Ken Epp

[Criminal Code, February 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the member gave a very interesting speech and one of the things he included in it was reference to the increased costs of incarcerating more individuals.

My question is very pointed. Does he just outright reject the idea that by making the sentences more sure, in the sense that these people will know that after the third time they have done something, they may land in jail instead of walking the streets, that it may deter them? Does the member just absolutely reject the idea of a jail sentence that is sure being a deterrence?

[Marriage, December 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I can give that answer in one word. The answer is yes.

[Marriage, December 6th, 2006]

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.

[Marriage, December 6th, 2006]

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?

[Marriage, December 6th, 2006]

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.

[Marriage, December 6th, 2006]

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.

[Marriage, December 6th, 2006]

That was a long time before. That was before you and I were here.

[Marriage, December 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have the highest respect for the member and I always have. Among other things, he is the oldest member in the House. By the very virtue of that, we have to respect him because we are supposed to respect our elders.

I am sure the member will remember, and I do not know what year it was, a number of years back when the issue of capital punishment came up. At that time, the government of the day put forward a motion that asked whether the House wanted to have it considered. The motion was very similar motion to this one.

I also challenge the member. If this motion is defeated, it basically shuts the door. If this motion is passed, then it opens the door so the whole issue can be reconsidered. I urge the member to therefore vote in favour of this motion so it does not die due to a lack of interest by the House.

[Marriage, December 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I want to call the member's bluff. He is very strongly in favour of traditional marriage, and I appreciate, value and honour the member for that.

Because the motion before us does not say we will invoke the notwithstanding clause does not mean that it is automatically unconstitutional. The motion says very clearly that the House should revisit this issue. That is what is before the House.

Why the member is even contemplating not voting for it to at least give it a last chance at life is a mystery to me.

[Statutes Repeal Act, December 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very short and simple question for the member. Would the provisions that this bill provides apply to this bill?