Mr. Speaker, the National Post has stated:
--their opponents seek to tear it up or vitiate it through use of the notwithstanding clause.
The result is that Canadians are being sold a false bill of goods...they are hearing misinformation and scaremongering from a government that seeks to ram the issue down their throats with a minimum of debate.
The National Post concluded that the dishonest approach the government had adopted was an insult, and I agree.
In January 2004 the justice minister asked the Supreme Court of Canada to rule on whether or not the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman was unconstitutional. In its ruling of December 2004 the court refused to answer, putting the issue back into the hands of Parliament, and rightfully so.
The Conservative Party has been very critical of this government's attempt to duck difficult issues such as same sex marriage by deferring to the court.
When the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the lower court decision that determined same sex marriages should be legal under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we immediately called on the justice minister to appeal the ruling, but he refused.
Effectively, the Liberal government sanctioned the court's ruling on social policy matters, rendered the justice committee's analysis of this issue irrelevant, ignored the majority vote in Parliament to protect the traditional definition of marriage and stifled the voices of Canadians. Furthermore, the Liberal Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister reneged on their commitment to protect the traditional definition of marriage.
On June 8, 1999, the Deputy Prime Minister, the then justice minister, stood in this House and said:
The institution of marriage is of great importance to large numbers of Canadians, and the definition of marriage as found in the hon. member's motion is clear in law.
As stated in the motion, the definition of marriage is already clear in law. It is not found in a statute, but then not all law exists in statutes, and the law is no less binding and no less the law because it is found in the common law instead of in a statute.
The Liberal Deputy Prime Minister also stated, and listen carefully:
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.
The government has, without any constitutional requirements to do so, changed the definition of marriage. Another promise made, another promise broken. Given this broken promise and the many other broken promises, how can any of us trust the justice minister's assertion now that religious freedoms will be protected under the law?
The so-called protection that the government has offered within Bill C-38 regarding religious freedoms is totally inadequate. The Liberal government has been totally dishonest with Canadians suggesting otherwise.
The government has only proposed one tiny clause to protect religious freedom, a clause that states that religious officials will not be forced to solemnize marriages. It has done this knowing full well that the Supreme Court of Canada has already ruled that this clause is not within federal jurisdiction. The solemnization of marriage is a provincial responsibility.
Furthermore, nothing in Bill C-38 addresses issues currently facing churches, temples, synagogues and mosques, such as being forced to rent out space for same sex marriages.
The solemnization of marriage might be outside the federal jurisdiction, but religious protections are well within this government's sphere. Parliament can ensure that no religious body will have its charitable status challenged because of its beliefs or practices. Parliament can ensure that beliefs and practices regarding marriage will not affect the eligibility of a church, synagogue, temple or religious organization to receive funds.
The government may have neglected to protect religious freedoms in Bill C-38, but the official opposition will not. We will be proposing amendments to provide substantive protections for religious institutions in the context of federal law. We will propose these amendments to provide full recognition of same sex relationships as possessing equivalent rights and privileges.
More important, we will propose an amendment to provide clear recognition of the traditional definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. We will do so knowing that we have the support of Canadians. The vast majority of Canadians are asking the government to do the right thing, to keep its word and protect the traditional definition of marriage.