Debates of June 28th, 2005

Civil Marriage Act

[Françoise Boivin, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington for his very interesting speech. Since I know he is a great democrat, from my time with him on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, I would like to know if he agrees with his leader that, thanks to the Bloc's support, this evening's vote on Bill C-38 will lack legitimacy. I want him to comment on this.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is a sovereignist party. It is interesting that this party is in favour of Quebec's sovereignty. This support is legitimate in a Canadian context. However, it is also legitimate to point out that most federalist MPs, meaning those in favour of Canadian unity, oppose this bill. That is what the leader of my party said yesterday about this evening's vote.

[John Cummins, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on a fine speech. I agree with him that the courts have been particularly aggressive on this issue.

I asked the member for Scarborough—Rouge River a question about the government's failure in this regard. I wonder if the member would comment on that. Briefly, my question was that when charter equity challenges were heard in the lower court, the court only had the option of rejecting the claim or offering marriage. However, when the Supreme Court was expressly asked in question four in the same sex marriage reference, is the opposite sex requirement for marriage for civil purposes consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it declined to answer the question. This was in essence because if it had voted yes to that, it would have thrown the whole state of law into confusion.

In my view the federal government dropped the ball here. It should have aggressively defended the traditional definition of marriage and it did not. I wonder if my friend would comment on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, as a general rule, the Supreme Court and indeed all courts in Canada are reluctant to rule on hypothetical cases when the opportunity exists for presenting an actual case of law before them. The courts do not like to do this, notwithstanding the lapses in judicial activism that we see more often than we ought to with our courts. The reason they do not like to do it is that a hypothetical case inevitably is a case of policy, as opposed to being a matter of deciding on law. Obviously courts do what they can to restrict the extent to which they are being forced into policy decisions, especially when it is a highly controversial decision on which a consensus does not exist in public opinion.

I think the court quite rightly sensed that it was being asked to make a political decision to get the Prime Minister out of the hot seat. The Supreme Court quite rightly said, “Look, you have other options here”. One option would have been to appeal one or perhaps several of the provincial court decisions up to the Supreme Court of Canada. The court might have, as my hon. colleague from Scarborough—Rouge River suggested, in the end decided to uphold those decisions, or it might not have done so. We will not know. That would have been the best way to go from a legal point of view.

Of course the Minister of Justice understands that entirely, as does the Prime Minister, but they were not looking for the best legal solution. They were looking for a way to get themselves off the policy hook, while at the same time pushing through their agenda on same sex marriage.

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

Mr. Speaker, what we are seeing today is the heavy-handedness of a Liberal government that is afraid of honest debate on this issue. The government is afraid to hear speeches like the one made by my hon. colleague because the government knows that the vast majority of Canadians are opposed to its radical position on marriage.

Because of the Liberals' fear of healthy debate on this issue, they have invoked closure, one of the most undemocratic things that has ever happened in this Parliament. The government extended the sittings of the House, tinkered with the Standing Orders and the legislative calendar, and then immediately afterward invoked closure to cut off debate on Bill C-38.

Does the hon. member think these are the actions of a Prime Minister who is going to slay the democratic deficit?

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague's opinion.

The invoking of closure is permitted under the rules, but to me the real travesty was the absolutely unconstitutional decision of the government to refuse to permit a confidence vote in the House until it had a chance to cause members to cross the floor, to attempt to buy the vote of one member and perhaps several others, before it had the chance to frame the debate.

The whole idea of the House needing confidence in the government is predicated on the idea that it is the House that determines whether or not it has confidence in the government. It is not up to the government to choose the time and place of a debate and try to rig the proceedings. That was unconstitutional. It was a violation of one of the most fundamental tenets and conventions of our Constitution. It was an absolute abuse. To me that will be what Paul Martin will be remembered for. He will be remembered for shame in Canadian history.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I urge all hon. members to use either the title of the person they are referring to or speak of them in the third person.

[Betty Hinton, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is the second time I have risen to speak to this issue. I will preface what I am going to say by telling the House that I sent out a ballot within my own constituency on this issue. Eighty-two per cent of my constituents told me to vote in favour of the traditional definition of marriage. I have done so.

I want to go back a little bit on this and mention a few things that may or may not be relevant to some members of the House. My daughter's godmother has a sign in her place of business that reads, “Poor planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part”. I believe that is a very appropriate saying for where we find ourselves today.

This was a very awkward situation for all. I understand that, but that sign pretty much sums it up, because what we have here is a case of poor planning, poor wording and face-saving. The result is going to be bad legislation. We have tried to put through amendments that would make it a better piece of legislation and would protect religious freedom, but all of those amendments have been thwarted.

I also would like to suggest, as I suggested in my last speech, that this is not a human rights issue. People use the argument that this is a human rights issue because they have to resort to using emotional speeches to get their point across. They cannot get their point across in any other legitimate way.

I believe that is very wrong. As the shadow critic for veterans affairs, I could introduce members of the House to any number of veterans who would be happy to tell the members the difference between a human rights issue and a social issue. As a country, we are extremely proud of these men and women who have fought for democracy worldwide. I do not think we would find a single veteran who would say to us that the same sex marriage legislation is a human rights issue. It is not a human rights issue. It never has been.

In my last address to the House, I told the House that in my opinion I believed that this was in fact an intellectual property issue. I believe that the creation of the ceremony for marriage belongs solely to the churches. I also question why members of the House would stand up and passionately defend intellectual property rights on another issue yet be very casual about protecting religious rights. I do not understand that. I believe that if we were to ask a few of the members here about this, they would be hard pressed to explain it.

Perhaps they do not view this as intellectual property rights, but I do. I believe that when we take the emotion out of this argument and boil it all down, that is in fact what this is. We do not have the permission of the churches to change anything to do with marriage. That lies solely in their hands. I do not believe that government has a place in this, but we are here nonetheless.

I also have made it clear that other things are at stake here. One of the things I would once again like to clarify is about what we sell to immigrants coming to this country. For the very people who built the country, who made the country what it is today and who add to the country on a daily basis, what we sold them on for Canada was freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Both of them are seriously jeopardized in this piece of legislation.

Yesterday the Prime Minister met with the Prime Minister of Vietnam. By all accounts, when the Prime Minister spoke to that issue, he claimed to have told the Vietnamese prime minister that Canada wants Vietnam to honour freedom of expression and freedom of religion. There is an irony there. Is the Prime Minister of our country saying to the Prime Minister of Vietnam “do as I say, not as I do”? This piece of legislation that he is currently endorsing undermines religious freedom in this country. I do not quite understand how he can stand up and say something like that to another country when he has that very problem happening within his own.

Just a few steps outside these doors there is a statue. It is probably 10 paces from the outer doors. It is a statue of Lieutenant Colonel George Baker. Lieutenant Colonel George Baker was the only member of Parliament to die in a war. He died in World War I. From all accounts, he was a man of great honour. This was a man who served his country not only in Parliament but on the battlefield.

Right next to the statue of Lieutenant Colonel George Baker is another plaque. On that plaque is a poem that most Canadians can probably recite by heart. The poem was written by John McCrae:

To you from failing hands we throw,The torch; be yours to hold it high.If ye break faith with us who dieWe shall not sleep, though poppies growIn Flanders fields.

Those words have great meaning to all veterans. They have great meaning to all Canadians. In the opinion of many, that torch has fallen. If we fail in our own country to maintain religious rights and freedoms, we have failed all of those who have gone before us, who have fought worldwide and who have fought for honour in Canada to give freedom of expression and freedom of religion to countries throughout the world.

As Canadians, we are expected to stand up for these things and we have stood up for these things. When we draw up legislation that will affect the lives of every single Canadian and every immigrant who chose Canada for the freedoms we offer, it is beyond reason that we would put together legislation so iffy that we are challenging the right of religious freedom in our own country.

I do not understand it at all. It baffles me when I look about me and see that there are less than 20 people sitting in this room right now listening to what I have to say. This says to me that members are thinking, “My mind is made up. Do not confuse me with facts. I will make my decision based on whatever reasoning I have in my own head and I really do not care to hear anything that anyone else has to say”. I never thought we would see the day when those sorts of thought processes would happen in a house of democracy.

I have been here only a short time, but I am deeply ashamed about some of the things that have happened to the democratic process in the House of Commons. I would like to see democratic renewal, but I have seen no evidence of it.

We have an opportunity right here and right now to take a sober second look at what we are doing with this legislation. What would be the harm in not bringing back this legislation until September?

There will be those who argue that we would be leaving people's lives in limbo, but we would not. There is absolutely nothing stopping same sex couples from marrying in this country right now. If we were to take the summer, have a sober second reflection and really seriously get down to what this is all about, I have no doubt that we could put wording into this legislation that would in fact protect freedom of religion.

As I said earlier, as shadow critic for veterans affairs, I have had the pleasure, the opportunity and the privilege to meet some of the finest men and women this country has to offer. Whether they are senior veterans who fought in World War II or the Korean war, to a man and a woman they will tell us that they value nothing more than the freedom this country has to offer. They have put themselves on the line around the world to preserve it for strangers.

The conversations I have had with veterans tell me very clearly that they are very unhappy about this legislation. Never in their lives did they think that the greatest threat to democracy would be coming from within their own country. We have to take steps which will ensure that everything we are so proud of in this country, everything we stand behind, is protected. Until we can protect freedom of religion, we have failed miserably.

I ask hon. members to remember the words of that poem:

To you from failing hands we throw,The torch; be yours to hold it high.If ye break faith with us who dieWe shall not sleep, though poppies growIn Flanders fields.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have to stop this debate and argument about how there is somehow a great fear, about how an incredible situation is going to take place in our country if the civil marriage bill becomes law.

It is already the law in many places in the country. It is the law in Ontario, my home province, and it has been the law for over a year. I do not see marriages breaking up all over the place.

There is this incredible fear being presented by the opposition. It is terrible to build that on the unity of this country. We should speak to the betterment of the country, to what it is all about. It is about a country of tolerance and hope, one that respects people's rights and dignity. It is not a country that wants to create barriers between one group and another. I am concerned about some of the arguments stated by the opposition member.

I want to again ask a question of the members of the official opposition. I have posed this question twice already and have yet to get an answer. Maybe the hon. member will answer. It has to do with the fact there have been over 5,000 licences issued in the country. What is the Conservative Party view of what to do with the 5,000 licences that were legally issued to citizens in good standing of this country so they could get married civilly? What is her plan? What does her party plan to do with those licences? Do the Conservatives plan to have them nullified?

[Betty Hinton, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not recall hearing any of my colleagues say that marriages will be breaking up all across the country if same sex marriage is granted. I think that is the theatrical type of response I have come to expect from those who are uncertain of their ground. It is an emotional argument. That is what I talked about earlier in my speech.

I do not have any qualms about horrid things happening to marriages across the country if same sex couples are allowed to marry. They are allowed to marry now. In many provinces, they have been allowed to marry. They have been allowed to marry because this government failed to give a signal. It did not give a strong signal. It allowed provinces to make their own decisions along the way.

As for what we as the Conservative Party would do about the marriages that are already there, the marriages are there and we honour the marriages. We have made it very clear that we are prepared to accommodate same sex couples. We are prepared to give them the same responsibilities and the same rights as heterosexual couples.

What we are not prepared to do is change the definition of marriage, and we are not prepared to risk religious freedom. Religious freedoms and the freedom of speech are absolutely fundamental in this country. If the member across the way does not understand that at this point, or did not glean that from the speech I just made, there is nothing else I can say to make this stronger for him.

This is seriously flawed legislation. It does not do justice to any Canadian. We need to protect the rights of all. When we want to extend rights to another group of people or a certain segment of society, we have to take into consideration the ramifications for the rest of society. We in this House have failed miserably to do that.

We have jeopardized the things that mean the most to Canadians. There is no explanation for that. I do not understand why there would be any question about it. This has been dealt with for over two years now. There was a split decision at the committee level. Also, it was not endorsed by a vast majority of people. I am sure the Speaker recognizes as well as I do that if we were to do a survey across Canada we would find a split, roughly half and half, maybe a little more to one side and a little more to the other side depending on what part of the country one is located. It is split roughly half and half.

Why would the House not take the time to make certain we protect the things that are the most valuable to us in our country? We can extend benefits and extend all of the things that the government is talking about extending. I do not have a problem with that and neither does anyone in my party.

We believe in equality in this country, but this is not a human rights issue. This is an issue that goes well beyond human rights. As I said in my speech, I believe it is a question of intellectual property. It is the right of the churches to decide who they do and do not marry. If we take away that right, we will have failed all of those who have gone before us, those who made the country what it is today and who have built Canada's reputation worldwide.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for York South—Weston.

Bill C-38, the civil marriage act, seeks to change the definition of marriage from a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, to any two persons to the exclusion of all others. The difference is defining characteristics. The traditional definition of marriage has defining characteristics. The proposed definition of marriage appears not to have any defining characteristics whatsoever, which seems to be very odd.

Even this morning the justice minister in his speech continued to debate whether this was a matter of human rights and a matter of equality. There is still a debate. I think it is very clear to all members and to all the public now that if this were really a matter of human rights, then it would not be subject to a free vote. That is the issue. Human rights are not subject to a free vote.

With regard to the equality provisions of the charter, there are two substantive exceptions to that provision.

First, as we all know that section 33 of the charter, the notwithstanding clause, permits Parliament to continue to operate for up to five years.

The second broad exception is found in section 1 of the charter. It reads:

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

What that really means is any of the rights and freedoms provided in the charter can be suspended or can be overridden if under a section 1 analysis, they determine that it is demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

In fact, this case, with regard to whether the definition of marriage is constitutional, has come before the courts many times. This is much like the Quebec referendum question. We are going to keep asking the question, keep going back to the people and eventually it is going to pass and become law. There may not be a final answer. This is driven by the fact that the Supreme Court of Canada has clearly laid out that it views the charter as a living tree. It changes. We change and, therefore, our interpretation of that changes.

We have to be very careful. Now the Supreme Court is telling us that, even though Parliament is supposed to make the laws and the court is supposed to interpret and apply those laws, the charter is a living tree and if the government does not act, it will act and change the law and the government will have to deal with it.

This is the challenge for us. The Supreme Court of Canada has given us a clear signal.

As I mentioned, for many years the question about whether the constitutionality of the definition of marriage has been challenged in the courts. In the last case, before the Halpern case which triggered all of this, the Attorney General of Canada argued that the objective of limiting marriage to opposite sex couples was sufficiently important to warrant infringing on the rights of same sex couples. The next point was that the purpose of marriage was to provide a societal structure for the procreation of children in order to perpetuate Canadian society. It was very clear. This was the Government of Canada. This was the position before the courts.

What happens when we have the Halpern case where, all of a sudden, the same details come out? In July 2002, Halpern v. Canada, the Ontario Supreme Court heard a case dealing with the constitutionality of the definition of marriage. This is what gives me the most problem. It is probably the reason why I am totally opposed to Bill C-38. It effectively discredited heterosexual marriage by citing the number of divorces and the existence of common law marriage.

This is something that had not changed overnight, not since the last Supreme Court decision. It just happened to be a different panel of the court, three persons on a panel. That was their view. It was not the decision of the Supreme Court.

The court went on. It also dismissed the importance of the ability to procreate, citing the availability of reproductive technologies, such as artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, surrogacy and adoption just to name a few.

By the failure of the court case, the arguments being made all of a sudden were challenging what happened in the B.C. court decision a year earlier. By looking at marriage and the distinctive characteristics of marriage, it tried to discredit them to the point that it might tip the balance in terms of a section 1 analysis. That is where it always has been a matter of a violation or an infringement on equality rights.

Under section 1 it was not so great because of the consequences. If we change the definition of marriage, look what it would do to the definition of family, look what it would do to the parent-child relationship, look at all the other risks that would come about, which I will deal with shortly.

In my view, the court case that has triggered all of this summarily dismisses the relevance of marriage to any aspect of social well-being of Canadians, which is one of the reasons why we are here. It is to protect the health and well-being of all Canadians, especially our children.

Let me paraphrase Justice Robert Blair on assessing that court decision. He warned that the legal redefinition of marriage would not be an incremental change, but a profound one, with extremely complex consequences. These include touching the core of many people's beliefs and value systems, resulting in social, political, cultural, emotional, and legal ramifications. This is very ominous, and I think it is a caution and maybe more strongly a severe warning to legislators.

Daniel Cere of McGill University also talked about the impact on children. He raises a point that members have not talked about very much. Under the bill, the biological concept of parent will be replaced by a legal parent. This is very important because all of a sudden the role of biological parents is coming under question. I totally disagree.

I want to conclude by talking about marriage. This is all about that. Marriage promotes the bonding of men and women and the creation of stable and durable partnerships for life and property. It recognizes the interdependence of men and women. It embodies the spiritual, social, economic and contractual dimensions. It reflects a commitment to fidelity and monogamy.

Marriage serves as an optimal societal structure for the birthing and rearing of children, at least to the extent necessary for the perpetuation of society. It provides for mutual support between men and women. It supports the birthright of children. Marriage promotes bonding between men, women and children. It guides the transformation of children into young men and women who are readying themselves for marriage and to begin a new cycle. Marriage grows the family tree and develops broad supports and securities for all members.

These are the distinctive characteristics of the definition of marriage being one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

The potential change to the parent-child bond will have a profound effect on society. I believe that but I do not know because we will not know until it happens. There are also clear possible effects on religious rights as we know. Paragraph 60 of the Supreme Court reference decision says:

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...

This involves the living tree issue. Today we do not know of any, but based on what has happened so far, there will be a challenge to religious rights and freedoms.

I believe the redefinition constitutes a radical societal change. It may not have immediate societal consequences, but over time it may have, and I stress may have enormous implications. This is not just about the infringement on the rights of gays and lesbians. It is also about diminishing the relevance of the most important societal institution, and that is marriage. In my opinion, the potential for material and adverse consequences is so great that we should take the time to more fully assess the broader implications of this fundamental change to families, children and religious freedoms.

With all due respect to the House, my view is that Bill C-38 should not proceed and that the notwithstanding clause under section 33 of the charter should be invoked to provide Parliament with the time it needs to make a fully informed decision.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member who has been up a number of times on this issue. Frankly, he has a number of good things to say and I appreciate his comments.

We have had lots of experience in Canada, the United States and a number of countries around the world with people who sit around tables through the day, maybe five or 10 people, and think up ways to change society, kind of a societal engineering group. These experiments have, for the most part, been devastating to society.

I will acknowledge that I too cannot support this issue for a whole bunch of reasons. We need a lot more debate on this. We need to think about this a lot harder.

The member and I get criticized on this being a human rights issue. I believe we agree that it is not that. How does the member feel about extending Parliament to debate this issue rather than debate what is clearly a human rights violation by the member's own party? The courts recently ruled that the waiting times in our health care system are a violation of Canadian rights. Why are we not spending this time debating those crucial issues?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, because Bill C-38 is before the House and not the latest decision from the Supreme Court. I want to reiterate a couple of points.

On the issue of human rights, I know when this started. I suppose if I were to reflect back, the genesis of some of these things came when the Divorce Act was amended to provide no-fault divorce. All of a sudden we started to see the first pieces of the disrespect for the institution of marriage, the “I can get out of it”, and also the growth of common law relationships.

I remember watching a panel program on this. People were asked why they did not get married and why they were living common law. Ninety-nine per cent of the people said that it was easier to get out of, that there was no commitment.

At the time I wrote a monograph on strong families making a strong country. I tried to come up with a definition of true love or real love. It was something to the effect that true love was when we put the interests of others ahead of our own. Therefore marriage represents that commitment. It represents a true love. There is a weaker commitment in a common law relationship and between any two parties, I doubt that there is any commitment, which has nothing to add in terms of making Canada a stronger country.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am standing in support of the bill, as I have consistently even prior to becoming a candidate. Consistency is important for Canadians. When we go through the electoral process, it is important for them to know what bill of goods they are getting when they vote for a certain candidate, a party and the leader representing that party. I have tried to stay consistent on this issue throughout.

I was raised in a single parent home. There is some suggestion in the member's tone that the ideal circumstance to produce good, strong Canadians is under the traditional nuclear family to the exclusion of all others. I find that not bordering on offensive, but fully into the realm of offensive.

Many of my constituents have struggled with this issue. This goes to the heart of many of their concerns for the strength of society and community. One of the ways that I have seen to strengthen this is through a robust and good economy and we have been struggling in the rural communities in Canada to do that.

When I go around my riding, I see the various stresses on families. For almost two years now, we have had same sex marriages in British Columbia. If I were to go to most of the homes in my riding where the family units are struggling to survive, I would place this issue very low on the scale compared to the basic ability to meet the needs of housing and all of the rest.

Not only do I find part of his tone offensive, but is drawing some conclusion that perhaps those Canadians who were raised in other than so-called traditional nuclear families are somehow of lesser quality or character?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not intend any offence to any members or anyone with regard to those comments. I am not an expert in these matters, but I have done enough research.

I refer the member, for instance, to the Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access and its study on the Divorce Act. It wrote a report called “For the Sake of the Children”. If the member looks at that he will find that there was a clear majority opinion, which I think was unanimous, that both mothers and fathers have an important role to play in the lives of children.

Second, I wrote a monograph called “Tragic Tolerance…of Domestic Violence”. It is on my website. If he looks at that he will see that the incidence of domestic violence in married relationships is less than it is in common law and same sex relationships. That is not my view; that is the research. That is Statistics Canada.

Finally, if he wants to talk about lone-parent situations, I am aware of it. I wrote monographs entitled “Strong Families...Make a Strong Country” and “The Child Poverty Solution”. Very clearly, the latest statistics from campaign 2000 say that 15% of the families in Canada are lone-parent families, but they account for 54% of all children living in poverty. One cannot deny the facts. Children have a better start in life, a better outlook, and a better possibility of having successful lives in adulthood when they are in a secure, consistent attachment with engaged, committed adults. That is marriage.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for this opportunity to speak once again on this subject, Bill C-38, which proposes that the traditional definition of marriage, that which traditionally exists between a man and a woman, be changed to classify marriage as the legal equivalent to a civil marriage, which may be between two men or two women.

The fact is the bill tries to accomplish in one fell swoop what most Canadians would have preferred to have seen their Parliament do in two separate acts, instead of combining marriage and civil union in Bill C-38 and calling it civil marriage. Canadians would have supported the creation of the architecture of civil union, accessible to all Canadians, and separately protect the sanctity and sacrament of marriage as blessed and protected by the faith communities. The government, however, for reasons previously presented, decided not to assert its statutory responsibility to reaffirm the traditional definition of marriage, appeal the decisions of the provincial courts, and then set out to construct a true civil union regime.

For these reasons, Parliament missed the opportunity to interpret and wisely apply the words of the Canadian Supreme Court in describing the Canadian Constitution as a living tree, and root that tree in those same traditional and fundamental values that would serve both religious freedom and modern civil society.

Because we failed to do that, that is, to bring together all of our collective wisdom and parliamentary capacity and construct a bill reflective of the will and the needs of all Canadians, we are now, through Bill C-38, setting the stage for pervasive and divisive change, which up to this point in the discussion has not been given nearly enough consideration.

Time allows me to focus only on two areas as illustrations of practice and institutions that will be profoundly affected by Bill C-38, these being adoption and the public education system.

In some provinces, children's protective services, after decades of advocacy, were judicially granted to faith communities. In Ontario, for example, there exists a public children's aid society, but also both Jewish and Catholic children's aid societies. In this jurisdiction, and I use this as an illustration, when the relevant society is approached through an application for adoption by a couple of the same sex who are married but are at odds with religious and traditional teaching, it will be the courts who will pronounce upon what once again will be a matter of human rights, a confrontation between that same, but we believe erroneously applied, concept of human rights, which is the basis for Bill C-38. This will conflict with traditional spiritual and religious practice and teaching.

The second area is usually referred to as preach and teach, which is more than just protecting the hard-won rights of certain faith communities to develop curriculum in church-affiliated schools consistent with religious and spiritual values. While this is absolutely essential and itself will probably come under judicial assault, we must also be aware that the public school system, presently supported by many faiths, will be faced with contradictory attitudes toward marriage and sex education, compared with values taught in the churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, and homes of this nation. What long-term impact will this have on the institution of public education, which has been a force of cohesiveness across our land?

In both examples, adoption and education, I believe members can see that at a time when more social cohesiveness is needed, Bill C-38 will be taking us in exactly the wrong direction, by weakening these traditional practices and institutions.

To conclude, at a time when the world sees in Canada an example of a caring, tolerant, and compassionate society, and when one reflects on the legacy of institutional strength that generations of Canadians have fought and laboured to build and preserve, on balance, Bill C-38 is just not good enough, either in substance or in the process we have followed in developing it.

The most appropriate course of action, then, would be to defeat this bill and to begin the task of designing and constructing a true civil union that would respect the dignity, tradition, and lifestyle choices of all Canadians, but none at the expense of the others. This has been and should be the Canadian way.

[John Cummins, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend opposite for a very thoughtful and well-reasoned presentation.

The previous member, the member for Mississauga South, suggested that the Supreme Court has given us a clear signal on this particular issue. My friend opposite referenced the Constitution as a living tree, and I think most recognize that. The difficulty, of course, is that there is a conflict here. We essentially have nine lawyers in the Supreme Court telling 308 elected members what kind of country we should have.

My question is this. Is the problem we are facing here on this issue now that the Constitution does not really define the balance between the rights of Parliament to define society and the duty of the court to tweak Parliament's decisions with reference to the Constitution and the charter? It seems to me that is part of the problem we have today. There is no balance between just what the court can say and Parliament's rights here. Personally, I would fault the government for not stepping up to the plate and protecting Parliament's interest in this delicate balance, which perhaps is not so delicate. I wonder if the member had some thoughts on that notion.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first, I am a teacher by profession, not a lawyer, and there are many who I think have given very accurate and reasoned analyses with respect to the authorities that Parliament has inherited through its statutory responsibilities and the role that Parliament plays with respect to decisions that are made by the courts. The charter is a living document as part of the Canadian Constitution. We have seen just how alive it is in the most recent decision given by the Supreme Court with respect to health care, with the notion that the charter should not arbitrarily set in place a standard that would make it difficult for Canadians to have reasonable freedom of decision, a different concept of freedom and rights, and one again that we are attempting to fit within the architecture of decision making as established through Parliament.

I believe statutory law is very close to natural law, that there is the finite law and the written law, but it is up to Parliament to look at the overall higher interest and to develop statutory principles within which all Canadians, in fact all human beings within our country, can live. I would think that is the guidance we should be giving to the courts, by setting that higher ground in terms of a law that goes beyond legalistic and judicial law and is really based on traditional values and conventions that have stood the test of time.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for York South--Weston mentioned values that are common to people who enter the institution of marriage in Canada. I would like to ask him exactly which values gay and lesbian couples who seek to be married do not share with other Canadian couples who seek to be married in Canada.

It seems to me that the gay and lesbian couples who are seeking to be married in Canada do so because they strongly believe in the institution of marriage. They are willing to fight to have access to that institution. It seems to me that we were raised in families where the values of marriage were passed on to us by our parents who entered into those married relationships, and we saw how those relationships were of importance and had value in our families and in our society. It seems to me we were raised in churches and other organizations that valued the institution of marriage and taught us those values and led us to want to share in that institution.

So exactly what values does he see gay and lesbian couples not upholding when it comes to marriage in Canada?

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there would be none if gay and lesbian couples were part of the same civil union institution that was created to be accessible for all people. I suppose it is wrong-headed and I have tried to argue that had we started from that premise, it would not be necessary to fend and prove what values gays and lesbians cherish and value more than couples of the same sex who are married. It would be the blessing and the sacrament of the church that would be part of the freedom that the church enjoyed in granting that benefit. That would be protected equally by the courts.

The question unfortunately sets the stage for what I have tried to say is an unnecessary confrontation between perceived values. The member made a good point, but he also must admit that if it was an acceptable principle that same sex couples and those of opposite sex had the same values, then why would we find ourselves in the position that we are changing one and it has to be at the expense of the principles and values of married couples, of those who have a traditional attitude supported by their religious convictions as a marriage between people of the opposite sex?

My very short answer is that we would not be where we are. We would be talking about the same values, if we were talking about the same thing, which would be a civil union regime.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with the consent of the House, I will be sharing my time with my good friend, the hon. member for Sherbrooke.

I am pleased to speak to what is certainly an historic debate in this House. I was in the House of Commons when Allan Rock introduced an amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act to include sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination. I was in the House when section 718 of the Criminal Code was amended to include provisions on hate crimes. I was also in the House when common-law same-sex couples were given the right to be fully considered as spouses with all the related obligations and responsibilities.

I must say that today's debate seems rather different to me. Of course, just like the other laws mentioned, it improves rights for gays and lesbians. Nonetheless, the debate today is slightly different because we are not just talking about financial benefits.

The primary issue is whether Canadians and Quebeckers want to consider gays and lesbians as full citizens. If so, then logic follows that we should allow no room for discrimination in any aspect of society. It is not permitted in the workplace, in common carriers, nor in public places. There remained one place, one major institution, that of marriage, where same-sex couples were being discriminated against. That is what makes today's bill so great.

The bill before us is not important from a financial standpoint. I would even say that it is not important from a legal standpoint, since many of the benefits associated with marriage are available to those in common law unions. In Quebec, many benefits granted to heterosexual couples are available through a civil union.

What is great, noble and profoundly historic in the debate today is that we are recognizing same-sex couples as full citizens by allowing them to get married. Some will say that not all same-sex couples want to get married, just like not all heterosexual couples want to get married. However, all homosexual couples will have the choice. Among the wide range of possible committed relationships they can have, marriage can be added to the list.

Why is this important? It is never easy discovering you are a homosexual. I recall realizing I was homosexual about the age of ten. I announced it to my parents at age 18. Even though I was a member of a very open family, even though my parents were very understanding, even though I had brothers and sisters who loved me and still love me a lot, it is never easy saying you are gay. Parents wonder in what sort of company their child will grow up, what awaits the child, if the child will face jeers and rejection and if the child will be accepted wholly.

The bill before us sends a very clear message to parents. It says that, if they discover in a few years their child is homosexual, they will be able to say that, in Canada and Quebec, there is no room for discrimination, rejection, intolerance, at least in the light of the legislation passed by the men and women in Parliament. That is what is so great about today's bill.

I recall when we looked at Allan Rock's bill, when he was Minister of Justice. A psychiatrist had appeared before us in committee and presented very alarming figures, which even today are true. They reveal that young adolescents who discover they are homosexual are more prone to suicide, depression and self rejection. So, I think that everyone who supports such a bill today will help make it easier to live with one's homosexuality in the Canada and Quebec of tomorrow.

Today, I am thinking as well of Svend Robinson and of two of my fellow Quebeckers, Michael Hendricks and René Leboeuf, who were the first in Quebec to contest the laws. They were so serious and strong in their fight then that they had to remortgage their house to pay legal costs. It is all very well to have the court challenges program, but, obviously, people contesting the law have to invest time, money and energy.

So, if you asked me who, in the long list of great values advocates made important human rights contributions, I would immediately say Svend Robinson, along with Michael Hendricks and René Leboeuf.

I would like to finish by saying that the churches had some reasons for concern in this debate, even though there were very clear provisions on freedom of religion in clause 3 of the bill . What I liked was what the United Church of Canada had to say when it appeared before the members, and I would like to quote it:

In August 2000, the 37th General Council affirmed that human sexual orientations, whether heterosexual or homosexual, are a gift from God and part of the marvellous diversity of creation, and further resolved to advocate for the civil recognition of same-sex marriages.

Wherever one looks in society, whether among religious groups, in legal circles, in political parties, in social groups, among our fellow citizens, in urban or rural areas, there are people who support this bill.

The leader of the Bloc Québécois, the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, shared a survey with us in caucus that had been done in Quebec. It was interesting to see that in all the large urban areas in Quebec, a majority of people supported same sex marriage.

When I introduced a motion in 1995 to recognize common law marriage rights for homosexual partners, the government whip, who was Alfonso Gagliano at the time, called the vote on a Monday morning to make sure that as many members as possible were absent. Only one member of cabinet came to vote, and that was Sheila Copps, the Prime Minister's good friend, who had a tremendous amount of courage. She was Minister of the Environment then and Deputy Prime Minister. At the time, it was still so taboo for people in public life to be associated with homosexuality and the promotion of it that no other cabinet members dared to come and vote on a Monday morning.

The good news, this evening, is that more than a decade has passed since then. With great pride, dignity and open-mindedness, a majority of parliamentarians, I hope, will make one of the most noble gestures that can be made in a democracy, namely furthering human rights and saying clearly to all the homosexuals in this country, wherever they may be, whatever their age, and whatever education they may have, “You are real citizens and you have a right to love”.

[Françoise Boivin, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Hochelaga for his very impassioned speech, as always. I want to take this opportunity to thank him for his work on the legislative committee on Bill C-38. The committee did not have an easy task, but I think it has been accomplished with serenity, thanks in large part to the member for Hochelaga, who was able to inject nice touches of humour throughout the deliberations.

That said, I would like to ask him two questions. Does he believe that the bill we will be called to vote on provides adequate protection to all religions, given all that we have heard during committee hearings and the concerns that have been voiced, with good reason, I would say. Some of these concerns were more subjective than objective, as the Supreme Court of Canada indicated. So, is the member satisfied with the amendments that were made?

I would also like him to comment on the remarks made yesterday by the leader of the Conservative Party about tonight's vote lacking legitimacy because of the support by Bloc Québécois members.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her questions. I will not dwell on what the Conservative leader said, which, in a democracy, is extremely unfortunate. I think this shows how many light-years away he is from the responsibilities he aspires to, in other words, the responsibilities of Prime Minister.

The concept of freedom of religion is an important one. I am sure that no member would want to interfere with anyone's religious beliefs. Religious beliefs are important and have to do with our perception of the world and how we relate to one another.

I believe that the clause in the bill was very clear and that the Supreme Court was very clear in its reference. My colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles introduced an amendment to ensure that no group would be denied its status as a charitable organization, regardless of its religious beliefs on the right to marriage. I think all these factors combined ensure that all those concerned with freedom of religion can vote with complete peace of mind in favour of the bill before us today.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member will have time to answer one other question after oral question period.

Veterans Affairs

[Susan Kadis, Liberal, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today in Toronto the Jewish War Veterans Memorial Committee will launch its fundraising campaign with the creation of Canada's first national Jewish war veterans memorial. The memorial will honour those of the Jewish faith who have served Canada both before and after Confederation.

This issue is very close to my heart as my father, Vic, at the young age of 15 joined the more than 17,000 Jewish men and women who fought for Canada during World War II.

As Canadians, we must honour the sacrifice of all veterans who have secured the hard-fought freedoms that we enjoy today. It is especially fitting that this project is being launched during the Year of the Veteran. As we mark the halfway point of this special year, Canadians across the country are continuing to celebrate, thank and remember our veterans, including those in particular who gave their lives. We must ensure that memorials like this one are erected so that Canada's memory and appreciation of our veterans never fade.

I want to convey my gratitude to all our veterans who have, whenever terror has loomed, when peace has been threatened, proudly fought with courage and determination to ensure that the Canadian values of freedom and democracy were always protected.