Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have the opportunity to speak to one of the most controversial bills we will see in this 38th Parliament. It is also gratifying to see so many Canadians speaking out on the bill. Regardless of whether they are in favour or opposed to it, it is generating an outpouring from Canadians, and that is positive.
This is a bill that they feel so strongly about that my office is being inundated on a daily basis with hundreds of letters and faxes, and they are not just from my riding. They are from all over Canada. They are from young and old alike. If we could get this kind of response during an election, we would have a 90% turnout at the polls.
I must be clear from the beginning that my approach to any emotionally charged issue has always been the same. I take the emotion out of the argument, examine the facts and reach a sound conclusion based on logic. I remain open-minded to any and all arguments presented and am prepared to shift position if new information is revealed.
My husband and children lovingly refer to this method of thinking on emotionally charged issues as Spock mode, so named for the famous Vulcan character from Star Trek. I make no apologies. It has served me well in both domestic situations and in 20-plus years of public service.
Based on that preamble, let us examine the facts.
There is no federal law defining marriage in this country at this point. That is precisely what we are about to establish. Yes, it is true that government has developed other laws and protections pertaining to citizens who fall under the categories of traditional marriage, common law marriage and same sex relationships, but that has been in reaction to pre-established levels of commitment by couples outside the purview of federal rule and should not be confused with today's debate subject, the federal definition of marriage.
One might reasonably ask why the federal level of government has not established a definition of marriage after more than 100 years. To me the answer is fairly clear. The ceremony of marriage is not the creation or the intellectual property of any government. It is the creation and intellectual property of religious institutions.
Churches, synagogues, mosques and temples of the world established the meaning of marriage and the ceremony that formalizes it in response to a need to establish boundaries in accordance with the fundamental beliefs derived from the text adhered to by their religious followers. Logic dictates that marriage is therefore the intellectual property of religious institutions, not the intellectual property of government. Changing the definition of marriage without the express formal consent of those who created marriage, as in this case, is therefore logically unjust. This train of thought leads to some interesting observations.
While members of the Liberal and NDP Parties might passionately defend the intellectual property of a photographer, performer, writer or painter, they somehow have conveniently overlooked the intellectual property aspect of religious institutions when it comes to the subject of the marriage ceremony. This could be a simple oversight dictated by emotion, or perhaps it does not meet their personal criteria as intellectual property, or they just might find it convenient and acceptable to discriminate against religious property rights but not artistic property rights. The latter conclusion would be an interesting double standard debate that would merit stand alone debate on its own.
Although the water may be muddy on this last point, one thing is clear: it is the mandate of the Canadian government to protect the charter right of religious freedom in this country. The proposed legislation fails to do so.
The government has made an attempt to ignore the facts and to shift the ground on these debates. Many have stood in the House of Commons and argued that this is an issue of human rights. This debate is not about human rights. Those who resort to using this argument do so because it strikes an emotional response. It is the fallback stance for anyone who is unable to justify or support a position based on fact.
I offer some examples in support of my last statement for the House's consideration.
In the same sex reference case, the Supreme Court of Canada declined to rule on the constitutionality of the traditional definition of marriage despite a clear request from the government to answer this question. Why? Perhaps it was because in 1996 the New Zealand court of appeal rejected the recognition of same sex marriages despite the fact that New Zealand's bill of rights explicitly listed sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination.
When the New Zealand decision was challenged before the United Nations Human Rights Commission as a violation of the international covenant of civil and political rights, the UNHRC ruled in 2002 that there was no case for discrimination simply on the basis of refusing to marry homosexual couples.
In fact, to this date no international human rights body and no national supreme court have ever found that there is a human right aspect to same sex marriage.
I could cite more examples for the perusal of the House but time is limited and there are some things, personal points and clarifications, that I intend to have recorded on this issue.
Let me begin by saying that this is often an ugly world and those who find someone to love and commit to should count their blessings. Love requires no permission or endorsement by law, not in Canada or any other civilized nation.
The issue before us does not infringe on anyone's right or ability to love another human being. What it does threaten is one of Canada's basic fundamentals contained within the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that all Canadians whether born here or brought here hold deal: freedom of religion.
We have welcomed generations of Canadians from a myriad of ethnic and religious backgrounds to become citizens of this great country. They have played a major role in our success and development, whether they came to us in 1898 or in 2005. Part of our promise to them was to guarantee their right to practise their faith openly without government interference, to honour the jurisdiction of religious ceremony and to not impose the threat of reprisals for views that do not conform to the shifting whim of the ruling party in Canada.
In other words, we promised them democracy. Many came to Canada to escape the very oppression that this legislation threatens to impose. Many also came to enjoy the freedom of not having to belong to any practising religion.
The cabinet responsible for this legislation is aware that cross-jurisdiction with provincial governments makes it impossible to guarantee freedom of religion under the current wording. It will simply shrug at some future date that the ramifications are not its fault, that somebody else is to blame, that it did not know, that it did not do it.
It seems to be a consistent theme with the Liberal government: promises made, promises broken.
The people of my riding have spoken clearly by mail-in ballot in which 82% told me to uphold the traditional definition of marriage and the sacred promise to protect the fundamental rights of all Canadians. I for one will not break the promise this country made to its citizens and I will not betray the trust of those who sent me here.
I supported the proposed amendment suggested by the Leader of the Conservative Party because it was a constructive compromise all Canadians could be proud of and because it was clearly the majority opinion of the constituents I swore to represent.
This will be an issue that will be very hard to resolve. I ask indulgence by all in the House for all points of view and I wish us all the very best of luck.
