Mr. Speaker, I understand that some hon. members have been doing some homework and research. I admit this issue has followed me around somewhat in my political career. I never saw more acrimony and concern than when I sat in opposition in the province of Ontario when Bob Rae and the New Democrats brought in a bill. It was almost violent. The legislature was taken over by a mob. It could be described as nothing else. The majority of members of the provincial Liberal Party voted against the NDP legislation.
Let me explain that I too voted against it at that time because nobody should either receive rights or lose rights based on their sexual preference. It is very important that we quote both. I could not accept the changing of the definition of marriage, which is what Bob Rae and his government put forward. The bill does not do that. That is the fundamental difference.
I am going to come out of the closet and tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I am hopelessly heterosexual. My wife would tell you that the operative word is hopelessly, but I do not think that has a darn thing to do with any of this. It should not matter or enter into the debate.
In my view what we are seeing is hopeless homophobia on the part of certain members who are colouring their positions or changing them. They are totally off base and off issue. They do not want to come right out and say that they are against the bill because they are against homosexuality and gays and lesbians. In my view that is position of many of the speakers, not all to be fair, who put forward arguments on behalf of the Reform Party.
We have heard comments about the Toronto police chief making speeches to the Conservative caucus that met in Niagara Falls. Interestingly enough it was the same Conservative caucus and Conservative government in the province of Ontario that are held up as the great example of how to run a government. This is the same government, Mike Harris and his people, that passed an ominbus bill which does exactly what this bill would do. It passed it in 24 hours with no debate. It brought in what these people always cry about, closure. It brought down the hammer and adopted legislation to ensure that amendments take place that will bring justice and fairness to all Canadians.
Can we ever satisfy those who are homophobic? Can we ever satisfy those who call us? I had a call the other day from someone who introduced himself to me as a reverend. I will not mention his name. He was a part time evangelical minister and I wish him well in his endeavours. He has made up his mind. He believes that only God can make this decision. He uses words like sodomy and says that the whole act of homosexuality is unnatural. He goes on and on. There is no possible way that I could ever explain any of the details in the bill to that individual.
Just about every day we see someone outside this building who has that same attitude. Is there any point trying to put across the fact that there is a certain group of Canadians who are clearly being discriminated against for a reason that is irrelevant to the issues of benefits and obligations: their sexual preference. I do not care what it is.
I agree that we do not need to be in the bedrooms of the nation. This idea of a sex police is just laughable. Earlier today I heard one speaker in this place say that people would take advantage, that people would claim they were living in a conjugal relationship so that they could access some form of benefit. When I thought about that I said that it was preposterous.
Does anyone here know any heterosexual male who would stand up in public or in front of his family and claim to be gay so that he could access a dental plan? Are we serious about this? Would he then go on to explain to his buddies in the hockey dressing room and to his mom and dad that he really is not gay, he just had a cavity? I use the example perhaps in the extreme, but it is such utter nonsense to think that someone would claim to be gay just to access some form of benefits. If a person is heterosexual, the last thing in the world he wants is to be accused of is being gay for any reason. It is just not reality.
What does the bill do? The members opposite talk about what the judiciary is doing in terms of making laws. That is absolute nonsense. I heard the member for Vancouver West stand in his place and say that parliament makes the laws, the government enforces the laws and the courts interpret the laws. That is exactly right. Would we want it any other way? Would we want the courts not to have the ability to interpret the laws?
What saves this vote for me and what makes it so fundamentally different from the one in the province of Ontario that took place under the leadership of Premier Bob Ray is the fact that the definition of marriage has not been touched.
My colleague for Scarborough East, for whom I have a lot of respect, said that it should be put in a statute. Why? Why should it not remain where it has always been? It is in common law.
I want to share something that reinforces this fact. In one of her speeches, I believe on June 8, the minister said:
The Ontario court, general division recently upheld in Layland and Beaulne the definition of marriage. In that decision a majority of the court stated the following:
—unions of persons of the same sex are not “marriages”, because of the definition of marriage. The applicants are, in effect, seeking to use s.15 of the Charter to bring about a change in the definition of marriage. I do not think the Charter has that effect.
The court said that this was fundamentally important for all Canadians who are concerned about the deprivation of the institution of marriage or concerned that somehow the hordes of homosexuals, as a result of getting access to justice and to benefits, were going to somehow infiltrate all of our institutions and our schools and poison our minds.
We liked that decision by the court. Maybe there are some other interpretations or decisions that we do not particularly like, but the courts are not there to please us. The courts are there to interpret the laws that are put forward by the duly elected parliamentarians. They have a responsibility that is different from ours. Because we like the one that says that this is the definition and therefore the sanctity of marriage, but we do not like another one, we get in a dither and say “We should invoke the notwithstanding clause”. The reality is that we do have a judicial system that has its warts, but it is a system that is free and independent. We do not elect judges like the Reform Party would likely do if it was given the opportunity, or as they do in the United States where Boss Hog rules the day. We do not subject the public to making decisions like that.
Members of our judiciary are appointed through a system. They are educated. They learn the system. By and large, the Supreme Court of Canada is one of the most outstanding institutions in the world.
From time to time there will be provincial supreme courts and others that will issue decisions with which we will disagree. Child pornography is one, and we, the government, are at the supreme court fighting that decision. I want to hear what the members say if the supreme court rules against the court decision in B.C.
This is homophobia. This is nonsense. The bill should be passed to provide fairness and equity for all Canadians.
