Debates of June 27th, 2005

Civil Marriage Act

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure either that “hypocrite” is a parliamentary word. I was therefore surprised at how generously the Conservatives, to whom this attribute may also be applied, have made use of it.

That said, I think that the basis of the debate is as follows. There are people who are homosexual and who want to get married for all sorts of reasons, including those I have mentioned: mutual support, fidelity and the desire to live out their days with their partner.

No Conservative member has been able to answer the following question: how does this threaten the freedom of the heterosexual community? Heterosexual marriage, which is being called traditional, will be maintained. My twin brother, who is heterosexual, will not marry a man because this bill passes. Their logic is totally twisted. It does not stand up to analysis.

In the two countries—Canada will be the third—where marriage involving partners of the same sex has been approved, marriage has not been abandoned by the heterosexual community.

What is this association whereby heterosexual marriage, which is being called traditional marriage, will be put to death if another group in society is given rights? This is what I do not understand in the Conservatives' logic.

That is probably why there are as many people in Quebec preparing to vote Conservative as there are still listening to vinyl records.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the subject matters that has been debated today has been the issue of the balancing of equality rights and religious freedoms within the charter. I wonder if the member would care to speculate whether or not there will be a challenge coming before the courts to religious groups who deny marriage to same-sex couples on the basis that the equality provisions of the charter trump religious beliefs.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the Supreme Court responded very clearly to this issue in paragraph 60 of the reference, just as officials at the Department of Justice had before. I will read the paragraph in question:

Returning to the question before us, the Court is of the opinion that, absent unique circumstances with respect to which we will not speculate, the guarantee of religious freedom in s. 2(a) of the Charter is broad enough to protect religious officials from being compelled by the state to perform civil or religious same-sex marriages that are contrary to their religious beliefs.

It is not the Bloc Québécois, the NDP, nor the parliamentary secretary who said that, but the Supreme Court.

The provision of the bill not having to do with the marriage celebration, but with freedom of religion, is very clear. In its reference in response to the cabinet's question, the Supreme Court was very clear. I believe that religious challenges will be difficult to establish under section 2(a) of the Charter since, again, the Supreme Court was very clear on the matter.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with pleasure to support the concerns of my constituents and to take their position in speaking in opposition to Bill C-38. I would like to encourage my friend from Hochelaga to take a closer look at the Conservative position on this issue because it deals directly with his concerns. I would suggest that if he were to look closer at it, he would be prepared to adopt our position.

I stand in surprise that I am in agreement with two Liberal members, specifically from Mississauga South and Scarborough Southwest. I would suggest that my friend from Fundy—Royal, who is also on the committee that studied Bill C-38, did an excellent job today in summing up the findings of the committee, in fact speaking about some of the procedural difficulties with that committee.

The institution of marriage was created for the purpose of procreation and nurturing children of the union. After listening to many of the experts who came forward at committee, I am greatly concerned that the committee has not had a thorough analysis of the issues and has not drawn enough attention to what I consider to be the voice that has no voice, and that is the children of future generations of Canadians. I am greatly concerned about the children of our future, as they must be protected.

A stable home with a mother and father is the foundation of our civilization. Although it cannot in today's age always be attainable, it is something that we should work toward and maintain and keep secure.

I would like to begin by summarizing my position and state emphatically that the bill is about social policy. It is not about charter rights and in no way can it be expressed that the definition of marriage itself is an inalienable human right. I have argued constitutional and charter cases protecting minority rights in northern Alberta. I have immediate family members who are members of visible minorities, including the homosexual community, Métis and treaty communities. This is why I will not support any legislation that infringes upon the rights of any Canadian. I believe Bill C-38 will do so.

I believe in this case the Government of Canada is taking one group's position over another group's position and is therefore infringing upon the rights of that other group. I believe strongly that the Charter of Rights must be respected and the rights of all minorities must be protected, not just the rights of the homosexual community but also the rights of the heterosexual community, especially religious groups, and the rights of children, which must be of paramount concern in this case. That is why I support the traditional definition of marriage.

I have risen in the House before and given this same argument, but I like the argument so I will give it again. I believe words have three parts: the first is the word itself; the second is the meaning that describes the word; and the third are the rights and obligations that flow from the word. I believe the word “marriage” is no different from that and it is no exception. It identifies a group of individuals within our society. In this case the group that it describes is the relationship between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others in a state-recognized contract, nothing more, nothing less.

It is my position that the rights and obligations that flow from this word need to be extended to other groups that have not even been a part of this discussion, other minority groups that are not protected. I would submit those other groups should receive not only the rights of married couples, but also the obligations of married couples which are so obviously and continuously ignored.

As the leader of the official opposition has stated time after time, we must respect all Canadians regardless of sexual orientation. All couples who apply for solemnization of their relationship should receive that respect and the rights and obligations of married couples. However, this can be done without changing the definition of marriage.

I also believe we should send a clear message of protecting minority rights to another minority, and that is the minority of common-law couples who have been in cohabitation for a certain period of time. Some provinces in Canada currently do this, but this is a place where we as legislators should move forward and protect the rights of individuals which are at this stage taken for granted.

Each of these groups, though, should be defined individually. Let us face it, the relationship is different between a man and a man, a man and a woman and a woman and a woman. All these groups should have the same rights and obligations under the law and should be respected equally.

In terms of protecting rights, it is also my belief that as members of this House we must protect the rights of those who have already entered into marriage, believing that it is a contract between them with specific terms. We must protect the rights of those people who have no voice, who have no vote here today and have no vote even to elect us as members. They are the future generations of children who have been ignored by the legislation and will be the cost of our society.

Protecting rights is a dual obligation though. Just as with every right comes a corresponding obligation, receiving a right can sometimes infringe upon other people's rights and expectations. Respect works both ways. If Bill C-38 is passed, there is no question that we will infringe dramatically on the rights of people and groups within our society.

If we want our beliefs respected, then we should respect others, but it is reciprocal and they should respect our beliefs as well. With mutual respect comes the end of bigotry, hate and prejudice, and this is what I seek: a utopia where we can all get along, not just in Canada but in the entire world.

The Conservative Party is calling for a free vote. I would challenge the members opposite to allow their members, even the members of the government, to have a free vote so they can express and take the ramifications of their decisions on that final day, election day, when it does come.

We in the Conservative Party respect the supremacy of Parliament. I believe we should respect the will of Canadians and vote that way while at the same time protect minorities. With the agenda and policy that Conservatives have put forward, that can be done.

In my constituency of Fort McMurray--Athabasca in northern Alberta, I had less than 12 responses in favour of same sex marriages. I had almost 2,000 responses wanting the traditional definition of marriage maintained but at the same time protecting the rights of all society and all groups in society.

We have taken a reasonable compromise position that should be more thoroughly analyzed. I believe and would suggest that it would protect the rights of minorities. At the same time, it would be consistent with the views of a vast majority of Canadians. We want to recognize the traditional definition of marriage without detracting from the rights and obligations of people in same sex relationships.

Here is a reminder. After hearing evidence at committee, it is obvious that 99% of the world's population continues to honour the traditional definition of marriage. That means 99% of the world, except for Canada, possibly and a few other nations in the world, take the position of the Conservative Party.

We want to create the status of civil union. I would suggest to the party opposite that it is not too late to recognize civil unions but at the same time give identical rights to all groups. With Bill C-38 passing, I foresee serious threat to religious freedoms, more serious than I thought originally before I sat in the committee. I believe charitable statuses will be taken away, that it will affect the ability to preach sacred text and ultimately force the change to the text itself, including the Bible and the Quran. I can see that in the near future being part and parcel of passing Bill C-38. It will simply not protect religious freedoms or religious institutions.

Finally, the Conservative Party represents the only middle ground, the only compromise position on the debate from any political party. Canada's law should reflect the priorities of Canadian society while protecting the rights of all minorities. We should be following the will of Canadians. We are elected and we are answerable to them, so why are we not following the will of Canadians?

The Conservative Party has proved that we will respect both sides of the debate and all Canadians equally. Now it is time for other members of the House and other Canadians to do the same. In 25 or 50 years, when Canada reaps what it sows from this Liberal same sex social experiment, Canada and Canadians will be able to look back and see that we in the Conservative Party had the best interests of Canada in our hearts, our minds and our words.

My opinion is the terms of reference of the Bill C-38 legislative committee were a farce. With respect to how it was run, I believe the timeframes were ridiculous, the witnesses and the research materials were impossible to logically study. The time and the witnesses were quite frankly disrespected because they did not have time to prepare and provide proper analyses.

It is obvious to me that although the rule of law and due process are requirements of all Canadians, the courts and tribunals, it is not necessary in this House of Commons and it is shameful. The House is supposed to represent the people of Canada. Those Liberals in control of this agenda should be absolutely ashamed of how it was run.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have two quick questions for my colleague. I had the opportunity to sit on one of the legislative committees. He touched on it briefly in his speech.

First, does he think this legislative committee process was a valid way to study the impact and issues surrounding Bill C-38?

We have heard from a former Liberal MP, now an independent MP, who was so disgusted by the way the rules were set up. With the heavy-handedness of the government, it was going to ram this committee along, lump all the witnesses together, preventing people to speak against the idea of homosexual marriage or from having a reasoned and timely way to express their opposition to it.

Second, does he think the Liberal MPs, who pretend to be in opposition to homosexual marriage, are being truthful with their own constituents? Time and time again when they have the opportunity to put the nail in the coffin for Bill C-38, to stand up for what their constituents want them to do and to vote on their behalf, they have voted with the government. They have obeyed their political masters in the Prime Minister's office rather than the voters in their ridings.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned that I believed the legislative process was a farce.

With respect to the hon. member who ran the committee, he did an excellent job. However, this is no valid way to study it.

I was plopped in there. We did not receive any reports beforehand. Many of the witnesses complained they had received only 24 hours notice to testify. They received 24 hours notice to prepare a presentation to a committee that was supposed to study the ramifications of Bill C-38, which could be astronomical for our social policy in the future.

There was no timeframe. The committee heard from 55 witnesses. I still have not received some of the reports. I have only read two or three of them because that is all I received before questioning. We had four days in a row of six hours of committee work, working through supper and through different meetings. There was not enough time to study the ramifications of it.

I believe the committee itself was a farce. It was a put on. I do not think anyone, except for maybe some of the members of this side of the House, even read most of the briefs and presentations put forward. They certainly did so with an open mind, compared to other members of the committee.

As far as the member's second question, I cannot speak specifically to those people on the other side of the House. I think it is a situation where they have had the ability to topple the government and stop Bill C-38 if that were he wish of their constituents.

I believe, no matter what happens here today, that we should follow as a House and as members of the House the will of our constituents. I believe the will of Canada overall is to not have Bill C-38 go forward and to have it stopped today. It should stop today.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to respond to the charges the member has again levelled against the process in the committee. He has done this consistently throughout the committee hearings and again today in his speech.

He says that witnesses were not given enough time to prepare. We have known that this has been on the public agenda for many months and many years. I do not think there was one organization in the country, which was interested in the whole question of gay and lesbian marriage or same sex marriage, that was not well prepared at a moment's notice to appear and make its feelings and understanding of these issues known.

Most of the groups had websites up and running with all of their statements gathered there ready to go. There is no question that people were aware the debate would be happening and were aware of the timing of that.

More than that, the Conservatives on the committee agreed to the timing of hearing witnesses. There was unanimous agreement on the committee about the timing of our hearings. There was unanimous agreement about the number of witnesses that we were going to hear. In fact, the committee bent over backwards to hear extra witnesses from the Conservatives' list of proposed witnesses.

We went out of our way to deal with that. We had fair and open hearings. I read the work. I did the homework and was prepared to question the witnesses as they appeared.

Did the member not agree to the timing of the committee hearings? Did he not agree to when we would hear witnesses? Was he not part of that agreement at the committee, as we all were?

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the answer, in short, is no, I was not part of that decision making process. No, I did not agree to having those witnesses shoved through committee so quickly and the procedural unfairness that went forward.

I would like to read a letter from the clerk of the committee as a result of that decision. The letter reads:

As a result of this decision, I had to contact 57 witnesses for the hearings, right after the end of the May 30th meeting. Based on that final list, I called the witnesses to invite them to appear on May 31st and the subsequent meetings and because of the committee's decision to hear those 57 witnesses in a short period of time, some of the witnesses had less time to prepare, especially those who appeared on May 31st, June 1st and June 2nd.

How many witnesses were not able to appear before the committee that were invited to testify?

On the final list, 7 persons or organizations declined our invitation....

They could not appear because they did not have time to prepare. It was procedurally a joke. I would use the example of Bill C-48 last week. We knew it was on the agenda but all of a sudden a fast one was pulled and we were called in from airports and everywhere else around the country in order to vote on something with half an hour or an hour's notice.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's logic during his speech was that marriage is there at least in part for children. If he says that marriage is really an institution for children, is he saying that heterosexual couples who are incapable of having children, for instance post-menopausal women, ought not to be allowed to get married? I think that is an important question if the member's logic is based on marriage being an institution primarily to support children.

We are all aware that there are gays and lesbians within Canada who are adopting children. If the member believes that marriage and the stable environment provided by marriage is good for children, should those gay and lesbian families with children and the children in those families not be given the opportunity to have the stability and benefit of marriage?

I do think stability is provided by marriage and that it is good for children, and he has expressed that, therefore, as such, why would he discriminate against those children being adopted by gays and lesbians?

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I never saw the member at any of the committee meetings listening to any of the experts. I doubt very much that he has read any of the material that has come forward from these experts. Psychologists and people in the field have been listening to this.

The point is that we did not have the time to analyze and investigate the information but it is there. Should we not take the time to step back, take a breath of fresh air and properly and appropriately analyze the material that was brought forward by the experts, even government experts, to see what the impact will be on children? Should we not take a look at the science and analyze it to make proper decisions?

My colleague across the floor should have opened the book on the Conservative agenda and he would have seen that civil union would have been enough to satisfy his concerns.

[Ken Boshcoff, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my position on this has been clear, even before the nomination for candidate process. During last year's election my position continued to be consistently and concisely stated.

I believe in retaining the traditional definition of marriage. I also believe that constitutional guarantees of religious freedom must be protected. That is why, simply and basically, I will support those who wish to retain those traditional values.

My support for this comes from the past 27 years of elected office. As a ward alderman, as a councillor at large and as mayor I was witness to many hundreds of anniversaries celebrating the institution of marriage. It is impossible not to share those values.

In representing the wishes of my constituents who live in Thunder Bay--Rainy River, a riding that stretches from the Manitoba border in the west to the Minnesota border in the southeast, I am representing their concerns and feelings.

The recent amendments enhancing religious freedoms, I believe, would go a long way to conciliation in recognizing the issues presented by churches and spiritual groups.

Clause 3 states:

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

Clause 3.1 states:

For greater certainty, no person or organization shall be deprived of any benefit, or be subject to any obligation or sanction, under any law of the Parliament of Canada solely by reason of their exercise, in respect of marriage between persons of the same sex, of the freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the expression of their beliefs in respect of marriage as the union of a man and woman to the exclusion of all others based on that guaranteed freedom.

I feel that is good legislation.

Over the past many months my four offices in Fort Francis, Atikokan, Thunder Bay and Ottawa have received thousands of communications. Cases of fax paper have been used and boxes of letterhead paper and envelopes have been used to reply to the constituents of Thunder Bay--Rainy River.

I do not possess the resources to personally reply to the innumerable amount of communications from those who do not reside in my riding but over the past few months I have presented three petitions to the Clerk of the House of Commons reading into the record that two were against civil marriage and one was in favour, reflecting what I believe is the general trend of a two-third split in people's feelings in my riding and generally across the country.

My offices average 1,500 e-mail a week, the largest percentage of course coming from outside my riding. I have received thousands of letters from all over the country and have personally replied to everyone in my riding, whether they are for or against the bill.

I regret not having a chance to speak to this bill previously but when I was ready to speak prior to second reading my time was preempted by international events. The vast majority of people, of course, understand that. I appreciate the opportunity now to go on the record.

I have had numerous scheduled meetings and of course thousands of opinions offered as I encounter my constituents. The one thing that is certain is that there are few yet undecided on this issue.

With eight provinces and one territory having made their legal decisions, there does not seem to be any argument left in anybody's mind that could possibly change someone else's mind.

From a federal perspective, my constituents would like to see this matter decided openly, democratically, fairly and, within reason, promptly. They have heard the debates but, more important, they have had a chance to convey their expressions to me, their elected representative.

Not everyone will be pleased but in my riding we have numerous other issues, mostly economic, that require their turn at the podium.

On paper, the numbers I have received in hard copy, that is, paper, such as letters, petitions, faxes or email, are as follows: against, 2,425, totalling 96% against; and for, 90, or 4%.

In reality, telephone calls, meetings and personal expressions from face to face encounters would even the numbers, I believe, to something closer to the Defend Marriage Canada's national marriage referendum.

Regarding that referendum, as of today, June 27, 141,229 votes have been cast with 62% opposed to the bill. My personal feeling is that in Thunder Bay—Rainy River we are close to this 60-40 split. After all these tens of thousands of Canadians letting me know how they feel, I am ready to cast my vote in democratic representation.

Although my position has been deemed worthy of public recording and most of my constituents who follow media recording are aware of my position, for some who hold extreme points of view that may never be enough.

I will take this vote and the responsibility it carries very seriously. I cannot, however, carry it with any phobic or hateful reaction. I am for the traditional definition and I do so to represent my constituents. I am for the protection of religious freedoms and believe the bill, with its enhanced amendments, would do that.

This topic has divided our country. Whether the legislation passes or fails in the forthcoming vote, there will remain some serious rifts on this volatile subject. The outcome of the vote is not a foregone conclusion, as third readings cannot be predicted absolutely.

As legislators, it will be our role to be the peacemakers, to build the bridges and restore the values of tolerance and respect for the opinions of others. The passion of these debates confirms that civil marriage will continue to spark considerable discussion for many years to come. As a rights issue, there seems to be a considerable desire to reach an understanding.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member standing to read his opinion on the issue but I would like to ask him how he feels about his party, particularly the cabinet ministers on his side, not being allowed to have a free vote on such a contentious issue.

In my opinion, the religious freedoms of the cabinet ministers themselves are being jeopardized by the member's own party that attests to protect religious freedom.

I suggest to the hon. member that when I consider things like his government changing the law with respect to high rent properties for Liberal senators in order to protect them and how it changed the law so that the GST, for example, can be charged in transporting our children, that really lacks credibility.

Does the hon. member actually believe that religious freedoms will be protected by a government that has no credibility?

[Ken Boshcoff, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I guess one of the more disillusioning things, when we are talking about a subject such as this, is that innuendoes and aspersions have to be cast.

I would like to deal with the subject material. I really do not feel that if the hon. member is saying something about a policy position, he has to throw in the other invective. I can understand his frustration but, nonetheless, we try to be civil. I actually will be introducing a private member's bill on civility and decorum, so that if you are going to ask a question you get to the point of it.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

May I remind the hon. member that comments are to be made through the Chair.

[Ken Boshcoff, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, although I made my decision before I became a candidate, I was still welcomed into the party, which has a range of amplitude for people to have that expression and those feelings. This party, to me, is the only party that really gives anybody that kind of opportunity. I feel quite good about that.

The question had to do with whether religious freedom is defined by the day. No, it is not and it is on the record which I actually had the chance to read. It is recognized that officials of religious groups are free to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs. It is pretty straightforward.

[Art Hanger, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his presentation. He obviously went through a lengthy process to determine the will of his constituents. The reporting of such is very similar to a lot of other ridings in the country, mine included. I can appreciate the member on that side making this statement. He has been recorded as giving a previous statement in the House, which is very important as well.

So many times we have heard from the other side that religious freedoms are going to be protected, whether it is a pastor of a church or a priest. Bishop Henry is very outspoken on the issue of gay marriage. He has made it very clear that the state has a role to play here and that it is not a human rights issue. It is beyond that. With that, of course, he has come up against a reaction, and that reaction is that a human rights tribunal has hauled him before it. He has also had a call from the tax department threatening his charitable status. As a man called to a position, in this case as a pastor, he now finds himself in what I suggest is a very strange predicament. For him the matter is clear. He is called to bring the truth to the people in the community, but he is under threat.

I would like the member to explain how that can happen and how this bill is going to protect him.

[Ken Boshcoff, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will respond in this way. Bishop Henry was also my bishop for a time, so I know he needs no help in overcoming his shyness. I know he has a level of passion and he articulates it extremely well. I believe in this country he has the opportunity to express himself, and there are many people who believe in what he says very strongly.

Having dealt with him on many other issues when he was bishop and I was mayor and a member of council, I know when he says something it comes from the heart, but he also backs it up with what he believes are firmly held beliefs and truths. I believe in this country, though, there is an amplitude that allows us to disagree within that framework.

Committees of the House

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, discussions have taken place and I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motions. I would ask you to bear with me, Mr. Speaker, because there are several.

This has to do with consolidated travel and other motions regarding committees. I move:

That the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness be authorized to continue its deliberations relating to the study of the process for appointments to the federal judiciary beyond October 31, 2005 and to present its final report no later than December 15, 2005.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

In addition, Mr. Speaker, I move:

That, notwithstanding the Order made April 20, 2005, in relation to its study on the government action plan on official languages, the Standing Committee on Official Languages be authorized to travel to Bathurst, Eastern Township, Toronto, Windsor, Whitehorse, Vancouver, Saint Boniface and Sudbury, in October, 2005, and that the necessary staff do accompany the Committee.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in addition, I move:

That, in relation to its study on Canada's defence policy and the future role of the Canadian Forces, the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs be authorized to travel (a) to Kingston, on September 22 and 23, 2005, (b) to Warsaw, Brussels and London, from October 8 to 14, 2005, and that the necessary staff do accompany the Committee.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?