Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise this afternoon to speak to Bill C-23. My colleagues have expressed many things which are wrong with the bill.
I would like to commend my colleague from Calgary Centre who has worked very hard on the bill, has analyzed the bill, has shown what is wrong with the bill and has put forward amendments. I would like to congratulate the member and his staff for their hard work.
The bill has opened up the debate on two fronts. First, on the definition of marriage and what marriage means, and second, on benefits. What is a benefit? To whom would the benefits apply?
I received a tremendous amount of calls in my office when the bill was introduced. There were close to 50, and not a single one was in support of the bill. All the calls that came in were against the bill.
I find it quite distressing that my colleagues from the NDP have gone out of their way to use words like bigotry to express their point of view, especially the lead speaker for the NDP who used very harsh words in expressing his view of those who oppose his point of view. If I recall correctly, this member trots around the world and stands for minority rights, for other people's right of free debate.
Today we are in the House having this debate, and Canadians have expressed a concern about the bill. They have expressed serious reservations and serious concerns. Instead of the member listening to what other Canadians are saying, the member accuses us and calls us all kinds of names. Perhaps if he listened and came up with some positive solutions we would be further ahead in achieving many of the things which would be of benefit to Canadians.
About three months ago I had a call from a constituent who was living with a same sex partner. We had a very interesting discussion. I must say that it was a very, very civil discussion, with none of the rhetoric that we hear about bigotry or anything like that. I expressed to my constituent my personal view, which is quite simple: that every human being is entitled to dignity. He may have an alternate lifestyle or he may have some other point of view, but he is entitled to dignity and he is entitled to live in Canada with his head held high, without fear of discrimination. I expressed that point of view, that any Canadian must be able to walk on the streets of Canada without fear and without discrimination. That is what we should be aiming for. One of the ways to do that is through education. We have come a long way in that respect.
I had the privilege of talking to my colleagues in the Bloc. I actually travelled with my colleagues in the Bloc. We have a fantastic relationship as friends and I respect them. But when it comes to a question that is fundamental in society, then we differ. All the reasoning and all the name calling that is directed at us does not go a long way in addressing this issue.
To get back to Bill C-23, let us talk about benefits. The bill is absolutely flawed. The bill gives benefits based on sexual preference. It leaves out many other issues on dependency which should have been included. I would like to know why these issues were left out.
I read the statement which the justice minister gave at committee on February 29, 2000, that the issue of dependency is a separate issue. Then she said the same sex benefit also affected a bigger issue which, perhaps from her point of view, was trying to define marriage. The second problem originates with the definition of marriage.
In June we in parliament defined marriage as a union between a single man and a single woman. Parliament made quite clear the definition of marriage. In listening to the speech of my colleague from the NDP he talked about the benefit issue and marriage. He is looking at the bill as parliament sanctioning marriage, which is a concern of many Canadians.
Canadians view marriage as a union between a single man and a single woman. That is the view of society. There are many reasons that society views it in this way. I do not think I need to go into them. They have been debated very well. When it comes to whether it means we will look down on those who choose an alternate lifestyle, it is an individual choice. I personally do not look down. It is a choice that someone has made but it is not my choice.
I do have a problem when this choice is forced through other means. In Surrey, B.C., the school board is talking about teaching this to children. Some of us will have objections to that. Why not? In the same way as he has his point of view, I have my point of view. Perhaps he should understand that he should recognize my point of view as well, instead of screaming over there that we are bigots and whatnot. It is a point of view. It is a public school and as we can see from the Surrey debate parents are apprehensive about it. Religious groups are apprehensive about it. That is acceptable in society.
The debatable question is about marriage. As I said, in listening to my colleagues who support the bill, they are moving away from benefits into the issue of marriage. That is a major concern. My colleague introduced an amendment to ensure that the views of Canadians regarding the issue of marriage were addressed in all 68 statutes.
The justice minister has made an amendment. In all the 50 calls that I received I told them that if they wanted to be effective they should phone the justice minister. I bet that calls were made to the justice minister and hence she ran to the drawing board and came back with something haphazard by including the definition of marriage. If she is willing to go back one step, what is wrong? Why can she not put that definition in all the statutes so that it is very clear to the courts every time they look at the definition of marriage.
The bill is asking in all 68 statutes that same sex be included. Our main point is that the definition of marriage be recognized as my colleagues have stated and as was indicated quite clearly in an independent legal opinion which I should like to repeat:
By contrast, if the Bill was amended to enact a definition of marriage for each of the particular acts referred to in the Bill, then Parliament would be giving a clear indication of its intention to the courts and to the public at large.
This was done by the motion in June of last year.
