Madam Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I rise to speak in the House today on the subject of the definition of marriage. I care very deeply about family, my family as well as others' families, and I am very concerned that the direction the government is taking on this important matter is the wrong one.
My dad's parents were married for 66 years. My wife's parents were married for 62 years, ending when my beloved father-in-law passed away. My parents were married for 67 and a half years, again ending with the passing away of my dear father just over two years ago. My wife Betty and I will have been married for 44 years this summer. We expect that this marriage, too, will last until death do us part.
All of the families I have mentioned are near and dear to me and they all saw the benefits of a caring mother and father and the enjoyment of children, parents and grandparents with each other. How privileged and blessed I have been to have been surrounded by families with integrity, trust, fidelity and deep and caring love.
There are so many important facets to this debate that I could speak for several hours to cover them all. I think of issues like the democratic process, the assumptions that are made about the nature of homosexuality, the ways in which a man and a woman complement each other, the so-called rights or equality issue, the implications for children, the religious freedom aspect, the history of marriage, and more. I will just barely get started in the 10 minutes allotted to me.
Let us start with the issue of democracy. It is no wonder to me that Canadians have become cynical and disillusioned about government, democracy and elections. That is because this Liberal government does not listen to the people and it does not even feel embarrassed about breaking promises.
On June 8, 1999--and this has been mentioned a number of times but I have it in my speech and it needs to be repeated over and over again--recognizing that the institution of marriage was being attacked, our party put forward a supply day motion. It has been read before, but I want to repeat it:
That, in the opinion of this House, it is necessary, in light of public debate around recent court decisions, to state that marriage is and should remain the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, and that Parliament will take all necessary steps to preserve this definition of marriage in Canada.
On that day the Deputy Prime Minister, then as minister of justice, spoke and voted in favour of that bill. The prime minister of the day, Mr. Chrétien, and the current Prime Minister also voted in favour.
My leader, in responding to this current legislation introduced a couple of weeks ago, quoted extensively from the Deputy Prime Minister's speech. I will not repeat all of it here. She was unequivocal, saying things like this:
Let me state again for the record that the government has no intention of changing the definition of marriage or of legislating same sex marriages.
That is a direct quote.
She said again:
I fundamentally do not believe that it is necessary to change the definition of marriage in order to accommodate the equality issues around same sex partners which now face us as Canadians.
She referred to the legal precedent for the traditional definition of marriage and said:
That case and that definition are considered clear law by ordinary Canadians, by academics, and by the courts. The courts have upheld the constitutionality of that definition...I support the motion for maintaining the clear, legal definition of marriage in Canada as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
That is a quote directly from our Deputy Prime Minister. All of this is in Hansard . I actually distributed her speech to a number of my constituents when they asked about this issue, but now we find that she and her colleagues in the Liberal government are untrustworthy. Their words meant nothing.
In my view, both the lower courts of this country and this Liberal government were in contempt of Parliament when they acted precisely opposite to the motion that was debated, voted on and passed in Parliament on June 8, 1999.
When the courts ruled that homosexuals had the right to marry, this spineless government did not even take the trouble to appeal the decision, notwithstanding the motion that had been passed: that Parliament would do everything necessary to preserve that definition. This lack of action was cited in this recent Supreme Court response in the reference case as a tacit approval of the government for what the lower courts did. Shame on the government .
Let us add to that the spectacle we have in the House here day after day of members presenting petitions on retaining the present definition of marriage. Hundreds of petitions with thousands of names have been sent in. Are we just going to ignore the wishes of our constituents, the voters and the citizens of this country, and thereby make a total mockery of democracy?
No wonder Canadians are turned off and are staying away from the polls on voting day. They are saying, with increasing validity, that it does not make any difference. Shame on this government for allowing this to happen.
In addition, all of us have had many personal contacts, letters, emails, faxes and phone calls from constituents who are opposed to changing the definition of marriage. In my case, about 95% of these communications are urging me to vote against this bill. I am going to do that. I am going to stand for the definition of family as we have known it for millennia, for moms and dads and their mutual complementary caring for their children.
On another topic, I take strong exception to the use the government is making of the apparent religious freedom guaranteed by this bill. This is nothing more than deception. How can we trust the government to guarantee religious freedoms when we have numerous cases already where human rights tribunals have trumped religious freedoms in favour of so-called homosexual rights?
We even have no religious freedom from the government side in this debate, with cabinet ministers and parliamentary secretaries being told to vote against their conscience and against their religious beliefs or lose their positions. Marriage commissioners in B.C. and Saskatchewan were given notice to agree to marry same sex partners or lose their credentials.
The Supreme Court in its reference response said explicitly that this guarantee was not in the federal government's realm to grant, yet the government has included it in the legislation anyway even though it has already been ruled ultra vires. Why? Why did the government do it?
I think the answer is clear. The government wants to use this as an argument to justify its flawed legislation and hopefully put to sleep those who realize the danger that we are getting into. The Liberals want people to believe that their religious freedoms are being protected when in fact they are not. They want people and members of Parliament to support this bill based on this empty promise.
Let me briefly comment on the equality issue. I find it curious that the government is using the equality argument so forcefully when in fact there is still no equality. According to this government, these new rights and equalities are accorded to those living in a conjugal relationship.
Where is the equality for those who are not engaging in some sort of sexual activity?
I think of two sisters I know who never married. They lived with their mother, their father having passed away when they were young. All three of them mutually looked after each other. Eventually their mother got old and died. The two sisters still live together. Why can they not name each other as beneficiaries for CPP or health care coverage? It is because they are not conjugating. What sense does that make? Since when do we base eligibility for government programs on sexual activity?
Many years ago when I first became involved in politics, I read a statement that has always stayed with me. That statement said in effect that politics is the art of reconciling competing interests.
In my view, this Prime Minister, the justice minister and the government have done an exceptionally poor job of that in this case. Instead of reconciling the various sides of this debate, the government has chosen to pit Canadian against Canadian and to divide families, co-workers and neighbours.
Why did the government not search for and find a solution to this dilemma along the lines suggested by the Deputy Prime Minister in 1999? Why could the government not have found a way of making sure that rights were protected on both sides?
The Conservative proposal is the compromise that is needed and that Canadians support. The traditional definition of marriage between one woman and one man is upheld and the rights of others are supported. Religious freedoms are upheld.
My time has expired. I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this important bill. I urge all members of the House, whether under the Prime Minister's heavy hand or not, to be true to their conscience, to the will of the people in their riding, to Canadians from coast to coast, and to our future generations, and support the amendment supported by our party. Let us work together on behalf of all Canadians--
