Debates of Dec. 6th, 2006

Marriage

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard many people speak about the letters they have received. I have received hundreds of letters from across the country and about 40% of them have been from heterosexual couples. What should I say in response to one such heterosexual couple who wrote that, “The value of my marriage will be depreciated not enhanced if it is again to be restricted in our nation to a privileged class of heterosexual participants instead of being a right of all Canadians”--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The member's time is up. The hon. member for Yukon.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I was involved in the first such marriage we had in the Yukon. I remember hearing another member say today that he had a discussion with a couple who were policewomen. He said that the joy, peace and celebration that this couple felt was the same as any other couple he had ever met. Why would anyone want to deprive any couple from having that?

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development]

Mr. Speaker, I was surprised to hear this evening that hon. members across the way are upset that this is coming in by way of a motion. Going back to 2000, I never had so many letters in my parliamentary life on an issue that was so important and dear to the heart. People who are writing, faxing and phoning me now asking me to preserve the traditional definition of marriage are not caught up in whether it is a motion or whether it is a piece of legislation. They would just like to see a free vote in the House and that, hopefully, members will be representing their constituents. I just wanted to make that as a point of clarification.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is problematic when we go through so much debate and then somehow there is still confusion about what we are talking about and what we are voting on. The motion is clear. The motion is not to reinstate the definition of marriage. The motion is for Parliament to call upon the government to introduce legislation that would reintroduce the definition of marriage. The vote tomorrow is not the same as the vote on Bill C-38, which was to change the definition of marriage. It is a procedural motion.

I am afraid that when we have this kind of intervention, people who are watching tonight or who will read this will be asking whether the vote going on in Parliament today is the same as the vote that was held on Bill C-38 which was a bill that actually did something. The answer is no, that this is a procedural motion and it is not necessary. In fact, the Conservative members have said consistently that there is no constitutional problem with the Supreme Court and we should just bring in the bill.

Maybe the member would like to suggest that the government bring in a bill.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member is very passionate about preserving the traditional definition of marriage. If he supports this motion, we could do just that. I look forward to watching the member vote in favour of debating this issue properly and openly and to having a free vote in the House of Commons.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, does the hon. member appreciate the fact that this is a free vote in our party? Would she call on all parties to recognize that this is a free vote?

We all know that Bill C-38 was not a free vote. It was a whipped vote. We brought this motion forward because we wanted to give all members, including the opposition members, an opportunity to vote their conscience.

Does the member appreciate that this motion is a free vote and does she believe that if this motion is passed it will restore the traditional definition of marriage?

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I was here when the vote took place last year and it was unfortunate that the government of the day had about three rows of ministers, parliamentary secretaries and secretaries of state who were whipped, so there were very few members who could vote freely. I do not know how the backbenchers voted but I have some good quotes from many members of the Liberal Party at that time and some of them are pretty telling of how they felt about the traditional definition of marriage.

Today's motion is about bringing the issue back, opening up the debate and then allowing a free vote. What I appreciate about our leader is that he has offered an open debate on the issue to this House and to the many people who are watching this debate tonight. The member for Mississauga South thinks that this motion is nothing but it is a big issue in my riding, and bigger than what he suggests.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not like to disagree with my colleague from Mississauga South, but gay and lesbian people watching this debate tonight know what this debate is about. This debate is about our full participation and our full citizenship. It is about our access to a key institution of Canadian society. It is about whether or not we are full citizens of this country.

We can say that there is a technical argument to be made about this motion but the reality is that we are debating yet again whether we have full rights of citizenship and whether we are equal citizens in this country. No gay or lesbian person watching this debate tonight has any other impression about what this debate is about other than our full participation in this society.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, a lot of legislation that I thought was finished keeps coming back to this House, such as the one we will be debating in committee tomorrow called replacement worker legislation. These things come and go. We just want an open debate on this topic as that bill has come back to the House.

From the letters, faxes and telephone calls that I have received and still do receive, this issue has not quite been put to rest. It is still a very important issue to the church that I attend. It is brought up many times. I will be making calls later this evening trying to explain to my people what happened here this evening in this debate.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to make a brief presentation of my own feelings and that of my constituents as well.

I am a new member, as are many of the members here. When I first sought election in 2004 this issue was one which my constituents were really not aware of. There was some indication that there would be a vote. At that time the member of Parliament in my riding indicated that he would vote with traditional marriage, but that was not the case. As a result, in the next election there was an incredible surge from my constituents, an incredible uprising of people who felt that they had been deceived and had been let down by their member of Parliament. I think largely as a result of that, I am here today.

I can say that bar no other issue, this has been the number one reason that people write to me and people talk to me. Let us not kid ourselves, this is a big event.

It was not a surprise that we as a party promised during the last election campaign that we would revisit this issue, so here we are today. The Conservative Party has done what it said it would do. We have brought forward a motion that gives an opportunity to those who are on the other side from all parties to vote with their conscience.

We can argue until the cows come home whether or not this is constitutional, but we all know there is a large segment of the population, our constituents, who are telling us that they want this issue revisited. They want us to look at this again.

Our leader, the Prime Minister, offered this very simple motion. It is something on which we can all agree. Let us look at this issue again and debate it. Let us give this a proper place in the House, so that all our constituents can feel at ease with whatever decision is made.

I lay the challenge out to my colleagues on the opposite side. I understand there are pressures and we all have these pressures to do the right thing. We have heard from members on the other side. I understand there are conflicting views. It has been said and it bears repeating that this is an institution which for a millennium has been the same. There has never been a question. We have provided means for those who want to live another lifestyle. This is a free country and we understand that. Yet this institution, this basic building block of our society is being challenged. It is that question we are faced with today.

We are all at the threshold of a decision tomorrow. Where will we go? Will we duck under constitutional amendments and will this hold up in the charter, or will we do what our constituents have asked us to do, to look at this issue again and say, “Yes, let us revisit it”. Let us be fair about this. I am going to have my opportunity, as are other members, and let us bring this out one more time and let us talk about it.

I challenge and urge members to listen to their constituents, as I am going to listen to my constituents. Again it bears repeating that every day I receive letters asking me to please revisit this. I am sure other members are finding the same thing. I ask members to do the right thing tomorrow and give their constituents the voice that they expected to be given.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to clarify a point first. The previous member mentioned that there was a whipped vote the last time with three rows of ministers and parliamentary secretaries. That is not true. The parliamentary secretaries were never whipped, but only the parliamentary secretary under whose department the legislation fell. It was only the parliamentary secretary to the minister of justice and the small group of cabinet ministers.

I hear the Conservatives kibitzing and they can stop because they whipped the vote on a very important nation motion a few weeks ago and lost a cabinet minister because of it, so I would not boast about that.

I understand the member's passion and it was very reasonable, but is he not upset that the motion we are debating and voting on cannot lead to any outcome because the Prime Minister has said that if this motion were to pass, then he would do the outcome. However, he would refuse to do the outcome because the only way to implement a positive outcome is by changing the Charter of Rights and Freedoms or using the notwithstanding clause to override--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Chatham—Kent Essex.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I understand the hon. member's concerns, but again, it needs to be repeated, there are those who are saying that it can withstand a challenge. If we are going to look at this fairly, the motion gives us an opportunity to look at this again. We are talking about discussing the motion again. If we go through the whole procedure and after committee we come to the conclusion that no, this is not the direction we want to go, then we can do that.

Tomorrow we have an opportunity to do what we have not had before and that is the opportunity to vote with a clear conscience. Every one of us has to answer this question. What has been the message of the majority of our constituents, the people with deep seated beliefs for whatever reason? If the member can say that the majority of his people have said do not revisit this again, then the member is doing what he said he would do. If not, then you are doing the same thing you did last time. We ought not do that in this place.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I remind the hon. member for Chatham—Kent Essex that we address our comments through the Chair and not directly at other members.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder about the constitutional experts my colleague from Chatham was talking about. Does he not remember the letter that came from every single constitutional expert in this country to his leader, now the Prime Minister, saying that there was no other possible interpretation by our courts, that unless we invoked the Constitution to override, there was no way? I am wondering what constitutional experts he has been referring to because every single one in this country signed that letter saying that we cannot do it unless we override provisions in the Constitution.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the utmost respect for my colleague, the hon. member from Windsor. I am a rookie and I understand that he has much more expertise in these areas than I have. I refer to what was said before. When the Supreme Court ruled on this issue, it left that one clause open. It said that this is an issue for Parliament to decide. Therefore, I leave the member with that.

I say that this was not done in a fair way. This was something that was not fairly represented to the people of Canada. Let us do it right tomorrow. Let us vote, let us have a chance to discuss this, and let us have a chance to look at this fairly, as we ought to.

[Ken Epp, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to stand in the House today to add just a few thoughts about the value of marriage as being the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

I have been involved in this issue for the last 13 years, because pretty well over that whole length of time this issue has come before the House from time to time. As part of my academic work, I have taken the time to do a lot of reading about what marriage actually means. I have read a number of articles and books in which the real meaning of marriage is delineated, defined and set out.

I want to make it very clear that some of the charges we sometimes get that we are not tolerant are just simply untrue. As a matter of fact, I want to illustrate that by indicating that there are several members of the House who have declared themselves as being non-heterosexual. On several occasions when I have had an opportunity, I have tried in a very real way to befriend them.

For example, one of them stayed in the same hotel that I stayed in. He came out of the hotel at the same time that I did and had neither coat nor umbrella, but I had a car and I offered him a ride. We had a nice little chat. I am not prejudiced against these individuals. In fact, and I will say it in the true sense of the word, I truly love them. I think we ought to reach out to them in the same way we do to anyone else. There is no thought there of being discriminatory.

But when it comes to the issue of family and marriage, it is a tradition, one that has withstood the test of time over centuries, that family is comprised of a mother and father and usually, but not necessarily, children. I think that parents have the obligation to raise their children and I think the children have the right to know who their parents are. This is one very important thing that I have not heard being debated here today.

Unfortunately, there are some situations where children grow up with foster parents or adoptive parents and do not know until sometimes later in life and sometimes never what their biological roots are. As a member of Parliament, I have had several individuals come to me and ask for help in finding their biological parents. I do not know what it is about them, but somehow there is an innate need for them to know who their mom is and who their dad is. There is no such thing as an anonymous parent, not to these individuals.

I had the privilege of listening to a young lady speak not very long ago who made the statement very explicitly. She is one who was born through the use of technology. She was not able to find out who her father was. It became almost an obsession with her. I think we have the obligation to go to the best level and that is to make sure that when children grow up they have the knowledge of and the right to know who their parents are.

I also want to assure the members of the House that when they vote in favour of this motion they are doing the right thing. This is a motion which simply asks the House to express itself as to whether or not it is the members' desire to call on the government to introduce legislation to restore the traditional definition of marriage. That is what the question is. It is very explicit. It has a couple of add-ons: “without affecting civil unions and while respecting existing same-sex marriages”.

This is true, but the nub of the question is whether we should call on the government to introduce legislation. At that stage, let the government work through the constitutionality, the legality and all of those other details. I believe it can be done. I believe so strongly in it that I am going to vote for this motion.

I urge all members who have even the slightest idea that they want to maintain the definition of marriage that we have known and understood for so long to vote in favour of this so that the government can act on it.

This is an issue of great concern to me. I sincerely hope that this motion passes when it is voted on tomorrow.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I have two questions arising from the member's speech.

First, he said that we have to reach out to these people. I am just wondering if he could elaborate on why we have to reach out to these people.

Second, he said he had done a study on marriage, an academic study, which I am very happy about. I know that he is a very studious member of Parliament. I wonder if he has done any study of equality and I wonder what he found out.

[Ken Epp, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the debates that we had in this House way back in 1999 were one of the things I studied. I remember a speech distinctly since I heard her say it. I have read it. I have a copy on my computer and I can get a copy to anyone who wishes to have it. In fact, I distributed many copies of this speech when I was asked about this issue over the last five or six years.

The speech I am referring to is the one by the then minister of justice, the Honourable Anne McLellan, who said, and I think I can quote it from memory fairly accurately, that we can address the issue of “equality” without “changing the definition of marriage”. I believe that is almost an exact quote, and that is from the Liberal minister of justice of the day in 1999.

Furthermore, when this issue has come before the courts, until pre-1999 or thereabouts the courts were consistent in saying that to maintain the definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others was not unconstitutional and did not violate any rights.

How can we say the Supreme Court is infallible when, after five years, it has changed its mind, presumably? Although I do not believe it has: it is quite clear to me, when I read the reference that was given to it, that the Supreme Court said it was up to Parliament to define it.

When it comes to equality, I think we also need to address the fact that it is not necessary to offend large groups of people in this country in order to achieve the results of equality. I believe that it is not necessary to offend them. We heard today from the natives of our country. We have had a number of people of different ethnic backgrounds and a number of different religious groups who are unanimous in saying, “Let us keep the definition of marriage”.

Meanwhile, of course, we want to make sure that those who are otherwise persuaded are not discriminated against, and that is a sense of equality, which I also support. I think that is the answer that member needs to hear.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me suggest to the member what the facts are here. During the election campaign, the Prime Minister made a promise, very simply, to reopen the debate. It was certainly attractive to the audience.

We now have a motion before us that calls on the government to introduce legislation. If the motion fails, the government does not have to introduce the legislation. That is what it says. I have asked about this many times today, saying to just table the legislation, but the fact is that the government cannot introduce legislation that would be constitutional. It refuses to invoke the notwithstanding clause, so it cannot get there from here.

Maybe the idea is this. Why does the Prime Minister actually want this motion to fail? Why have three members from his caucus come to me in the last 24 hours to ask me if I know that the Prime Minister's Office is against the motion and that it has to fail? The idea is that the Conservatives do not want this to pass, because they do not want to have to be embarrassed by not being able to put forward a piece of legislation. What does the member--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Edmonton--Sherwood Park.

[Ken Epp, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious that the member's opinion of what our party and our leader are trying to do here is quite at variance with the truth. I think it is quite unfair of him to even imply that we want this to fail.

The reason this question is before the House is that we honestly want to ask the members of this House whether they want this government to introduce legislation to address this issue. If they do not, we accept the authority of Parliament. If they do, then a way will be found.

I think that member is just hiding behind a smokescreen on the constitutional issue. If it were unconstitutional, why would the Supreme Court have put it back into our court in referring it to Parliament?

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

Mr. Speaker, did I understand the hon. member to say that the opposition to same sex marriage was unanimous among religious communities across Canada? Did I understand him to say that it was unanimous in ethnic communities? Did I understand him to say it was unanimous in aboriginal communities across Canada? If he did, I think he owes this House and those communities an apology.

I would like him to comment on that.

[Ken Epp, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Mr. Speaker, of course I did not say that. I said that there were many groups, many ethnic groups, many groups of many different religious persuasions, including Sikhs and Muslims, who have expressed themselves to me very clearly that they would like this definition to be maintained.

I never implied, I hope, and if I said that, my great apologies indeed, because I did not say it, as far as I know. I do not believe that it is unanimous and I do not know why I then would say it. That is the answer.