Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(6), I have another petition to table, which includes the signatures of some 180 residents of Calgary, principally from my constituency, who call upon the House to defend, using all necessary means, the definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman. They point out that the House adopted a motion reflective of that sentiment in 1999 and they call upon the House to reaffirm the traditional definition of marriage.
I have a further petition from some 100 signatories of principally Brampton, Ontario, calling upon the House of Commons to recognize that the majority of Canadians believe that fundamental matters of social policy should be decided by elected members of Parliament and that the majority of Canadians support the current legal definition of marriage as a voluntary union of a single man and a single woman.
I have another petition to table that comes from over 100 residents of Brantford, Norwich and Brampton, Ontario. They, too, call upon the House to use all possible legislative and administrative measures, including the invocation of section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, if necessary, to preserve and protect the current definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
I have a further petition to table, signed by over 100 residents of Ontario, including Campbellville, Freelton and Millgrove. They, too, ask that the House maintain the traditional definition of marriage, which they point out is recognized in every country in the world through all of human history, save Belgian today.
Further, I have a petition signed by over 100 residents of Ontario, including Bowmanville and Kingston, who remind the House that it is the duty of Parliament to ensure that marriage is defined as Canadians wish it to be defined. They pray that Parliament maintain the current and longstanding definition of marriage.
I have another petition signed by over 100 residents of Alberta, principally from Grande Prairie and Dixonville, and residents from Martensville. This is a petition in a different form with a similar effect. It asks that Parliament retain the traditional definition of marriage as the union between one man and one woman. They do so on the grounds that this is an institution which pre-existed the establishment of Canada as a state and point out that it is not within the appropriate jurisdiction of the Government of Canada or its courts to redefine the meaning of an institution of civil society.
Further, I have a petition signed by over 100 residents of the communities of Sylvan Lake and Red Deer in Alberta, principally, but there are also signatories from British Columbia. They too ask that Parliament maintain the current legal definition of marriage as the voluntary union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
Pursuant to Standing Order 36(6), I have the pleasure to introduce a petition signed by over 100 residents of the province of Alberta, principally from the communities of Slave Lake, who seek to remind Parliament that through all of human history marriage has been understood as the union between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. They wish to bring that to our attention.
I would also like to table a petition of over 100 signators principally from the communities of Slave Lake and High River, Alberta. They too remind us that it should be members of Parliament, not an unelected judiciary, who determine social policy on critical issues such as marriage. They ask us to use all legislative means necessary to protect the definition of marriage, as this House decided to do in 1999.
Finally, I am pleased to table a petition signed by over 100 residents of Saskatchewan and Alberta, from such communities as Medstead and Canyon Creek, who ask that the House use all necessary means to maintain the definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman.