Françoise Boivin

[Supply, April 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to thank the member for Shefford for finding me charming. That is rare. This is not the Bloc's usual epithet for me, but that is okay.

There has been talk of attempts at diversion and other things, but I do not think the government has tried to divert anything. Despite the storm, we are managing to maintain a course and keep a focus. In health care and other areas, there are major files for the cities and communities.

Now I am going to have some fun doing what I like to do—answer questions. Indeed, the Bloc is doing nothing but ask questions. They rarely answer any themselves. I imagine they are interested in the answer.

First, the Liberal Party did not initiate civil proceedings; it was the Government of Canada. I think that my colleague from Shefford has enough experience to know that proceedings are initiated when there is a case and evidence.

That was part of what my government did and what I confidently explained to the House, that is, to show that we can take civil action against the 19 companies and individuals accused. Why are we not doing so? For the very reason that Justice Gomery is involved in the process and has not yet taken things into consideration.

They operate on allegations; we do not. However, what is important and what I want to repeat for Canadians is that we have promised never to use a cent of the tainted money. We will not and we will reimburse it when the evidence says to do so, in accordance with Canadian law.

[Supply, April 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, this is an example of the types of questions we hear every day. We are trying to do the job that Justice Gomery is actually doing. I would ask the hon. member to perhaps not read one phrase from a newspaper but read the whole testimony, and I do not want to get into that.

If the members were to do some reading, and I do not think the opposition has done some actual reading of the testimony, other than what their writers give them, they would see that there was more said than what he says. That is only one bit of testimony in front of Justice Gomery. The answers that were given in the House were exactly the same.

It is only in the minds of opposition members that they trying to see some difference. It is because they would like to see some difference. Maybe they can hint that perhaps the Prime Minister was linked to some testimony.

The opposition says we are panicking. We are not panicking. The opposition members are panicking. They know that if they wait for Justice Gomery that they will not want the report. Why are they afraid of the report? The opposition knows it will not be able to attack us with that report. The report will just take that balloon and go bang.

[Supply, April 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this attempt at a diversion. Indeed, it is very representative of what the Bloc is trying to do with this 38th Parliament. It is central to the debate.

The motion tabled by the Bloc, upon which extremely important time is being spent here in the House, is central to everything that is going on. It is central to Canadian democracy. It is not important for the Bloc Québécois to make a point which, in my opinion, is extremely important. However, it has seen fit to bring out the participation rates for the last federal election. I am quite aware of this, for we know that Canadians and Quebeckers are simply more and more disconnected from political reality and from politics in its broadest sense.

Once again, the only purpose of motions such as those tabled by the Bloc Québécois is to send up smokescreens over the theme it holds dearest and on which it did not even have to campaign in the election. The theme which simply says, laying it on as thickly as possible, “The Liberals are crooks, the Liberals are this, the Liberals are that”.

I find it regrettable to hear what is being said on an issue as critical as the Gomery commission. Every day, on television—in fact there is live coverage on English, French and other channels—experts from the media look at some of the comments and testimonies heard, and then the Bloc Québécois, the Conservatives and the NDP do the same thing. They go so far as to presenting motions such as this one in the House, in an attempt to have Canadians and Quebeckers believe that there is no need to wait until the end of the inquiry since they have already decided that there are some guilty people, namely all of us on this side of the House.

But I want to go back to the actions taken by the Canadian government to shed light on this whole issue, since this opportunity was given to all of us by the Auditor General in her report. We were given the opportunity to try to do politics in a different fashion, but Bloc Québécois members do not want to wait. They would rather have people think that all Liberals are corrupt, and they would like the phrase “Free us from the Liberals” to become a slogan.

I hope Canadians can clearly see how a concept as important as democracy is being used and played with. It is important to ensure that people can become stakeholders. This means we should be here to represent those who elected us, and to ensure that events such as those relating to the sponsorships never happen again. However, this is not what is being done. The opposition is using all sorts of diversions in an attempt to pursue its own political agenda.

Personally, I am very pleased with the initiatives taken by the government to shed light on the abuse relating to the federal sponsorship program, including the actions taken to track down those responsible for this situation, and to see what can be done to correct it.

I want to start by congratulating my Prime Minister. I believe that, besides the official opposition, anyone who follows what is going on must find the current situation difficult. Day in and day out, we have to contend with this kind of behaviour in the House because the Prime Minister has made a political decision that was not easy to make. History has taught us that, more often than not, in politics, attempts are made to sweep everything under the carpet, instead of facing adversity square in the face. But great men are best tested in adversity.

In this case, we cannot be said to have taken a poll in an attempt to make political hay. Anyone in the country who can say with a straight face that we are trying to make political hay out of this should take a look around the House and see who is doing so.

Certainly not the Prime Minister. He is constantly under attack, while having had no involvement at all in the matter. My Prime Minister is no doubt deeply concerned by the misuse of public funds and by the blow dealt by this whole matter to the reputation of the Canadian public service, which is internationally renowned for its professionalism and good ethical practices.

Because of these political games being played in the House, the trust of the Canadian public in the political system, not the Liberals, is dwindling. I was just at a function where people were saying that they do not trust politicians in general, not just the Liberals, the NDP, the Conservatives or the Bloc in particular. We all know where politicians stand in the public eye; we rank very low in terms of the people's trust.

We must see this through, and that is the direction my party, the government party, has taken. We must get to the bottom of this, and that is what we are going to do.

As the Auditor General clearly indicated, the taxpayers' money has been mismanaged and misspent. You will never hear me say the contrary. The policy and regulations governing the awarding of contracts have not been respected, and the trust of the Canadian public has been betrayed.

This is inexcusable. The sponsorship program was small in comparison to other government programs with an annual budget of roughly $40 million. However, it was plagued with big problems and to correct them we needed to be firm and carry out our responsibilities with determination. Most of all, we had to do what was best for the taxpayers.

When concerns over the sponsorship program first came to light, no one tried to hide the problem or defend the indefensible. On the contrary, a series of specific, well thought out progressive measures were carried out to address the problems in order to prevent them from recurring.

When it became clear that the sponsorship program was fundamentally flawed and no longer had the trust of Parliament or taxpayers, it was dismantled and the organization in charge of managing it, Communication Canada, was disbanded. When the Auditor General released her second scathing report on the sponsorship program and federal government advertising activities, on February 10, 2004—this is an important date to remember—the government reacted immediately by adopting exhaustive measures that went beyond the expectations of most people.

Today I want to focus my comments on the measures that were announced in February 2004. Those measures have the answers not only in terms of holding people responsible for their mismanagement of the sponsorship program, but in terms of ensuring that this type of situation never happens again.

First and foremost, the government has created an independent commission of inquiry on the sponsorship and advertising activities, headed by Justice John Gomery of the Superior Court of Quebec. It has also given the commission very broad terms of reference so as not to limit the scope of its inquiry.

More specifically, the commission was asked to investigate and report on questions raised, directly or indirectly, by Chapters 3 and 4 of the November 2004 Report of the Auditor General of Canada, including the following: the creation of the sponsorship program; the selection of communications and advertising agencies; the management of the sponsorship program and advertising activities by government officials at all levels; the receipt and use of any funds or commissions disbursed in connection with the sponsorship program and advertising activities by any person or organization; andany other circumstance directly related to the sponsorship program and advertising activities that the commissioner considers relevant to fulfilling his mandate. Justice Gomery was also asked to make recommendations. In my opinion, this is his most important task because civil and criminal courts will consider numerous other aspects of this terrible situation.

Justice Gomery was also asked to make recommendations that he considers advisable to prevent mismanagement of sponsorship programs or advertising activities in the future. However, the opposition does not want to hear that part. This is an excellent opportunity, and I ask my colleagues to be patient because I think that it will be beneficial to everyone and will ensure that we know how to prevent this from happening again, instead of pushing personal agendas for, quite simply, crass and despicable purposes, such as Quebec's sovereignty or forming a new government. If this is more important than properly representing our constituents, I am no longer sure what being in politics means.

The commissioner made his opening statement on May 7, 2004. He then set about examining requests for standing and funding, and announced his decisions.

In September 2004, Justice Gomery opened the public hearings here in Ottawa, where he heard a number of key witnesses, including the former and present prime ministers, the Auditor General, and former and present Department of Public Works and Government Services officials, including Charles Guité who administered the sponsorship program until his retirement in 1999. These public hearings, scheduled to terminate by the end of May, are now being held in Montreal. The commission will hear final arguments in June and its fact finding report should be submitted by November 1. Justice Gomery is expected to produce his policy report and recommendations by mid-December. Justice Gomery has been given a difficult task with some tight deadlines, and that is all the more difficult because he has to accomplish this under public scrutiny. This is proof that we on this side of the House are not afraid.

It is tempting to present our own point of view, as the opposition parties are so blithely doing, shamefully taking advantage of parliamentary immunity. They are laying it on thicker and thicker every day, adding name after name. This places people in an awkward situation, although some of them likely have no reason to feel that way. They are, however, forced to suffer the consequences. Today I feel bad for the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who are proud Liberals like myself. While we were not even involved in all this, we bear the brunt of all manner of insults.

This is unfortunate, and a motion such as this one has just that effect. Just by looking at its wording—and I have no intention of acting like a lawyer here—it is clear that it is really unfortunate, because we have already promised in this House, I do not know how many times, to reimburse all the money.

So it is just a matter of playing little political games. We have also taken steps, through a lawyer, to recover the money. Civil proceedings worth some $40 million have been initiated. Some people are already in criminal court.

Do they not want to see what will happen? Have they already decided that all those people were guilty? Are those the principles being advocated in the Bloc Québécois? Is that the foundation on which they wish to build their own country, by using such a situation and saying, “We are creating our country, because with the Liberals and the federal government, things are going badly?” I thought, because they keep telling us so, that their plan was supposed to be so thrilling and easy to sell. It is so easy to sell that other people are getting hurt, as the Bloc pretends this is the only way we will be able to engage in good politics. I have some news for them: this is not the way to do politics.

Another sentence strikes me and we hear it more and more. They say this is the story of the Liberal kind of politics. I am sorry, this is not my way of doing politics; it is not Quebec's way of doing politics. All the measures taken by this government demonstrate it is going to undertake a real cleanup.

The opposition parties are only interested in exploiting the situation. They are not prepared to carry out a proper cleanup to ensure that Canadian democracy is in good shape, because our Canadians and our Quebeckers deserve better. With the Gomery commission, we will be in a position to achieve that level of perfection.

[Supply, April 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is with somewhat mixed emotions that I rise today. As a new member, I must admit that this whole sponsorship scandal, with which I was confronted as a new candidate during the election campaign, is really hitting us head on. No one on either side of the House can say we are going through one of the great moments in Canadian politics. We agree on that.

Certainly, in my great naivety when I was elected the evening of June 28, 2004, and people asked how I felt about a minority government, I was all excited, being one of those who believed what those elected in the various parties were saying. I remember a radio conversation with a new NDP member, a new Bloc Québécois member and a new Conservative member. We were all fired up by this great verdict of the Canadian people in the wake of the Auditor General's report.

A minority government would let backbenchers like me and many other people play an important part in this 38th Parliament. We understood the people's verdict that evening of June 28. Sometimes I listen to all that is said, I look at my colleagues, and I say to myself, “But what principles are being applied here?” The principle being applied is that we are guilty until proven otherwise. No one is given a fair, just trial. Another extremely important principle: one punishment is not enough; there need to be who knows how many.

As I was saying, I arrived all fired up for this magnificent 38th Parliament with lots to do and facing challenges that really were quite substantial, whatever the opposition parties may say. I heard my colleague from the Bloc who was taking part in the debate, the hon. member for Repentigny, tell us about the declining percentages of voters who participate. According to him, it is because of the sponsorship scandal. I am starting to think that the sponsorship scandal is being used not just to lay it on thick but very thick. The type of political games being played in this House, since we arrived in October, is absolutely extraordinary because we are missing some golden opportunities.

One of the committees on which I am presently sitting, namely Procedure and House Affairs, was given an extremely important mandate—or at least, that is what I thought— to advise the House on what we should be doing about the democratic deficit, but above all about possible electoral reform. I know that this mandate from the House is dear to the heart of a former leader of the New Democratic Party. That is the case for me as well. We have heard a different opinion from the experts on the subject of public's lack of interest. I suppose I should believe the hon. member for Repentigny, who says it is because of the way we do politics in Quebec. He talks about dirty money, and that's not all, with all of the epithets that his party likes to use. What the experts have told us is that public disinterest—

[Official Languages Act, April 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, first, like most of my colleagues, I am pleased to speak on Bill S-3 to amend the Official Languages Act and promote English and French, a bill which is being sponsored in this House by my colleague. Members will recall that I was happy to support this bill.

I also want to thank Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier, but differently than my colleagues have done. I grew up in this region and, to me, Jean-Robert Gauthier is an institution. My family is somewhat representative of the Francophonie in Canada, because my parents are Franco-Ontarians. They come from the St. Charles parish and grew up in the same area as Jean-Robert Gauthier. My father had the opportunity to see this great man, as an MP, do a truly extraordinary job as a politician not only for the francophone cause, but in everything that job entails.

Not only was it a childhood dream of mine to be standing here in 2005 as the MP for Gatineau, but I recall my father always telling me just how important it was for me to retain my integrity as Jean-Robert Gauthier did. He is a model politician who has always fought for what he believed in. I want to pay public tribute to him. We are proud to have had such a strong representative in the great history of the Liberal Party of Canada.

I was saying that we represent the Canadian Francophonie because my parents are Franco-Ontarians, and their three children, my brother, my sister and I, were born in Quebec and grew up there. People can imagine the dinner conversations we had when we—the three of us who had grown up here in the Quebec Outaouais—talked about the Canadian Francophonie. My parents experienced the major battles and fought alongside other families for the rights of francophones outside Quebec. People such as Jacqueline Pelletier and Roland Thérien are remembered for their roles in the epic battles of Franco-Ontarians. I salute all those who fight each day for this cause.

In these discussions with my parents, I often represented what the Francophonie in Quebec is about in such discussions. We are rather privileged in Quebec to live in an environment where the French language is legally protected, without denying that it is threatened because it is not the language of the majority on this planet we live on. When we value a language, we must ensure that it is maintained. When comparing the situation of French in Quebec to its situation in the rest of Canada at the time when I was growing up at home, I had a little difficulty understanding those we called Franco-Ontarians.

I understood a little better after I was elected and appointed to the Committee on Official Languages and had the opportunity, along with several of my colleagues in this place of all political stripes, to hear many representatives of this great family, the Canadian Francophonie. I was better able to understand the struggles I had heard about growing up, which I had difficulty understanding because I was not experiencing similar struggles in Quebec. I followed the debate on Bill S-3 and realized how important all this was when the official languages commissioner appeared before the committee and explained her role, the legislation and the fact that this act should be even more effective. It seems to me that was the essence of the amendment sought by the hon. Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier.

I would like to digress for a moment to clarify why I support Bill S-3. It is all well and fine to rise in support of a bill, to point out that we asked umpteen questions, that our party did this, that or the other, but what matters in the end is to make a decision that can really help.

When I see the official languages commissioner fully and unconditionally support Bill S-3, yet people oppose it for one reason or another, at such times I ask myself whether these people really represent the interests of the Francophonie. Hon. members will have gathered that I am alluding to the position of the Bloc Québécois. I have trouble understanding them in this respect.

This is, moreover, a far cry from what I was told in committee when I asked why the Bloc Québécois was refusing to support Bill S-3. I was surprised by their answer. I must admit that they did ask good questions in committee. Now is the time to make an important decision for the rights of linguistic minorities. I had trouble understanding why the Bloc was against the bill. At that time, the excuse they gave was that there was no funding tied to the bill. I have found the explanation my colleague gave just now to be perhaps a bit more representative of the Bloc and its constant sacrosanct fear of the big bad feds invading Quebec's jurisdiction.

It must be clearly understood that what we are talking about here is the federal institutions, so that is a pretty feeble excuse. It is a matter of enhancing the accountability of federal institutions as far as implementing that commitment is concerned.

As you know, the Canadian government is very much attached to the cause of linguistic duality. The French and English languages, and the populations speaking those languages, have shaped Canada and helped to define its identity. Canada's linguistic duality is therefore ingrained in the very nature of our country. We cannot look at the Canada of today without acknowledging the importance of English and French in Canadian society.

I agree with some of my Quebec colleagues here that, if the treatment of our anglophone minority and its survival, its institutions and so forth is compared, there is no doubt, and I am very comfortable stating this, that we look after our minority very well. That does not mean that, as far as the federal government and federal institutions are concerned, we do not need to ensure that our anglophone fellow citizens receive services in their language of choice. That is what we are talking about, and that is why an effort must be made not to shift the debate to things that make no sense, as certain representatives of the Bloc have done.

We are talking about federal institutions. I think that an anglophone living off the beaten track somewhere in Quebec is also entitled to service in his or her language of choice when dealing with federal institutions.

As you know, the Official Languages Act of 1969 is the outcome of a long reflection on the situation in this country. The Laurendeau-Dunton Commission, which was struck in 1963, worked for seven years to produce a true portrait of Canadian society. Its conclusion was that Canada was undergoing a major crisis, the resolution of which required offering both major language communities new ways of co-existing. One of those ways was to make federal institutions bilingual.

My experience at the Standing Committee on Official Languages opened my eyes to many concepts having to do with linguistic minorities. The committee is currently doing a lot of work on the issue of using the official language of one's choice at work in the public service.

I want to take this opportunity in supporting Bill S-3, to say how important the concept of using the official language of one's choice at work in the public service is to me.

As I was saying earlier, I grew up in the greater National Capital region, in the Quebec Outaouais. I am amazed that we are still talking about this. It was extremely important for Senator Gauthier to fight like the dickens to advance the cause of linguistic minorities in this country. Thirty years later, we are still having the same discussion.

It is time to make a decision, to move forward on this issue and to stop using the lousy excuses we have heard for being against Bill S-3. At the Standing Committee on Official Languages I asked the Official Languages Commissioner whether she still supported the bill. Her clear and unwavering response was yes.

I too support Bill S-3. Of course, when we make changes to legislation as important as this, they have to be considered and we will do that in committee. However, just because we ask questions in committee does not mean we are working for linguistic minorities.

When it is time to make decisions that count—I am saying this to all Canadians watching us, especially Quebeckers—the Bloc is absent.

[Health, April 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, on this World Health Day, during which the World Health Organization wants to raise awareness about this important issue, I want to know how this government intends to respond since it seems to share the Canadian public's concerns about health.

[Sponsorship Program, April 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois and the Conservative Party are playing a dangerous game threatening Canadians with another election. The two parties are making their disdain for public opinion quite clear.

The Conservatives, by joining with the Bloc, are de facto supporting the cause of sovereignty, and the Bloc is supporting the reactionary policies of a party that has no respect for official languages or human rights.

The stranglehold on virtue is weakening. How does the leader of the Conservative Party justify his support for Quebec's separation? How can the leader of the Bloc Québécois call himself the apostle of transparency, knowing full well that the mother house in Quebec received some one hundred thousand dollars from Groupaction, the company of Jean Brault? Given his ambition to head the Parti Québécois, will he demand an inquiry into the awarding of these sums as he did for the Liberals?

The new slogan of the unCanadian alliance should be—

[The Environment, March 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, now for something a little more refreshing on this World Water Day.

Will the Minister of the Environment remind this House what the government intends to do to better protect the quality of our water, the most precious of our resources, especially after the recent budget, the greenest since Confederation?

[Sustainable Development, March 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's influence was apparent during discussions at the 10th Francophonie summit, held in Burkina Faso.

Sustainable development extends beyond the environment. It takes a broader meaning in connection with underdevelopment, and sustainability requires equitable bases and interdependence of the sound management of natural resources and the fight against poverty.

Canada's vision is focussed on issues of social justice, cultural diversity, basic human rights and good governance.

At the Ouagadougou summit, Canada encouraged La Francophonie to influence international dialogue on sustainable development and to position itself as a good, or even a key strategic partner for various international and multilateral organizations concerned with sustainable development, in Africa in particular.

This is one more source of pride for Canada.

[Civil Marriage Act, March 21st, 2005]

Madam Speaker, today I want to talk about alternative approaches proposed in response to the government's approach in Bill C-38. Even if many things have been said and written about this subject, there still appear to be some misconceptions about approaches with regard to granting equal access to civil marriage for same sex couples wishing to demonstrate the same level of commitment.

Many people, including members of this House, would like to think that there are a number of approaches. This is not true. Our approach is based on Canada's federal constitutional framework and its framework of parliamentary democracy, as governed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These two aspects of our governance structure provide a legal and constitutional framework that determine what those approaches may be.

I will illustrate this point by examining the three major approaches initially proposed in the November 2002 discussion paper, tabled by the then Minister of Justice. The first approach, which, by the way, remains popular, is to preserve the word “marriage” for opposite sex couples and use a term other than “marriage” to recognize the relationship between same sex couples wishing to make the same kind of commitment. The expression “civil union” is the most popular.

All the rights and responsibilities associated with this civil status are identical and the only distinction would be the word used to describe that relationship. Many people find this approach extremely attractive. For example, those who consider marriage a religious ceremony, and the union between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, could support this approach. They could not necessarily support the legal recognition of same sex unions, but a balance could be achieved since sex couples, with parallel rights and responsibilities, would receive recognition. However, marriage would be reserved for opposite sex couples only. So, same sex couples would be treated differently but equally.

Other countries, including a number of Scandinavian countries and France, have adopted such a parallel system, which is considered a reasonable compromise for such a controversial issue. Why not learn from their experience and create such a system in Canada? The answer is that this approach is no longer possible, given Canada's legal and constitutional framework. The discussion paper was published before the numerous rulings by courts in eight provinces and territories, which have interpreted the meaning of equality in this context, even in 2002.

The working document, however, indicated that this approach would likely not be possible without recourse to the notwithstanding clause. The courts have now confirmed that the heterosexual definition of marriage is unconstitutional and clearly infringes on the Charter guarantees of equality. Although the Supreme Court has not stated its opinion on this matter, the question nevertheless still requires an answer.

The Supreme Court of Canada did, however, make it clear that the decisions reached in eight provinces or territories are binding. Consequently, the only way of restoring the heterosexual definition of marriage to the law, a definition that is no longer legally in force in those eight provinces or territories, would be to reverse these decisions, which would require use of the notwithstanding clause.

The British Columbia and Ontario courts of appeal have both examined the possibility of a civil union as an alternative, and have found it to be less than equal and therefore unconstitutional. The Ontario Court of Appeal declared that allowing people to choose a same sex partner and solemnize their union is not an adequate replacement for the legal recognition of that union.

The second option proposed by the document would be for the federal and provincial governments to withdraw totally from marriage and leave it wholly in the hands of the religious authorities. Instead of having a legal or civil marriage, there would be only the legal status of a civil union, available on request for couples of the opposite sex or the same sex desirous of having the civil rights and responsibilities of marriage.

Should these couples wish to be considered married and not just living in a civil union, they could then choose to go to their church, synagogue or mosque to be married in a religious ceremony. The religious authorities would then have to decide whether the couple met all the criteria for a religious marriage before marrying them. The marriage itself would be valid for all the purposes of the requirements of that religion, but with no legal effect whatsoever.

This option may seem quite attractive at first. It appears to offer the same treatment to all couples, whether heterosexual or homosexual, and would therefore comply with the principles of equality contained in the charter. What is more, many would see this as reinforcing marriage as a purely religious institution. If looked at more closely, however, the problems will be seen to greatly outweigh the advantages.

First of all, no one in the world has adopted this model. Is it because no one else thought it would be a good idea? No, not really. This option was rejected by all major religions when their representatives appeared before the standing committee in 2003. None of them were prepared for religious marriage no longer to be legally binding.

It is easy to see why. What would happen if a person decided to marry someone while living in a union with someone else? The law would no longer have any jurisdiction to protect vulnerable spouses or children from religious marriages, since it would have no jurisdiction over religious marriage.

In Canada, through the Constitution, only the provinces and territories have jurisdiction over civil unions, as confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada. To get out of the business of marriage, Parliament would have to pass a bill declaring that no is legally able to get married for civil purposes in Canada. Can you imagine such legislation? How would we explain to Canadians, to our own parents and grandparents, that they are no longer married in the eyes of the law?

The other countries that have adopted a parallel civil union system for same sex couples are unitary states, not federal states like Canada. In those countries, complete responsibility for marriage, the celebration of marriage and civil unions is in the hands of the national government.

In Canada, the federal government is limited to only the substantive aspects of marriage, that is, the capacity to marry. The procedure and celebration of marriage and civil union are in provincial hands. Thus, any system to replace civil marriage would have to be established through a coordinated response of all 13 provinces and territories. History tells us that such a coordinated response is so rare as to be virtually impossible.

What would this mean for the Canadian people? Perhaps more access to survivor benefits, but certainly not more protection in the Divorce Act concerning support payments for children, custody and visiting rights. If marriage no longer existed, there would no longer be any federal jurisdiction if such new civil unions break down, which could lead to a patchwork of disparate laws, varying with province of residence, and probably no recognition of these new civil unions outside Canada, in a different country of residence or where holidays are taken.

Denying all opposite sex couples the opportunity to marry in order to refuse it to a few same sex couples would be an extreme way to resolve the problem of equality. That would be replacing one injustice with a greater one to opposite sex couples. Thus, it is not at all surprising that no other country in the world has taken a step down that path.

I return to the very beginning. We have before us two possibilities: we can move forward and provide uniform legislation in this field, by adopting the government's bill, or we can go backwards, reversing the decisions of the courts and restoring the traditional definition to its position as the law of Canada by using the notwithstanding clause. This would make it possible for the government to declare specifically that an act of Parliament would be in force even though it violated one or more fundamental freedoms, one or more fundamental rights to equality provided in the Charter.

To do that, Parliament would first have to admit that it is prepared to discriminate against same sex couples who want to demonstrate the same degree of commitment as other married couples. That is how it works.

Those members who vote to use the notwithstanding clause must realize they will be recognizing publicly the discriminatory nature of the legislation, but insist it be enacted, despite its impact on the rights of minorities protected by the Constitution. This will not end here. Parliament will then have to review the legislation every five years to determine if it will continue such deliberate discrimination.

Consequently, this approach will not lead to a final solution to this problem, but rather will serve as a temporary measure only. Every five years, perhaps indefinitely, the members of this House will have to pass legislation supporting discrimination, until a Parliament finally rejects this backward approach and re-establishes the equal rights conferred by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I find this aspect very troubling. The government believes that using the notwithstanding clause to overturn charter rights is not in keeping with responsible leadership. It puts all minorities at the mercy of potential and deliberate discrimination, via legislation.

Today, we are talking about civil marriage for same sex couples, tomorrow, who knows, it could be persons with a handicap. Canada has a long history of tolerance and respect for diversity. Many countries envy our pluralist society.

That is why adopting this bill is the right thing to do. Bill C-38 establishes a fair balance by ensuring that a minority group in our society, which has long been marginalized and historically excluded, can finally have equal access to civil marriage, while protecting the longstanding freedom of religious authorities to marry only—and I repeat, only—those who meet their requirements. In my opinion, no other approach in the Canadian context will do.