Ed Komarnicki

[Civil Marriage Act, April 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I too will be voting against Bill C-38. The Prime Minister has one thing right. At stake is the kind of nation we are today and the nation we want to be.

There is no other issue that has come across my desk in the time I have been a member of Parliament that has generated as great a degree of correspondence by telephone, fax, email, and letter writing as the issue of marriage. It seems that, regardless of a person's position or their religion or their faith, they have come together in my constituency of Souris--Moose Mountain as one, asking me to oppose this particular bill. We find people opposed to it across Canada.

The legislation invites Canadians to go down a road they do not wish to go and to accept as a nation a fundamental change to the traditional definition of marriage, a change the majority of Canadians do not wish to accept. This does not bode well for our country. I have received numerous letters and I will read from a few of them to capsulize the feeling of my constituents. One from my home city of Estevan states:

Marriage between one man and one woman is a natural institution as it predates all recorded, formally structured, social, legal, political and religious systems. In so far as it is a social institution, marriage is concerned with the common good, not individual rights.

The government tried to define this thing as a rights issue. It is not a rights issue; it is a public policy issue. It is an issue of a definition and that issue should be settled, and has been settled in history by common law. It is time now for Parliament to restate its position by way of legislation that is appropriate. The letter further states:

The State must strengthen and protect marriage between a man and a woman because it assures the survival of society by creating the next generation.

I ask the Government of Canada to implement legislation that will recognize, protect and reaffirm the definition of marriage as a voluntary union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. I also ask that should the Government of Canada want to address the concerns of other adult interdependent relationships, it do so in a way that respects human dignity, but does not redefine and thus void the vital, irreplaceable, natural, and social institution of marriage.

I stand against our Government's efforts to destroy the definition of traditional marriage.

That has been espoused by many people. Another letter from Whitewood, in the north part of my constituency, reads:

I would like to express my views that marriage should be protected and remain as “the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others”.

Marriage is of critical importance to our society. It is perhaps the most important societal institution we have because it provides for the upbringing of children and is a foundation for strong, healthy families. Marriage ensures children have the best chance to have both a mom and a dad in their lives. Marriage also ensures the continuation of society and provides family stability for future generations. Marriage between a man and a woman is a unique relationship that simply cannot be replicated by any other relationship.

This issue is too big and too important for the justice minister, the Prime Minister and his enforcers to decide. They have not even given members of the government the free opportunity to vote on this issue but have actually asked them to support the bill, whether their personal convictions or constituents would like to see it otherwise, in a very close vote in the House.

Ultimately, it will be decided by the people of this country, and perhaps sooner than later, if we have an election. The people will speak loud and clear when the time comes for them to decide who will be representing their interests in this House.

As I said before, the Liberal government and the Liberal Party of Canada would like to describe this as a rights or equality or dignity issue. It is not. If anyone is confused on this, it is the Prime Minister. Focus on the Family has stated that the fundamental question is whether marriage has a continuing role in our modern society and, if so, should this be reflected in our laws?

It really is a public policy issue that belongs to all Canadians. The debate and the nature of marriage belongs to the realm of public policy and not basic human rights.

Many countries and organizations have held this view and it is not something that is unique to Canada. In fact, on June 8, 1999 it was the opinion of the House that it was necessary, in light of public debate around the court decisions, to state that marriage was and should remain the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, and that Parliament should take all steps necessary within the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada to preserve the definition of marriage.

What has changed since that time? There have been a number of court decisions, but they have been made in a vacuum. They have been made based on common law and not statute law. They have been made because the House has not defined marriage, when the Constitution states that the House has the ability to define the capacity to marry. The Prime Minister has chosen not to address that issue in advance of court decisions and has decided not to appeal court decisions when they were made based on the common law definition of marriage. He now tries to use that as a justification for inaction in the preservation of the traditional definition of marriage.

Where was the Prime Minister when those courts were struggling to make a decision on their own based on common law and without any guidance from the House or from a legislated body?

It is not an issue of whether gays and lesbians can vote or serve in the military. It is not an issue of whether they are discriminated against or not because discrimination has no place in our society, in our party or in the House. However, to compare that to the issue of whether the traditional definition of marriage should be maintained is something all together different.

The core issue here is the redefinition of a known term, so as to include someone who would by the very nature of the fundamental meaning of the term not be included. By reformulating, redefining or diluting the definition of marriage, it has made it to mean something other than what it is and was. Marriage is essentially the union of two people, a man and a woman, who consummate the relationship by sexual relations with the potential to procreate. Anyone fitting that description is entitled to marry. Anyone who does not, is not. We cannot simply change the definition to suit the whims or needs of anyone, whether it is catering to current political thought or what the current fad is.

Marriage is what it is always said to be and there are legal precedents for that. Justice La Forest in Egan v. Canada, a 1995 Supreme Court of Canada case, stated in reference to the traditional definition of marriage:

But its ultimate raison d'être transcends all of these and is firmly anchored in the biological and social realities that heterosexual couples have the unique ability to procreate, that most children are the product of these relationships, and that they are generally cared for and nurtured by those who live in that relationship. In this sense, marriage is by nature heterosexual.

Another letter from a legal counsel in my constituency stated:

I urge you to oppose the redefinition of marriage to include same sex couples. Marriage has been and should remain, by its very nature, a procreative relationship. That is not to say that all marriages procreate, but that its primary purpose is procreation. Same sex couples may have their relationship legally recognized in some other manner without redefining marriage.

Again, if we start redefining terms, we can make it anything we want it to be. The basis of the traditional definition of marriage was the Hyde v. Hyde case and a quote from that case that is not often quoted states:

--marriage has been well said to be something more than a contract, either religious or civil to be an institution.

The Prime Minister has attempted to define civil marriage as something else, but when we change the meaning of civil marriage, we affect all of marriage. I think we must and should take a stand against it.

The leader of my party said in the House:

There are fundamental questions here. Will this society be one which respects the longstanding basic social institution of marriage or will it be one that believes even our most basic structures can be reinvented overnight for the sake of political correctness?...there are some things more fundamental than the state and its latest fad.

That is the definition of marriage. He went on to say:

--marriage and family are not the creature of the state, but pre-exist the state.

We must as a state uphold and defend the traditional definition of marriage. It truly is a significant time in the history of our country and indeed it is a time where at stake is the kind of nation we are today and the kind of nation we want to be.

As the Prime Minister has stated, “the gaze of history is upon us”. Whose vision of the future of our nation is the correct one? There is no doubt about that, the people of Canada will see to it. The Prime Minister has it wrong. The people of Canada will set the record straight at the ballot box.

[Canada Post, April 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue.

The President of the Treasury Board stated that there was no policy to close rural post offices. That is small comfort to my constituents when, in an audit by Deloitte & Touche, it was found that Canada Post failed to comply with its policies in 355 of 599 cases that were reviewed.

The workers' union president said that the corporation was more interested in paring down post offices than building them up.

In a year of record profits, will the minister state on the record in the House for the constituents of Souris--Moose Mountain that there will be no closure of rural post offices in 2005?

[Agriculture, April 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the government is uncertain in its course and has lost its way. The recently introduced budget had no plan to address the state of our ranching and farming economy, yet weeks later a plan that lacks fairness and comprehensiveness is cobbled together.

A mother of two young farmers renting land in 2002-03 called me, saying neither of them would qualify for the proposed aid. A farmer who did qualify said the amount barely covered the cost of his accountant and registration fees for his organic farm, not to mention input costs or fuel.

There is no doubt that farmers and western Canadians who are barely getting by are frustrated and angry when they hear of the millions being siphoned out of government coffers for unintended uses, as shown by today's motion and the debate we are having.

The Canadian farm improvement loan program was cancelled despite a 70% usage rate in Saskatchewan, only to be reinstated a short time later.

Rural post offices are considered by the government to be a heavy burden and placed on a review list for closure.

This is a government devoid of direction that has lost its course and must be replaced.

[Petitions, March 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I also present a petition with respect to the subject of marriage. I have a series of petitions from within my constituency, covering the areas of North Portal, Estevan, Weyburn, Midale, Creelman, Stoughton, Maryfield, Bellegarde, Redvers,Antler, Fairlight, Wauchope, Oxbow, Lampman, and Storthoaks, which is a great representation throughout the constituency. The petition indicates that marriage is the best foundation for families and the raising of children and the petitioners wish Parliament to use all possible legislative and administrative measures to preserve and protect the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

[Message from the Senate, March 23rd, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I note that the United States appeal court said that the judge set July as the hearing date. We are now in March. That is a long period of time.

The Prime Minister today stated:

We look forward to the day in the future when, notwithstanding all of the lobbying, all of the legal challenges, all of North America is open to our safe and high-quality beef

He must do more than hope. Given the fact that the government was not on its toes and not making the representations it should of made, I think there is some obligation on the government now because of its lack of due diligence to put some money on the table for the BSE farmers who are suffering.

I think the parliamentary secretary, who knows agriculture quite well, also knows that the problem is deeper than that. Saskatchewan farmers and Canadian farmers need some financial assistance. They need it now before spring seeding.

Will the parliamentary secretary commit the government and tell us what the government's actions are with respect to those two things: funding for the BSE cattle producers who are dealing with that issue and the ordinary grain farmers who are waiting for some answers from the government?

[Message from the Senate, March 23rd, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a question that I posed on December 3, 2004. My question was to the Prime Minister and had specifically to do with the opening of the American border to Canadian and particularly Saskatchewan beef. I asked him what he had to say to all of the farmers and ranchers across Canada who are facing another winter of despair about what was going to happen.

The answer was that at the USDA, the United States Department of Agriculture, and in the White House steps were being taken to have the border open on March 7. In fact, in a news release our agriculture minister announced that Canada received a commitment from the United States to open the border and resume trade of Canadian live cattle under 30 months on March 7, 2005.

There is no question that the process involved was an administrative one by the United States Department of Agriculture. They had hearings and so on and came to the conclusion that in their opinion, administratively, and according to their legislation, the border ought to be open to Canadian cattle.

The fact of the matter was that during these hearings, Canada had an opportunity to make representations. I have heard the members opposite indicate that based on science, based on facts, based on data, there was no question that the transfer of Canadian cattle through the American border was safe, that our food chain was safe, that our inspection agencies were properly codified, and that they were using the proper protocol and there was nothing to be concerned about.

When R-CALF made an application for an injunction to the Montana court, the court in that particular case held that the injunction would issue. One of the reasons it held that the injunction should issue was that it said the USDA “failed to provide the specific basis for the conclusion that its actions carried an acceptable risk to public health and failed to provide the data on which each of the agency's critical assumptions were based”.

What that judge was saying was that the USDA did not provide the basis and data for its decision. My question is, where were the Canadian government and its people in ensuring that the USDA had all of the facts and all the basis to show that the sound science was there for the border to open. Why was that material not there?

Second, when the matter was before the Montana judge, our government should have had lawyers present at that court case arguing Canada's position. They applied late, I understand, trying to file a brief, and perhaps they filed a brief, but they were not there to advance the case. Consequently Canada was not represented at a very critical time when we had millions of dollars in trade being affected. Canada was using the political angle when it should have been using legal process and material.

Now that the courts have become involved, they are still playing politics. Our Prime Minister is in the United States today talking to the President, but we have no basis upon which to speed up the process. We have a Montana court decision that has been appealed. We have some indication that it will take until July 7 for a decision to be made. There is a trial and the process is taking months.

Where is the government? Is it taking the steps to ensure that this process is expedited? It is not a political matter now. It is a court matter. But political pressure can be applied to ensure that the process happens in weeks, not months and years. We see that happen in American politics. Let us look at the recent case relating to Terri Schiavo in which two courts, three judges of one panel and 12 judges of another panel, heard a case in the same day. If there were the political will it could be done, but Canada has wasted a lot of its political capital.

[Supply, March 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that the equalization issue is to provide equity and fairness and to ensure that the provinces across the country are able to provide reasonably comparable levels of public services at about the same levels of taxation. However, when the Prime Minister of Canada negotiates a deal with one province without regard to the other provinces, that is not an issue of fair treatment. It is just the opposite. When we find a formula that for over 20 years has penalized a province, that has nothing to do with treating provinces fairly or equally. It has a lot to do with not paying attention to what is happening.

What we have to do is put all the provinces on the same basis of fairness and equity. We need to ensure that non-renewable resources are not part of that, so that the provinces can develop themselves and be self-sufficient across the country to provide those same services without equalization payments or subsidies.

[Supply, March 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that the way the formula was put together Saskatchewan lost on average $1.08 for every $1 of oil it sold. To some degree it was $1.25. In other words, if the oil had been kept in the ground, the province would have been better for it because it lost more money than it made.

Additional funds that were available under the equalization plan went to some other province because of it. In other words, the penalty imposed on Saskatchewan went to other provinces. Saskatchewan should have been the last province supplementing provinces elsewhere that did not need the same equalization as it needed.

The formula is principally wrong. It is not only wrong, but it penalizes Saskatchewan. It is only equitable and right that the finance minister do what he has done already, provide a bilateral agreement with Saskatchewan to ensure that never happens again.

Saskatchewan could use those non-renewable resources to provide jobs, to provide a brisk economy. It could address issues of concern to farmers in Saskatchewan to ensure the contributions to deposit requirements so the farmers would not have to do it. It could address the farm economy and share in the 40%. The province would have some revenue to do that. Young people would be able to stay in our province, to work in our province, to be the sons and daughters on the family farms, which is almost no longer possible because of the crisis we are facing there.

[Supply, March 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the equalization question. One is drawn to the idea that equalization should have a degree of equity and fairness between all of the provinces. In fact, the terms of reference for the committee that is to be established commits the Government of Canada to the principle of making equalization payments to ensure that the provincial governments have sufficient revenues to provide reasonably comparable levels of public services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation. That is the principle behind that.

We can find inequities that exist between provinces particularly as they relate to Saskatchewan. In that regard, there have been many studies commissioned showing that Saskatchewan has had the bad end of the deal on this one. The formula needs to achieve that and we find that it has had many flaws. Unfortunately, there was no mechanism in the past to check or audit the system to ensure that abnormalities do not take place.

One of the formula reviews is by Professor Thomas J. Courchene called “Confiscatory Equalization: The Intriguing Case of Saskatchewan’s Vanishing Energy Revenues”. It shows that in the early eighties there was a shift from an all-province standard to the present five province standard of British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec.

Saskatchewan is a rich energy producing province and was affected mostly by the shift in policy. The professor indicated that in the fiscal year 2000-01 Saskatchewan energy revenues totalled $1.038 billion for $1,000 per capita. However, the province's equalization offset associated with those energy revenues was even larger, $1.126 billion or a tax back rate of 108%.

Over that period the clawback rate of 1999 to 2001 reached as high as 125%. In other words, Saskatchewan lost more than the equalization payment by the fact that oil, a non-renewable resource, was produced. How could this happen particularly with the finance minister holding key positions with the government during those periods of time?

The author stated that this was the trigger for Saskatchewan's descent to the lowest rank in terms of provincial per capita disposable income. As the Saskatchewan revenue minister pointed out, in 2001-02 crown leases were taxed back at a rate of 235.9%. This was unconscionable. Who was minding the store at that time? One has to only wonder why Saskatchewan's highway system has deteriorated as it has and why the waiting lists are so long in Saskatchewan. In fact, people from Saskatchewan may travel to Manitoba to get services because of the long waiting list in Saskatchewan.

The finance minister says that Saskatchewan is a have province. If it is a have province, why is the waiting list so long, why are the highways so poor, why is agriculture on the worst crisis condition that it has ever been in the history of the province?

The estimated income loss projected for 2005 is $486 million and the province, which is struggling, has lost over 10 years $4 billion in clawbacks under the equalization formula. Because this formula taxed back or clawed back over 100%, this meant at least to the extent of Saskatchewan's energy revenues that they were transferred to other provinces through the over 100% clawback.

It is true that the province's GDP provides an indication of the province's take of economic prosperity. From 1998 to 2002 Saskatchewan posted an average GDP of .3% and largely that was due to the crisis in the agricultural sector. At the same time the equalization payments were declining. Saskatchewan has received the lowest per capita equalization transfers of the recipient provinces across Canada. It received the smallest equalization transfers on a per capita basis.

We use Manitoba as an example, and good for Manitoba, but Manitoba received $1,110 per capita of equalization. Saskatchewan on the other hand received $123 to $146 per capita. How can that be? Simply put, this is unconscionable.

In my constituency of Souris—Moose Mountain and part of the sister constituency, the total oil extracted production was 52 million of 153 million barrels of oil, or $2.4 billion of $5.5 billion province-wide. All of that oil that was taken out of the ground was clawed back under the equalization payments. This injustice to Saskatchewan requires at the very least, as a minimum, the same deal Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador received.

All Saskatchewan wants is to be treated fairly and equitably. When we look at the agreement between the Government of Canada and Nova Scotia, it was negotiated bilaterally and in advance of the expert committee that will be looking at what types of factors should be in or out of the equalization formula.

It is our position that non-renewable resources such as oil and gas should not be in the formula. The finance minister says we should wait until the panel of experts decides. Why should Saskatchewan have to wait for a panel of experts to decide, when Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia have already achieved an agreement excluding their offshore oil resources from the formula. If we look at the agreement that was entered into, it says:

--the Government of Canada will seek legislative authority from Parliament that will authorize additional payments to provide 100% offset against reductions in Equalization payments resulting from offshore resource revenue.

It goes on to say:

This document reflects an understanding between the Government of Canada and the Government of Nova Scotia that:

Nova Scotia already receives and will continue to receive 100 per cent of offshore resource revenues as if these resources were on land;

There is nothing different between those offshore resources and the resources that we have in Saskatchewan. Not only that, the agreement provides that from 2006 and continuing to 2012:

--the annual offset payments shall be equal to 100 per cent of any reductions in Equalization payments resulting from offshore resource revenues.

The agreement then goes on to provide for subsequent years. It says:

Should the province not qualify for an Equalization payment in any year in the period 2012-13 to 2019-20, the province would receive, in that year, an offset payment equal to two-thirds of the previous year’s offset payment and an offset payment equal to one-third of that previous year’s payment in the following year, should it continue not to qualify for Equalization.

It goes on to say:

If, in the future, the Government of Canada enters into an arrangement with another province or territory concerning offshore petroleum resource revenues, which in Nova Scotia’s view provides, on balance, benefits greater than those contained in this arrangement, Nova Scotia may elect to enter into discussions with the Government of Canada to revise this arrangement.

It is not only saying that those resources will be exempt and for a great number of years but it says if a better agreement is made somewhere else, Nova Scotia will be able to negotiate a better agreement for itself.

We do not mind Nova Scotia having that, but we do say this. If Nova Scotia can achieve that bilaterally before the panel of experts deals with the formula itself, then certainly Saskatchewan is entitled to receive at least the same deal for its resources on a bilateral basis. I think the Premier of Saskatchewan has ever right to call upon this government to do that.

The Minister of Finance, a native of Saskatchewan, has an obligation to the citizens of Saskatchewan and those in particular in Souris—Moose Mountain to ensure that the past injustices done to Saskatchewan are not repeated again. He says that Saskatchewan is on the cusp of being a have province. If it is a have province or on the cusp of being a have province, most of the citizens of Saskatchewan do not realize that.

Let me go through some of the facts that are a reality in Saskatchewan. In the farming community commodity prices have dropped dramatically while input costs such as fertilizers and fuel have risen considerably.

Farmers, even though they diversify, have seen declines of virtually every type of commodity. There are increased costs in freight. There have been a number of difficult production years. There has been drought and frost. Europe is increasing its export enhancement programs. This results in decreases of commodity values globally. Subsidies in the United States protect producers from commodity value declines, contributing to global overproduction, which starts a vicious cycle.

When we look at the increases in the costs to farm producers, purple gasoline has increased in January 2002 from 44¢ a litre to 62¢ a litre. Fertilizer has increased from $553 to $676.

There is a financial crisis in Saskatchewan in the agriculture community and it is having a snowball effect. It is not only affecting farmers, but it is affecting smaller communities that are starting to shut down. It is affecting infrastructure. If one came to Saskatchewan, one would be hard pressed to say that it is a have province.

It is time for the government to negotiate a fair deal with Saskatchewan to ensure its non-renewable resources are used by it to recover from the place it has been put because of the inequities of the past.

[Civil Marriage Act, March 21st, 2005]

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

The then justice minister, as late as 1999, said:

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.

She then said:

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.

It was right then. It is right now.

What has changed?

Once again, in 2000 the minister stated, with reference to marriage being the relationship between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, “It has served us well...”. It still serves us well and it should not change.

She stated:

We recognize that marriage is a fundamental value and important to Canadians....Important matters of policy should not be left to the courts to decide.

It should be decided right here in the House of Commons.

This is not an issue of whether gays and lesbians can vote or whether they can serve in the military, and it is not an issue, as the member for Burnaby—Douglas says, of whether gays and lesbians can drink at the same water fountain or ride on the same section on buses or be on the same beach. If these matters were an issue, as some say they are, it would lend credence to the Prime Minister's arguments relating to equality rights and dignity of the person.

The core issue here is the redefinition of a known term so as to include someone who would by the very nature of the fundamental meaning of the term not be included. By reformulating, redefining, diluting or extending the definition of marriage, it has made it mean something other than what it is and was. Marriage essentially is the union of two people, a man and a woman, who consummate their relationship by sexual relations with the potential to procreate.

To change the definition to suit the whim or needs of anyone is not equality. It is catering to the current political thought at the expense of those who actually believe the definition is important and meaningful to them.

The very essence of marriage, its inherent nature, is by definition an opposite sex institution. If we change the very essence of the meaning of marriage, we have destroyed the institution as it is known.

In 2003 in a British Columbia Court of Appeal case, the Attorney General of Canada argued that “legal marriage does not discriminate in a substantive sense because gays and lesbians cannot achieve the ends for which marriage exists”.

This was also referred to in a statement by Mr. Justice La Forest in Egan v. Canada in a 1995 Supreme Court of Canada case, where the justice stated that the essence of marriage:

--is firmly anchored in the biological and social realities that heterosexual couples have the unique ability to procreate, that most children are the product of these relationships, and that they are generally cared for and nurtured by those who live in that relationship. In this sense, marriage is by nature heterosexual.

In the Hyde v. Hyde case, which has been referred to by many politicians and judges alike, seldom has this passage from the judgment been quoted:

Marriage has well been said to be something more than a contract, either religious or civil; to be an institution.

Marriage is not religious marriage or civil marriage. It is an institution. It is more than just a contract between two people. The judge in the Hyde case clearly indicated that.

The Prime Minister and others make the distinction between religious and civil marriage and then deal with civil marriage as if it were something less, and I would suggest only for the purpose of making the real decision easier and getting them off the hook with religious leaders. The reality is that when the Prime Minister changes the definition of marriage it affects all marriage, whether it is religious or whether it is civil.

What the Prime Minister is doing, and he is being less than frank about it, is embarking on a profound change to the meaning of marriage. The time tested definition of marriage should not be simply set aside because somebody has a different idea about marriage. There may be many ideas about marriage, but an idea does not make it so. Ideas have to measure against what marriage in fact is.

Marriage is more than just a committed, loving relationship. To redefine it to mean something less than it is, simply put, is to embark on a slippery slope. While it is true that courts have veered from these defining characteristics of marriage, it does not mean that they are right in doing so.

In fact, the basis courts use to make the decisions they do are subjectively based and based on their perception of society. What gives them the right to be the sole arbiters of this important issue?

In the most recent Supreme Court of Canada case, where the Prime Minister tested the waters by referring pointed questions to the Supreme Court, the court essentially held that “our Constitution is a living tree which, by way of progressive interpretation, accommodates and addresses the realities of modern life”.

In other words, things change as society changes. That is the problem with our society. That kind of reasoning allows for an anything goes philosophy. If the courts and politicians start redefining and accommodating a meaning of a thing to suit their own purposes, we could come to a place where the original meaning is lost and the end has no resemblance to its beginning and, in fact, can come to mean the opposite. This path is wrong, ill-advised, ill-conceived and we need to stop it.

Some things in society are solid and foundational, and some things are right and not wrong, and they require no judicial tinkering or political invention or intervention. These are best left alone, in fact protected and defended. Our country will be better for it. The traditional definition of marriage must and should be protected and will be protected from this side of the House.

The Prime Minister, after confusing the issue here as one of equality and rights, now tries to justify, by his inaction, the reason for his position now. He says that the definition of marriage has been changed by courts in seven provinces and one territory. Where was the Prime Minister when he had an opportunity to appeal those decisions and did not? Where was the Prime Minister when the courts had no federal legislation defining the capacity to marry and struck their own course to deal with the common law definition of marriage? Why did the Prime Minister advocate his constitutional responsibility, a responsibility that would have allowed him to define the capacity of marriage in line with his 1999 thinking so the courts would have a basis upon which to make the decisions that were before them?

He now uses his inaction to justify his present position and that this is the law of the land and he cannot do anything about it. In fact, the Supreme Court of Canada refused to rule on the all important fourth question, which was whether the heterosexual definition of marriage was constitutional. However it did say that Parliament had the ability to legislate with respect to the capacity of marriage which would include the definition of having it heterosexual. It did not rule on the constitutionality of that issue as the government's stated position was that it would proceed regardless of what answer the court gave. This is an example of the arrogance of the Liberal government.

The Prime Minister would like to divert attention from the real issue by saying that the notwithstanding clause needs to be used. It does not need to be used until the court rules on it and this party has the opportunity to legislate as does the government on that issue.

The Prime Minister's argument that religious officials are protected by not being required to perform same sex marriages is a very narrow point. It is a red herring and a small comfort to religious leaders, this especially so given the Prime Minister's and the former justice minister's flip-flop on maintaining the traditional definition of marriage. Any religious rights would surely clash with equality rights and everyone knows in such a battle the outcome would be uncertain.

My leader said, “There are fundamental questions here. Will this society be one which respects the long-standing basic social institution of marriage, or will it be one that believes even our most basic structures can be reinvented overnight for the sake of political correctness? There are some things more fundamental than the state and its latest fad”. That is the traditional definition of marriage.

He went on to say, “...marriage and family are not the creature of the state, but pre-exist the state”. We as a state must uphold and defend the traditional definition of marriage.

It is truly a significant time in the history of our country and indeed it is a time where at stake is the kind of nation we are today and the kind of nation we want to be.

As the Prime Minister has stated, “the gaze of history is upon us”. Whose vision of the future of our nation is the correct one? There is no doubt about that and the people of Canada will see to it. The Prime Minister has it wrong. Canadians will see to it that he has it right.