Debates of May 2nd, 2005

Kyoto Protocol

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

moved:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should cede to the Government of Quebec, with full financial compensation, complete responsibility for implementing the Kyoto protocol within its jurisdiction.

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is concerned about the ineffective approach taken by the government. On many issues, particularly with respect to the environment and the Kyoto related measures, the situation is catastrophic. Project Green, introduced on April 13, lacks credibility and will not allow Canada to honour its commitments for the first reference period, from 2008 to 2012. There is no question that this is an urgent situation. A real policy is needed to quickly and fairly achieve the Kyoto objectives, and Quebec is in a better position to determine which measures are the most appropriate to reduce greenhouse gas emissions within its jurisdiction. The government must understand that it has to move quickly on this issue.

The federal government plan's lack of efficiency and credibility reinforces our position. This is why I am putting Motion M-162 before the House. We are calling for a territorial approach and for a special agreement with Quebec. We are demanding full financial compensation and complete responsibility for implementing the Kyoto protocol within Quebec's jurisdiction.

The federal government recently released its new 2005 climate change plan, which will be under the responsibility of the environment department. However, the measures announced will not be in place for several years, and almost everything has yet to be finalized, even though the protocol has been in force for over two months. We have to ask ourselves what the government was doing in the past few years.

I could go on and on. The plan does not require a sufficient effort on the part of polluting industries, which are responsible for half of the emissions; this unfairly shifts the financial burden of emissions reduction onto the taxpayers, and the measures announced will take years to be implemented.

The situation is urgent, and the major implementation measures will take a long time to produce the expected positive effects, too long for Canada to honour its commitments for the 2008-2012 reference period.

It is inconceivable that, after so many years, we are still at the stage of broad principles and consultations. The government has announced that the targets for large emitters and the terms of the permit trading system will be set by regulation under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act following consultation with the provinces, territories and industry stakeholders this spring. The same is true of the climate fund mandate and the rules of the offset credit system . In fact most of the plan has yet to be completed.

The government is using this plan to create a permit trading system and set targets for large emitters by means of regulations not subject to parliamentary or public scrutiny. This is unacceptable and perpetuates the very democratic deficit the government once promised to attack.

The Liberal Party made a promise in its 1993 red book to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Canada by 20% as of 2005. This is 2005. After 12 years, greenhouse gas emissions in Canada have increased by 20%. The OECD recently revealed that Canada is the western country with the greatest increase in greenhouse gas emissions since 1990. Despite this fact, the federal government persists in its inappropriate strategy, subsidizing the oil and gas industry, failing to demand sufficient effort by polluting industries responsible for half of the emissions, and unfairly transferring the financial burden for reductions onto the shoulders of the taxpayers.

The government's latest plan is a miserable failure and will not allow us to meet our Kyoto commitments. For these reasons, the federal government must cede to Quebec and to the provinces wishing it responsibility for managing the implementation of the Kyoto protocol. The federal government cannot manage the protocol on its own, and it is time for solutions.

The one tonne challenge is a perfect example of how important it is for Quebec to assume complete responsibility within its jurisdiction. The program is inappropriate for Quebec, where most people have been using hydroelectricity—a clean source of energy—for many years to heat and light their homes. The federal government must allow Quebec to opt out of this program with full financial compensation if it so decides.

Even the Quebec government is speaking out about this. According to Quebec, the federal government's Kyoto implementation plan is unacceptable. The Quebec minister of sustainable development, environment and parks, Thomas Mulcair, has condemned the fact that the plan does not include any compensation for Quebec, which produces the least amount of greenhouse gas per capita of any province. He has said that efforts to meet Canadian greenhouse gas reduction targets are not fair to Quebec. He has accused Ottawa of introducing a plan that strongly favours western Canada.

According to Mr. Mulcair, his federal counterpart has already hinted at the possibility of a bilateral agreement, which the Quebec minister intends to demand. He has said that Quebec will not give up and calls upon his federal counterpart to sit down with him and negotiate in all seriousness.

We are offering to do the environment minister's homework by proposing a three-point solution in Motion M-162: a territorial and bilateral agreement that respects the jurisdiction of each party.

Currently, Canada's 2005 plan to honour its Kyoto commitment undermines Quebec's efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and seriously hinders its development by making Quebec pay for the others.

It is important to remember the specific and historical choices Quebec made with regard to energy development. Quebec produces the least amount of greenhouse gas emissions per capita in Canada; in the past, it invested heavily to reduce emissions within Quebec without Canada's assistance and, as long as this territorial approach is not applied, it has to bear the cost of reductions for western provinces such as Alberta.

Under the federal government's current strategy, Quebec will have to contribute approximately $1 billion toward the cost of implementing the Kyoto protocol. Using the territorial approach the Bloc Québécois is demanding, Quebec's contribution would be less than $400 million.

We therefore call for all efforts to reduce polluting emissions to be assigned according to territory, with the reference year being 1990, as required by the signing of the Kyoto protocol. Quebec would then be required to make a fair effort at reduction that would recognize its past pro-ecology choices while including it in the joint effort.

Since the fall of 2002, the Government of Quebec has been calling upon the federal government to enter into a bilateral agreement on application of the Kyoto protocol in Quebec. On October 24, 2002, members of the National Assembly adopted a consensus position calling upon the government to start negotiating a bilateral agreement on the funding and implementation of the greenhouse gas reduction strategy. At that time, the National Assembly called for the allocation formula to take into account the reductions achieved since 1990. Discussions have been held between representatives of both governments on the administrative level, but the necessary political support was lacking at the federal level.

In February 2003, Quebec environment minister, André Boisclair, again called upon the federal government, this time demanding that it mandate an official negotiator to initiate the negotiations.

In November 2004, we learned from media reports that Thomas Mulcair, Quebec's minister of sustainable development, environment and parks, had received a letter from his federal counterpart in which he made a commitment to step up the pace of negotiations, with a view to concluding a bilateral agreement on application of the Kyoto protocol in Quebec. We will not dwell on the comments made by the Minister of the Environment when he was asked about the progress of these negotiations, except to say that he noted that “negotiations with Quebec are progressing very well”. Yet we are still waiting.

On April 20, 2005, the Parti Québécois presented a motion calling for the signature of a bilateral agreement between Quebec and Ottawa that would allow Quebec full jurisdiction over the administration of the Kyoto protocol within its territory. That motion, which was passed unanimously by the National Assembly, read as follows:

That the Quebec National Assembly restates its desire to respect the Kyoto agreement and objects to the federal Green Plan which does not reflect the economic, energy or historic characteristics specific to Quebec, and calls for a bilateral agreement which does recognize these specific characteristics.

Even Quebec Liberals are in favour of the principle of this motion. It is time for Ottawa to keep its promises and reach a real agreement with Quebec that goes beyond the agreements in principle signed with Ontario, Manitoba, Prince Edward Island and Nunavut. Those agreements are nothing more than an aggregate of good intentions to cooperate, explore ideas, and improve awareness and recognition of the importance of fighting climate change; they do not offer anything concrete.

There are a few items the government should address and soon. The purpose of the motion is not to say that Quebec will take care of things and the federal government has nothing more to do. On the contrary, we must all contribute. Some of the most important measures can only be carried out by Ottawa and it is essential that the government take action.

The federal government must respect the territorial approach and give top priority to making public transit passes tax deductible, setting up a regulatory framework with heavy fines for non-compliance, eliminating tax incentives to oil and gas producers, and offering tax deductions for purchasing environmental vehicles.

In short, what we are asking the government to do is to put its words into action. Everyone knows this is urgent. It is time for the Minister of the Environment to stop making speeches and to start taking action.

The motion I am introducing in the House will help the country to take action, finally. Quebec would immediately have the tools it needs to respect the spirit and the letter of a protocol in which it strongly believes.

For now, it is Canadian inertia that is preventing us from taking action. It is the responsibility of the Minister of the Environment to act for the environment and we are offering him a solution to end his inaction.

It is his duty to be in favour of the motion, as it is the duty of every member sitting in this House.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me today to speak during the questions and comments period on the motion introduced by my colleague from Vaudreuil-Soulanges.

My colleague has very eloquently shown how the federal government's approach to implementing the Kyoto protocol has been unsuccessful to date. Companies evaluate how effective measures are based on their results. It is clear that the targets have not yet been reached. Instead of moving toward a 6% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions between 2008 and 2010, the government has increased these emissions by 20%. So it will have to reduce them by 30% to meet its Kyoto commitments.

Overall, as my colleague indicated earlier, this has been a huge failure, both in terms of results and equity. The plans implemented by the federal government between November 2002 and April 13, 2005, are based on the polluter-paid principle instead of the polluter-pay principle.

Since 1996, various tax measures have resulted in a 33% increase in tax incentives for the oil and gas industries in Canada. How is it possible that, although the government wants to implement the Kyoto protocol, incentives for those responsible for 55% of greenhouse gas emissions have increased? As a principle, this is not equitable.

Furthermore, the federal government prefers the voluntary approach. Not once since 1997 has the government implemented mandatory measures. This was the preferred approach in December 2004, when the government set targets in cooperation with the various industries. Only the steel and the pulp and paper industries signed a voluntary agreement. Naturally, an agreement has been reached with the auto industry, but it is a far cry from what this industry could have done.

The government is extremely proud of its so-called green plan, which was tabled on April 13. Can my colleague tell us which partners oppose this plan, which not only spares the major polluters and the major industrial emitters, but which also does not promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions as set out in the Kyoto protocol?

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for his question. I know he has done a huge amount of work in this file to fine-tune the Bloc's position.

Environmental groups are in fact urging the government to increase the overall target for the large emitters, eliminate the possibility of their using the technology investment fund, establish transparent mechanisms to guarantee results and set deadlines for each section of the plan.

These groups include the Pembina Institute, Greenpeace, Équiterre, Vivre en ville, Québec vert Kyoto coalition, David Suzuki Foundation, Sierra Legal Defence Fund and Canadian Environmental Law Association. These are credible organizations, whose support is important in this matter.

I would like to remind the House that Quebec must manage matters relating to Kyoto within its jurisdiction. We provided the background earlier. The Bloc Québécois supports imposing strict standards on the large emitters, on the condition that the targets are fair for each sector and that the government agrees to drop the extremely unfair reference year of 2010.

The federal government should also cede to Quebec and to the provinces wishing it responsibility for managing the overall target for industries within Quebec.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that climate change is one of the most significant environmental and sustainable development challenges that we face as a country. Certainly the establishment and ratification of the Kyoto protocol is the only global mechanism with targets to reduce GHG emissions. That is why we signed it and that is why we ratified it in December 2002.

I have listened to the member, who does not reject categorically the role of the Government of Canada in dealing with the province of Quebec, nor should she. Clearly the government cannot and does not support this motion, for a number of reasons. Our climate change plan is fair and equitable and we will implement it in a manner that is clearly fair and equitable for all Canadians.

I am pleased to debate this motion because it provides me with an opportunity to encourage the active engagement of the province of Quebec and other provinces and territories in the implementation of a national plan to honour our Kyoto commitments and address climate change over the long term. We will not advance our economic and environmental agenda by arguing over compensation for resource endowments and past investment decisions that were taken in a highly different context; this only stands to benefit adversity.

Canada's Kyoto target is challenging. However, we have many advantages that will help us rise to this challenge. The Government of Canada is committed to the transformative, long term change required to make deep reductions in GHG emissions while ensuring continued economic growth. In achieving that transformation, we believe we must meet our Kyoto target while maintaining a productive and growing economy. I do not think anyone in the House would disagree with that.

Our 2005 climate change plan, “Moving Forward on Climate Change--A Plan for Honouring our Kyoto Commitment”, was announced on April 13. It is built on six key elements: competitive and sustainable industries for the 21st century; harnessing market forces; a partnership among Canada's governments; engaged citizens; sustainable agriculture and forest sectors; and sustainable cities and communities.

Our climate change plan will also contribute significantly to cleaner air for Canada's cities. It will enhance biodiversity. It will help preserve wild spaces and generally improve the quality of life for all Canadians. It is estimated that the approaches outlined in the plan, with an associated federal investment in the range of $10 billion through 2012, could reduce emissions to the level to meet Canada's Kyoto commitments.

Budget 2005 laid the foundation for our plan and took an important step in providing the resources to it. In fact, some said it should have been announced on St. Patrick's Day because it is the greenest budget in Canadian history. I am surprised that members of the Bloc are not supporting the budget given the fact that they continually talk about the need to address climate change. We have a budget that has those economic instruments to deal with it and yet they say they cannot support the budget. They cannot have it both ways.

Clearly the funding in budget 2005 proposes: a minimum of $1 billion for the climate fund; $250 million for the partnership fund, with the possibility that the funding could grow to $2 billion to $3 billion over the next decade; $200 million for the wind power production incentive; $100 million for the renewable power production incentive; $300 million for tax incentives for efficient and renewable energy generation; and $2 billion for the existing climate change programs.

The climate and partnership funds will be central elements for the emission reduction approach. Some of my colleagues in the conservative alliance of course do not believe in climate change and therefore clearly do not support it, but then again, some of them do not know that the ice age occurred so I am not surprised that they do not support climate change. The reality is that Canadians know about climate change. No matter what heckling I get from that side, the reality is that Canadians support the government on this very important issue. Clearly the hot air coming from that side does not make it any less important for Canadians.

Both funds will be geared toward levering good ideas and providing targeted support to projects that achieve verifiable emission reductions. The climate fund will operate on a competitive bid basis and will pay for actual reductions achieved. It will operate and encourage emission reductions in all sectors of the economy. The partnership fund will be tied to the negotiation of memoranda of understanding with provinces and territories and actions that are agreed to will be cost shared. This is something I am sure will be of interest to our colleagues in the Bloc.

Negotiations on a memorandum of understanding have started with the Province of Quebec and I want them to proceed as expeditiously as possible. The Minister of the Environment is keenly committed to achieving a successful outcome in that regard.

The large final emitter system will enable Canada's largest emitters to contribute to national climate change objectives in a manner that facilitates growth and competitiveness. An agreement with the automobile manufacturers and importers will see technological advancement realize substantial emission reductions from that sector.

The one tonne challenge will build on work to date to increase awareness, knowledge, commitment and action by Canadians and will actively promote opportunities presented by the climate fund and other initiatives in the plan.

The 2005 plan builds on the 2002 climate change plan for Canada and the $3.7 billion investment to address climate change that the Government of Canada has made since the Kyoto protocol was concluded in December 1997.

The technology investment fund will be self-funded by large final emitters as one of the means of meeting their emission reduction targets. The fund will be used to develop and commercialize Canadian technologies to enable substantial emission reductions over the long term.

The partnership fund will support the development and implementation of effective greenhouse mitigation projects between all orders of government across this country. We recognize that provinces, territories and communities must play a central role if we are to meet our national objectives.

To this end, the government will reach new agreements and strengthen existing memoranda of understanding on climate change with each province and territory in determining strategic investments for emission reductions and economic growth, which I think again addresses some of the issues that have been raised by members of the Bloc.

The partnership fund will support cost-shared investments between orders of government for major technology and infrastructure investments. These projects could include clean coal, carbon dioxide capture and storage, cellulosic ethanol, extending the interprovincial electricity distribution network to liberate new hydro electric investments, which we have talked about in the House before, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba being examples, and green municipal infrastructure, including better public transit. Smaller investments in energy efficiency and energy conservation could be equally included in the scope of investment criteria.

The memoranda of understanding will be the basis for cooperative action to reduce emissions within the Kyoto timeframe as well as in the medium and longer terms.

Having each province pursue its own climate change strategy would lead to higher overall costs for compliance than a nationally led strategy, misplaced and underperforming GHG mitigation investments, and would unnecessarily create a large degree of uncertainty for the private sector, which would further reduce levels of investment, employment and a deteriorating degree of competitiveness among advanced economics.

Quebec, given its relatively low greenhouse gas emission rate per capital, would have less mitigation burden than many other provinces. Quebec would be treated fairly and equitably in the process.

There are no doubt opportunities for Quebec, in partnership with the Government of Canada, to reduce energy and environmental costs through smart investments that result in improved levels of competitiveness, greater levels of consumer and investor confidence and enhanced levels of comfort and security.

[Bob Mills, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure as well to speak about Kyoto. I have been doing that for a number of years now, and I need to refresh everyone's mind in terms of the Kyoto protocol.

Climate change was recognized in Rio in 1992. All countries signed on stating that this was a problem with which we needed to deal. Many countries immediately took up the challenge and started work on it. For example, countries like Germany, Denmark and et cetera asked what they could do to develop new technologies. Unfortunately, at that point Canada did nothing.

Then 1997 came along and the Kyoto meeting was held. A week before Kyoto a meeting was held in Regina where all provincial premiers and environment ministers met. The government said that it would not sign anything until it came back, had a full discussion and developed a full plan. Then it would look at the economic costs and impacts to the country.

The environment minister of the day, Christine Stewart, got wound up in the excitement of Kyoto and signed on to it. Again, there was no consultation with the premiers. The main motive seemed to be the fact that the United States said it could achieve 5% below 1990 levels, so the prime minister of the day, Mr. Chrétien, decided to do one better and made it 6%.

On the other hand, the Australians had a plan and costed it out. They said that they could only achieve 8% above 1990 levels. Subsequent to that, they found they could not achieve that so they opted out. The Americans found that the economic impacts would be too great and they opted out. Many European countries are also saying that they cannot achieve their targets. Japan has said that it would be 6% above its target, and so it goes.

Here we have a government which still says it will meet its targets. However, I guess we should expect that kind of misleading of the Canadian public. It seems to be the modus operandi of the government.

We still do not have a plan. Nothing much was done after 1997. Then in 2002 in Johannesburg the prime minister of the day decided to ratify Kyoto. The government did not know what the cost would be nor did it have a plan. It did not recognize the fact that Canada has a cold climate. It is a huge country with not much transportation infrastructure and it does not have many people. The government did not want to bother with those details or to develop a plan with realistic targets and realistic costs.

In the meantime the U.S. and the Australians have dropped out and the EU has admitted now that it is having difficulties. The developing countries of China, India, et cetera are not part of it. Therefore, we have a plan that is not likely to work globally and certainly will not work in Canada.

In 2002 the government came out with a plan. It was less than 100 megatonnes, but the target at that point was 240 megatonnes. Therefore, we had a piecemeal plan.

Now the government has gone one step further and has come out with a new plan, the 2005 plan, which is even more vague than any of the non-plans it had before.

Let us look at the numbers because we can translate these. We are now some 30% above 1990 levels. We have spent over $2 billion and we have gone up in terms of CO

2

greenhouse gas emissions. Something is wrong.

Now we have this so-called plan about which the parliamentary secretary brags. Let us look at the numbers. The auto industry will be five megatonnes. The Rick Mercer all-Canadian fund may be 20 megatonnes if everyone does what Rick Mercer says, which is not to idle our cars, do not heat our homes, wear sweaters, et cetera.

Then we have the large final emitters that have gone from 55 megatonnes in the 2002 plan down to 36 megatonnes. We have sinks, which were agreed to in Bonn in 2003, a giveaway to keep us onside, at about 30 megatonnes, maybe only 20.

We are under 100 megatonnes in this plan, yet our target now is between 270 and 300. The simple mathematics would tell anybody with any sense at all that we will not hit our targets. It is time for the government to come clean with Canadians and say that it recognizes climate change and that it will act on it but with a realistic, long term, made in Canada plan.

What has the government in this plan really offered Canadians? Other than no plan at all, and I emphasize that, it has given industry and Canadians four choices.

The first option is to modernize technology or reduce production. What does that mean? A fertilizer plant making nitrogen fertilizer is using 21st century technology. On the other hand, China is using 1940s technology and the greenhouse gases produced from the production of that nitrogen is tremendous. We can look at the coal industry, which has moved a long way and in fact is now in the early stages of developing coal gasification. What is happening in China and in India? They are introducing 1950s technology and are building 500 plants, where we are talking about building one or two.

I think members get the point that to modernize technology, option one, is pretty difficult when using 21st century technology. The gains we could possibly get are pretty minimal. However, if we could develop the technology in Canada and transfer that technology to the Indias, the Chinas, the Brazils and the Mexicos, then we could make a real environmental impact. That is if Kyoto was about the environment, but it is not. Let us go further to develop that point.

The second choice is to donate money into a technology fund. That is just great. We have not seen the targets yet. When there is no plan, how can anybody be given targets? They will come later some time, maybe. We now have these mythical targets out there. If a company is over those targets, company A can transfer money into company B. Company B is a competitor, but it has developed some technology that we decide to fund. I cannot help but believe that with the board that does this, the 12 member board that will be created by the government, will we not simply get another Gomery inquiry down the road? Who will these 12 members fund? They will fund the company that is Liberal-friendly. How can we expect anything else from a dishonest government like that? This is option two. Company A transfers to company B to develop technology projects chosen by a government board.

What is option three? Option three is even more dramatic. It says that if companies are over their targets, targets which have not been set yet, they can buy credits. Where do they buy the credits? They could buy them from some countries at a cost of $30 a tonne, but the minister has said that they will buy them from poor countries, from developing countries. Poor Zimbabwe, we will keep it non-industrial forever. That is not a very liberal philosophy.

The fourth option is we will implement CEPA, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, and fine companies $200 a tonne when they are over their targets, the targets that have not been set yet. How can industry plan anything?

What will it do to jobs and our economy when there is that kind of lack of planning from the government? Obviously, the provinces are frustrated and would like to take over. Who could blame them?

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today on Motion M-162 introduced this morning by my hon. colleague from Vaudreuil-Soulanges. The motion reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should cede to the Government of Quebec, with full financial compensation, complete responsibility for implementing the Kyoto protocol within its jurisdiction.

First, I would like to briefly review the approach taken by the government since 1997, that is, since this protocol was signed and later ratified by Canada. This approach has led to the collapse of Canada's response to climate change, but in more practical terms, it has set Canada back, and significantly so, in terms of meeting its international commitment to reduce emissions in Canada to 6% below 1990 between 2008 and 2012.

This approach failed because, since 1997, the measures put in place by the government were voluntary measures based on the goodwill of the industry and its willingness to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The reality is, however, that the emissions produced by these industrial sectors and particularly those called large industrial emitters, which will account for 55% of overall emissions in Canada within a few years, have increased substantially. We will have to make sure that the federal government's preferred approach reflects the effort asked of large polluters toward achieving the Kyoto objectives.

I will remind the hon. members that the government had set for itself the target and deadline of December 2004 to come to agreement with all industrial sectors. Yet, by then, only two voluntary agreements had been signed with industries, namely the pulp and paper industry and the steel industry. Granted, another voluntary agreement has just been signed with the automotive industry. But, between you and me, the effort asked of that industry represents approximately five megatonnes, while the automotive population accounts for 16% of all greenhouse gas emissions in Canada.

In the past, this meant major industrial emitters were spared the effort the federal government is now requiring of them. The government has been very kind and conciliatory toward the automobile industry. I would note that the government has been conciliatory with the oil and hydrocarbon industries, which are the economic drivers of western Canada. Two weeks ago, the government was once again conciliatory and generous with the automobile industry and offered a voluntary conditional agreement, which the industry could opt out of at any time should the industry or the federal government decide no longer to apply the agreement.

Quebec's manufacturing industry managed to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 7%. However, it will be penalized by an approach that spares the major industrial emitters and polluters. The companies and industrial sectors that make up Quebec's economic base will be penalized. Accordingly, the preferred approach by the federal government since 1997 is based not on the polluter-pay principle, but rather the polluter-paid principle. Between 1996 and 2002, tax incentives for the oil and gas industry in Canada increased by 33%.

How can we give tax incentives to industrial sectors that refuse to do their share in reducing greenhouse gas emissions?

How can we give tax incentives to businesses and industrial sectors that want Canada to withdraw from the international consensus with respect to climate change? What the government should do instead is to compensate those sectors of industry that have been making an effort since 1997. Quebec needs to be compensated, as does Manitoba, these two having been the first to implement plans to deal with climate change.

Quebec governments, starting with the Bourassa government and including the PQ governments, have decided in the National Assembly on active measures which have resulted in Quebec's having the best per capita performance as far as greenhouse gas emissions are concerned.

What we are calling for is, of course, international commitment, but on an equitable basis which would ensure application of the polluter-pay principle, rather than the polluter-paid principle. The government must therefore be aware that a national climate change strategy cannot be applied coast to coast. The reason it cannot is that this strategy and approach have proven that they do not achieve the objectives, no matter how much federal goodwill lies behind them.

Since 1997, the government has put $3.7 billion into its efforts relating to climate change. Have there been any greenhouse gas reductions? No, they have gone up 20%, and Canada will have to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 30% if it wants to meet its commitments under the Kyoto protocol.

What must be acknowledged is that Canada cannot achieve greenhouse gas reductions to the desired extent. The economic structure of Canada varies from province to province. Energy efficiency and the natural resource situation varies according to geographic location. Gains in efficiency are not identical. Quebec's energy position differs from those of other provinces in that 95% of its electricity is hydro-electric. This is absolutely the opposite of the energy realities in the rest of Canada.

There must, of course, be a common commitment in Canada, but there must also be differentiations in objectives and commitments that reflect the energy reality, the positioning and the economic structure, as well as the demographic reality of Quebec and the rest of Canada. As a result, we will be able to plan and achieve greater efficiency as far as meeting our greenhouse gas reductions are concerned,

How does this relate to the motion introduced today? It is all there. What is this motion calling for? It is calling on the federal government to commit to signing a bilateral agreement giving Quebec full responsibility for implementing the Kyoto protocol within its jurisdiction. Quebec has had a plan in place since the 1990s and the results prove it. This approach has allowed us to work toward the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

This model should be implemented across Canada. We could conclude formal agreements with the provinces, not agreements in principle such as the one on climate change that the federal government just signed with Ontario. There should be a bilateral agreement allowing Quebec to assume its responsibilities, but there should also be a commitment for full financial compensation when federal climate change programs are announced.

Perhaps, instead of funding projects by the oil and gas industry, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by major industries, Quebec would prefer to invest these funds in transportation, where significant initiatives are essential. Quebec and the rest of Canada do not see this the same way.

Quebec needs to work on different sectors than the rest of Canada. That is why we must vote in favour of Motion M-162, which states that Quebec must assume complete responsibility for implementing the protocol in its jurisdiction and receive full financial compensation.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak to Motion No. 162. I am not surprised that we are debating a motion like this one in the House of Commons, because there has been a lack of leadership on this file. It really is unfortunate.

A groundswell of Canadians support the Kyoto accord. It is one of the first times there has been a major environmental initiative across the planet to deal with climate change. It is an environmental issue that could turn the world around in many respects. It shows that nations can work together and that there is a collective responsibility for our precious planet. We as humans sharing the planet with other species have a responsibility to ensure that as the custodians we will pass on a legacy better than the one we are dealing with right now.

This lost opportunity is a black mark on Canadian diplomacy, not only abroad but also at home. That is why a motion such as Motion No. 162 is before the House of Commons. The motion states:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should cede to the government of Quebec, with full financial compensation, complete responsibility for implementing the Kyoto Protocol within its jurisdiction.

It comes at the end of a decade of Liberal promises to deal with climate change, to invest in the environment. They have not done so adequately to the needs of Canadians. I must say to the people of Quebec and to the Quebec government that they have actually been in the forefront in many respects in dealing with climate change. They have more progressive policies related to the environment and more progressive policies related to energy. They have more progressive policies in engaging their own constituencies on how to solve this issue. This is something which shows the weakness of the current federal government. The politics of divide has resulted in more complications with regard to provincial and federal issues because of the mismanagement of this file.

Let us look at the role of the nation on this file. Canadians were very proud that not only were we participants in the Kyoto accord but we talked about how it could affect the net benefit of changing economies and also the health and welfare of Canadians. That relates also to our revenues. It relates to everything, from being at the forefront of creating new technology which creates jobs, to being at the forefront of other nations, to making sure that the air we breathe is cleaner, that the water we drink is safer, and that our food production and distribution practices make for a better quality of life for Canadians.

It is really sad that for a decade we have watched greenhouse gas emissions go up, despite the Liberals' promises in the red book. The Prime Minister promised to reduce greenhouse gas emissions but they have gone up significantly on his watch. It has been very difficult to get the Liberals to bring forward a policy that Canadians could understand and buy into and one which they would actually respect.

The New Democrats are concerned that the Kyoto plan the government has brought forward is so late in the day that it requires us to purchase credits from abroad. That is irresponsible. In the last decade we have had plenty of opportunities to invest in cleaner technologies, to make sure that the jobs are going to be here, that the finances in the nation stay here so that we have the best of both worlds. It has been very difficult for Canadians to see what is happening on the one tonne challenge. The onus is being thrown back on them as individuals because no constructive plan has been brought forth. The one we have right now is certainly deficient.

I want to briefly touch upon the auto industry. Voluntary and mandatory emissions have been mentioned numerous times. For a number of years we have been asking the government to bring forward a national auto policy. Canada was very successful in negotiating the auto pact. It was collapsed under NAFTA. The auto pact was something that brought a lot of Canadian jobs, a lot of Canadian skilled work, a lot of pride and a lot of tax revenue. A lot of Canadians may not recognize that we export to the United States and abroad, but particularly to the United States, approximately 80% of the vehicles that are manufactured and assembled here in Canada.

Our success in this industry has led to a lot of wealth. Individuals who have decent paying jobs contribute back to the economy at a significantly higher rate than those in other professions. They also provide for good working conditions. Some of the issues related to worker health and safety have been led by unions to ensure that people are protected when they deal with chemicals and other types of substances in their work.

We have literally had to continually beg the government to bring in an auto policy. We were promised that a policy would be brought to cabinet by Christmas and the Minister of Industry has not done so. We have not seen it. Nothing has come out. Despite the Canadian Automotive Partnership Council tabling its report, a national round table that was set up about a year and a half or two years ago, it still has yet to see the light of day in terms of specific action.

Specific to this file there is an issue. We are losing out on opportunities to renew the auto industry, which can do two things. First, it can provide for the production and manufacture of cleaner vehicles that will hit our streets a lot quicker and we could become a world leader ensuring that emissions are reduced significantly.

Second, it can protect us from losing jobs, jobs that have basically been stolen and have gone to China, Alabama and Mississippi. The United States has massively subsidized its industry, as well as Mexico, to procure Canadian jobs away from us. That loses very important tax base revenue. Speaking from an auto sector viewpoint in an auto town, I can say that workers would be able to afford to fix their homes and contribute to the economy through taxation which would provide for incentives and other necessary measures to meet our international obligations on climate change.

One of the recommendations that CAPC made is very specific to this. The third recommendation in the report states:

--auto-focused innovation incentives such as early commercialization tax credits, consumer supports to encourage the purchase of environmentally friendly vehicle technologies and more effective supports for manufacturing process innovation.

We know the auto industry has a lot of challenges with regard to greenhouse emissions and pollution in our society because of the way we have chosen to use vehicles and the way they have been part of our economy. At the same time, the new biodiesel fuel, the new hybrids, and the Canadian biotechnology are real solutions that are going to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. If those plants are in our communities and in our country, we are going to be successful.

Instead, what the government has done is turn its back on the auto industry in many respects and has tried to save jobs on an ad hoc plant-by-plant basis at the last minute. We are witnessing many of them now going not only to the United States and Mexico but also to Pakistan and China.

The worst recipe for all of this is the fact that we in Canada may end up producing some of the higher emission vehicles that will find less markets. For example, California is a significant market for automobiles and has standards, rules and obligations. We will be locked out of those markets. If that is the case, we will have less opportunities to compete as other states like New York and a lot of the eastern seaboard states move to mandatory auto emission regulations. I do not want to see production facilities in this country that meet partial parts in the market.

Canadians could certainly support the auto industry moving to those greener technologies and at the same time protecting their jobs. It is unfortunate that this gem of an opportunity has been lost. It really comes at a time when we are going to lose those investment opportunities to other nations.

I want to touch on another issue, which we are finally seeing the government being dragged into, kicking and screaming. We are one of the few nations until recently, and the budget has to be passed first, that does not support mass public transit. In fact, we are the only G-8 country that has not been participating on mass transit on a regular basis. This is another issue where we are going to see some reservations from different provinces and some hesitation about the overall plan. They have witnessed opportunities the government could have had to invest in the actual applications that affect many of the citizens of our communities.

In the province of Ontario we have literally thousands of people who are affected by smog every summer and some die. Smog is something that we can control. We can improve the air quality. It is a controllable factor. Other nations have taken responsibility and shown due diligence and an interest to be part of the solution.

I have concerns with the insinuation that we are moving to cleaner coal. This reminds me of those commercials where they say to buy fresh frozen vegetables. This is not consistent.

We must ensure that we take control of our environmental participation. The Kyoto accord is something that should have galvanized Canadians instead of dividing Canadians and that is what is happening because of the irresponsibility of this government for not having a plan.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired, and the item is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

The House resumed from April 21 consideration of the motion that Bill C-38, an act respecting certain aspects of legal capacity for marriage for civil purposes, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the motion that this question be now put.

Civil Marriage Act

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I, like most of my colleagues on this side of the House and many on the other side as well, believe in the traditional definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

However, in the course of this debate those of us who support the traditional form of marriage have been told that to oppose Bill C-38 would be a violation of human rights and an unconstitutional violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is an attempt by the government to shift the grounds of this debate. The government does not want to debate the question of traditional marriage versus same sex marriage. It would rather focus on attacking its opponents as opposing human rights and the charter. This debate is not about human rights. It is a political, social policy decision and should be treated in that light.

Let me present several reasons why the issue of same sex marriage is not a human rights issue, and why defining the traditional definition of marriage would probably not violate the charter or require the use of the notwithstanding clause.

First of all, no internationally recognized human rights document has ever suggested that there is a right to same sex marriage. For example, in the universal declaration of human rights, the foundational United Nations human rights charter, almost all the rights listed are worded as purely individual rights, rights which everyone shall have or no one shall be denied. When it comes to marriage, the declaration says:

Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family.

The use of the term “men and women” rather than “everyone” suggests that only traditional opposite sex marriage is contemplated. The subsequent international covenant on civil and political rights contains similar language. Attempts to pursue same sex marriage as an international human rights issue have failed.

In 1998 the European Court of Justice held that “stable relationships between two persons of the same sex are not regarded as equivalent to marriages.” In 1996 the New Zealand Court of Appeal rejected the recognition of same sex marriages despite the fact that New Zealand's bill of rights explicitly listed sexual orientation as a prohibited grounds of discrimination.

When the New Zealand decision was challenged before the United Nations Human Rights Commission as a violation of the international covenant on civil and political rights, the United Nations Human Rights Commission ruled in 2002 that there was no case for discrimination simply on the basis of refusing to marry homosexual couples.

In fact, to this date no international human rights body and no national supreme court has ever found that there is a human right to same sex marriage. The only courts that have found in favour of a right to same sex marriage are provincial courts in this country or state level courts in the United States.

If same sex marriage is not a basic human right in the sense of internationally recognized human rights law, is it a violation of Canadian charter rights? Several provincial Courts of Appeal such as the Court of Appeal in my province of Ontario have said that it is, and we still have not heard from the highest court in the land.

In the same sex reference case the Supreme Court of Canada declined to rule on the constitutionality of the traditional definition of marriage despite a clear request from the Liberal government to answer that question. All of the lower court decisions in favour of same sex marriage were dealing with common law, judge made law from over a century ago, not a recent statute passed by a democratically elected legislature.

It is quite possible that those lower courts may have found differently if there was a marriage act passed by this Parliament defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. So the whole discussion of the notwithstanding clause is an irrelevant distraction in this debate. There is simply no reason to use or discuss the use of the notwithstanding clause in the absence of a Supreme Court decision which indicates the traditional definition of marriage as unconstitutional. The Supreme Court of Canada has not done so. The Supreme Court has also said in various cases that statute law requires greater deference than common law.

Should legislation upholding the traditional definition of marriage be passed, a good argument can be made that the Supreme Court would give it considerable deference.

There are several examples of Parliament having passed statutes without using the notwithstanding clause that effectively reversed judicial decisions, including Supreme Court of Canada decisions, under common law. The courts have accepted these exercises of parliamentary sovereignty.

In 1995, Parliament passed Bill C-72 reversing the Supreme Court's decision in Daviault, which allowed extreme intoxication in a criminal defence.

In 1996, Parliament passed Bill C-46 reversing the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in O'Connor, which allowed the accused to access medical records of the victims in sexual assault cases. When this new law was challenged in a subsequent case, Mills, the Supreme Court wisely ruled, in a decision by Justices McLachlin and Iaccobucci, that:

It does not follow from the fact that a law passed by Parliament differs from a regime envisaged by the Court in the absence of a statutory scheme, that Parliament's law is unconstitutional. Parliament may build on the Court's decision, and develop a different scheme as long as it remains constitutional. Just as Parliament must respect the Court's rulings, so the Court must respect Parliament's determination that the judicial scheme can be improved. To insist on slavish conformity would belie the mutual respect that underpins the relationship between the courts and legislature that is so essential to our constitutional democracy....

There is good reason to believe that the Supreme Court of Canada, if it were eventually asked to rule on a new statutory definition of marriage combined with a full and equal recognition of legal rights and benefits for same sex couples, might well accept it.

The Conservative Party of Canada's position that the use of the notwithstanding clause is not required to legislate a traditional definition of marriage is supported by law professor Alan Brudner of the University of Toronto who recently wrote in the

Globe and Mail:

For all we know, therefore, courts may uphold opposite sex marriage as a reasonable limit on the right against discrimination when the restriction comes from a democratic body.

The notwithstanding clause should be invoked by Parliament only after the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled on the constitutionality of a law. As yet, there has been no such law for the Supreme Court to consider, so there is no need to use the notwithstanding clause.

My leader has undertaken to bring in a reasonable, democratic compromise solution, one which is defined in statute that marriage remains the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, which extended equal rights and benefits to couples living in other forms of unions, and which fully protected freedom of religion to the extent possible under federal law. I believe that the Supreme Court of Canada would honour such a decision by Parliament and therefore I will be supporting the traditional definition of marriage.

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on behalf of the constituents of Edmonton East to this vital social issue of redefining marriage. I wish to make it very clear to my constituents that I oppose Bill C-38 and I will be voting against it.

In his January message to the Calgary diocese, Bishop Henry made some controversial statements that were subject to much criticism. This speech shed light on the interplay between constitutional law, religious tradition and judicial interpretation. Bishop Henry's recent pastoral letters to his Calgary diocese have been controversial in the eyes of some. These pastoral letters are grounded in the broadly held belief that marriage, as traditionally defined and the family as traditionally understood as two opposite sex heterosexual, married and most living together with children, remains the cornerstone of society. A principal reason for this is because it is through this form of family unit that children are naturally brought into this world and nurtured as they grow to adulthood.

His further view is that the family, as traditionally understood, is a more fundamental institution than the state and that marriage, as traditionally understood, is rooted in natural law, particularly relating to procreation.

All of these perspectives are debatable but are nonetheless phrased in such a way as to invite reasoned debate. It so happens that I agree with these particular views. Others may not, pointing to the number of single parent families or other forms of supportive relationships between adults and children. Others may wish to debate approaches to procreation through artificial means.

Underlining all debates are various perspectives as to how a healthy future for Canadian society is best assured. For those who advocate alternatives to the traditional family and traditional marriage, there is much evidence that both adults and children in society are not better off as a result of moving away from these models. Many breakdowns in social order that have been encountered over the last 30 years are traced by many to the breakdown through divorce in the security and stability once commonly associated with Canadian family life.

For example, the vast majority of divorces involve erosions of the wealth and lifestyle position of all parties, particularly children, since it is economically impossible for most people to maintain the same lifestyle when there are two homes rather than one. The astounding increase in the number of single parent families is directly correlated to increases in child poverty.

The vast majority of young persons in trouble with the law do not come from stable traditional family relationships. My point here is that it is one matter to advocate alternative to tradition but it is quite another to be able to provide empirical support that the erosion of tradition has made most people, and hence society, better off. I would like to think that this is what Bishop Henry's principal sentiment is.

It is against this backdrop of challenges to tradition, absent of empirical support as to overall societal betterment, that we might best examine the debate over same sex marriage. What we see time and again is the challenges to the long held traditions and beliefs, traditions and believes that have been shown over long periods of time to have benefited most people, lead to further questions and further challenges and less well-being for all.

For example, we now live in what may be regarded as an unacceptable age of moral relativism where the term “judgmental” is regarded as describing the heinous behaviour of expressing an opposing opinion. What is refreshing about Bishop Henry's views is that he reminds us that we do live in a world where moral choices are made and where some choices involve or should involve general acceptance as to the rectitude. In some areas there are no shades of grey in relation to what is right.

With the possibility of the opening up of the traditional meaning of the word marriage to include same sex couples, many consider that there is now a conflict between globally shared values and values that have been effectively legislated by Canadian politicians or judicially determined by persons with no accountability for the social consequences of such determinations.

One issue of moral relativism that has now risen in the context of the debate over the same sex marriage is that of the potential for Canadian constitutional protection for polygamy.

In another time and place, such an issue being raised would be regarded as comical, and surely the parties cannot be serious. Right now in Canada the parties are so serious that the federal Department of the Status of Women has issued an urgent call for persons interested in receiving funds to research and make recommendations on the issue of polygamy. One does not have to be a nationally or internationally respected scholar to receive such funding, though in these relativistic times it appears that one person's opinion is just as good as another's, particularly if an agent has funded one opinion and not the other.

Muslims in Canada, many of whom are opposed to same sex marriage on religious grounds, are less opposed to legislative recognition of polygamy since polygamy is permitted in Islamic law. Old-order Mormons are similarly supportive, as some may recall from news reports relating to the Mormon dominated town of Bountiful, B.C.

It is in the court of international opinion that Canada may find itself subject to a rather rude awakening. Already the Prime Minister was surprised to find that when trying to discuss trade relationships in India, he was compelled to first explain to the Indian population why Canada supported same sex marriage, a concept that again is contrary to the teachings of many Indian religions, such as Sikhism.

The Netherlands has encountered similar difficulties, being one of only two countries currently recognizing same sex marriages. The Netherlands has recognized same sex marriages since 2001. The other country that has recognized same sex marriage is Belgium. The Swedish government is preparing legislation to legalize same sex marriage, as is Spain, where same sex marriage is expected to be legalized as of 2005.

Like Canada, the Netherlands has many historic ties to other parts of the world, such as Aruba in the Caribbean which, since 1986 has been a separate entity within the Kingdom of Netherlands. After a Dutch lesbian married an Arubian lesbian in the Netherlands, they moved to Aruba and expected their marriage would be recognized there. Instead, their application to register their marriage was denied amidst significant degrees of social pressure that ultimately compelled the couple to return to the Netherlands.

Often forgotten in these relativistic debates is that there are globally held moral views that are broadly shared and that it is the height of arrogance to assume and presume that changes to these long held views would be accepted based on some sort of subservience to the enlightened thought of industrial nations. Imposing a relativistic view of marriage on such countries is certainly little more than the folly and fancy of those whose sense of moral self-absorption leaves them blind to the morality of the rest of the world.

I believe that Bishop Henry continues to have much of importance to say on the issues of marriage and family traditions. Perhaps the real issue prompting so many to comment concerns an interpretation of Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms that is far too liberal for the majority of society to comfortably accept.

With Bill C-38 now before Parliament, the Liberals have decided not to have a free vote with the members and the NDP have decided not to have a free vote at all. Without a free vote in Parliament, the only way all Canadians will have the opportunity to have a say in the issue is in a national referendum.

I want to read again from a brochure that I issued in the last election which really confirmed my feelings since I was elected in 1997. I believe a person should put his or her principles and beliefs in writing. The brochure reads:

This election, you have the opportunity to end more than a decade of Liberal scandal, waste and corruption. I've been fighting for a more honest and accountable government since you first elected me as your Member of Parliament in 1997. There is much more to fight for now, including more secure health care, better living conditions for the less fortunate and for the preservation of traditional family values, including the definition of marriage. I pledge to keep up the fight.

At the same time, during that period we demand better for accountable government, better for access to health care, better for crime control and taxation relief, better for low income families and the homeless, and better for traditional family values.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have listened attentively to the hon. member's comments and I feel therefore I should react to them.

I will, of course, avoid discussing the Conservative Party's policy on health care. I think it is widely known and is distressing enough to many Canadians at the moment, so there is no need to frighten others. The same thing may be said with respect to their newly felt apparent affection for those less well off. That too is frightening enough already, so I will not discuss it further.

I do, however, want to come back to the other points the member raised. He seemed to say that the government was, in a way, redefining marriage on its own, assuming that civil marriage—only civil marriage, in fact—of same sex partners does not already exist, which we know to be incorrect.

That may be the case in Alberta, Prince Edward Island or New Brunswick at the moment. However, on the weekend, I read a document by a professor from the University of Ottawa, which said that the remarks just made by the member are incorrect with respect to 90% of Canada's population.

In my province of Ontario, these marriages are currently taking place and have done so for a year or even more. As I said in the context of another debate, I have been invited to some of these weddings but have not attended. Would I be prepared to attend one some day? I do not know. That is not the issue, in any case. It does not matter whether the member opposite or I are prepared to endorse this type of union. The issue is to determine whether it is a right. That is the important part.

The courts in seven provinces have held that it is. The language used in most cases indicates that it is a fundamental right under the Constitution.

The hon. member across said that we could have gone to the Supreme Court to see whether that is in fact the case, but wait a minute. In seven provinces it has been decided that it is the case. That is seven, not one, not two and not three. In seven provinces it has been decided, and as a matter of fact, in every single province where the case was heard it was determined to be that way. It was determined to be a right, a fundamental right.

There is another thing that the member fails to tell us. He seems to suggest that there is such a thing as a right of appeal to the Supreme Court. As he knows, that does not exist in law. Once the superior court has heard the case at its appeal level, that is the end of traditional appeal processes. Of course one can seek leave to appeal, but that does not suggest that there is a right to appeal. That does not exist. Of course, when one seeks leave to appeal--a government does and I sat in cabinet for seven and a half years--one receives the advice as to whether or not, if the government wants to, it can then seek leave to appeal.

The hon. member does not say so, but there is almost no expert who would agree with him that the leave to appeal not only would have been granted, which is the first step, but that the courts later would have given the decision which he says hypothetically would have occurred had the first case happened, which is not even sure at all. When the hon. member makes all these allegations, they are not factually correct. He cannot start with a supposition, get the conclusion of it and use that conclusion to go to the next step of the argument when the first one is not at all the case.

What we have before us are the decisions that have been made in those seven provinces. They are the rights that have been established in those provinces. There are people being married now in those provinces. Why did the hon. member not mention that in his remarks? Is he leading Canadians to believe that this is not true now and would only be true with this bill? That is false: it is the case right now in those seven provinces.

I have no idea how many have been married, but I do know that it is a right they have. It has been decided in their favour in every single case where it was adjudicated in all seven provincial jurisdictions. Why are they not saying that across the way? I think I know. It is because they are trying to make Canadians believe something that is not factually correct. They are trying to make Canadians believe that if this bill is not passed then in fact in those seven provinces those who are married may somehow be unmarried, or that the rights they have now would be revoked. That is not true. We all know it is not true.

Here is what would be necessary if the hon. member is serious. I would disagree with him on doing so, but it should at least be said. What he really means to say is that to change what is there now, he would have to invoke the notwithstanding clause. He would have to revoke the marriages that have been performed ever since that first right was granted some years ago and then legislate to do the opposite. I would disagree with him, but at least in my mind that would be the honest position: to state to Canadians that this, and not something that has been invented this morning, is the issue before us.

On the issue of the bill itself, the hon. member might say as others have that the religious protections are not sufficiently taken care of, but there are none right now. There is nothing in any law now that protects the ministers of the church. The bill wants to do that so they will not be sued if they do not want to perform such marriages. I am all in favour of having that protection. I say that as a practising Roman Catholic. I do not want my priest to be sued. That is nonsense.

If the hon. member is saying, as some of his colleagues said the other day, that it is not sufficient, why then do they not let the bill go to committee to increase whatever they perceive as that shortcoming in religious protection, if they see one and if that proposition is honest?

They are not allowing the bill to go to committee. They are stalling it. We have had everybody speak on the other side. We have had an amendment. Everybody spoke again. Then we went back to the main motion. We know what that is: it is a filibuster. I was the House leader around here for over six years and I know what a filibuster looks like. I have had to put an end to a number of them in the past. I know what they are and the hon. member knows what they are too. It is a filibuster that is not designed to improve the bill; it is a filibuster that is not designed to do anything else but to try to stir up Canadians against a right that has been granted to them by the courts. That is why it is wrong.

It has nothing to do with whether any single one of us, least of all me, agrees or does not agree that there should be civil marriages for people of the same sex. This is an issue that the courts have decided, at least in my province. In six more provinces and one territory that has been the consistent case. We know that. I think the Canadian public knows that too. That is why this desperate attempt on the other side to try to stir up public opinion against it is not flying. Canadians cannot be fooled. They know the truth. They know what it is like. To pretend this in what is being said today does not make true something that is untrue just because several opposition members are filibustering and have done so several times in order to try to convince the Canadian public.

This is why I support the government. It is a free vote, contrary to what the member has said. That is another incorrect statement. It is a free vote. No one is telling me to vote on one side or the other in this matter. It is, in my opinion, a matter of protecting the rights accorded by the courts and I will do so.

For this reason, I will vote in favour of this bill.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, before I get to my notes I want to rebut a couple of points we heard in the impassioned speech made by the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell.

The member said there was no ability to appeal. We know that is not true. When the first lower court ruled, the Liberal government at the time had the ability to seek an appeal of that decision. The government chose not to. We are talking about choices. The member needs to be clear and completely truthful with the Canadian people. He says that the government wants to be respectful in this debate, so he needs to tell Canadians that the government chose not to seek to appeal those lower court decisions.

Further, I submit that there is no evidence, none, that if Parliament had indeed drafted, introduced, debated and passed legislation to protect the traditional definition of marriage the Supreme Court would not have upheld it without resorting to the notwithstanding clause. There is no evidence that this scenario would not have taken place. I want refute the hon. member's assertions while I appreciate the member jumping into the debate and adding to what he calls a filibuster. We have enjoyed the debate from all sides of the House.

I consider myself very fortunate to have a further opportunity to debate Bill C-38, legislation with such far-reaching implications for the institution of marriage and all of society. As the elected representative for Prince George—Peace River, I believe it is my responsibility and duty to clearly state my opposition to this legislation and my support for the traditional definition of marriage. Whenever possible I will continue to defend this position I have taken on behalf of my constituents.

We must be conscious that the actions we take with regard to this legislation to expand the definition of marriage to include same sex couples will have a tremendous impact on the future of Canadian society. We do not fully understand the magnitude of what this legislation will have done to our society 10, 15 or 20 years from now. What will we have left future generations to deal with? We do not have all the answers. Certainly there are many theories about how same sex marriage will or will not affect the future of our nation. We have heard many of those theories laid out here in this chamber in great detail during this debate.

However, what I would like to discuss today concerns what we do know. What we know is that this legislation poses a serious threat to religious freedoms in our country. Why do I know this? Because we have already seen it happen as a consequence of other legislation pertaining to homosexual rights.

Before I continue, I would like to unequivocally state that I believe homosexual couples should be afforded the same rights and privileges enjoyed by heterosexual couples. Of that, there is no doubt. However, same sex marriage is not a rights issue, despite what the hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell has just said.

I will elaborate on this point later, but first let me say I am concerned that in its rush to address what it mistakenly calls a right, the federal Liberal government is placing in serious jeopardy the right of religious freedom, not that the government has not exerted great efforts to convince Canadians that priests, church ministers, rabbis or imams will not face prosecution or other legal sanction for the refusal to conduct marriage ceremonies for same sex couples.

This government and this justice minister emphatically deny that the congregations or members of churches, synagogues, mosques or other institutions of religious worship will find the activities of their place of worship beholden to this legislation. The government and some supporters of this legislation have dismissed these concerns as being driven by fearmongering, hatred and even homophobia.They allege that raising the possibility that religious freedoms would be compromised by the extension of marriage to same sex couples is a scare tactic on the part of those of us opposed to the legislation.

The justice minister has assured us that Bill C-38 will sufficiently protect religious freedoms. With all due respect, we have heard similar assurances before, most recently when Bill C-250, legislation designed to include sexual orientation under hate crime laws, was debated before this House during the last Parliament. At that time, many of us feared that priests, rabbis, imams and other religious officials would face accusations of spreading hatred or contempt simply by quoting from the Bible or the Koran, for example. At that time, this government told Canadians that would never happen.

The government claimed that a clause in Bill C-250 would afford sufficient protection to religious organizations and leaders and that they would not be punished simply for following or repeating the words of their faith. Bill C-250 received royal assent on April 29, 2004 and now, a little over a year later, Calgary Roman Catholic Bishop Fred Henry is facing two complaints filed with the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission for publishing statements which are “likely to expose homosexuals to hatred or contempt”.

When this same government tells us that a religious leader like Bishop Henry will be sufficiently protected under a clause in Bill C-38 that is similar to one that was supposed to protect him under Bill C-250, one could understand that we are extremely doubtful of that protection. Bishop Henry is not alone. In my home province of British Columbia a Catholic church congregation faces a complaint before the B.C. human rights commission because it refused to allow a lesbian couple the use of its parish hall for the couple's wedding reception. This is not fearmongering; this is reality.

I would like the justice minister to meet Bishop Henry face to face, or stand before the congregation of that B.C. church and attempt to reassure its members that Bill C-38 will adequately protect them. In fact, it is not only misleading to claim that religious freedoms will be protected under Bill C-38; these claims are not even supported by the Supreme Court of Canada.

At this juncture I would like to take the opportunity to remind members of the House and all Canadians that contrary to what the government would like the country to believe, the Supreme Court did not make a determination on the definition of marriage. The court not only refused to decide whether the traditional definition of marriage was a violation of the equality provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it made it perfectly clear that it is up to Parliament to decide. The Supreme Court told members of Parliament, our constituents' elected representatives, that we were to choose in this important social policy matter.

Further, the Supreme Court also ruled after examining the federal government's draft legislation, that its provision claiming to protect religious freedoms was outside the jurisdiction of the federal Parliament. In essence the Supreme Court said that the same clause the government is using in its attempt to reassure Canadians about their religious freedoms is in fact useless.

On that note, I would again like to emphasize the need for respectful and honest debate as we proceed debating Bill C-38. It is more than a little misleading for the Prime Minister and the justice minister to tell Canadians that the Supreme Court or the charter left them with no choice but to introduce this legislation to extend the definition of marriage to same sex couples. This is simply false. In fact, since our own Supreme Court has refused to rule on the definition of marriage, let us take a brief look at court rulings that have actually been made throughout the world in terms of same sex marriage.

In 1998 the European court of justice ruled “stable relationships between two persons of the same sex are not regarded as equivalent to marriages”.

In 1996 the New Zealand court of appeal rejected the recognition of same sex marriages despite that country's bill of rights which lists sexual orientation as a prohibited grounds for discrimination. The New Zealand ruling was appealed to the United Nations human rights commission. The commission ruled in 2003 that there was no case for discrimination simply on the basis of refusing to marry homosexual couples.

To date, no international human rights body and no national supreme court, including the Supreme Court of Canada, has ever found that there is a human right to same sex marriage. Same sex marriage is not a right. Freedom of religion, however, is a right, a right which I believe is very much in jeopardy. I am very dismayed that the government will not accept what is going on in the real world, that it will not accept the reality faced by Bishop Henry in Calgary and the very real fear of prosecution of religious leaders for whom performing same sex marriage is a violation of their faith.

I repeat that the Supreme Court indicated that the federal government's legislative assurances that priests, rabbis, imams and other religious leaders will not face prosecution are very empty assurances indeed. What will religious leaders face 10 or 20 years from now as a result of the actions we are taking today?

No matter how MPs choose to act, I ask that they follow their consciences and those of their constituents. I would also ask that they do not base their decisions upon the government's false claims that the legislation sufficiently protects religious freedoms. It does not, and that is one more reason why I remain vehemently opposed to Bill C-38.

[Charlie Penson, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-38 and to be part of this historical debate.

This bill, which threatens to change the traditional definition of marriage, has sparked an overwhelming response in my riding. Without a doubt it has been the single most important issue that has come up in my riding during the 12 years that I have represented the Peace River constituency.

Peace River constituents feel passionately about this issue. Of the hundreds of letters and calls that I have received from constituents on this bill, over 96% have been against changing the definition of marriage. As well, over 450 constituents have signed petitions calling on the government to preserve the traditional definition of marriage. Every day more people come forward to express their outrage that changes to the definition of marriage are even being contemplated.

Peace River constituents are not opposed to equal rights. In fact, the majority support the legal extension of rights and benefits to same sex couples. However, most are opposed to changing the historical term “marriage” to include these unions. Many have strongly held religious views and are extremely worried that their long-held beliefs are being threatened by Bill C-38. I do not think these views are limited to my riding; I believe they are shared by a majority of Canadians.

The debate is about basic social values in our country. I, along with many Canadians, support the traditional definition of marriage as being a union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others as expressed in our traditional common law. This common law has been developing for centuries in our country and before that, in the modern western world for several thousands of years. This definition has served society very well and has stood the test of time. It has been the fundamental cornerstone of our society, the bedrock of our society. My question is, why do we need to change it?

In my view, MPs opposing this bill should not have to defend what has been historically accepted. It should be the responsibility of those who want to overturn such a fundamental social institution to prove that it is absolutely necessary, that no other compromise could be expected to respect the rights of same sex couples while still preserving one of the cornerstones of our society and its many cultures. So far, in my view, the government has failed to do that.

One serious concern I have with the bill is that it does not provide protection for religious freedom in this country. There has been no specific statutory protection for religious freedom in areas falling under federal jurisdiction. This needs to be addressed and included in the legislation.

The preamble to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and we often hear it referred to from the other side of the House, states that “Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law.” Many believe that the acknowledgement of God and the values that flow from a spiritual conception of law and morality is also a founding principle of Canada. Therefore it should be recognized and applied to the realities of modern life, including marriage.

The Supreme Court of Canada has never indicated in any ruling that the traditional definition of marriage was unconstitutional. To the contrary, in many cases the court has supported the definition. For example, in the Egan decision on marriage, former Supreme Court Justice La Forest addressed the definition directly when he stated:

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.

Another example can be cited in the Halpern decision. In that case the Attorney General of Canada submitted evidence to support the traditional definition of marriage. His factum read:

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

The decision we make on this legislation as a Parliament will have a profound impact on the country and the rights and freedoms that we so cherish. In 1999, which is not that long ago, only six years, I was in the chamber when the Liberal government pledged to use all necessary means to defend marriage. How quickly things change. Now it has made a complete U-turn and argues that the definition is unconstitutional. What will be next?

About one year ago Australia was facing the same crossroads with regard to marriage laws. The government there took a completely different approach than this Liberal government is taking. Despite pressure from those in favour of legalizing same sex marriage, Australian Prime Minister John Howard said he was going to push to define traditional marriage in law and prohibit same sex marriage in order to protect, as he put it, “a fundamental bedrock institution of our society which has contributed massively to our stability and to our success”.

In Australia the legislation passed, with the support of the official opposition, defining marriage as only the union of a man and a woman. In contrast, this Liberal government has decided to go down a different road which I cannot support. I will be voting against Bill C-38 in its current form. I hope all members of Parliament will think very carefully about what is at stake before they vote. Our collective decision may have very serious implications for future generations.

Should this legislation pass without amendments, we will redefine marriage in a way that most Canadians do not want in order to address equality rights. There is a much more reasonable approach that we should choose in order to address this issue. I will not be supporting Bill C-38 in its current form unless it is severely amended.

[Dale Johnston, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, marriage is a time honoured institution that has stood the test of time and is one of the key foundations on which our society has been built. For thousands of years, marriage has been recognized as the union of one man and one woman. Since Confederation, marriage in Canadian law has been defined as the voluntary union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. I believe that this definition of marriage has served society well and should be retained.

Since I was first elected here in 1993, Parliament has passed legislation to provide benefits formerly available only to heterosexual marriage spouses to common law partnerships and same sex couples. These initiatives were designed to bring equality into the system and we were assured time and again by the Liberal government that these changes would not affect the definition of marriage.

Canadian Alliance MPs were concerned that our constituents wanted more assurances that there would not be a change, so in June 1999, as my colleague just referred to, we proposed a motion that said:

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

Liberal MPs, cabinet ministers, the prime minister of the day, the current Prime Minister and the former justice minister, who today is the Deputy Prime Minister, all voted to reaffirm the traditional definition of marriage and to take all necessary steps to preserve that definition.

Here is what the Deputy Prime Minister, the only Liberal serving in Alberta in Edmonton at the time and right now, had to say about the government's intentions, “Let me state for the record that the government has no intention of changing the definition of marriage or legislating same sex marriages”. She went on to confirm her support when she said:

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.

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.

With the full support of the current Prime Minister and the key players on the government frontbench, the motion passed overwhelmingly: 215 to 55.

In September 2003 we proposed a motion to reaffirm that marriage is and should remain the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, just four years after the first time. This time the Liberals did an about face and the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister voted against reaffirming the traditional definition of marriage. What a flip-flop. When they do not dither, they flip-flop.

If Canadians cannot trust the Prime Minister's word on this, how can they be expected to trust his word on anything?

Conservatives believe that the vast majority of Canadians believe that marriage is a fundamental distinct institution, but that same sex couples can have equivalent rights and benefits.

The Leader of the Opposition, my leader, has tabled reasonable and thoughtful amendments to the bill. We believe the law should continue to recognize the traditional definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. We would propose that other forms of union, however structured by appropriate provincial legislation, whether they are called registered partnerships, domestic partnerships, civil unions or whatever, should be entitled to the same legal rights, privileges and obligations as marriage. Where there are issues affecting rights and benefits within the federal domain, our party would ensure that for all federal purposes those Canadians living in other forms of union would be recognized as having equal rights and benefits under the law.

We believe this is what most Canadians want. Recent public polls, and apparently even polls that the Liberals themselves have taken, show that nationally two out of every three Canadians are opposed to changing the definition of marriage.

The issue of same sex marriage may have divided some Canadians, but not in my constituency of Wetaskiwin where there is overwhelming support for the traditional definition of marriage. I did a survey and I received overwhelming support for the traditional definition.

This is what is said by some of the hundreds of letters I received on the subject. These are letters from my constituents. One resident from the town of Calmar, who feels the definition is critically important to the health of our society, said, “I hate to think what will happen to our society if same sex marriage is allowed. “What a disaster”, this person writes.

From Wetaskiwin, other constituents voice their opinions:

Marriage is an institution with deep religious, social and cultural significance. I want it to remain as a relationship between a man and a woman. History proves that when the traditional family unit is strong, a nation prospers.

I am not opposed to recognizing contractual relationships between two men and two women, which ensures them the same legal benefits as married couples. However, such a contract should not be called marriage.

Another man from Wetaskiwin wrote:

Marriage is a unique institution and it is not equal to any other form of relationship due to its status and character. Same sex unions should have their own special status and unique character under the law as heterosexual marriages are currently defined by our constitution...

Another person from Ponoka wrote, “I am not opposed to a civil union for homosexuals, but churches should not be forced to marry them and they will be if this law is passed”.

A couple from the historic town of Rocky Mountain House wrote:

We seek the preservation of the current definition of marriage. Rights for all individuals in our society are already protected by existing legislation. Any further protection can easily be provided without any need to attempt to change the definition of marriage”.

Canadians want to have a say on legislation and we were hopeful when we learned that the Prime Minister promised to expand the mandate of the legislative committee studying Bill C-38, but there is a wrinkle. There is always a wrinkle when we are dealing with the Liberals. As usual, the promise is not all it is made out to be. I think that is something that the NDP is rapidly learning. So far the legislative committee does not have the authority to hear anything but technical evidence. According to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, special legislative committees can hear witnesses only on technical matters and, as such, the committee itself has no jurisdiction to change its mandate.

I agree with my colleague from Provencher that the Liberal decision to refer Bill C-38 to such a legislative committee is part of a broader Liberal pattern to ignore the views of Canadians on the legislation.

The Liberals do not want Canadians to know that their government cannot adequately protect religious freedoms in federal legislation. It is troubling that the Liberal bill provides little in the way of assurances that religious freedoms will be protected if the legal definition of marriage is changed. It is bound to be challenged. We already saw some precedents just last week in a court decision when a judge said that the freedom of religion was not absolute.

The Liberals try to assure the public that they will protect religious freedoms, but in reality, the solemnization of marriage is a provincial responsibility. Bill C-38 does not do what the government is promising Canadians it will do.

The problem is the Supreme Court has already ruled that this clause is beyond the federal government's authority because provinces are responsible for performing marriage ceremonies. There is only one clause that protects and it is not a good one. They are not provided any specific statutory protection of religious freedom in the areas of their own jurisdiction.

I know my time is running short and I want to get two more quotes in.

This quote is from Lang Michener and is a legal opinion. It states:

There is little doubt that, if passed, Bill C-38 will be used by provincial governments and others to override the rights of conscience and religion of ordinary Canadians. Public officials will in all likelihood lose their employment simply because of their conscientious convictions. It is our view that your constituents, including religious groups and the members of religious groups, will face expensive and ruinous lawsuits.

I would like to quote a Catholic organization leaflet that I saw the other day which sums this up nicely. It states:

As an institution, marriage has an enormous significance, and has existed for thousands of years. The word we use for this institution--marriage--is full of history, meaning and symbolism, and should be kept for this unique reality.

I oppose this bill at every stage.

[Tom Wappel, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Madam Speaker, at the outset allow me to thank my whip for the invitation to say a few words on the bill again. It is very much appreciated. Today, since I only have 10 minutes, I will concentrate on one thing, and that is what in my view is the legal and political fraud being perpetrated on Canadians and parliamentarians by the bill. I want to explain what I mean by that because these are very strong words and I mean them sincerely.

The government made a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada. There were two sections of the proposed legislation. The first one deals with the civil marriage aspect and the second one reads as follows:

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

Section 3 of the act we are debating states the following:

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

As we can see, those two paragraphs are virtually identical. In the reference, the Supreme Court said this about section 2 which I just read. I will quote it verbatim. This is not me speaking, this is the Supreme Court of Canada speaking. It states:

Section 2 of the Proposed Act relates to those who may (or must) perform marriages. Legislative competence over the performance or solemnization of marriage is exclusively allocated to the provinces under s. 92(12) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The Attorney General of Canada suggests that s. 2 of the Proposed Act is declaratory, merely making clear Parliament’s intention that other provisions of the Proposed Act not be read in a manner that trenches on the provinces’ jurisdiction over the solemnization of marriage. The provision might be seen as an attempt to reassure the provinces and to assuage the concerns of religious officials who perform marriages. However worthy of attention these concerns are, only the provinces may legislate exemptions to existing solemnization requirements, as any such exemption necessarily relates to the “solemnization of marriage” under s. 92(12). Section 2 of the Proposed Act is therefore ultra vires Parliament.

That means outside the scope and jurisdiction of this House. I continue:

While it is true that Parliament has exclusive jurisdiction to enact declaratory legislation relating to the interpretation of its own statutes, such declaratory provisions can have no bearing on the constitutional division of legislative authority. That is a matter to be determined, should the need arise, by the courts. It follows that a federal provision seeking to ensure that the Act within which it is situated is not interpreted so as to trench on provincial powers can have no effect and is superfluous.

Those are the words of the Supreme Court of Canada. Given those words, that the section proposed is ultra vires Parliament, that it is of no effect and that it is superfluous, what in heaven's name is it doing in the bill? It has no business being here unless it is here to try to con people into believing that this section will protect religious freedoms, and that is utter legal nonsense.

There are people in the House who are supporting the bill relying on this section. They are saying that they will pass this, but it will protect religious officials. That is absolute bunk. This section will not do that. It may very well be that the religious protection freedoms of the charter may do this, but that is not what this section says. This section says that this section will do it, and this section is ultra vires the Parliament of Canada and should not even be here as a matter of constitutional law. That is the first point.

I want to read into the record, for the benefit of my constituents at least, a letter that was published in the National Post last week. It has been referred to by other speakers. It states:

We, the undersigned legal counsel, maintain active practices or academic interest in litigation, human rights, religious, charity or constitutional law. We have reviewed two constitutional opinions provided by the law firm of Lang Michener..., on the subject of Bill C-38, the federal government's proposed legislation to legalize same sex marriage. What follows is a summary of the firm's main conclusions, followed by our own observations.

Question: Does the recent Same Sex Marriage Reference opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada...require Parliament to amend the common-law definition of marriage?

Answer: No.

That is a correct statement, in my view.

Question: Should it be the case that the purpose of the common-law definition of marriage arose out of “Christendom,” (as discussed in paragraphs 21 and 22 of the Reference),--

That is the Supreme Court reference and that is the Supreme Court's word, “Christendom”.

--is it consistent with constitutional precedent for Parliament to nevertheless define marriage as the union of one man and one woman for life to the exclusion of all others, so long as the purpose is secular and consistent with the Charter?

Answer: Yes. Legislation pertaining to the legal capacity for civil marriage falls within the subject matter of section 91(26) of the Constitution Act..., which pertains to the exclusive legislative competence of Parliament.

Question: Would Parliament be acting consistent with jurisprudence if it justified a statutory definition of marriage to one man and one woman on the basis that it would serve the best interests of children and to create a public institution that makes it more likely that a child will be raised by the child's own mother and father?

Answer: Yes. The Supreme Court has previously recognized the importance of protecting the best interests of children in a variety of contexts.

As has been pointed out, the Supreme Court has already recognized the importance of marriage as a heterosexual institution. Mr. Justice La Forest, in the Egan case, made that observation, but the Ontario Court of Appeal chose to ignore the Supreme Court when it suited its purposes.

Question: Should Bill C-38 be enacted as proposed, does Parliament have the constitutional jurisdiction to protect by statute the freedom of religious groups or officials to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with the group's religious beliefs?

Answer: No.

For the same reasons I just gave.

Question: If Bill C-38 is enacted, could religious groups or officials who refuse to solemnize a marriage become the subject of actions by others?

Answer: Yes. A putative same sex spouse who is refused a marriage licence or a place to hold a wedding--

And, I might add, a reception.

--would have a variety of options to assert his/her rights.

Question: Does Parliament have the power through Bill C-38 or otherwise to protect religious groups or officials from the actions referred to above?

Answer: No. The Parliament of Canada cannot protect religious groups or officials from the actions referred to above because the solemnization of marriage lies within the exclusive competence of the provinces.

The letter then goes on:

In the opinion of the undersigned,--

And, I will add, in my opinion as well:

--Lang Michener has correctly stated the law in Canada today. There is little doubt that, if passed, Bill C-38 will be used by provincial governments and others to override the rights of conscience and religion of ordinary Canadians.

It is already happening. We cannot pretend that it is not happening because there are already cases before human rights tribunals. It goes on:

Public officials will in all likelihood lose their employment simply because of their conscientious convictions.

It has happened.

It is our view that your constituents, including religious groups and the members of religious groups, will face expensive and ruinous lawsuits if Bill C-38 becomes law.

That is my view, too.

If members of Parliament believe in same sex marriage, vote for it, but do not vote for something because they think that section 3 is going to protect religious officials. That is bunk. There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy, NB]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to rise today and speak on behalf of my constituents of Fundy Royal and speak to this very important issue.

I have listened with interest to members' speeches on both sides of this issue over the course of the debate on Bill C-38. One thing that has become increasingly clear is that we would not even be having this debate if the majority of those on the other side had kept their word to Canadians, the word that they gave just a few years ago to take all steps necessary to preserve the traditional definition of marriage in Canada.

I believe that oftentimes we have a short memory. I know I do sometimes, but when they are matters of great importance, it is constructive to remind Canadians what their elected representatives have said, what they have done, and how they have voted. We elect members of Parliament based on what they have said and what they have done in the past, and we would be remiss to forget what they have done when we head into debate on this issue.

We know that a few years ago the majority on that side, the current Prime Minister, the current Deputy Prime Minister, many cabinet ministers and the list goes on, because of the importance of marriage in all societies, in all religions, across the country, and across the globe, voted and told Canadians they would take all necessary steps to preserve the traditional definition of marriage. What we have seen now, as is so often the case, is a promise made and a promise broken. It is a shame that Canadians have been led down this path because Canadians of good will voted for their members based on those statements that were made.

One thing has become increasingly clear. Canadians are divided on this issue. The last speaker went through the scenario of religious freedom and we have heard from respected constitutional experts that religious freedom can be under attack when we change the definition of marriage. We have seen it already. Bishop Fred Henry in Calgary has already been brought before a Human Rights Commission. He has had two complaints lodged against him for speaking out on an issue that is so important to his faith, the issue of marriage. That is just the beginning. The ink has not even dried on this particular bill and we have seen attacks on freedom of religion.

One thing that has become increasingly clear, when we look at Canada in the world context, is that the Liberals have taken an intolerant and divisive approach to an issue that Canadians feel very strongly about. As we have seen with this recent sponsorship scandal, the hardline approach taken by the Liberals, rather than unite Canadians, has divided Canadians.

It is the job of members of Parliament in a country such as ours, when we are debating these issues, to take an approach that can unite Canadians, an approach that can bring Canadians together in an inclusive manner. As parliamentarians we should be looking for win-win solutions to issues facing Canadians rather than focusing on an approach that splits Canadians. If we look at the polls, and I know those on the other side do, Canadians overwhelmingly support the current definition of marriage.

Canadians are telling us increasingly and overwhelmingly that they support equal rights, benefits and obligations under the law for all Canadians. That is clear. We are a fair people. We support equality for all Canadians. They also tell us that they support marriage continuing to mean the union of one man and one woman, as it does incidentally on the rest of planet Earth. This is why I believe that Canadians overwhelmingly support the approach taken by my leader to continue to recognize the traditional definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

His proposal also provides that those in same sex relationships would have equal rights benefits and obligations under federal law. This is an approach that is fair. It is a Canadian approach to this issue.

We believe this approach will meet the needs of Canadians who believe that marriage is and should remain an institution. Justice La Forest, a Supreme Court of Canada justice, in the Egan decision said that it is a heterosexual institution. This also satisfies those who seek recognition and equality under the federal law of Canada.

This approach is not only consistent with the beliefs of the vast majority of Canadians, it is also instructive to learn, as we research this, it is consistent, as we heard in the recent opinion, with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is certainly consistent with the emerging practice of countries across the globe. In the entire industrialized world, this is the approach that modern countries are taking.

Around the world there are only two countries that have legislated same sex marriage. They are Belgium and the Netherlands. Those are the only two. By far, the vast majority of jurisdictions have gone the route that Canadians prefer, endorse and are calling on members of Parliament to take, and that is recognizing civil unions and domestic partnerships, benefits and obligations but not abolishing in law what the word “marriage” means.

Countries such as France, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Finland, Germany, Portugal and New Zealand have all maintained the traditional definition of marriage. Recently, Australia also specifically acted to preserve the traditional definition of marriage.

As well, it is important to know that no national or international court, including for that matter our own Supreme Court of Canada, has ruled that changing the definition of marriage is required to accommodate equality rights. As we know, the only thing our Supreme Court of Canada, the highest court in the land, ruled was unconstitutional in Bill C-38 was for the Liberals to state that they could protect religious freedoms. That in fact is what is unconstitutional. That is the great irony.

The court did not say the traditional definition of marriage was unconstitutional. It did not say the federal government had to change the definition of marriage. It said that if that definition is changed, it is beyond the jurisdiction of the House to protect religious freedoms. We have seen that already. We have seen those freedoms encroached by this win-lose approach that the Liberals have taken, rather than a win-win solution favoured by Canadians.

It strikes me as being a perfectly reasonable compromise for Canadian society to accept exactly the same position as the countries I just enumerated. This will satisfy the vast majority of Canadians who are seeking common ground on this issue and a Canadian solution. I do not believe that most Canadians are looking to be more radical than some of the most left leaning governments in the world. They are looking for a reasonable, moderate compromise that respects the rights of those who are in a same sex relationship while preserving the time honoured institution of marriage that is so fundamental to our society and all societies in the world.

This approach is the Canadian way. It is the only option being offered as an alternative and it is being offered by my party. The polls tell us that if the government squarely and honestly put the option forward of preserving marriage while recognizing the rights of those in other relationships, this is the option that Canadians would overwhelmingly choose.

Marriage and the family based on marriage are the basic institutions of society. We should not change these kinds of foundational institutions lightly or easily and I do not believe the government has demonstrated that there is any compelling reason to alter this central, social institution.

A few years ago the Deputy Prime Minister spoke to this. Canadians relied on what she said to support that side. She said:

We on this side agree that the institution of marriage is...central and important...[and it] has been consistently applied in Canada....

What the minister said next is important:

Let me state again for the record that the government has no intention of changing the definition of marriage....

Those are the words of the Deputy Prime Minister, who was speaking for the government. Canadians made the mistake of trusting the Liberals once. I hope they will not do it again.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I would like to make an observation before I begin my remarks. The Prime Minister claimed this past week that his priority was to pass the budget, but here we are on Monday debating the marriage bill. Why are Liberals so intent on ramming this bill through Parliament? Why is this their number one priority?

Let me proceed to my remarks. The debate around Bill C-38 often reverts back to the rights of Canadians. Proponents of the bill say that partners of the same sex have the right to marry. What seems to be forgotten, however, are the rights of children, who are just as Canadian as we all are. Their well-being seems to have been forgotten.

Concern for our children should be the very foundation of this debate. Critics say that we should not link children to marriage, but we know that marriage is the basis for a strong healthy family. Many Canadians are referring to Bill C-38 not as the “same sex marriage” bill but instead as the “traditional family” bill. This bill is threatening the very premise of traditional families, of which a mother and a father are at the core. Time and time again, studies have confirmed that our children benefit most when they are raised in a home with both a mother and a father. That fact cannot be lost in this debate.

We are being asked to support the introduction of a law that is against the sanctified ceremony which ultimately tends to the furtherance of life. I, for one, remain strongly opposed to such a law. I was opposed to any change to the definition of marriage when it came before the House in 1999 and my stand is unwavering. I will defend marriage in its true form as the union between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

Transmission of human life has been the focus of much of our societal values. Also, kids want to know who their biological parents are. For example, children in Australia are now arguing that they have the right to know the identity of their parents and to be raised by them if possible.

We are already seeing a deconstruction of the societal institution of marriage. Many youth think marriage is just love and commitment. Bill C-38 is only adding to that thought process. In the Netherlands, for example, expanding the definition of marriage has not encouraged more to marry. It has instead had the opposite effect. In the last three years it has become evident that the change in definition is in fact destroying the stability of marriage and is affecting children. What will the passing of a similar bill in Canada do to the generation ahead of us?

Protection of society should be foremost. Courts are becoming not a shield but rather a sword for this societal liberalism. Liberals talk about purging Canada of these toxic elements. We are now seeing people come before tribunals to have their views examined. This is the new inquisition. We are abandoning traditional liberalism.

That brings us to the battle cry of the Liberals during this debate: that those opposed to same sex marriage are “un-Canadian”. How much more derogatory could they get? What the Liberals are saying to us is that if we do not agree with their bill we are un-Canadian. They say we are un-Canadian because we wish to uphold the traditional definition of marriage, un-Canadian because we wish to see the very unique and religious union of marriage upheld and un-Canadian because we understand the ramifications attached to the passing of Bill C-38.

Information provided by the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada defines those ramifications. Its document states:

Are people of faith un-Canadian? Polls have consistently shown that Canadians are deeply divided on the issue of same-sex marriage, yet the government contends that those who oppose the redefinition of marriage are 'un-Canadian'. Christians who cannot accept same-sex unions as 'marriage' will be forced into the closets recently vacated by gays and lesbians. The people whose values Canada was founded on will be pushed to the margins of society.

If not marriage, what language can we use to promote our beliefs, traditions and religious understanding of the nature of marriage without being silenced by accusations of intolerance? What language can we use to promote the enduring and exclusive sexual bonding of males and females, and the importance of this relationship to the raising of children?

The government is not required to change the definition of marriage. I urge all members to remember that. The Supreme Court of Canada did not rule that the charter requires the definition of marriage to be redefined.

Marriage under its current definition has withstood the test of time. Generations of heterosexual Canadians have had the privilege to be united in marriage, having met restrictions as set out in our laws, those restrictions being: first, it is between a man and a woman; second, it is restricted to those of a certain age; third, it is limited to two people; fourth, blood relatives are restricted from marrying; and fifth, both parties must be in agreement to the marriage; marriage cannot be by force.

These restrictions were put in place to protect Canadians and our society. Having restrictions does not equal a violation of human rights. The current definition of marriage is not a violation of human rights.

I have received hundreds of letters from my constituents in the riding of Yorkton--Melville and from other Canadians adamantly opposed to Bill C-38. For these people, marriage under its current definition is as true as the sky is blue. These letters come from all sorts of Canadians, including newlyweds and those who have been married for decades. They value the meaning of their vows and the recognition of marriage in the eyes of our land and of God. They cannot fathom how a government would take something so sacred and throw it by the wayside.

Among the letters I received was one from Regina. The author wrote that if Bill C-38 should pass she would consider her 35 year marriage annulled. She is certainly not alone in her thoughts.

This is not an issue that needs to be pushed down the throats of Canadians because a single government says so. In fact, just five short years ago, members of the Liberal government declared that the definition of marriage should not be changed. The then minister of justice stated:

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.

Here is another quote from that same minister of justice in 2000:

We recognize that marriage is a fundamental value and important to Canadians. That value and importance is in no way undermined by recognizing in law other forms of committed relationships.

What has changed since the Liberals assured and then reassured Canadians that they would uphold the traditional definition of marriage? Is this Liberal government under the impression that marriage is no longer a fundamental value and is now unimportant to Canadians? If that is what the Liberals believe, I am more than willing to share hundreds of letters that state otherwise. In fact, I encourage members on the government side to read these letters, because I do not think they comprehend the importance of marriage to Canadians. I urge the government to take this a step further and allow Canadians to speak for themselves instead of assuming it knows what Canadians think. Let us get out there and find out.

As elected representatives of Canadians, we should be representing the interests of Canadians. Bill C-38 is being rammed through so quickly that I believe many members have not had time to truly understand this issue and therefore represent Canadians properly in Parliament.

If we pass same sex marriage legislation we are telling the rest of the world that it is violating human rights, yet attempts to pursue same sex marriage as an international human rights issue have failed. In 1998 the European court of justice held that “stable relationships between two persons of the same sex were not regarded as equivalent to marriages...”.

In 1996 the New Zealand court of appeal rejected the recognition of same sex marriages despite the fact that New Zealand's bill of rights explicitly listed sexual orientation as a prohibited grounds of discrimination. When the New Zealand decision was challenged before the United Nations Human Rights Commission as a violation of the international covenant on civil and political rights, the UNHRC ruled in 2002 that there was no case for discrimination simply on the basis of refusing to marry homosexual couples.

To this date, no international human rights body and no national supreme court has ever found that there is a human right to same sex marriage. What is more, by passing Bill C-38 in Canada, we are taking away the religious rights and freedoms of Canadians. How un-Canadian is that?

In provinces that are allowing same sex couples to marry, mayors and marriage commissioners are obligated to perform official ceremonies or resign. There is no freedom there. In British Columbia there is already a human rights complaint against a Knights of Columbus hall because the members would not rent the facility to a lesbian couple for a wedding ceremony. There is no religious freedom there either.

Sweden and Canada are already creating a chill on expression of concern over same sex marriage. How can we criticize China for imprisoning those who practise their religion when we cannot offer protection of religious beliefs in Canada?

Finally, the underlying truth of Bill C-38 is that it is threatening Canadian families. While that may not be the original intent, that is what is happening. Marriage is the foundation of family, it is child focused and it has served Canadians since Confederation. Bill C-38 does nothing more than minimize marriage to committed adult relationships. Marriage will no longer be about having and raising children, and lost from Canadian law will be the words “husband” and “wife”.

The Liberals are asking us to alter the future of Canadian families. I simply cannot support such a detrimental request.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague and all members on their remarks, for I think the tone of this debate has been one of respect and tolerance, which is extremely important. This is a debate that has generated and continues to generate deeply held feelings on both sides of the issue. It is a debate that needs to be approached first and foremost with that tolerance and respect I spoke of, for there is an incredible diversity of opinion on the matter.

I want to begin my remarks by stating categorically that I am not in favour of changing the definition of marriage. I have been clear and consistent in my statements in the past, and the record will reflect that position. I believe that marriage should remain the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, and that word should reflect that definition. Marriage is of course and never has been exclusively a form of relationship, or the critical ingredient, I should say, in describing what is a family relationship. Yet I also note that this is my view and it is a view that is not held by all people close to me. Colleagues, friends and loved ones may disagree, yet this debate has been reasoned and, I would suggest, at times dispassionate and on point.

In my view, we in the Conservative Party have done an admirable job in keeping that approach. We will be the only national party having a free vote. I celebrate the fact that our party has been so inclusive, tolerant and respectful. I believe that this is a symbol of professionalism, diversity, discipline and maturity within our caucus.

The key word in this debate, as I have said, is tolerance. While we accept that many may disagree when it comes to the definition of marriage, we must also be cognizant of the fact that we are talking about the lives of families, friends, neighbours and people in our communities. We must express respect for everyone's perspective even if that is a differently held view and one that we may adamantly oppose. Relationships are personal, complex and sacred and the basis upon which we interact. Naturally there will be diversity of opinion on the subject.

I can see both sides of the debate, one side that is based on equality in particular, with legal rights, privileges, responsibilities, benefits and obligations. We believe that they must be extended to all couples. Same sex couples of course must be included. On the other side, there is a deeply held belief that marriage is a fundamental social institution, not only recognized by law but sanctified by religious faith, and that any compromise in allowing same sex couples equal rights and benefits is in some way taking from that. I do not accept that argument, but I do certainly acknowledge that some feel that way.

I also very strongly believe that the real issue, and the issue that I believe we should focus on, is one of practical and meaningful equality under the law, not the semantics or the rhetoric or the inflammatory accusations that come to pass, but treating people the same under the law, with rights, responsibilities, privileges and protection, a level playing field under the law. I believe that most Canadians are looking for that position. They looking for a compromise and looking to Parliament to reflect that in its view.

This is not the first time that we have had this debate in the House of Commons. In fact, I remind members of a supply day motion brought forward by the official opposition on Tuesday, June 8, 1999. That motion read:

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

I would also simply like to reflect some of the comments made by a previous speaker at that time and in that debate, a current member of the House. I believe they are relevant today, just as they were some few years ago. The comments are as follows:

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

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 definition of marriage, which has been consistently applied in Canada, comes from an 1866 British case which holds that marriage is “the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others”. That case and that definition are considered clear law by ordinary Canadians, by academics and by the courts. The courts have upheld the constitutionality of that definition.

The Ontario court, general division, recently upheld in Layland and Beaulne the definition of marriage. In that decision a majority of the court stated the following:

--unions of persons of the same sex are not “marriages”, because of the definition of marriage. The applicants are, in effect, seeking to use section 15 of the Charter to bring about a change in the definition of marriage. I do not think the Charter has that effect.

One may then ask why are we here today and why we are using the already limited time of the House to debate a motion, on which, I suspect, there will be no fundamental disagreement inside or outside the House.

I am aware, as are other ministers, that recent court decisions and resulting media coverage have raised concern around the issue of same sex partners. It appears that the hon. member believes that the motion is both necessary and effective as a means to keep the Government of Canada from suddenly legislating the legalization of same sex marriages. That kind of misunderstanding of the intention of the government should be corrected.

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. No jurisdiction worldwide defines a legal marriage as existing between same sex partners. Even those few European countries such as Denmark, Norway and Holland, which have recently passed legislation giving recognition to same sex relationships and extending some of the same benefits and responsibilities as available to married spouses, maintain a clear distinction in the law between marriage and same sex registered partnerships.

Norway's ministry published a statement in 1994 that makes this distinction clear. Although a same sex relationship may have many of the same needs, the Norwegian government clarified that it, the same sex partnership, can --never be the same as marriage, neither socially nor from a religious point of view. (Registered partnership) does not replace or compete with heterosexual marriage--(and the) opportunity for homosexuals to register their partnerships will not lead to more people opting for homosexual relationships rather than marriage.

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 courts have ruled that some recognition must be given to the realities of unmarried cohabitation in terms of both opposite sex and same sex partners.

I strongly believe that the message to the government and to all Canadian governments from the Canadian public is a message of tolerance, fairness and respect for others.

For those who remain concerned, I would point out that recent surveys of young people indicate that marriage has not gone out of style inn Canada. The majority of young people still expect to marry. The marriage rate is still similar to that of the 1920s, although a rising number are re-marriages, and that Canadian marriages still on average last longer than those in the United States.

The motion speaks of taking all necessary steps to preserve the definition of marriage in Canada. While I and the government support the motion, I feel strongly that marriage is already very clear in Canadian minds and in Canadian law, and that there is little that the House must do as a necessary step to in any way add to the clarity of the law.

Marriage has fundamental value and importance to Canadians and we do not believe on this side of the House that importance and value is in any way threatened or undermined by others seeking to have their long term relationships recognized. 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.

As I noted, this particular speech given on Tuesday, June 8, 1999, was given to the House by a person none other than the Deputy Prime Minister of Canada, the hon. member for Edmonton Centre.

I want to note that in my constituency of Central Nova there are many who have strong and reasoned attachment to the institution of marriage. Communities like Antigonish, Pictou, Sheet Harbour and throughout the region and province feel very strongly and have expressed that to me. I must admit that I have received on occasion another opinion. I would state that up until now the courts have been interpreting a common law definition of marriage, not a definition based on statutes reflecting the democratic will of Parliament.

Once again, the question of parliamentary supremacy comes to the forefront. This dry and sanitized forum does not always reflect the true feelings of a nation. No public opinion poll or press release can capture those deeply held sentiments.

The Supreme Court refused to answer directly the constitutionality of the common law definition as posed by the Prime Minister in question four. That has been left for Parliament, and by extension the people of Canada, to decide.

Recently Canadians have become concerned about the appearance that courts encroach on the supremacy of Parliament and read into the law.

It is our belief that if Parliament brings forth a statute defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of others, which extends equal rights and benefits to couples living in other forms of union and which also protects the freedom of religion, that the Supreme Court would honour and respect Parliament's determination.

In conclusion, I am sure that those rights will be challenged, as they always are before our courts, but I take comfort knowing that there has been a general tone of respect from all parliamentarians and I am at ease with my decision. Parliament is a better place when we conduct ourselves in that vein.

[Jeremy Harrison, Conservative, Churchill River, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today on behalf of my constituents of Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River to speak to Bill C-38, the same sex marriage bill, the very subject upon which I wrote my thesis in law school.

I, like most of my colleagues on this side of the House, the vast majority of my constituents in northern Saskatchewan and many on the other side as well, believe in the traditional definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

However in the course of this debate those of us who support marriage have been told that to amend the bill to reflect a traditional definition of marriage would be a violation of human rights and an unconstitutional violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I believe this is an attempt by the government to shift the grounds of the debate. The Liberals do not want to debate the question of traditional marriage versus same sex marriage, so they would rather focus on attacking their opponents as opposing human rights and the charter.

However this debate is not about human rights. It is a political social policy decision and should be treated in that light. Let me present several reasons why the issue of same sex marriage is not a human rights issue and why defining the traditional definition of marriage would not violate the charter or require the use of the notwithstanding clause.

First, no internationally recognized human rights document has ever suggested that there is a right to same sex marriage. For example, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the foundational United Nations human rights charter, almost all of the rights listed are worded as purely individual rights, rights which everyone shall have or no one shall be denied, but when it comes to marriage the declaration says:

Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family.

The use of the term “men and women” here rather than “everyone” suggests that only traditional opposite sex marriage is contemplated. The subsequent International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights contains similar language.

Attempts to pursue same sex marriage as an international human rights issue have failed. In 1998 the European Court of Justice held that “Stable relationships between two persons of the same sex are not regarded as equivalent to marriages”.

In 1996 the New Zealand Court of Appeal rejected the recognition of same sex marriages, despite the fact that New Zealand's bill of rights explicitly listed sexual orientation as prohibited grounds of discrimination. When the New Zealand decision was challenged before the United Nations Human Rights Commission as a violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the UNHRC ruled in 2002 that there was no case for discrimination simply on the basis of refusing to marry homosexual couples.

In fact, to this date, no international human rights body and no national supreme court has ever found that there is a human right to same sex marriage. The only courts that have found in favour of a right to same sex marriage are provincial or state level courts in Canada and the United States.

If same sex marriage is not a basic human right in the sense of internationally recognized human rights law, is it a violation of Canadian charter rights? While several provincial courts of appeal have said that it is, we still have not heard from the highest court in the land.

In the same sex reference case, the Supreme Court declined to rule on the constitutionality of a traditional definition of marriage, despite a clear request from the government to answer this question.

Furthermore, all of the lower court decisions in favour of same sex marriage were dealing with common law, judge made law from over a century ago, not a recent statute passed by a democratically elected legislature. It is quite possible that those lower courts may have found differently if there was a marriage act passed by Parliament defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

The whole discussion of the notwithstanding clause is an irrelevant distraction to this debate. There is simply no reason to use or discuss the use of the notwithstanding clause in the absence of a Supreme Court decision which indicates that the traditional definition of marriage is unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court has not done so.

The Supreme Court has also said in various cases that statute law requires greater deference than common law. Should legislation upholding the traditional definition of marriage be passed, a good argument can be made that the Supreme Court would give it considerable deference.

There are several examples of Parliament having passed statutes without using the notwithstanding clause that effectively reversed judicial decisions, including Supreme Court decisions, under common law. The courts have accepted these exercises of parliamentary sovereignty.

In 1995 Parliament passed Bill C-72 reversing the Supreme Court's decision in Daviault, which allowed extreme intoxication as a criminal defence.

When this new law was challenged in the subsequent Mills case, the Supreme Court wisely ruled, in a decision by Justices McLachlin and Iacobucci:

It does not follow from the fact that a law passed by Parliament differs from a regime envisaged by the Court in the absence of a statutory scheme, that Parliament's law is unconstitutional. Parliament may build on the Court's decision, and develop a different scheme as long as it remains constitutional. Just as Parliament must respect the Court's rulings, so the Court must respect Parliament's determination that the judicial scheme can be improved. To insist on slavish conformity would belie the mutual respect that underpins the relationship between the courts and legislature that is so essential to our constitutional democracy....

There is good reason to believe that the Supreme Court, if it were eventually asked to rule on a new statutory definition of marriage combined with a full and equal recognition of legal rights and benefits for same sex couples, might well accept it.

The Conservative position that the use of the notwithstanding clause is not required to legislate a traditional definition of marriage is supported by law professor Alan Brudner of the University of Toronto, who recently wrote in the Globe and Mail :

--the judicially declared unconstitutionality of the common law definition of marriage does not entail the unconstitutionality of parliamentary legislation affirming the same definition.

Citing the case of Regina v. Swain, where the Supreme Court ruled that it did not have to subject a charter decision on common law to the same “reasonable limits” test as it would for a statute, Professor Brudner writes:

For all we know, therefore, courts may uphold opposition sex marriage as a reasonable limit on the right against discrimination when the restriction comes from a democratic body.

Professor Brudner argues against those who have argued that a pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause is the only way to uphold the traditional definition of marriage. He stated that:

These arguments misconceive the role of a notwithstanding clause in a constitutional democracy. Certainly, that role cannot be to protect laws suspected of being unconstitutional against judicial scrutiny....Rather, the legitimate role of a notwithstanding clause in a constitutional state is to provide a democratic veto over a judicial declaration of invalidity, where the court's reasoning discloses a failure to defer to the parliamentary body on a question of political discretion...the notwithstanding clause should be invoked by Parliament only after the Supreme Court has ruled on the constitutionality of a law.

As yet there has been no such law for the Supreme Court to consider, so there is no need to use the notwithstanding clause.

There is every reason to believe that if the House moved to bring in a reasonable, democratic, compromise solution, one which defined in statute that marriage remains the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, which extended equal rights and benefits to couples living in other forms of unions and which fully protected freedom of religion to the extent possible under federal law, the Supreme Court of Canada would honour such a decision of Parliament.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to again join the debate on Bill C-38 on behalf of the residents of Niagara West--Glanbrook. As I have noted previously, the constituents of my riding have made it abundantly clear that they are against the radical change in the definition of marriage which the Prime Minister wants to leave behind as his legacy.

Briefly, I want to remind the members of Parliament, particularly those who feel forced to support Bill C-38 or lose their cabinet posts, how strongly Canadians feel about this issue.

When was the last time, if ever, their constituency or Ottawa offices received feedback from more than 10,000 people on a single issue? That has been the case in Niagara West--Glanbrook, with almost 90% supporting the position that the definition of marriage must be maintained as being exclusively between one man and one woman. If we think that this debate is only for adults and that kids are not engaged, let me tell members about one of my young constituents, a high school student named Nalini Ramaden, who was so concerned that she had petitions filled out and dropped off at my office.

I have been accused by some of being biased in favour of protecting the traditional definition of marriage. Yes, I am. I have always been upfront and transparent about my views. During the election I told voters that my intention was to maintain the institution of marriage as we know it and I asked for their support. They gave me their support and they recently reiterated their objection to Bill C-38 by contacting my office in massive numbers. I am listening to my constituents and I am acting on their directions by voting against the bill. I again ask the members of cabinet this. Are they doing the same for their constituents or are their first loyalties to the Prime Minister's Office?

I want to dispel the nonsense argument that maintaining the traditional definition of marriage is somehow discriminatory or infringes on human rights. Only two countries in the world have legislated same sex marriage at the national level: Belgium and the Netherlands. Even in these countries there are still some legal differences that make distinctions between opposite sex marriages and same sex unions. The vast majority of the jurisdictions have gone the route of recognizing civil unions or domestic partnerships or similar sounding designations.

We in the Conservative Party are proposing a similar moderate compromise position that would put Canada in the company of some of the most liberal and progressive countries in the western world. We are proposing to preserve marriage while at the same time the rights of same sex couples can be recognized through a civil union or other means. Countries which have brought in laws similar to these are France, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Finland, Germany, Portugal and New Zealand. It seems that Canada's Liberal government stands alone in wanting to abolish the opposite sex nature of marriage.

The Conservative Party's position does not violate human rights as the Prime Minister alleges. Nor is it in any way un-Canadian, as he tries to portray. The only un-Canadian and anti-democratic position on this issue is the position of the Liberal government. By insisting upon an unnecessary and radical approach and ignoring or belittling the views of Canadians on this issue, the government is demonstrating an arrogance that is simply unprecedented, even for Liberals.

The Prime Minister and cabinet are aware of the hypocrisy and the argument that the Conservative position of preserving marriage goes against the Charter of Rights. I remind everybody that on April 12, 34 members of the Liberal caucus voted in favour of the Conservative amendment. If the Prime Minister truly believes that our position of respecting the will of the majority goes against Canadian values, I have to wonder why he has not kicked those 34 MPs out of his caucus. I know the answer. Deep down the Prime Minister knows Bill C-38 really does not reflect Canadian values. It reflects his reluctance to acknowledge that he is out of touch with Canadians.

The Liberals did not campaign on the theme of changing the meaning of marriage. In fact, most Liberal candidates did all they could to avoid even talking about this issue. If the Prime Minister is so convinced of his moral authority to govern and to make such a fundamental change to the enduring and timeless institution of marriage, I would be most entertained to hear further strained arguments attempting to justify his lack of consultation with Canadians

What is the rush to pass this legislation? There are no legal requirements or looming deadlines that must be met. Again, if cabinet is so certain the bill is the right measure, then let us welcome some real public involvement. Canadians have a strong set of principles. The government should trust the public to make the right decision. Leave the legislation alone until Canadians can cast a vote for various candidates of parties based on their position whenever the next election is held.

Perhaps that is where the problem lays. The government does not respect Canadians enough to listen to them. It does not respect how tax dollars are spent. It does not want to hear what people have to say about the government's lack of management and misplaced priorities.

As an example of how much cabinet cares about listening to their constituents, I have had about a dozen constituents from the neighbouring riding of Hamilton East—Stoney Creek call my office to complain that the Liberal MP will not respond to their calls or letters regarding Bill C-38.

I know that cabinet duties can obviously take considerable time, but there is an equally and, in fact, more important duty of all MPs, whether in cabinet or not, to faithfully represent voters in their ridings who have placed a trust in them.

Confidence and trust in politicians is so incredibly low these days. I recently received a letter from a constituent who only half-jokingly suggested, “We need the police force to protect our Canadians from politicians”. It is truly sad--

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

I am sorry to interrupt the member. He will have four minutes at the resumption of the debate.

Essay Contest

[Marc Godbout, Liberal, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to announced that A&E network recently awarded $2,500 to Ms. Leah Mooney, an 18-year-old grade 12 student from Orléans.

Ms. Mooney's essay, which was chosen first from more than 1,800 submissions, won because it was “the most persuasive, creative and relevant essay on the individual who made the biggest impact on Canadian society in 2004”. For her, this person had to be Captain Americo Rodriguez, the doctor who brought 10-year-old Afghani Djamshid Popal to Canada for a life-saving heart operation.

Leah's school, Colonel By Secondary School, will also benefit. Its English department will receive a $1,000 prize along with a television, a DVD player and a collection of A&E DVDs. On behalf of the Ottawa--Orléans community, congratulations Leah.

Infrastructure

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Madam Speaker, three months ago concerned citizens sent the Minister of Transport a portfolio with over 60 photographs documenting the deterioration of the 140-year-old stone and concrete CN railway bridge in downtown Napanee. Also included were resolutions of the town and county councils requesting that the minister dispatch someone to take note of the structural deficiencies of the bridge. So far, the minister has failed to even acknowledge receipt of the portfolio.

The condition of the bridge is a serious matter. The bridge crosses a busy street and is located beside a public park. Chunks of stone and concrete have been falling from the parapet of the bridge and from its support piers. I took several of these home and weighed them. The heaviest is over seven pounds and would have killed or injured any person unfortunate enough to be sitting or standing underneath when it broke loose.

Railways and therefore railway bridges fall under federal jurisdiction. The minister therefore has no excuse to ignore the potentially dangerous state of this bridge. I encourage him to turn his attention to this matter as soon as possible.

ALS Society of Canada

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the tremendous work of the ALS Society of Canada. The ALS Society of Canada, founded in 1977, is the only national voluntary health organization dedicated solely to the fight against ALS, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, also known as Lou Gehrig's disease.

The ALS Society is the leading not for profit health organization working nationwide to fund ALS research and work to improve the quality of life for Canadians affected by this disease.

Imagine not being able to walk, write, smile, talk, eat and sometimes breathe on one's own and yet the mind usually remains intact with senses unaffected. This is what having ALS is like for 3,000 Canadians who live with this disease. Two to three Canadians a day die of ALS. There is no treatment for ALS and no known cure, yet. Ninety per cent of Canadians diagnosed with ALS die within two to five years.

Volunteers and staff of the ALS Society participate in annual fundraising events, including Walk for ALS, Hike for ALS and the Concert of Hope, to create public awareness about the disease and raise funds to find a cure.

I urge all Canadians to donate to their local chapters of ALS so that the dream of finding a cure can become a reality.