Debates of May 3rd, 2005

Civil Marriage Act

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak against the Liberal government's same sex marriage bill, Bill C-38.

Renowned expert Eugene Meehan, a former national president of the Canadian Bar Association and former executive legal officer of the Supreme Court of Canada, has ruled in a legal opinion: first, that Canada's highest court has not required Parliament to amend the traditional definition of marriage, as many Liberal MPs have indicated; second, that gay marriage has not receive protection under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms; and third, that the federal government has no power to protect from human rights complaints religious officials who do not want to perform gay marriages, as such powers rest with the provinces.

In my speech today, I will give a brief summary of what was determined by this esteemed expert, Mr. Eugene Meehan, and what the Leader of the Opposition as prime minister with a Conservative government would do with this important issue.

The first question Mr. Meehan answered was this. Would the Parliament of Canada be acting consistently with the same sex marriage reference opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada if it were to enact the statutory definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman for life to the exclusion of all others?

To answer this, he broke the question down into three separate questions, A, B and C.

Question A is: Does the reference require Parliament to amend the common law traditional definition of marriage, as many of the Liberal MPs have in fact claimed? His answer is, no. The answers provided in a federal reference are an advisory opinion only to the governor in council, or in other words, to the government. In addition, in the reference, the Supreme Court did not address the question of whether an opposite sex definition of marriage would fail to meet charter requirements.

He said that the same sex marriage reference did not require Parliament to amend the common law definition of marriage for the following reasons. First, the Supreme Court has recognized that answers provided in a federal reference are by nature advisory only. Second, the federal government took the position before the Supreme Court of Canada in the same sex marriage reference that it was not bound by the court's answers. Third, the Supreme Court did not address the question of whether an opposite sex definition of marriage would fail to meet the charter requirements. Fourth, ultimately the decision of whether to follow or not a reference opinion is political, not legal.

Question B is: Should it be the case that the purpose of the common law definition of marriage arose out of Christendom, is it consistent with the constitutional precedent for the Parliament of Canada 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 section 1 of the charter?

Mr. Meehan's answer is, yes. Legislation pertaining to the legal capacity for civil marriage falls within the subject matter of section 91.26 of the Constitution Act, 1867, which pertains to the exclusive legislative competence of Parliament.

As we know, traditional marriage is supported by all of the world's main religions and by non-religious people as well.

Question C is: Would Parliament be acting consistent with jurisprudence if it determined that for the test under section 1 of the charter, the purpose of the restriction of the statutory definition of marriage to one man and one woman is exclusively to 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?

The answer to question C is, yes. The Supreme Court has previously recognized the importance of protecting the best interests of children in a variety of contexts.

It is therefore constitutionally possible that a law defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, specifically promulgated with the secular objective of the best interests of the children, could be perceived by the courts as a pressing and substantial objective.

In light of the fact that under section 1 charter analysis it is the government that has the evidential burden, proof would need to be tendered as to why and how a restrictive marriage definition is required to protect children in Canadian society and how it advances the well-being of the interests of children generally.

If the new federal act included assurances that despite a restrictive statutory definition of marriage for purposes of federal law, all rights, benefits and privileges accruing to the opposite sex couples in marriage would apply equally and without discrimination to those in same sex relationships, this could augment the constitutional chances of new legislation withstanding a charter challenge.

I wish to note that this is exactly what the Conservative Party of Canada and what a Conservative government will do, but I will discuss that later.

The second question that the Lang Michener letter reviews is Meehan's opinion on the religious freedom concerns that will likely flow from the enactment of Bill C-38 should it pass. The main question was: What religious freedom issues would Canadians face should Bill C-38 be enacted as proposed?

Mr. Meehan broke the question into three parts, which were A, B and C.

Question A: Does the Parliament of Canada 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? His answer, in his legal opinion, was no. He said that provincial governments, pursuant to section 92(12) of the Constitution Act, 1867, had exclusive jurisdiction with respect to the solemnization of marriage.

Question B: If Bill C-38 is enacted could religious groups or officials who refuse to solemnize a marriage become the subject of actions by others? His answer was yes. He said that a punitive same sex spouse who is refused a marriage licence or a place to hold a wedding would have a variety of options to assert his or her rights. I would like to note that this has already happened, so it is not at all a hypothetical question.

Question C: Does the Parliament of Canada have the power, through Bill C-38 or otherwise, to protect religious groups or officials from the actions referred to above? His answer was no. He said that 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.

Therefore the claims made by the government in that regard simply are not true.

This legal opinion, which was delivered by Mr. Meehan, an esteemed expert, is supported by 35 legal counsels who maintain active practices or academic interest in litigation, human rights, religious, charity or constitutional law.

It is clear, therefore, that only the federal government can legislate a definition of marriage for the entire country. The Leader of the Opposition has indicated that as Prime Minister he will do so. That definition will be the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. Our legislation would also maintain and protect in law the rights, benefits, obligations and responsibilities of other types of unions.

The Leader of the Opposition intends to protect the traditional definition of marriage while equally recognizing other types of unions. This is a reasonable compromise position that most Canadians support. Why do the Liberals refuse to support our actions and our proposals in this regard when they know that a majority of Canadians support this position?

The fact is the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party want to change the definition of marriage and they are out of step with Canadians on this issue.They want to shift the discussion to the debate about rights and the courts because they know their position on the definition of marriage itself is not consistent with the views of Canadians.

Like the bill before the House today, our legislation will be subject to a free vote by all members of the Conservative caucus. I sincerely hope that the other parties in the House will recognize that each member of Parliament should represent their constituents on this important issue. No party, except the Conservatives, is allowing a free vote on this issue in the House.

I will continue to stand and fight for marriage, for the family, and for a strong and healthy society. I will help defeat the government and the same sex marriage bill.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I, like most of my colleagues on this side of the House and many on the other side of the House as well, believe in the traditional definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. Many or most Canadians feel the same way. The number of petitions presented in the House and the number of letters and e-mails we have all received show this to be true.

There is no doubt that there are sincere and deeply held feelings on both sides of this issue. There is also no doubt that the majority of Canadians are looking for a middle ground compromise that would recognize the valid concerns of the partisans on either side. This is the type of country Canada is and the type of goodwill the people of Canada do usually show.

In the course of this debate those of us who support marriage have been told that to amend this legislation to reflect the 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 that this is an attempt by the government to shift the grounds of this debate. It does not want to debate the question of the traditional definition of marriage versus same sex marriage so it would rather focus on attacking its opponents as opposing human rights and the charter. This is not the middle ground. This is partisan divisive politics.

However this debate is not about human rights. It is a political, social policy decision and should be treated in that light.

The citizens of Elgin--Middlesex--London during the last election chose me to come to this place and help make the laws of the land. Many during the election talked openly about not allowing unelected court judges to become the lawmakers. That duty is ours and we should endeavour to do it to the best of our ability.

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, as has been said in the House, no internationally recognized human rights document has ever suggested that there is a right to same sex marriage. For example, almost all the rights listed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the foundation of the United Nations human rights charter, are worded as purely individual rights, rights which everyone shall have or no one shall be denied. However, 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.

Many attempts to pursue same sex marriage as an international human rights issue have failed. In fact, to this date no international human rights body nor national supreme court has ever found that there is a human right to same sex marriage.

Therefore, if same sex marriage is not a basic human right in the sense of internationally recognized human rights law, is it a violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

We still have not heard from the highest court in this land. In the same sex reference case, the Supreme Court declined to rule on the constitutionality of the traditional definition of marriage despite a clear request from the government to answer this question.

This leads me back to our purpose here. It is with us, 308 free thinking and free voting members of the House, that the definition of marriage awaits defining. Even the Supreme Court sent it back here to be done. 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 that:

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

The professor also 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:

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...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....

In other words, let this body make the decision and the court will deal with it.

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 this 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, while extending equal rights and benefits to couples living in other forms of unions, and which fully protected the freedom of religion to the extent possible under federal law, that the Supreme Court of Canada would honour such a decision by Parliament.

This leads us back to where most Canadians want us: at a compromise solution to this question, to a place we can all arrive at in agreement, not in an uncompromising, uncompassionate line in the sand that has no room for discussion.

This House, including the current Prime Minister, voted to uphold the definition of marriage in 1999 and in the amendments to Bill C-23 in 2000, with the Deputy Prime Minister, who was then the justice minister, leading the defence of marriage from the government side.

In 1999 the Deputy Prime Minister said:

We on this side 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.

She also said:

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.

She also said:

Let me state again for the record that the government has no intention of changing the definition of marriage or of legislating same sex marriages.

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.

That was the Deputy Prime Minister, speaking as justice minister, less than six years ago. Nothing that she said then is out of date today.

The Supreme Court itself has still not addressed this issue despite a clear request to do so by the government.

We do not believe on the basis of provincial court decisions, which the government refused to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, that a fundamental, centuries' old institution should be abolished or radically changed.

We believe that marriage should continue to be what it has always been, what the courts and the government accepted it to be until a very few years ago: an institution which, by its nature, is heterosexual and has as one of its main purposes the procreation and nurturing of children in the care of a mother and a father.

In conclusion, I will not be supporting Bill C-38.

[Greg Thompson, Conservative, St. Croix—Belleisle, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to take part in the debate. I want to thank my colleague from Okanagan, British Columbia for allowing me to speak now and he will speak a little later.

From the outset I simply want to put on the record that I support the traditional definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

The debate is about the Government of Canada changing the definition of marriage; it is as simple as that. The federal justice minister suggested that we change the traditional definition of marriage from the union of one man and one woman to the union of two persons, which is the change that we are actually debating in the House today. I am fundamentally opposed to that and a number of my constituents are as well.

I want to mention at the outset that our party is the only party in the House of Commons that is actually having a free vote on this issue. We can talk about a democratic deficit in the House, as the Prime Minister used to do a long time ago and that he would do something about it, but the fact is we are the only party that will have a free vote in the House of Commons on this issue.

The NDP will not have a free vote. In fact, Mr. Speaker, if you have been observing, which you often do from the chair during votes, some of the members of the NDP have had to leave the chamber during the vote. They are not allowed the intellectual freedom to cast a vote according to the wishes of their constituents and their own conscience, which is a good word and a fair word to use. Of course it is the same for the Liberals. As for the Bloc members, we know how they are voting on the issue.

The Liberals do not have a free vote. It is disturbing to a lot of Canadians that if there were a free vote in the House of Commons, the bill simply would not pass. The Prime Minister has the largest cabinet in the history of Canadian government. All of those people will be forced to vote. They are whipped by the Prime Minister. They hold their positions only because of the wishes of the Prime Minister. In addition, there are the parliamentary secretaries. Three-quarters of the Liberal Party will be forced to vote according to the Prime Minister. There is no free vote in the House of Commons. So much for the democratic deficit and so much for the words of the Prime Minister. They mean just about as much in this issue as any of the other issues we have dealt with in the House.

The sad part of the whole debate is that the Prime Minister is attempting to pit Canadian against Canadian. The Liberals do not want a debate. I want to quote from some comments made yesterday by my colleague from Dufferin—Caledon because they focus on the level of debate the government wants to take us down to.

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.

That fits in with what we have heard from so many speakers in the House. The previous speaker mentioned the same thing in terms of human rights. He quoted the United Nations charter as it relates to human rights and the whole marriage issue.

We are the only party that will have a free vote. We are the only party that introduced amendments to the legislation which, by the way, were voted down by the government. Again, the government members were whipped by the House leader and the Prime Minister.

We said that we would propose amendments, which we did and which were voted down by the House--Mr. Speaker, you were here for that vote--which amendments would provide clear recognition of the traditional definition of marriage. It is something that the courts were saying that Parliament should do, that Parliament should lead on this issue.

The Supreme Court is acting in a legislative vacuum. The leadership on this issue should have been exercised by the Government of Canada. The Supreme Court would take its message from the Parliament of Canada.

In addition to the recognition of the traditional definition of marriage, we were also proposing to provide full recognition of same sex relationships as possessing equivalent rights and privileges. In addition to that, we would provide substantive protections for religious institutions in the context of federal law, none of which exists under the present legislation.

The churches are afraid of prosecution under the act because the government has not taken the time to provide them with adequate protection. That is an argument that we are hearing from all religions and all denominations. We have seen those cards, letters and presentations from Catholic bishops, Baptist ministers, and the list goes on. Basically every religious group and every denomination in the country has concerns about the direction in which the federal Liberal government is pushing us.

There is an article written by Barbara Kay in the National Post . I want to read it because children are the one group of people missing in this debate. Other members have mentioned this as well. The title of Barbara Kay's article is “It's time to think about the children”. This is the point that Ms. Kay made:

Canadian researchers have made no effort to harvest the views of those who have the most invested in the gay marriage debate--children. Nobody has asked the children if they “strongly prefer, strongly reject or don't care” whether they have a single mom, single dad, mother and father, or two moms or two dads.

She said that “children are by nature social conservatives and will, by nature, respond that they prefer a mom and a dad”. She concludee by saying, “Canada is one of only three places on earth poised to endorse the use of children as social guinea pigs without their consent. And all because our intellectual and political elites haven't ever really thought about it”. They have not thought about the children.

That pretty well lays it on the line. That journalist is speaking for a lot of moms and dads and a lot of individual Canadians.

This is not about voting the wishes of our constituents. It is all about voting our conscience. There are members in our own party with whom we disagree on this issue. We respectfully disagree with each other on this issue.

This is an issue that does not have to come before Parliament. It does not have to be dividing Canadians. The track record of the government is always about dividing. It is never about uniting and bringing us together. This is a debate that should not happen.

The Conservative Party is asking the government to reconsider this legislation. It should reconsider this legislation in light of the impact it will have on our families and our institutions. We ask the government to simply stand back for a minute and listen to individual Canadians.

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when I previously made remarks relating to this legislation on changing the definition of marriage, I reflected on the philosophical, theological and sociological implications. Today I would like to reflect on the legal implications pretty well exclusively, not to bore any listeners, but the legal assessment of this legislation is very important and it is not getting active consideration through the media nor through admission by government members.

I will reflect on legal documents and legal opinions. There is one particular very comprehensive legal assessment of this legislation by about three dozen legal experts and academic advisers whose whole careers are invested in academic interests related to human rights, religious rights, and charity and constitutional law. This particular document reviewed two constitutional opinions that were provided by the law firm of Lang Michener on the subject of Bill C-38. A number of very specific questions were posed, many of which came from our constituents, people who, either for religious or social reasons, have concerns about this dramatic social change. In fact it is the most dramatic social change definitely in Canada's history, modern and past. This is a very significant sweeping legal and social change. Canadians should be fully apprised of all the implications before they decide if this is a good thing to support or not.

The Liberal government did not want Parliament to decide this, which is where it should be decided. The government slid it over to the Supreme Court, hoping the Supreme Court would absolve it of responsibility in terms of changing the definition. The Supreme Court quite rightly sent it back to Parliament and that is why it is here today.

Let us look at the very specific questions that were submitted for constitutional legal assessment. One question was, did the recent same sex marriage reference opinion of the Supreme Court require Parliament to amend the common law definition of marriage? The answer was no. The Supreme Court did not require it. This is a very important point. The Liberals are going ahead with this, but they cannot hide behind an imperative from the Supreme Court. There was no requirement from the court to make this change.

The next question was, should it be the case that the purpose of the common law definition of marriage rose out of “Christendom”, in fact religious history, as discussed in paragraphs 21 and 22 of the reference? 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? The answer to that is yes, it is consistent. Legislation pertaining to the legal capacity for civil marriage falls within the subject matter of section 91(26) of the Constitution Act. That addressed the exclusive legislative competence of Parliament.

The next question was, would Parliament be acting consistent with jurisprudence if it justified a statutory definition of marriage of one man and one woman on the basis that it would serve the best interests of children? Was that an actual constitutional matter of jurisprudence? Could it be justified to look at this from the point of view of 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 mother and father? That is the specific question referenced. The answer to that is also yes. The Supreme Court has previously recognized the importance of protecting the best interests of children in a variety of contexts, so it is a justifiable consideration.

The next question was, 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 groups' religious beliefs? There is the constitutional question on the religious question.

If Bill C-38 passes, can Parliament protect the religious freedoms of those who, for religious reasons, do not want to perform ceremonies or things like that? In fact, the answer to that is no. This Parliament does not have the jurisdiction under section 92(12) of the Constitution to have exclusive jurisdiction to protect religious freedoms should this legislation pass. That answer is no. Members opposite need to know that.

Another question was this one. If Bill C-38 is enacted, could religious groups or officials who refuse to solemnize a marriage become the subject of action by others? If, for religious reasons or just reasons of conviction, justices of the peace or marriage commissioners say no, they do not want to do a marriage, could they wind up getting sued? The answer to that is yes: “A putative same-sex spouse who is refused a marriage licence or a place to hold a wedding would have a variety of options to assert his/her rights”.

The next question was, does Parliament have the power through Bill C-38 to protect religious groups or officials from the actions referred to above? Could churches be protected by Parliament? Does Parliament have the power to protect them should Bill C-38 pass? The answer is no. We need to be honest about that.The Liberals need to be honest about that. If we are moving into this brave new world, we need to understand what it is going to look like. The answer is: “Parliament cannot protect religious groups or officials from the actions referred to above”.

The three dozen or so constitutional lawyers and other experts in this field then gave legal advice. They stated:

--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 if Bill C-38 becomes law.

I wish the government and the Minister of Justice would address these legal and constitutional arguments, but they refuse to. They want Canadians to go blindly into their brave new world, but it is not wise for a society to move blindly in any direction.

Some will say that these are scare tactics, that this type of thing will never happen in Canada, but in fact, even before the law has been enacted--we hope it will not be and that is why we are speaking against it--these things are already happening. Provincial governments in Canada have terminated the positions of marriage commissioners who have, for personal religious convictions, not performed same sex marriages. It has happened in Saskatchewan.

I believe in freedom of speech, but I believe we should also have the right to comment on freedom of speech. A chilling editorial in the Globe and Mail , which is supposed to be one of the bastions of freedom of expression, on January 7, 2005, urged provinces to fire any marriage commissioners who refused to perform same sex marriages. That is incredible coming from something that purports to be a national newspaper. It has the right to say that, and I am not saying it does not, but we certainly have the right to respond.

Bishop Frederick Henry of Calgary is facing at least two official objections to his public statements along with expensive hearings before the Alberta Human Rights Commission for expressing his biblical views on same sex marriage.

I have engaged in debates where people who do not believe in marriage have said they think marriage is a terrible thing. They think it is awful. I have participated in debates where people have said they think marriage is one of the most fearsome and loathsome institutions there is. I disagree with that, but they have a right to say it, and Bishop Henry and others also have the right to say that marriage should be maintained.

On April 4, 2005, the Quesnel School District suspended school counsellor Dr. Chris Kempling. He had been employed as a counsellor in the school system. He had, under the name of his political party, written a letter to the editor of a local newspaper criticizing the Liberal government's position on same sex marriage. He was suspended and has faced many expensive legal proceedings since then.

These things will happen, but they are happening even now, before this legislation has passed.

I am curious when I hear people say that we should not have this discussion because it is “divisive”. There is a reaction among some people in the academic, media and political communities who say that if anything is divisive we should not talk about it. They say that Canadians cannot handle division or divisive items, that we are just quiet little people who do not want to be upset by someone's different point of view.

That is not our history. Our history is that we can very aggressively, if necessary, and openly and democratically discuss our differences. We have a democratic history in which we come together and vote on these things.

I have maintained some legal positions today. My previous speech, for those who would like to consult it, deals with the philosophical, religious and sociological effects of the change in this definition. It is a brave new world, one that I do not think most Canadians, when they fully understand its implications, will want.

Business of the House

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, discussions have taken place among all parties and I believe that you would find consent for the following motion:

That during today's debate on Government Business No. 11, pursuant to Standing Order 53.1, no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be entertained by the Speaker.

[The Deputy Speaker]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed 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

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

Mr. Speaker, if the flood of petitions and letters to my office over the past six months is any indication, Bill C-38, the same sex marriage bill, is by far the most important bill that will be dealt with by the 38th Parliament.

I have received about five times as much mail on this subject as on any other that I have dealt with in my four years as a member of Parliament. I have received many thousands of signatures on petitions in the constituency. For example, last week I presented nine such petitions to the House, and this week I have a further eight petitions that I am ready to submit. As members can see from the size of this pile, there are many hundreds of signatures on these petitions. As well, of course, I listen to many of my colleagues on all sides of the House presenting one petition after another, which is a very strong indication of the depth of interest expressed by Canadians on this issue.

Another sign of the depth of interest and commitment is the number of letters that are received and that are individual handwritten letters, letters from people who, although they are constituents, are not regular correspondents. People have been moved to write to me on this issue when they have written on no other issue. That is a signal to me of the depth of their interest in and commitment on this issue.

It was my practice in the 37th Parliament, that is, the one that sat from 2000 to 2004, to seek instruction from the electorate in my riding as to how to vote on key legislation via a mechanism that we refer to in the constituency as a constituency referendum.

I have conducted constituency referenda in which I asked constituents, by means of a mail-out ballot to all households in the riding, how to vote at final reading on, among other things, the species at risk act, which was Bill C-5 in the 37th Parliament, and the anti-terrorism act, Bill C-36 in the 37th Parliament. I have asked about whether to opt in or out of the MPs' annual $20,000 pay increase and also about how the riding boundaries of my then riding of Lanark--Carleton ought to be redrawn so that I could submit to the Electoral Boundaries Commission a submission that accurately reflected the community of interest as expressed by my constituents.

My party leader, the Leader of the Opposition, is a democrat, which means a lot to me because I am of course the shadow cabinet critic for democratic reform. He is a democrat. He strongly supports the right of MPs, including members of the shadow cabinet, to vote their consciences or to vote the collective consciences of the people they represent. That is why three members of our shadow cabinet are able to vote for this bill without fear of sanction, reprisal or losing their posts.

This contrasts dramatically with the Liberal benches, where no such freedom is available to members of the cabinet. I am also the critic for FedNor, the federal agency for regional economic development in northern Ontario. My opposite number in the Liberal cabinet, the minister for FedNor, has indicated very strongly that he personally is opposed to same sex marriage and is opposed to this legislation. He has been faced with a choice between resigning his post or abdicating his conscience. Unfortunately, he seems to have chosen to abdicate his responsibility to his conscience in choosing to fall in line with the government.

How many others have done so without at least speaking openly as he has done I do not know, but certainly there is very little in the way of democracy on that side of the House and on something that is the most important issue in the minds of many of the constituents of many of the members opposite, and of course also in the minds of many of the members opposite themselves, as it is in the minds of so many opposition members of Parliament.

The same lack of freedom to follow one's conscience or the conscience of one's constituents is even more evident in the New Democratic Party, where one member, the member for Churchill, in northern Manitoba, has essentially been knuckled under, read the riot act and told she must vote the way her party leader tells her to, without regard for her personal conscience or for the will of her constituents.

As our party's critic on democracy, I am proud of the courageous and democratic position adopted by our leader, but also of the democratic position adopted by our party, the Conservative Party, at its March policy convention in Montreal. I want to read from our policy platform a policy that was adopted in Montreal at our March convention. It states:

On issues of moral conscience, such as abortion, the definition of marriage, and euthanasia, the Conservative Party acknowledges the diversity of deeply held personal convictions among individual Party members and the right of Members of Parliament to adopt positions in consultations with their constituents and to vote freely.

My intention personally has been to vote against this bill at second reading and to conduct a constituency referendum to determine how I should vote at third reading.

At second reading a bill is being approved or rejected in principle. As such, it is the stage of the bill's life where it is most appropriate for a member of Parliament to vote his or her conscience. My conscience dictates that I cannot support a bill that fails to provide adequate protection for religious freedom when such protection could easily have been included in the text of the bill.

I have largely based my political career on the defence of religious freedom. My very first statement in the House of Commons, as a new member of Parliament, was the defence of the freedom of religion of Falun Gong practitioners in mainland China. When I turned to my constituents to ask how to vote on the Anti-terrorism Act and ultimately when I broke ranks with most members of my party, and with the government of course, in order to vote against the bill, I was primarily motivated by the unwarranted restrictions that the bill was placing on freedom of religion which I believe set a very dangerous precedent in this country.

Freedom of religion that is nominally protected in clause 3 of the same sex bill is quite frankly a fictitious protection of freedom of religion. It is a section that Liberal members will cite constantly. Let me read what it says because it is revealing when the text is read. We realize how hollow this protection of freedom of religion really is. Clause 3 of the bill says:

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

There are two things to note about this. First, which my hon. colleague from Okanagan—Coquihalla so clearly identified, this does not take care of all of the other impositions on freedom of religion, of many other actors in society that are not contained within the wording of this section, such as people who serve as commissioners of marriage who find their personal conscience violated.

It would be no great effort to find someone who finds it in accordance with his or her personal conscience to perform a same sex marriage as opposed to leaving it, requiring that all people who are commissioners of marriage must be willing to do so should the condition present itself. That is just unreasonable. It provides no extra rights to a same sex couple, but it takes away a fundamental and profound right to those who find that it is not in accordance with their personal religious or philosophical beliefs.

That provision could be taken care of by provincial law. It cannot be taken care of by federal law, but the federal government could have engaged in negotiation with the provinces to ensure those kinds of protections are built into provincial law. It has made no such effort and in fact is standing by while the opposite starts to happen. There are many other instances that my colleague cited, but I will not go through them all now.

The other thing to note about this clause is that in the draft of the bill, the earlier version that was submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada, an almost identical provision was written into clause 2 of that draft law except that it did not have the wording “it is recognized” at the beginning. Clause 3 states that “It is recognized that officials of religious groups are free to refuse to perform marriages--”.

The inclusion of those words makes this a purely declaratory provision. It has no weight whatsoever. It should be up in the very long preamble to the bill because it has no weight in court. The reason it has no weight in court, even written as the original clause 2 of the prior bill was, is because the court said it can have no weight. It is ultra vires; it is outside of federal jurisdiction.

The solemnization of marriage under section 92 of the Constitution is a provincial responsibility. So putting this in the bill is disingenuous. It should not be given any weight. In fact, it should not even be in the text of the bill.

At third reading my intention is to go to my constituents and ask them how I ought to vote. Some people feel there is a contradiction between voting one's conscience and vote consulting one's constituents.

I want to indicate here that I heartily disagree with this bill. People know where I personally stand, particularly on the issue of freedom of religion. However, it would be arrogant of me to suggest to my voters, to my constituents, that on an issue of such great importance my conscience is somehow superior to the consciences of each of the 113,000 people I represent in the House of Commons. That is not the case. I am proud of them. I am proud of the good sense and conscientious, thoughtful and general sentiments that have been expressed over and over again in the hundreds of letters and many petitions that I have received on this subject, and that I have taken many hours to read and review personally.

If all members of Parliament of all parties showed the same good sense, goodwill, openness and respect that my constituents, and the constituents of all members, have shown, this debate would be a much more civilized debate than it has turned out to be so far.

[Helena Guergis, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great honour that I rise in the House today to speak on this very important subject. I rise at this point in time not just as a politician but as a representative of the people in my riding of Simcoe--Grey. Those people have chosen me to be their voice in Ottawa and that is a job I take very seriously.

As such, I would like to say straight away that I have already voted, and will continue to vote, in this House to preserve the traditional definition of marriage as being the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. That is as it stands today and as it has stood for decades in this great country.

In my short time here in Ottawa, I have risen in this House on many occasions, much of the time asking the government to explain itself on the numerous scandals that I am sure the public is getting just as furious about as I am.

Today, however, I would like to bring some important comments to the attention of all hon. members in this House.

There is no doubt that this subject brings up strong feelings in most who talk about it. Indeed, it divides the members opposite. I believe that the majority of Canadians are looking for a middle ground, a compromise which would recognize the valid concerns of the partisans on both sides. I believe that the proposed amendments suggested by the Leader of the Opposition provided the best ground to find a constructive compromise that the vast majority of Canadians would feel comfortable with.

There are differences of opinion within the Canadian public on this issue. At one end of the spectrum, there is a group which believes that the equality rights of gays and lesbians trump all other considerations and that any restriction on the right to same sex marriage is unjustifiable discrimination and a denial of human rights.

At the other end, there is another large body that thinks that marriage is a fundamental social institution not only recognized by law but sanctified by religious faith, that any compromise in terms of allowing same sex couples equal rights and benefits is unacceptable.

However, the vast majority of Canadians are somewhere in the middle. They believe that marriage is a basically heterosexual institution, but that same sex couples also have rights to equality within society that should be recognized and protected. We believe the Conservative amendments speak to the majority of Canadians who are in the middle on this issue.

Our proposal was that 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, but at the same time, we would propose that other forms of union, whether heterosexual or homosexual, whether called common law status, civil unions or registered domestic partnerships, should be entitled to the same legal rights, privileges and benefits as marriage.

Many of these types of unions are subject to provincial jurisdiction under civil law. However, there are also federal issues related to rights and benefits. Our party moved amendments to ensure that all couples in provincially recognized unions are recognized as having equal rights and benefits to married couples under federal law.

We would ensure that same sex couples have the same rights and benefits as married couples when it comes to matters like pensions, tax obligations or immigration matters.

We would ensure that there is no federal law that treats same sex couples any differently from married couples.

We believe that this approach would meet the needs of both those Canadians who believe that marriage is and should remain as an institution which, as Justice La Forest said, in the Egan decision, “is by nature heterosexual” and also those who are concerned to recognize the equal status of gays and lesbians under the law.

Around the world, there are only two countries which have legislated same sex marriage at the national level: Belgium and the Netherlands. In both of these countries, there are some areas related to adoption or marriage of non-nationals of those countries which still make them slightly different from opposite sex marriages.

By far, the vast majority of jurisdictions have gone the route of recognizing civil unions, domestic partnerships or reciprocal beneficiaries rather than abolishing the opposite sex nature of marriage. Among the countries which have brought in these laws are France, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Finland, Germany, Portugal and New Zealand. I do not think that any of these countries, considered among the most progressive in the world, could be considered violators of human rights.

It strikes me as a perfectly reasonable compromise for Canadian society to accept exactly the same position as these countries and states. The Conservative compromise option may not satisfy those who believe that equality rights for same sex couples are an absolute, which cannot be compromised by accepting anything less than full marriage, or that the heterosexual status of marriage is an absolute, which cannot be compromised by recognizing equal rights for other kinds of unions. However, it will satisfy the vast majority of Canadians who are seeking common ground on this issue.

This may not make Canada the most radical country in the world, but it will keep Canada in the same relatively liberal company as the governments of Tony Blair's Britain, Lionel Jospin's France and Howard Dean's Vermont. I do not believe that most Canadians are looking to be more radical than the British Labour Party, the French Socialist Party or the most liberal democrats in the United States. They are looking for a reasonable, moderate compromise that respects the rights of same sex couples while preserving the time honoured institution of marriage.

This compromise is the Canadian way and it is the option that only the Conservative Party is prepared to offer. Conservatives believe that if the government squarely and honestly put this option of preserving marriage while recognizing equal rights of same sex couples for civil unions or other means, this is the option that Canadians would choose.

Mr. Eugene Meehan, a former national president of the Canadian Bar Association and former executive legal officer for the highest court in Canada, stated:

Canada's highest court has not required Parliament to amend the traditional definition, nor has gay marriage received protection under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Mr. Meehan goes on to state that the federal government does not have the power to protect religious officials from human rights complaints if they do not want to perform services that go against their views. This does not fall under federal jurisdiction. It is the jurisdiction of the provinces. The justice minister has misled Canadians and this Liberal government has misled Canadians yet again.

The Conservative Party is not proposing a reactionary solution that would violate human rights, as the government alleges. We are proposing a moderate compromise position that would put Canada in the company of some of the most Liberal and progressive countries in the western world. That is why I am proud to be a member of this moderate, mainstream Conservative government in waiting.

[Jim Gouk, Conservative, Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have spoken at times with some of the Liberals across the way and they have asked me what exactly my problem was with this, why it would make a difference and what it would do to marriage.

One of my constituents recently published an article that very adequately summarizes the issue being discussed here today. I am grateful to Phil Johnson of the Osoyoos Baptist Church for his gracious agreement to allow me to read his submission which I now read in its entirety. The article is entitled, “Marriage is not a 'Living-together-thingy'”:

Recently, my wife and I were looking for some new furniture for the living room. Fortunately, the English language is rich enough to have more than one word to describe the different pieces we can sit on. They are not collectively referred to as 'The sitting-on-thingies'.

If our language was not so rich, to become more specific in our speech we would have to refer to the 'single-sitting-on-thingy', the 'double-sitting-on-thingy' and the 'three-or-more-sitting-on-thingy'. Wonderfully, the English language has provided us with single words that accurately describe a chair, a loveseat and a sofa.

Marriage is the same way. It is not a 'living-together-thingy' where any two or more people living together is called 'Marriage'. God has defined marriage as a man and a woman committed to each other for life. Any other relationship outside this is not marriage. This is not a matter of cultural preference. This is a definition that has been around 1000's of years.

Surely, the English language is rich enough to furnish another word or term to describe a same sex or other union. Why must the term marriage be used? The word we use to describe the union between one man and one woman is Marriage.

If you are going to come up with a new type of union, come up with a new term to describe it.

Just like we have a 'single-sitting-on-thingy' as a 'Chair' and 'three-or-more-sitting-on-thingy' as a 'Sofa', so we need to have a whole new word to describe this new type of union.

We could even run a nationwide competition to create a new word, that years from now could invoke warm and sentimental feelings, just as they do now about marriage. The chair does not feel discriminated against because it is not called a sofa.

Why is the term 'Civil Union' unacceptable? Perhaps, it has nothing to do with the recognition of a lifetime commitment between two people, and everything to do with the destruction of the idea of what marriage truly is? Why did the lesbian couple that took their cause to the Supreme Court apply for a divorce only five days after they were married? Hmmm.

New definitions will not destroy the institution of marriage, but it will drastically dilute its meaning and we will all lose in the end. A chair is a chair and a sofa is a sofa. For thousands of years, the English word to describe one man and one woman in a committed relationship to the exclusion of all others has been marriage. It does not mean, a 'living-together-thingy', however you want to define it this week.

I think the article Mr. Johnson sent in sums up very well the concerns that a lot of people have. I would like to tell members about my riding and the concerns people have in my riding.

As members might well imagine, coming from rural British Columbia, the government's Bill C-68 firearms registry bill was a huge issue. As the costs went from an estimated $2 million to almost $2 billion and still rising, their outrage became even more pronounced, However, as big as that is, it is dwarfed by the way people feel in my riding about this particular bill.

I have had over 4,000 letters and e-mails from constituents. I have even taken the trouble to stir the pot a bit to suggest that not many people are writing in supporting this and, if they are out there, I am not hearing from them. Out of those 4,000 letters that generated a total of 15 people who support this. There might be some support for this somewhere but it certainly is not in British Columbia Southern Interior.

As far as how this is being handled in the House, it is very interesting. It is a free vote, say the Liberals who introduced this bill. Well it is not quite a free vote. It is a free vote for the people on the backbenches but the members of the cabinet were told that it was not a free vote for them. They must vote the way they are told or they will be kicked out of cabinet and have their shiny new cars taken away.

It is a free vote for the people on the backbenches, except that I happen to know some of them quite well and quite a number of them do not support the bill. The pressure on them to comply with the way the government tells them to vote, even though it is a free vote, or, alternatively, to make sure they are absent when the vote is taken, has been intensified.

Members of another party, the NDP, the kissing cousins who live down the street and who dream of grandeur they will never realize on their own, do not have a free vote. They have been told that they must vote in support of their Liberal cousins. Even though the Liberals themselves have said that it is a free vote, the NDP have said that its members must support the Liberals in this because it dare not ever allow this to be a free vote.

When the Prime Minister was asked about having a referendum on this he said no, that he would never allow a referendum on an issue like this because he had little doubt that the majority of Canadians did not support the bill and he would not allow the majority to dictate to a minority. Is that not a wonderful process we have in the House of Commons where the majority does not rule?

I hear the Liberals yipping and yapping across the way wondering why we would expect in a democracy that the majority would ever rule or even have a say that they would listen to.

This is a very unfortunate bill. I had a lesbian couple come into my office to verify something I had said. I said that I had no quantitative evidence for this but that I believed that a lot of gay and lesbian people did not want or ask for this legislation. They did not want the notoriety. They are just people like everyone else. They have their jobs, their friends and their recreation. They want to go about their lives like the rest of us do. However along came the Liberals saying no, that they had to elevate them to something they had not asked for because they have very strange ideals. The couple who came in said exactly that. They said that they had never asked for this. They said that their lives were just fine until the Liberals came along and that now all of a sudden they were under a spotlight. Maybe that is what the Liberals intended but who knows.

In closing, I would like to say a heartfelt thank you to the Liberal Party of Canada because this is the kind of issue that will help me in the next election. It will help me to be one of the Conservatives who come back to replace the government. We will not play around with bills that very few people ask for. We will not arbitrarily rule on things where the majority is not allowed a say. We will bring in the kind of good legislation this country has waited for. It will be interesting to hear what kind of yipping and yapping the Liberals do once they are sitting over on this side of the House.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as I did in my first speech, I first want to acknowledge the folks who have spent a lot of time trying to get support for this bill and encouraging us and standing behind us. Some folks have spent quite a bit of time in Ottawa, in particular I think of the Christian Brethren organization which has been very supportive of us and has stood strongly for the definition of traditional marriage, along with many of the other religious organizations that have been true to what they believe in.

The last time I talked a little bit about the inconsistency of this cabinet and the problems within it in terms of knowing where it is going to stand and having it change its position regularly. I talked a little bit about the Prime Minister and how he has changed his position. It did not bother him to move from one position to the other. At one time he was defending the traditional definition of marriage and now he has gone beyond simply opposing it, seeing it as a charter right, to overturn it.

I talked a little bit about the present Minister of Citizenship and Immigration who, in front of churches, made a tearful plea to them to support him because he would stand up for their beliefs and for the traditional definition of marriage, only to find out that as soon as he left that church he changed his position.

We have the present Deputy Prime Minister who in 1999 voted against changing the traditional definition of marriage. She voted to support the traditional definition of marriage. She said that the Liberals would definitely never move to change the definition of marriage. From her conversation we find out how really good, accurate and true the word of a Liberal is. She has since changed her position on that as well.

My own minister from Saskatchewan, the finance minister, also has flip-flopped on this position, as he has on so many other issues. He favoured the traditional definition of marriage at one point in 1999 but he now opposes it. Although we know the people of Saskatchewan overwhelmingly support the traditional definition of marriage, he chooses to run contrary to that. Once again he has failed to represent the people of his province, as he has on so many other issues.

The last time I spoke about agricultural issues where farmers did not get the Crow payment that had been promised to them. The finance minister was responsible for changes to the Canadian Wheat Board which ended up with farmers being put in jail. It has only been in the last few days that we find out that what he did the courts have thrown out.

The issue of equalization has been talked about in the House and about how the finance minister betrayed his own province and refused to stand up for Saskatchewan. Instead, he sent ministers out last week to promise $22 million for day care. In the meantime, the minister is taking something like $8 billion out of our economy that he refuses to put back into his province. This is the kind of consistency that we get not only on the marriage issue, but on a host of other issues as well.

We have listened to the Prime Minister dither on many issues. I mentioned earlier that the Prime Minister has once again changed his position on the definition of marriage. He now thinks that this is an issue of human rights. We think the issue of marriage is a social policy issue and not one of human rights.

If it is an issue of human rights it is interesting that the Prime Minister has chosen not to force his caucus to vote for it. How can this be a charter right when the Prime Minister has told half the caucus they can vote how they want and the other half to vote the way he wants them to vote?

We heard quite eloquently how many of the backbenchers on the other side are actually being whipped and forced to vote against their conscience. The Prime Minister does not come forward and is not straight on the issue. On the one hand he says that it is an issue of rights but on the other hand he is allowing some people to vote freely while others must vote with him.

It is interesting that he uses this issue of rights to cover the bad position in which he finds himself. Once again, he is completely out of touch with Canadians and the positions that they hold.

What is even worse than inconsistency is intolerance and deception. This spring another minister came very close to running into that position of really showing just how intolerant the Liberal side is when he declared that churches should actually stay out of this discussion. I think the words were that they should “butt out”. His quote was that “the separation of church and state is a beautiful thing”. What he meant by that was that the churches have no say in matters of social policy and social conscience.

I think almost all Canadians would understand that the reason churches exist is to have a say in social policy, social issues and to put their positions forward.

We live in a democracy that up until now has guaranteed both freedom of speech and freedom of religion. We expect that would continue. I am not so sure that the other side even thinks that is important at all.

The intolerant attitude that was shown by the Minister of Foreign Affairs is unacceptable, especially coming from a person in a position of power and who could do something to effect those freedoms. I think that is why people were concerned and worried about his comments.

Cabinet ministers do have the power to carry out what they choose. In this case the minister chose to say that it was okay to be intolerant and to force churches and people who held personal beliefs not to participate in the public realm in this country. We fundamentally disagree with that because the Conservative Party believes in the freedom of religion and speech.

The minister totally misunderstood the principle of separation of church and state. That does not mean that people involved with churches and have religious faith do not have the ability to speak out. They do. The separation of church and state is a concept whereby the church is protected from the power of the state. Once again, we insist that the government back off on its pressure on the voices of those who have faith in our country and want to express that faith.

The second issue involves deception again. I am speaking about the misinformation being spread by the government regarding the protection of religious rights in the legislation. The government has tried to leave the impression with Canadians that religious rights would be protected, but that is not so. If people look at the legislation, and look at it in light of the Supreme Court ruling, they would see the protection of religious rights is not guaranteed. The Supreme Court said that it could not do that.

The Supreme Court clearly said that although religious rights should be protected, there were areas in which it could not involve itself. It insisted that defining marriage was a federal responsibility, but that the administration, the solemnization of marriage, was provincial jurisdiction. The government has been pretending that is not the case. It has been schizophrenic on this position, saying that it will protect religious rights, yet it does not have the power.

I believe the deputy government House leader said that commissioners who did not perform same sex marriages should lose their jobs. Once again a senior member of government has taken the position that if this is against people's personal beliefs and conscience, they should be forced to step aside. They should be forced to perform these marriages. We are beginning to see the kind of coercion the government expects to exert on this issue and by extension, on other issues of social policy as well.

In my province the idea of interference in people's religious and personal beliefs has already begun. The provincial government has insisted that commissioners who do not want to perform these ceremonies have to step down. Several have been forced to do that. Other provinces are doing the same thing.

For the government to leave the impression that somehow it is protecting religious rights, is misleading Canadians at best and completely deceiving them at worst. The court ruled that the clause dealing with the protection of religious rights was basically unconstitutional. It could not ensure those rights would be protected because for a large part they were provincial jurisdiction.

The federal government has not protected the power of Parliament as it should have. It cannot be trusted to protect religious freedoms. The government has no credibility in that area at all.

The Conservative Party is proposing something different. We are proposing a middle ground. We want to make amendments to the legislation to protect the definition of marriage. We want to legally recognize other relationships such as same sex marriage. This is a major change for our society. This issue should be freely debated because it is a social policy issue rather than a right. We believe all members in the House should have a free vote on this issue.

I want to state the obvious, which is I will continue to support the traditional definition of marriage. I would like to reiterate the words of Justice La Forest who, in the last major words of the Supreme Court, recognized the importance and uniqueness of traditional marriage. He said:

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.

We pray and ask the government to hear these words and apply them to its legislation.

[Rob Anders, Conservative, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, like the member before me, I would like to thank those who have travelled far and who have sat in this chamber for the last several weeks watching over its debates, its deliberations. Their encouragement is appreciated.

I, like many on this side of the House, believe in the traditional common law definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. It is a central, social institution. It is a stable environment for the procreation and raising of children. It provides for the nurturing of children in the care of a mother and a father. To quote the legal ethicist, Margaret Somerville, “The crucial question is: should marriage be primarily a child-centred institution or an adult centred one?” If we believe it is a child centred institution then it should be left as is.

There is a large body that thinks marriage is such a fundamental social institution that not only should it be recognized by law but also sanctified by religious faith, and that leaves it as basically a heterosexual institution.

Justice La Forest in the Egan decision as well said, “it is by nature heterosexual”, when referring to marriage. I also believe that is something that is consistent with the belief of the vast majority of Canadians.

Around the world there are only two countries that have legislated same sex marriage at the national level, Belgium and the Netherlands. In both these countries there are some areas related to adoption or marriage of non-nationals of those countries, which still make them slightly different from opposite sex marriages.

At this point I would like to ad lib and talk a bit about a radio show that I listened to not that long ago. The former leader of the Reform Party, Preston Manning was on the show and I thought there were some words of wisdom to be offered on this matter in this debate. He said that the term he would prefer for those who wished to see a middle ground institution, a compromise, was one that he described as being that of a dependent relationship. Some people like to call it a civil union or a domestic partnership et cetera.

I want to make very clear that I believe marriage should maintain as its definition, being of one man and one woman. For example, if this place could consider dependent relationships, dependent relationships do not have a sexual nature to them. They are in a sense neutral. If we were to enact a dependent relationship and recognize it in this place and if members here or any people in society at large had members in their families who were incapacitated, dependants, whether it be infants, or people over the age of 18 or maybe even seniors who could not look after themselves, something like a dependent relationship would be there to look after these people for tax purposes. It would ensure that they would have the means to do so. It would be the state in a sense stepping in. Like the idea in a book, we sometimes quote in this place about widows and orphans being protected and looked after. If people want a compromise position, I think the description of a dependent relationship is the best I have heard, given the scenario.

There is one state in the United States, Massachusetts, the state of Ted Kennedy, that has recognized these types of unions the Liberals are trying to pass. It is noteworthy that a majority in the Massachusetts legislature opposed it. Even the governor of the state of Massachusetts opposed what the Liberals in this country are trying to do. I guess that means the Liberals in Canada would be to the left of the Democrats of Massachusetts.

I do not believe most Canadians are looking to be more radical than the British Labour Party, or the French socialist party or the most liberal Democrats in the United States. I think most people believe in preserving the time honoured institution of marriage. We believe that if the government squarely and honestly put this option forward, that of preserving marriage with the possibility of maybe dependent relationships and it was a fair question, this option is the one that most Canadians would choose.

I for one believe this is a question worthy of a referendum. I remember when the Constitution was first patriated back in 1982. I was 10 years old, in grade five and I watched it in the classroom. I remember thinking that people like my father should have had the opportunity to vote on the Constitution. I am sure there are many in Quebec who share that sentiment and wish they would have had a chance to vote on the Constitution as well.

There is a fine Liberal tradition, going back and looking at Mackenzie King. The reason he was able to have as many consecutive governments as he did was he was a person who deferred to the people on controversial questions and put it to a vote. The conscription crisis in particular comes to mind. The Prime Minister in this case would have been well advised to take a page out of Mackenzie King's book and in a sense not go ahead and impose his hidden agenda on Canada.

It is worthy of note that not long ago in this place the Liberals across the way voted to preserve and protect the traditional definition of marriage. They have gone against the earlier votes and promises they made in this place. It does not surprise me that they went back on their word, but it probably surprises a lot of the people who gave them their votes in the last election.

When the Liberal Party talks about hidden agendas, it is very appropriate for people to remember which party said that it would not make any significant changes to marriage. Yet it is now in power. The Liberals never raised it during the election campaign. As a matter of fact, they promised the opposite. They never allowed it to go to a national vote, yet they are going ahead and imposing their will.

The government is insisting upon an absolutist approach and that puts it on the extreme. It is not a reasonable approach. It is certainly something that we on this side of the House do not believe is reflective of Canadian values. The Liberals are not respecting the will of the majority and they are not preserving one of our deepest held positions. That is why it is very important that they must accept and consider the amendments the Conservative Party has moved on the bill.

I would like as well to address the issue that one of my colleagues brought up previously, the idea of the separation of church and state. I like reading some of the founding documents of the American constitution. I believe that Thomas Jefferson, when he first advanced these principles, was in a sense avant-garde in breaking ground.

It is important to note that Thomas Jefferson was chosen as the writer of the Declaration of Independence because he was the author of the constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia. He created Virginia as an ecumenical state.

The issue that the United States was running into, and I want to ensure this is clearly laid out, was that Maryland, for example, was a Catholic state. Pennsylvania was a Protestant state. What Thomas Jefferson sought to do in a very ecumenical and multi-faith based place like Virginia was implement a state constitution that would allow for all these religious differences.

It is important to note that at the time Thomas Jefferson never would have considered the twisting of his words, as has taken place today. All people were Christians. Some of them may have been Baptist, some Catholic, et cetera, but nonetheless all shared a common book in the sense of right and wrong.

When he talked about the separation of church and state, he was merely doing so for the idea of an ecumenical Christianity in the United States. He was not advocating that church leaders abdicate the public square. That is what Liberals across the way are intending when they twist the words of Thomas Jefferson. They intend that church leaders and moral leaders abdicate the public square. This is the reason why they are probably advocating for the legalization of prostitution as well.

If they want to be true to the words of Thomas Jefferson and some of the great minds that formed those liberty documents, it had nothing to do with the abdication of moral and religious leaders from the public square, none whatsoever. I want to ensure that is clear and put on the record.

I realize I am tight on time. I thank the Christian Brethren for its presence, and I hope the bill fails.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I also would like to recognize the great work done by many grassroots organizations across this country, groups such as the Christian Brethren and the many groups that are very active in my riding and throughout Saskatchewan and all of Canada. Several of these grassroots organizations are really trying to let the Canadian people themselves decide this issue. Some have been very active in contacting my office and the offices of other MPs, encouraging them to listen to the majority of Canadians on this issue.

I would like to continue in that vein, because I am confident in the knowledge that I am speaking on behalf of the majority of the members of my riding. My job, first and foremost, is to make sure that I am an effective representative for the views and wishes of my constituents.

I would like to read for members an argument that was put forward in 1998. It states:

--the definition of marriage is already clear in law in Canada as the union of two persons of the opposite sex. Counsel from my department have successfully defended and will continue to defend this concept of marriage in the court...I continue to believe that it is not necessary to change well understood concepts of spouse and marriage to deal with any fairness considerations the courts and tribunals may find.

That is not my argument. That is the argument of the current Deputy Prime Minister in a letter she wrote to a concerned constituent. Note this phrase: “Counsel from my department have successfully defended and will continue to defend this concept of marriage in the court”.

We know that she is not continuing to defend this concept of marriage, nor is anyone from any government department. Despite a promise to her constituents and to all Canadians, the Deputy Prime Minister and many of the NDP-Liberal alliance are forging ahead with plans to change the definition of marriage.

There is another section I would like to read for the House:

[There is] a universal pattern of marriage that has existed historically and across cultures. This universal pattern demonstrates that the raison d'être of marriage has been to complement nature with culture for the sake of the intergenerational cycle. Across world religions and throughout small-scale societies, the universal norm of marriage has been a culturally approved opposite-sex relationship intended to encourage the birth and rearing of children....Preserving the definition of marriage as the descriptor of this opposite sex institution is not discriminatory....

Same-sex marriage is an oxymoron, because it lacks the universal or defining feature of marriage according to religious, historical, and anthropological evidence. Apart from everything else, marriage expresses one fundamental and universal need: a setting for reproduction that recognizes the reciprocity between nature...and culture....

The legal definition of the word cannot be changed without creating “an unacceptable cleavage between ordinary usage and the legal meaning; moreover, such redefinition is in conflict with the normal use and development of language”....

In sum, the definition of marriage does not infringe s.15(1) of the Charter...because the distinction it draws does not amount to “discrimination.” While the definition distinguishes on the basis of sexual orientation, the distinction is not the product of stereotypical categorizations or assessments of the relative worth of individuals. Instead, marriage differentiates only on the basis of capacity or need, and thus it does not come within the range of invidious distinctions which s.15(1) was designed to eliminate.

Again, those words come from the Deputy Prime Minister of this country. They come not from someone on this side of the House but from a Liberal cabinet minister when she was the attorney general. This is quite a flip-flop. This is a far cry from her current position, which is to demean and degrade those who argue in favour of maintaining the traditional definition of marriage.

Today, the Liberal-NDP coalition calls people who advocate this view, who advocate the views the Deputy Prime Minister herself once had, bigots and un-Canadian, insensitive, hateful people. The rhetoric coming from that side is very shameful as we try to conduct an honest debate about an issue that is so important to many Canadians.

What has prompted such a reversal of opinion? Many Liberals point to the idea that the courts have forced them to change their position since the Supreme Court has ruled that traditional marriage is against the charter, but we know that the Supreme Court of Canada did not declare the current definition of marriage unconstitutional. I have read the reference questions. I have read what the Supreme Court submitted. If government members would only take the time to read this, they would see that section 4 was not answered. This means that the current definition of marriage was never rendered unconstitutional.

The United Nations Human Rights Commission has never recognized that extending marriage to include homosexual couples is to be considered a human rights issue. No governmental human rights body has ever claimed that marriage is a human rights issue.

Those arguments about traditional marriage being unconstitutional should end right away since it is clearly no such thing, but unfortunately these people still hold on to that idea and still perpetuate this myth to Canadians that traditional marriage, something that society has recognized for generations, for thousands of years, is unconstitutional and discriminatory.

It is an idea that many current cabinet ministers once rejected and once went to their constituents about. They looked their constituents in the eye and told them they would never allow the traditional definition of marriage to be changed. They told them that they would continue to uphold the traditional definition of marriage and continue to fight this in the courts. They looked their voters in the eye and then came back to this place and reversed their position. It is shameful.

There is also a huge problem in this bill regarding the protection of religious institutions. I had to point out to those members that question number four was never answered, and I think I also have to point out to them that the one area that was ruled ultra vires of this House was the issue of protecting religious institutions, since that fell under provincial jurisdiction.

It is unbelievable that on the one hand those members tell us they have to do what the courts tell them to do, while on the other hand they do the one thing that the courts told them they could not do. They look at us and bash us for our position on it, yet it is their position; it is their members who do not understand what the court reference decision actually means.

We in Saskatchewan have seen the NDP allow marriage commissioners to be fired for their religious views and their views of conscience. These are civil servants. These are people who are being forced to go against their own personal convictions. We already know that the religious protection is not there. Marriage commissioners in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, under NDP governments, are being fired for their views on this. We know that this Liberal fig leaf of protecting religious institutions will not hold up because the courts have already told us that they are not able to uphold it.

I am proud to be able to be here in this House today as a representative for Regina--Qu'Appelle to vote against this bill. I know that I am doing so on behalf of the vast majority of constituents in my riding. I know that my party is taking the position that the vast majority of Canadians want to see taken on this. They want a respectful debate with the Government of Canada upholding the traditional definition.

I think it is important to note that the Prime Minister is not acting on behalf of the majority of Canadians. He is not doing what is in the best interests of Canada. He is going to have to answer to Canadians and explain his actions on this matter.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker]

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung: