brideau

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to pay tribute to a very brave young man who died two years ago today at the young age of 20.

Paul Brideau of Miramichi, New Brunswick, was the son of Ronald and Monique, and was the brother of Danielle and Chantal. Paul was a son and brother who made his family very proud. He was a fine athlete and was gifted with ambition and intelligence. All of those who came into contact with him were greatly impressed by him. He had a winning personality. It was not possible to dislike him.

Paul was diagnosed with thymus cancer in July 2002. He remained positive and upbeat and fought with valour the ravages of cancer. Our country was diminished on March 24, 2003, when he lost his battle.

Paul Brideau achieved what we all aspire to do. He made a significant difference to his family and his community. He will never be forgotten.

Student Strike in Quebec

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec students are demanding the Quebec government cancel the conversion of $103 million in grants to loans, which penalizes the poorest students.

The Bloc Québécois supports this protest, because we believe in a quality education system accessible to all.

Education is obviously under Quebec jurisdiction. However, the decisions made in Ottawa have a clear influence on education as well as on Quebec's other priorities.

The Bloc Québécois condemns the fiscal imbalance, which is affecting Quebec's ability to respond to the demands of Quebeckers. The federal government must accept the consensus of the National Assembly and Quebec society and resolve this issue.

The educational system in Quebec is different from that in the Canadian provinces, and Quebec fully intends to preserve it. Ottawa's refusal to recognize the fiscal imbalance demonstrates a profound lack of understanding of Quebec's priorities.

Greek Day of Independence

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Social Development (Social Economy)]

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, March 25, 2005, we will celebrate the 184th anniversary of Greece's independence. I invite all members of this House to join with the more than 300,000 Canadians of Greek origin this weekend at celebrations in their own ridings.

March 25, 1821, marks one of the most important days of Greece's history, as well as the most influential moment of western civilization. I am as proud of my Hellenic heritage as I am of being Canadian because here in Canada, my second “patrida”, we have always upheld the very same ideals born in Greece. We have maintained the tradition of democratic principles and rights, and with wisdom and courage have contributed to the promotion of peace and the fight against injustice worldwide.

Canada is indeed a prime example of a nation devoted to the ideals of Hellenism, democracy, human rights, freedom and justice.

On March 25, I invite all my colleagues in the House to wish all Canadians of Hellenic origin:

Long live Greece. Long live Canada.

Solar Vehicle Team

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the sun quite literally shone down on Oshawa.

Today I rise to pay tribute to the president, founders and sponsors of the University of Ontario Institute of Technology's first ever solar vehicle team.

Led by Mr. Samveg Saxena, its student president and founder, the team launched its program in Oshawa yesterday morning, a first of its kind in Durham region. In only two years these students have recruited a design team and begun raising money to cover the project cost, some $200,000.

The team hopes to build a race ready car by 2006 which will compete at major solar events around the world. This program will educate students and Canadians on renewable energy and environmental sustainability. This is a fine example of how industry and academia can accomplish great things by working together.

I am honoured to add my personal support to Samveg's team and ask all members to join me in recognizing the spirit and enthusiasm of UOIT's first solar vehicle team.

George Hull Centre

[Jean Augustine, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to welcome a few of my young constituents and staff of the George Hull Centre for Children and Families of Etobicoke. They are: Shakib Gharibzada, Zachary Sobel, Brett Philp, Arthur Gallant, James Vivieros, Richard Gillingham and Stefan Naumouski.

I commend these young men for the great strides that they have made for themselves. I wish them continued success and all the best in their future endeavours. I would also like to congratulate the staff of the George Hull Centre for their continued dedication and involvement in the community.

To all of the people at the George Hull Centre, staff, volunteers, parents, keep up the good work. Our young people need your support.

Oscar Romero

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, 25 years ago today Archbishop Oscar Romero of El Salvador was gunned down by a hired assassin while saying mass for a community of nuns. Archbishop Romero had developed a reputation for the faith and the courage to criticize El Salvador's American backed military for various murders and disappearances.

For defending his people and for engaging in such biblically prophetic activity, he paid the price that sometimes tragically befalls those who speak the truth to brutal power. Indeed, there were many Christians, and particularly Catholic clergy and activists, who suffered a similar fate for their commitment to social and economic justice in Central America.

At this time the NDP joins all those in El Salvador, and the tens of thousands of Salvadorans in Canada, who celebrate the memory and sacrifice of this great disciple of Jesus Christ. He continues to be an inspiration to all who seek justice and resist evil.

Greek Day of Independence

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

Mr. Speaker, on the occasion of Greek Day of Independence, the Conservative Party of Canada wishes to extend its warmest congratulations to the Greek community across Canada.

My colleagues in the official opposition join with me in recognizing the rich significance of this day. It commemorates the emancipation of an oppressed people and their joyful return to democratic principles in a free and just society.

I know that today they will be partaking in cultural festivities and events, which honour their ancestors and celebrate the history and accomplishments of the Greek people.

I am pleased to pay tribute to many members of the Greek community in Canada. I salute them for their tremendous contributions to the economic and cultural vitality of this wonderful country.

Our warmest greetings from the entire Conservative caucus on this Independence Day of Greece.

Centre de réadaptation Lisette-Dupras in Lachine

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, last year during Quebec's intellectual disability week, the leader of the Bloc Québécois visited an exhibition presented by the Centre de réadaptation Lisette-Dupras in Lachine. The hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie was so impressed by what artists with intellectual disabilities could achieve, that he invited them to come to the House of Commons and show us their works.

The readaptation centre not only helps to integrate these people into society but also helps them develop independence and skills, while providing them with an opportunity to explore the world of aestheticism.

The Bloc Québécois invites all members of this House to visit this magnificent exhibition entitled “Imagination without Borders”, presented in collaboration with the Musée d'art contemporain de Montréal, in room 215 of the Wellington Building until 5 p.m. today. This is a unique opportunity to listen to these artists tell us about their works.

Congratulations to all of them.

Conservative Party of Canada

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

Mr. Speaker, one week ago today Conservatives met to have their opinions silenced at their convention. As I look across the floor, I see a divided Conservative Party in disarray, out of touch with Canadians.

I see a Conservative Party that will threaten progress on social issues, while Liberals defend health care and work toward a national child care program. I see a Conservative Party that--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker]

Order, please. The hon. member for Ajax--Pickering has the floor and I cannot hear a word he is saying because there is so much noise. We need a little order in the House. The hon. member for Ajax--Pickering.