House of Commons Hansard #92 of the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was debate.
Ken Dryden Liberal York Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, I cannot say that I know what the nature of the question is that is being asked about other groups in the future. I do not know what other groups in the future mean.
What I mean and what I intended to say here is that I understand marriage as something that involves a man and a woman, a man and a man, a woman and a woman, two people who love each other and who want to commit to each other privately and publicly.
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the member's speech and I was wondering if he could comment on whether it would be wise for us to at least have the input of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights which spent many weeks and months travelling across Canada hearing from Canadians from coast to coast. It is my understanding that the report has never been tabled and it would seem to me that it would be in the interest of democracy to allow that report to be tabled so that members of the House would be more fully informed.
Ken Dryden Liberal York Centre, ON
Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, but I am not entirely sure that is something that needs to generate a personal response. We need to find it in our own life's experiences and life's learnings, whatever. Additional information, as the hon. member is suggesting, that comes from some place is always something that can add to the rest of one's own understandings and experience.
Basically, the answer for any of us is already inside us. It is inside you, Mr. Speaker, and it is inside me.
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
Mr. Speaker, I would just like to pick up a little bit on the hon. parliamentary secretary's question and ask the member a question. If this definition is cast in stone, to extend that, could it be three people who love each other? If it is just an extension of rights, could it be a relationship between people who are more closely related than currently defined? I would just like to know where we start and where we stop once we start redefining marriage.
Ken Dryden Liberal York Centre, ON
Just as I said in my speech, Mr. Speaker, which was the way I understand marriage, it is that marriage is between two people: a man and a woman; a man and a man; a woman and a woman. That is what I said in my speech. That is what I say in answer to the hon. member.
James Lunney Conservative Nanaimo—Alberni, BC
Mr. Speaker, I noticed that the member mentioned earlier that the biggest challenge we have as human beings is to get along. I agree somewhat with that, but I would suggest that perhaps our biggest challenge is actually to govern ourselves.
As the member knows, there are millions of Canadians who have taken the view that marriage is between a man and a woman as they have always understood it traditionally. They have very deeply held convictions that marriage is the foundation not only of society but of family and is the cornerstone of all of our major institutions. They value very deeply the institution of marriage between a man and a woman.
Does the member not feel that it is possible to provide for gays and lesbians who wish to enter into a long term relationship the type of recognition they need from society by providing civil unions or some other form of recognition, without taking away from people something that is very deeply held by them in their religious views, views that are deeply held by millions of Canadians of different religious perspectives?
Ken Dryden Liberal York Centre, ON
No, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe it can be done that way.
People have used this phrase before and I think it is quite right: a right is a right. Why should there be some category of people who are not allowed that same right?
The member described the depth of feeling that Canadians have for marriage, for that commitment of a person to another. Why should that not be allowed for a similar depth of feeling that a man and a man or a woman and a woman may have for each other as well?
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise this evening to speak to this motion on behalf of the constituents of Peterborough, on behalf of my family, watching at home, and also on behalf of the thousands of supporters who have asked me to enter this debate.
The fundamental foundation of government in Canada is democracy. Ultimately, we elected officials are responsible to our constituents. In June 2005, democracy was betrayed by the former Government of Canada, in part because it did not allow a free vote in caucus and in part because it felt the need to rush the debate and move closure on the issue.
Many people in Canada were left both disillusioned by the former government's handling of the situation and angry that the government saw fit to redefine marriage as opposed to simply enshrining and extending equal rights and benefits to same sex couples.
The argument often used by those who profess to be people of faith and who voted in favour of redefining marriage is that there is a separation between church and state. I would humbly submit that, to begin with, that is an American principle. Second, the separation of church and state was set up to protect the church from the state, not the state from the church. The state has no business in the churches of the nation.
This is not a Charter of Rights and Freedoms issue. The charter reads:
Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:....
This passage in the charter specifically indicates that ultimately faith influences how this House makes law, as the supremacy of God will ultimately dictate how the laws of the land are crafted by parliamentarians.
I would like to refer to the words of Bishop Nicola De Angelis, presiding over the Peterborough diocese, a diocese that spans most of eastern and northeastern Ontario. It reads:
Dear Faithful in Christ,
Current circumstances lead me to address you on the subject of marriage. Our federal government resumes sitting in Ottawa today and in the near future the issue of marriage will be addressed in the House of Commons. A vote will be taken to determine if we, as a nation, should review this issue and restore marriage to its traditional and proper definition.
Marriage is the union of a man and a woman for their mutual support and for the conceiving of children who can brought up in the security of a family based on the stable life-long relationship of their parents. Marriage creates the setting for the domestic Church, where children will first learn about God and the blessings He has bestowed upon us. From marriage, through the family, flow love, charity and the basis of good citizenship dedicated to the common good. All great civilizations have had their beginnings and derived their strength from recognition of the key role of marriage and the family.
In June 2005, in contradiction to common sense and the experience of centuries, the Canadian government changed its definition of marriage from the union of a woman and a man to the union of two persons. The process by which this was done was flawed in a number of ways, not the least of which was the fact that our elected representatives were not allowed in all cases to vote in accordance with their consciences. This time, as Members of Parliament consider such a crucially important issue, their vote must be a free one.
The charter of rights does not speak of a right to marriage. Marriage is not an inherent right. Even churches do not marry all heterosexual couples who enter their doors. The churches can and do deny the marriage of some couples who come forward to them. There is no right to marriage, but there is a right to equality in Canada, and I would be among the first in this House to defend that right if it were ever challenged.
Other countries have looked at this issue. Indeed, the United Kingdom recently passed a civil partnership act, an act that specifically extended the rights of marriage to same sex couples. Perhaps some of the members of this House witnessed the ceremony of Sir Elton John not that long ago.
The manner in which the United Kingdom dealt with this issue was respectful to all citizens. It respected the churches. It respected tradition. It respected the rights of gay and lesbian citizens. It respected the democratic majority that opposed redefining marriage.
In France, the government is no longer involved in marriage. There, couples must first obtain a civil union from the state and then, if they wish, they may seek a religious or faith based marriage subsequent to obtaining their civil union.
Is Canada more progressive than the United Kingdom or France? Are we onto something that the overwhelming majority of nations have yet to figure out? I do not believe so.
I have received thousands and thousands of letters from my constituents asking, if not demanding, that I vote to restore traditional marriage at the soonest possible opportunity. In fact, I would venture to bet that every member in this House has been overwhelmed by the same requests. I ask members to set aside their partisanship and restore Canadians' faith in democracy, I call on all parties, their leaders and their whips to allow their members to vote freely.
Why would the New Democratic Party choose to be the least democratic party in the House? Its founding leader, the late Pastor Tommy Douglas, a Baptist minister, must be turning in his grave. His staunch beliefs would certainly not have allowed him to sit as a member of the NDP today.
This debate is about faith. It is about tradition and democracy betrayed. Parliament can enshrine equality for same sex couples and it should, but Parliament had no right to change the definition of marriage. I call on all members of the House to support the motion before them.
Andrew Telegdi Liberal Kitchener—Waterloo, ON
Mr. Speaker, some of the arguments used here are unbelievable to me. I am going to talk for a minute about voting one's conscience. When I first came to the House in 1993, we heard the Reform Party say before every vote that its members were going to vote a certain way except when told by their constituents to do otherwise. We had a vote on the Québécois as a nation and every one of the government members was whipped to vote for it or at least abstain. If they voted against it, they were going to be kicked out.
I have news for the members opposite. I have voted my conscience against a three-line whip because I believed the legislation was wrong. I did it on the Citizenship Act, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the anti-terrorism legislation. I am a person of free will. There are no guns and no rifles. We are not going to be hung if we vote our conscience.
I really do not appreciate a member on the other side, who has yet to stand up against his government, lecturing other members who have voted against a three-line whip. I think this is a total canard. I wish the member would find a different type of argument and tell us why he did not vote his conscience on the last piece of legislation when he was told to--
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that I chose to vote on a motion that I believe united Canadians. I hope the member voted the same way on that motion because I believe in Canada. I believe in a united Canada and I believe in this party as a party that is uniting Canadians from coast to coast.
On this issue, we know that if the majority of Canadians were polled and could vote, they would vote to redefine marriage in the traditional sense. The House may well vote differently, but that will not represent the constituents of Canada.
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
Mr. Speaker, I have a comment to offer for the member for Peterborough. I want to encourage the member not to mistake unanimity for compulsion. In this corner of the House, people will be voting their conscience tomorrow. All 29 New Democrats will be voting against the motion because we believe in the full participation of gay and lesbian people.
I ask the member not to mistake unanimity for compulsion, not to mistake a commitment to human rights for compulsion and not to mistake a commitment to the full participation of gay and lesbian people in our communities and in society for compulsion. I ask the member not to make that mistake about what is going to be happening in this corner of the House.
We all have a commitment, a commitment to acting on our conscience, and we happen to be united at this point. There is unanimity in this corner. It is not happening because of compulsion by the leader, the party or anyone. It is because we have all come to that conclusion independently and we will be voting in that regard tomorrow afternoon.
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
Mr. Speaker, I think there may be unanimity in that corner now and that is because they bounced the former member for Churchill out of their party.
Quite frankly, I think--
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. That is a falsehood. No one was bounced from this caucus in the last session of Parliament. There was no one removed because of a difference of opinion.
The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau
I thank the hon. member for Burnaby--Douglas for the point of order, but the point of order that he is making is more a point of debate.
The hon. member for Peterborough has the floor.
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
Mr. Speaker, I agree that is an issue of debate, but we could always talk to the former member for Churchill and see if she feels differently.
The least democratic party which sits in the corner and which is whipping its members on this vote should allow its members to vote their conscience.
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
Mr. Speaker, I have listened to people across the way talk about the institution of marriage and the fact that the definition of marriage goes against the church. I would like to remind the member who just spoke that if he wishes to quote the scriptures, Christ said, “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's”.
Since Roman times marriage has been a civil institution. It was brought forward to make sure that property was divided and that legitimate children had heirship to the property. It was only in the Council of Trent that marriage actually became a sacrament. In this we have managed to--
The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau
Order, please. The hon. member for Peterborough for a very short response.
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that the member quoted scripture. Unfortunately, the part that she is referring to talks about taxation. I agree that people should pay their fair share of taxes, and I am glad to hear that the member agrees with that, hence our tax fairness plan.
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
Mr. Speaker, I stand here to speak against this motion as I have stood in this House on many an occasion to speak in favour of equal marriage for same sex couples.
It may surprise everyone in this House to know that I am fully aware of what the interpretation was of the quote of Christ that I just made, but it was not meant to be singly with regard to taxation. It was meant to divide the issues of church from state. If we think of the political institutions within which Christ was functioning at the time, the state of Rome was occupying his land at the time, but we will not get into that.
It may surprise many in this House to know that I was brought up a Catholic. I managed to get straight As in every single one of my religious studies and I thought I would become a nun when I was around age 18, so this has absolutely nothing to do with religious belief.
As a physician, I came to understand when I saw patients in my office that there was one group in this country that was discriminated against under the law purely because of sexual orientation. Those people were denied access to medical care. They were denied access to pharmacy care. They were denied access to benefits. They were indeed the last group in this country who were treated unequally under the law. I made a vow when I ran for Parliament that I would change that. I learned as a physician that I must put aside my own personal feelings and morality and beliefs because if I become a physician I believe in the charter and the charter is here to speak about equality of rights. This is about equality under the law.
The Supreme Court clearly said in answer to the questions we gave it, to give gays and lesbians equal rights to marriage under the law was purely a right of this Parliament and a right of the federal government to define marriage.
People here talk a lot about civil unions. Civil unions are a jurisdiction of the provinces. The federal government cannot grant civil unions. It could only do one thing and that was to be responsible for the definition of marriage. That is why it brought about a change in the definition of marriage.
I could go over those age-old arguments that I made in this House on every occasion I had an opportunity to do, but I will not do that. I want to speak against this motion as it stands for three reasons.
First, this motion is doing something that I consider to be absolutely abhorrent by a government. It is taking away a right already granted by Parliament under law. It is taking away the rights from a minority group. The only reason I believe that a state should remove a right already given is if that group is a danger to society, so someone has to prove to me that gays and lesbians getting married is a danger to society.
Another reason a right should be taken away is if that right harms and prevents others from having that same right. No heterosexual marriage has been denied as a result of same sex marriage. To remove a right purely because of political will is a slippery slope that concerns me greatly, especially when I attach that to other things the government is doing.
The government has removed the court challenges program, the program for those in our society who are unable to afford access under the law to claim their rights under the charter. It was there for those who are vulnerable and those who do not have the money or the ability to speak for themselves. The Conservative government has taken that away.
We have to ask ourselves, if the government takes away rights from people with whom it does not agree ideologically or morally, who is going to be next? What other minority group either by virtue of its ethnicity, race or religion will the government see fit to remove that group's rights if the government disagrees with that group's way of life, culture or manner of worship? This I consider to be an extremely dangerous thing because it is ideological to the extent that it is very, very dangerous.
There is a second reason I will vote against this motion. The Conservatives have argued that there was too little debate. I was on the justice committee which travelled around this country for months speaking to Canadians everywhere about this issue. At the end of that journey, we all came back here and came up with the recommendation to the Government of Canada to change the definition of marriage to the one we have today that we call civil marriage.
The people of Canada spoke to the committee as it travelled around. This issue was debated three or four times in the House every moment that we could debate it. Finally, Parliament agreed. Whether it was a slim majority or not, Parliament voted and it agreed to grant this right under law to same sex couples.
What I see here is the government is disrespecting the will of Parliament.
I even heard some people here say, “Well, we are new here and therefore we did not get a chance to vote. Or we just got re-elected and therefore, we should now vote on something new”. Does this mean that the government will bring back every single law that has been passed in Parliament because some members are new and want to vote on them? What are we talking about here? What is happening to this place into which we are voted and in which we believe that when a law is passed the law is there and cannot be revoked unless circumstances have changed? No one has shown me that circumstances have changed to revoke civil marriage. That concerns me.
Nine provinces are now allowing civil marriage. The courts have spoken in each one of the provinces of Quebec, B.C. and Ontario with regard to this.
Here we go again. The government not only disrespects Parliament's will but it disrespects the will of the provinces. It disrespects the will of the courts in those provinces. The government has absolutely no respect for the institutions of this nation. This concerns me greatly because here is a government that is beginning to believe that it is a dictatorship, that it can make the decisions it wishes to make because it does not agree with anyone else and it will keep going and going until it can change those decisions, until it can have its own way. This is what concerns me about this whole issue.
We talked about dividing this country. There have been so many things that have been brought down since the Conservative government has been in power that have divided people in this country. Here is one that is dividing again. Let us look at the scenario. Over the past year and a half there are same sex couples who have married. They are legally married under the law. The government has agreed to grandfather those. Now the government has divided a minority group. Within that group there are those who can marry legally and then there are those who will never be able to marry legally.
Has anyone asked what that means? It means that the charter would strike this down, because we cannot have one set of rights for some within a group and then deny others in that same group those rights.
What we see here is the worst kind of political gamesmanship. It has been typical in this Parliament with the Conservative government. It has always been political gamesmanship, a one-upmanship and a gotcha kind of mentality so the Conservatives can satisfy their own groups that wish them to bring this back and then, with the worst kind of cynicism, knowing it will fail, they can turn to the groups and say, “Okay, we did it and it failed. We cannot do anything more”.
What happened to the integrity of this place? What happened to respect not only for the law but for this Parliament and this House?
We have created a democracy in this country that is more than merely the rights of the majority. Under the charter, we have permitted a unique democracy in the world, where minority rights are upheld under that charter, where groups that are too small to have a voice have one, where groups that feel they might be second class citizens in this country do not have to be. This has created the greatest order and social cohesion in a diverse nation. This is at risk.
I fundamentally disagree not only with this motion but with all of the slippery slope that it entails. If we look carefully at what is happening here, it is not only disrespect, it is disrespect for the law, it is disrespect for Parliament. It is in fact a very cynical move by this government as it moves forward to deny minority rights to those who ideologically it does not believe should have rights because it does not fit into the Conservatives' nice little vision of the world.
I will be voting against this motion and it will be with my conscience fully and completely intact.
Mike Allen Conservative Tobique—Mactaquac, NB
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member opposite for her wide-ranging intervention. She mentioned the Council of Trent. She talked about retracting rights and that the debate was done and that Parliament agreed. Not once in her comments did she ever talk about one of the most vulnerable groups in our society, our children, who are going to perpetuate our future generations.
I am sure she was visited, as certainly I was visited in the last month by the youth group MY Canada who really respect traditional values. One young lady was in my office very emotionally saying that she felt the importance of having a mother and a father in a traditional relationship. I ask the member opposite, how do I square that up, that that group was not even mentioned in her speech?
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
Mr. Speaker, I did mention children in all of my speeches in the past and earlier on I asked a question of one of the members with regard to children, so I will speak about children very quickly.
If we truly value children in the House, then we must understand, as one of the hon. members spoke about children, that this is about the rights of the child, regardless of what their parents do, do not do or who they are. That is precisely what we are talking about here.
There are same sex couples who have children. Lesbians carry children to term and I have personally delivered them. Are we going to divide this country into those children who are children of certain couples and children who are not? Are we going to say that some children have more rights than others? Are we going to create second class children in this country based on an ideology that we believe some children are not worthy and others are? That is precisely what is being said here and I abhor it.
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Vancouver Centre for her passionate intervention and I appreciate her hard work in this area for many years.
I want to question her further on the question of children. We have heard tonight very bold and far-reaching statements that somehow question the ability of gay and lesbian parents to raise children appropriately and successfully. References were made that this was not possible.
I want to know if the member for Vancouver Centre has ever seen any serious evidence of that fact? I know that she has sat through many hours of testimony with the justice committee in the 37th Parliament, but in other situations, professionally as well, has she ever seen serious evidence that shows that there is any harm to children who are raised by gay or lesbian parents?
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
No, Mr. Speaker, I have not. Not only have I not seen it, but I have seen children brought up by gays and I have seen children brought up by lesbians in loving relationships. I have seen children brought up by single parents in absolutely loving relationships. I have seen children brought up by heterosexual families in loving relationships, but I have also seen children in heterosexual marriages, which were the only ones up until a year and a half ago that were allowed, which were not loving and in which the children were abused. As a physician I saw that over and over and over.
If we are going to speak in the House, let us speak the truth. Let us speak about facts. Let us not come from a point of ideology, discrimination and bigotry of any kind. Let us speak to the facts.
Bradley Trost Conservative Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK
Mr. Speaker, the one thing I always note in the speeches of the people who are on the opposite side of the issue, as I am, is that they all talk about rights. They never mention responsibilities. I always hear about rights, but never responsibilities, and in real life, rights go with responsibilities. I am very curious. What does the hon. member think are the responsibilities of marriage? She is prepared to give all sorts of rights, but will she define what responsibilities she sees, or does she see no responsibilities whatsoever, or very shallow responsibilities?