Debates of June 28th, 2005

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 third time and passed, and of the amendment.

Civil Marriage Act

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Burlington actually gave me a great segue. This always has been and always will be about equality under the law.

Before I came to this place in 1993, I was asked to run as a member of Parliament for the Liberal Party of Canada. I made one condition on my running, which was that we amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to add sexual orientation as a prohibited ground for discrimination. I asked for that condition in writing.

I was here in this House in 1996 when that bill was first passed. Thus began the trip and the move toward equality for a minority group in our country that has been discriminated against from the beginning of time. Finally, in this last debate today, those in that group will see themselves fully and completely equal under the law, as in section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I feel so passionately about this issue because as a physician, I saw day after day in my practice gays, lesbians, transgendered and bisexual people who were subjected to discrimination under the law. When I met gay and lesbian couples who had been living together for 20 years and who could not even share their medical and dental plans or their pensions, and opposite sex couples who had been living together for a year in conjugal relationships were able to do that, I knew that this group was discriminated against under the law. I saw the effect of that discrimination in terms of mental and physical health on gays, lesbians and transgendered persons. I saw them live in fear. I saw professionals, teachers who were ashamed and afraid that people would know what their sexual orientation was because it meant that they could be fired from their jobs.

This for me is something that I have believed in since I was a practising physician, when I saw what that inequality could do to the health and well-being of Canadians. Today I stand here remembering that in 1996 with the passage of the amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act to add sexual orientation, it paved the way for benefits for same sex couples in terms of their medical and dental plans. In 2000 when the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act passed, 85 pieces of legislation in this country were amended in order to enshrine that equality in law. This is now the final barrier that is going to fall.

There is a lot of emotion about this issue and I can understand that. What we are talking about is tradition and very strongly held beliefs that have gone on over time. In fact we all know that it was in 2 BC that the Romans first developed the legal contract of marriage. It was a civil contract. It was only between the very wealthy landowning families in Rome who were allowed to make a contractual arrangement to transfer property and to ensure that the children of those contracts would be the rightful heirs to whatever property was handed down. We saw 100 years later, in the same Roman civil law, that in fact this contract was extended to same sex couples. This is not something that is new; this idea was there in 1 BC.

When we talk about the progression of marriage, we hear people talk a lot about the religious component of marriage. We are not talking here about the religious component of marriage. Under section 2 of the charter, religions are free to marry or to behave in a manner befitting their own dogma or whatever their religious beliefs. Those are minority rights given to people who belong to different religions in this country. We are extending minority rights under section 15 of the charter to a group that has been discriminated against under the law.

The fact is for a long time we felt that children were the result of a heterosexual relationship. Today we know that many heterosexual relationships that are infertile can also have children. Those children have come out of reproductive technologies that have been applied to infertile heterosexual couples to allow them to have children. We have never discriminated against those children. We have never discriminated against those infertile couples. They have still been allowed to marry.

Today we know that by using those same technologies, gay and lesbian couples can have children biologically. I know lesbian women who have gone full term and delivered a child just like any other woman.

The parents of those children need to be allowed to marry so the children can have legally married parents. Bill C-38 would ensure those children are equal, not second class citizens. The bill would ensure that a minority group will have equality under the law.

In a country like Canada, which is made up of diverse races, ethnicities, religions, languages, and colour, it is extremely important to ensure minorities are not crushed under majority rule. Minorities need to have a sense that they belong, that they are respected and that they are equal in every way under the law. The state should have no ability to discriminate in terms of its legal apparatus unless allowing people equality would harm society as a whole.

We know that heterosexual marriages will not suddenly end because same sex couples marry. We are just extending the legal ability for same sex couples to do the kinds of things that we all want to do when we love and are committed to each other. We want to ensure that in the eyes of society same sex couples are deemed to be equal and are living in a conjugal relationship that is secure and strong. We want to ensure that their friends and their community can celebrate with them.

The religious component of marriage only came about, if anyone had bothered to do the research, in the council of Trent in 1563 when marriage was solemnized as a religious institution. It has only been since then that we have had religious marriage.

Clause 2 and the amendments that were made by committee would ensure that religious organizations do not have to marry people if they do not wish to do so because of a couple's sexual orientation.

I was on the justice committee and we travelled across the country and discussed this issue. Many religions want to do this and many do not. Which religion is the state to agree with? Do we support one religion over all others or do we continue to allow religious organizations to be free to behave in a manner that they think is important when anyone tries to interfere in that religion's dogma or institution?

We are finally allowing same sex couples to be equal under the law to other people who live in a committed relationship. We are allowing them to sign a civil contract indicating that they can share property and have all the same rights and responsibilities as heterosexual couples. The children of that relationship would have true equality under the law. Parents would be able to hand down property, as they did in the days of ancient Rome, to their legal and rightful heirs. People will have custody of those children and share that custody if the marriage should break down. This issue is all about the law.

In this country of diversity, it is important that we look to the rule of law. Today we know that almost 90% of Canadians who wish to be married can be married as same sex couples. We are denying that right to 10% just because of the province in which they happen to live. The federal government cannot allow that to happen. We are responsible for the definition of marriage. We cannot define it so that 10% of Canadians cannot participate by an accident of geography.

I support Bill C-38 which is about equality. Finally, gays and lesbians will be able to hold their heads up high and be full citizens within Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member's speech and I have a couple of questions.

The member said that the federal government would be failing in its duty but I believe it has already failed twice in its duty. It first failed to step in before all the provinces went their own way and it is failing again now.

I do not know if the member was present for my speech but I made it very clear how I feel about this particular issue. I actually believe it is intellectual property we are discussing and not human rights. However if we are going to go down this road of same sex marriage in a different venue then I would submit to the member that this is actually about protecting religious rights as well.

We on this side of the House have said that we accept the fact that the country and the world are changing and that we are prepared to allow same sex couples to have the same responsibilities and benefits that married couples enjoy. However our tantamount concern is that religious freedom, which everyone in the country has valued for years, is in jeopardy. I know the member may not agree with that but I can assure her that the way the legislation is written we cannot ensure religious freedom in the country.

My suggestion is that it might be a better idea to wait until summer has passed and until we have had an opportunity to discuss this more thoroughly so we can put the assurances in place to ensure religious freedom is protected. Religious freedom and freedom of speech have always drawn, do draw and will always draw immigrants to this country. If we fail to protect that with this legislation then we have failed miserably.

I wonder whether the member opposite might share any or all of those views.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do agree with the hon. member that we must continue to protect religious freedom but the charter was written in such a way that the two are not contradictory. Religious freedom would be protected under the civil marriage act, as well as the right of a minority group to have access to probably one of the most major legal and social institutions in this country, the institution of marriage.

It has been shown that the charter has done this in the past. For instance, it says in the charter that one cannot discriminate on the basis of gender and yet the Catholic church does not and will not allow women to become priests. Divorce is legal around the country but the Catholic church and others do not recognize divorce. They have been allowed to continue to do that and it has not been an infringement on the charter in either case.

In 1882 there was a debate in this same House about the right of a man to marry his deceased wife's sister. The bishop of Nova Scotia cited many biblical texts and said that if a man were allowed to marry his deceased wife's sister it would lead to polygamy because he would want to marry all her sisters eventually.

We have seen the raising of the spectres of everything going haywire. None of it has come to pass. We have all seen that sections 2 and 15 of the charter can co-exist. The Supreme Court has said so, all courts have said so and that, therefore, is the rule of law in this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think the parliamentary secretary knows that the church I belong to, St. John's United, is in her constituency. St. John's has had a tradition over recent years of solemnizing the relationships of gay and lesbian couples in that church. However until two years ago it was not possible to do that in exactly the same way that it had been done for heterosexual couples. With the court decision in British Columbia, the minister and congregation at St. John's was able to do it for gay and lesbian couples in exactly the same way it was done for heterosexual couples. Indeed, in the last annual report of that congregation, a majority of the marriages performed were between gay and lesbian couples.

It seems to me that is an issue of religious freedom, the flip side of the one that we constantly hear about in this debate. I wonder if the member for Vancouver Centre might comment on the importance of ensuring religious freedom for those denominations and religious organizations that choose to marry gay and lesbian couples.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, a month and a half ago in Vancouver I was present at the art gallery grounds where many of the major religious groups in Canada were present. The Buddhists, Hindus, aboriginal communities, Anglican, Catholic, Unitarian and United churches came together to support this bill. They said that allowing this bill to pass will allow them freedom of religion to marry same sex couples, which they wished to do.

I think the hon. member is absolutely right in his question. This bill would allow religious organizations the freedom to marry or not to marry same sex couples. It is about choice and it is about having equality of choice under the law.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on this sad occasion, a day on which the debate on an important issue will come to an end and the legislation will be pushed through by a divided House of Parliament.

It is ironic that the demise of the traditional definition of marriage should happen in the House of Commons, a House that has been built on traditions and customs. While customs are only symbolic, traditions are pleasing rituals whose observance or absence has no substantial impact on the operation of constitutional rules and principles. This House is replete with traditions.

Mr. Speaker, I am sharing my time with one of the other members of Parliament.

While I was thinking about what I would say today, I went to my filing cabinet and brought out the files containing all the different letters and e-mails that had been written to me. I thought how sad is was that all these people had not been heard.

I came across the words of a parish priest, Father Francis Geremia, in a recent news article. Although I found his words strong, I understood the frustration and desperation when a parish priest would go so far as to say that not only was he a former Liberal, but that he was praying that the Prime Minister would lose his riding in the next election because he could not have two faces: either he serves God or he serves the devil.

The words reminded me of this past year and at every opportunity that my own parish priest spoke about protecting the traditional definition of marriage. At Christmastime this year he took the opportunity to talk about the family and how important the traditional family was.

I am also a practising Catholic. When I heard the concerns of the Catholic church I raised them as a legislator and as a member of Parliament, not as a Catholic.

I began to come across letters that I received from many people who the members across the way purport to represent. I thought the only thing I could do today would be to read into Hansard some of the letters and opinions that have not been presented in this House.

These letters were written to me by various religions, cultural and business groups, from individuals or on behalf of thousands of Canadians. The first letter dates back to 2003 and it is from the Hindu Society of Ontario. The letter reads:

We are forwarding an appeal on behalf of the Hindus of Canada. We understand that most of the Hindus as well as a majority of Canadians are greatly worried about this legislation, which is going to have an adverse effect in the society.

On behalf of the large numbers of Hindus in Canada, we have prepared this submission with the help of a member of the Hindu clergy family and forwarding it to the attention of the Hon. Prime Minister, Members of the Cabinet, and Members of the Parliament.

Therefore we appeal to all the parliamentarians not to pass this legislation and demoralize the Canadian society. We appeal to them to listen to the majority opinion and act wisely to preserve the integrity of the Canadian nation and ensure a safe and healthy social environment in this country. It would be highly appreciated if you could acknowledge to the above address....

Another letter reads:

All the five hundred thousand Hindu families came to Canada hoping to bring up their children in a safe and decent environment. But they are all greatly upset by this proposed legislation to recognize gays and lesbians as married couples, as it contradicts their religion and culture. Not only Hinduism, but also every other religion in the world, such as Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Taoism and Shamanism, disapprove of homosexual marriages. As members of the clergy family, I have had the opportunity to read about all the religions of the world. I am certain that there are no religious tradition accept this.

The members of the Hindu community as well as their clergy do not like to get involved in controversial political issues for fear of any backlash. When elections come round, they are not going to give their votes to any M.P. who say “Yes” to this legislation whatever party they may belong to. We are certain that most of the Canadians irrespective of party affiliations or religious denominations are opposed to this legislation.

It states:

The Islamic Society of North America-Canada wishes to express its opposition to Bill C-38, which would change the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples.

ISNA-Canada is the oldest and largest grassroots Muslim organisation in North America, and on this issue, can speak confidently for the majority of Muslims in North America, who are opposed to changing the traditional definition of marriage.

The Act notes that marriage is a “fundamental institution in Canadian society,” but fails to take into account what that really means. Marriage as the union of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of others, is an ancient practice that has been stable across history and across cultures. While some cultures have allowed men to marry more than one wife, or women to marry more than one man, marriage cross-culturally, has never been between couples of the same sex.

Marriage is thus an institution that predates the State of Canada, which therefore, has no right to change its meaning in its constitution.

The debate in the press over this issue shows that our Government, as well as many Canadians, are confused about what is at stake.

The argument in favour of same-sex marriage invoked in the Act, centres on the concept of rights, tolerance, and discrimination.

The Islamic Society actually says and does not deny that,

...homosexual couples do form lasting bonds of commitment to each other. Let this be an institution other than marriage. The State has recognized common-law relationships in legal aspects, but has denied common-law spouses the use of the term “marriage”. Let this be similar for same-sex couples.

It is not discrimination, nor is it a curtailment of a person's rights, to say that marriage is the proper institution for the raising of children by their biological parents.

...The ramifications of changing the definition of marriage to include same sex couples will be profound.

Not enough time has been allowed for the Canadian public to explore and discuss the long term consequences.

An individual from the finance sector made this suggestion. He said:

Mr. Prime Minister, with the concurrence of Members of Parliament and the Senate, you exercise the prerogative to make laws designed to promote national harmony, to ensure that the interests of each individual or segment of society continues to be equal before the law, that one group does not usurp nor impugn the traditional dignity of another, that emerging entities be invested with an identifying title or name that is free from ambivalence, and is consonant with the provisions of any Act of Parliament related to such entity.

He advocates:

...that the homosexual citizens of our country be given their own unique appellation, and I submit for your consideration and acceptance that the Bill now before Parliament be called “Contractual Alliance of Two Same-Sex Parties” with entrenched rights, privileges, and concomitant responsibilities analogous to those enjoyed by a man and a woman who have their peculiar definition of--“Married”.

A constituent wrote to one of my local papers. He said:

Marriage, as currently defined, predates governments, states, courts and charters of rights. The Christian church's definition--“a union of a man and a woman and a communion of the whole life”--comes from the legal Digest of Roman Emperor Justinian.... Marriage existed in pre-Christian civilizations and has always been a union between a man and a woman. The Catholic Church declared marriage a sacrament in the Council of Trent (1545-63).

The Roman Catholic view of marriage is based on the Aristotelian principle of natural law. Although Aristotle originated the concept, Thomas Aquinas, the giant of Christian philosophical thought, gave it theological shape. He defined natural law as participation in the eternal law of the universe by rational creatures with an in-built commitment to doing good.

...Marriage is too visceral a principle and too sacred to many to be left to the courts to toy with. Anything less than maintaining the current definition will betray the trust Canadians have in politicians.

Another individual in southern Saskatchewan puts the woman-man issue in the proper light, “Are we trying to neuter, water down our language too much?” He states:

In the late 1920's the Supreme Court of the day clarified that a woman was not a person. Can you imagine such nonsense? Well the fight was on and things were set straight. Now, Mr. Prime Minister, you want our courts to redefine marriage as a union between two persons. This is just as ridiculous as a woman is not a person.

This essay was sent to me by John McKellar, the president of HOPE, Homosexuals Opposed to Pride Extremism, in 2003. He said:

We neither need nor want the state in our bedrooms. We neither need nor want to be shackled by rules, regulations or paperwork. We've already won the same-sex benefits battle, so there's no longer concern over matters of pensions or estates. Let the straights keep marriage. We need to be liberated from the mainstream, homogeneous, egalitarian mindset that is destroying what is left of gay culture.

So he formed Homosexuals Opposed to Pride Extremism in 1997,

...to expose the...myths, distortions and propaganda of modern gay activism...deconstruct the oppression and victimology politics...give a credible voice to happy, successful and independent gays and lesbians who don't wake up every day finding “hate, bigotry, and discrimination” under the bed and who don't go running to the courts, the governments or the human rights commissions for a lifetime of therapeutic preferences.

He went on to say:

Marriage is not an arbitrary convention and is not meant to change with the times. We're not talking about music, fashion or art. We're talking about an institution whose 4 prohibitions - you can only marry one person at a time, only someone of the opposite sex, never someone beneath a certain age, and not a close blood relative....

I would like to read on.

Unfortunately, most people's sense of history begins the day they were born, which means all that precedes is outmoded and irrelevant and all that follows is enlightened and progressive.

Pastor Daryl Olson of Outlook, Saskatchewan, said:

I am also fearful of what this legislation means for me as a member of the clergy. In Saskatchewan all marriages are performed by ministers of religion and justices of the peace. As a member of the clergy, will I be required to perform same-sex marriages against my conscience?

The Trans-Canada Alliance of German-Canadians also said:

You were democratically elected to the Canadian parliament with a majority of the votes, which includes also German-Canadian. The lesser number did not vote for you.

As the elected Member of Parliament you act for all on whatever is in their and Canada's best interest.

In a certain time you will face again your constituency. If you would like to be re-elected to the Canadian parliament -- you will work hard to receive the majority of votes again.

I have received many letters, and unfortunately I cannot read them all into the record. However, I would like to table the concerns of the marriage commissioners, the documents they have received this year in Saskatchewan, so that in history people can see how the language has been neutered in our institution of marriage, how they have had to take out of the marriage licences and the marriage documents the words “bride” and “bridegroom”. It is worth the documents being tabled to show how we have lost the language of the words “bride” and “bridegroom”.

Thank you.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Does the hon. member for Blackstrap have the unanimous consent of the House to table those documents?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that my hon. colleague has first hand experience, through her position as a marriage commissioner, with the rights of freedom of speech and freedom of expression being taken away. I wonder if she could elaborate on that.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have not had my rights taken away yet, but I am being denied the right to choose whether I perform a same sex marriage or not. I certainly have not discussed that yet. I have not been performing marriages on a regular basis so I do not know if the government will revoke my licence or not. I am not too sure.

Tabling these documents would show the House how we are losing our tradition.

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

Mr. Speaker, in her speech the member mentioned that she had received a letter from a minister in Outlook, Saskatchewan, who had concerns about his religious freedom as a minister of religion to perform marriages as he saw fit or as his denomination saw fit. I wonder if the member reassured that minister that this legislation goes out of its way to ensure the protection of religious freedom for religious officials.

A number of the preamble clauses, which help interpret the legislation, are very explicit in standing by the religious freedoms guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They also go out of their way to say that the freedom of members of religious groups to hold and declare their religious beliefs and the freedoms of officials of religious groups to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs are protected.

Clause 3, the interpretive clause, was improved during committee hearings to be very explicit about protecting the religious freedom of religious officials to perform marriages based on their understanding, their theology, and their beliefs and doctrine.

I wonder if the member reassured that minister that Bill C-38 goes out of its way to ensure that the religious freedoms of religious officials are protected here in Canada.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, in order to assure anybody that they are protected, I would have to be convinced myself, and I am totally unconvinced that this government could protect the right of religious freedom. That came quite clearly through the comments of the priests in this country, who are starting to be outspoken and who feel somewhat threatened by their outspokenness.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member has made some statements regarding documents that she has that seem to prove that this government cannot protect the rights of freedom. I cannot imagine anyone in the House not wanting to get to the truth. I would like to ask the member to table those documents.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Blackstrap did try to table those documents once before and was denied unanimous consent. Perhaps at the end of her next answer she could try again, if she would like, and we could seek unanimous consent another time.

We have a question from the hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I noticed during the commentary that was given by the hon. member that she did indicate that she would like to see this bill not passed. However, in fact there has been--

[An hon. member]

No, she didn't. She wants it passed.

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

She wants it passed? Well, then I misunderstood, if that is the truth. I think she indicated that she did not want to see this pass.

The law has already been changed in nine provinces and territories to the extent that it will allow now for equal access to civil marriage for same sex couples, meaning that the law has already changed for a majority of the Canadian populace, and thousands of couples have legally married.

Now the choice, I submit, for this Parliament is either to go forward and make the law uniform for all of Canada or to go back to the past using the notwithstanding clause. I do not think there is any middle ground here. Either same sex couples can marry civilly or they cannot. So if this bill is defeated, what do we gain?

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, this gives me the opportunity to express the false sense of security they give to gay couples.

Not long ago gays were not allowed entry into the United States. They were denied. They filled out customs forms, and their words were, “We felt it was an affront to our dignity and our rights as Canadian citizens”. But they say this pair has no recourse unless they take it upon themselves to challenge the U.S. law. I do not know how we are going to be able to protect these gay and lesbian marriages in this sort of forum. I am just wondering if perhaps they do not have some sort of false sense of security by saying they are protecting gay and lesbian marriages.

[Dave Chatters, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate. As members may know, my ongoing illness prevented me from having the opportunity to participate in second reading or report stage of this bill so I am grateful to now have that opportunity.

In my 12 years in this Parliament, no other issue, not even the gun registry, has created such a groundswell of opposition to Liberal social engineering. My office has sent out in excess of 15,000 responses to emails and letters and we long ago lost count of the number of phone calls that were received on the issue.

Over 95% of those representations are opposed to the government bill. In fact, to date only one constituent called to say they were supporting the redefinition of marriage. The overwhelming opposition to the bill in my riding makes my decision easier because I personally agree with this majority. I do not accept that this debate is about equality under the charter. It is really about social engineering.

When full equality rights were extended to women in Canada, and a previous Liberal speaker made reference to that, they did not have to be called men to be equal and homosexual unions likewise do not have to be called marriage to be equal. Homosexuals have long had all the rights of heterosexual couples under the law in terms of matrimonial property rights, pension sharing and other separation benefits.

If the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice really had this genuine passion for protecting equality rights, they would long ago have scrapped their employment equity program. They would be actively fighting for English language rights in Quebec or any of the other state sponsored discrimination to which the Liberal government turns a blind eye.

No, this is not about equality. It is not even about starting down the slippery slope toward moral decay because we are already well down that slope. We started down that slope with Trudeau's “just society” theory which was launched 40 years ago.

As an aside, I would like to remind members in the House, particularly the Prime Minister, that his own father had the moral courage to resign from the Trudeau cabinet rather than support the 1968 bill liberalizing divorce, homosexuality and abortion.

As to the government's pledge to protect the religious rights section of the charter, the provisions of the bill are simply unbelievable. Jurisdiction over the solemnization of marriage is exclusively allocated to the provinces under section 92(12) of the Constitution Act, 1867. I have not noticed, quite frankly, any effort by provincial governments, provincial courts or provincial human rights tribunals to protect religious freedom. In fact, just the opposite is true.

Provincial courts were the first to declare traditional marriage discriminatory with no regard to the religious significance of the institution. Provincial human rights tribunals in B.C. and Saskatchewan have completely ignored religious rights in favour of gay rights in several highly publicized cases. Provincial governments could not comply with the courts fast enough. They are now ordering marriage commissioners to comply or lose their jobs regardless of their religious beliefs.

How could anyone believe the Prime Minister will protect religious freedoms for ordinary Canadians when he will not even protect religious freedom of his cabinet ministers by allowing a free vote on this bill? How could anyone believe anything these Liberals say when in 1999 in a resolution in this chamber they overwhelming supported the traditional definition of marriage? In speaking to that motion the Deputy Prime Minister stated:

--the definition of marriage is already clear in law. It is not found in a statute, but then not all law exists in statutes, and the law is no less binding and no less the law because it is found in the common law instead of in a statute. The definition of marriage, which has been consistently applied in Canada, comes from an 1866 British case which holds that marriage is ‘‘the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others’’. That case and that definition are considered clear law by ordinary Canadians, by academics and by the courts. The courts have upheld the constitutionality of that definition....

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

What happened to the government? What happened to the minster in the short time since that statement? If the government was misleading Canadians then, what would be the next step down the infamous slope? Will it be legalizing polygamy, or prostitution, or hard drugs or just working for organized crime to import strippers and drugs. God only knows but the one thing we do know is that Canadians cannot trust the Liberals because they do not tell us the truth.

Re-engineering society is not a Canadian priority. Canadian priorities are health care, education, security and taxes. Only the Prime Minister is fixated on same sex marriage.

What is the imperative of pushing this initiative? What is the social benefit to society of tearing down the marriage covenant? If we reduce the meaning of marriage to simply the union of committed, loving individuals, how do we then maintain other existing restrictions to marriage that exist in civil society?

It is important to note that no national or international court or human rights tribunal, has ever ruled that the right to marry is a human right. Just because two consenting adults of the same gender wish to be married, does not make marriage a human rights issue. The agenda of the government on this issue constitutes a huge social experiment with unknown consequences. I believe there will indeed be major consequences for family and for the Canadian society, but those consequences will not be really apparent for a generation.

If we examine early trends in another country, the Netherlands, there are already some alarming trends developing for Dutch society. My point is before we rush to follow the Netherlands' example on same sex marriage, legalized prostitution and legalized drugs use,and other examples of liberal extremism, the prudent thing to do would be at least wait and watch what the outcome of the Dutch experience will be.

No where in any culture in the history of mankind is there any example where same sex marriage has been the norm. Why would we put our society and future generations of children at risk for no other reason than the few same sex couples wanting to redefine marriage?

Heterosexual unions provide a whole range of benefits to civil society, only one of which is to create, nurture and raise the next generation. A family made up of a mother and a father is indisputably the most desirable incubator of future citizens. This forum of family is the mortar that holds our society together and those of us who work in these stone buildings know that if we do not maintain the mortar, over time the building collapses.

I urge members to reject this Liberal extremism and this social experiment with yet unknown consequences. If Canadians do not draw the line now, where will they draw the line to protect their children? Where will they draw the line to protect future families? Where will they draw the line to protect our most treasured society?

The Conservative Party is offering a moderate, reasonable and compromise position which I believe most Canadians would support. I urge all members of Parliament to reject the bill in the vote that will come later tonight and to maintain the traditional definition of marriage.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, the member said that this has not occurred before. Unfortunately, he did not hear my seatmate's speech just previously where she explained this already occurred in Roman times in 1 BC.

He talked about the compromise position his party was presenting. Could give us an outline of exactly what that position is, given that same sex marriage is now legal in Canada and will be legal regardless of the results of the vote this evening? It is legal because the courts across the country have deemed it so through the interpretation of the highest law that Parliament has put forward, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the Constitution.

What is this alternative compromise position? It can be changed in two ways. One is by changing the Constitution of Canada to deny this right by prohibiting same sex marriages or by using the notwithstanding clause. Fortunately, every party in Parliament has said that it will refuse to do that, with which I am very happy. Maybe the member could outline the details of the compromise position.

[Dave Chatters, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a number of comments on the member's remarks. I quite frankly do not give much credibility to the comments of his seatmate, given her history of statements in this place. I do not pay a lot of attention to that.

The situation that exists in terms of lower court rulings in the country is as a result of the government's abdication of its clear responsibility to challenge those courts and to appeal them to the Supreme Court where this issue could have been resolved.

[An hon. member]

That's their hidden agenda.

As my colleague says, that is part of the Liberal hidden agenda on this issue. If the government had done what it was responsible for doing, we would have had a Supreme Court ruling and this whole forum would have taken a different direction. Perhaps we could have had some other alternatives.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the member about the Conservative Party's compromise position.

As a member of the gay and lesbian community, I find it a little hard to accept there would be any good will toward the gay and lesbian community from that party, given its long history of opposing every major initiative that has come before the House of Commons to improve the situation of gay and lesbian people in Canada.

Every time an issue of our human rights or our full participation in society, or our access to government programs or to human rights protection in the country has come before this place, members from that party have opposed it. Why would we put any faith in the idea that party could come up with a compromise that is somehow acceptable to gay and lesbian people or to Canadian society as a whole?

Given the record of that party and its predecessors, all the parties that have come together to form that party, why would we have any faith in the ability of that party to come up with a compromise that would be somehow acceptable and would recognize our full citizenship in our country?