Mr. Speaker, like a number of my colleagues in this House, I would like to take part in the debate on the following motion:
—That this House call on the government to introduce legislation to restore the traditional definition of marriage without affecting civil unions and while respecting existing same-sex marriages.
Many Canadians must be wondering why it is important to consult this House again on this issue. After all, less than two years ago, this issue was debated and voted on in this House, in the form of Bill C-38, the Civil Marriage Act. At that time, Parliament passed a law defining marriage as follows:
Marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others.
This definition of marriage includes same-sex unions. As I had not yet been elected at that point, I can express my opinion on this issue today.
First, I would like to say a few words about the motion itself. It is important to point out that the motion will not change the definition of marriage. It seeks simply to ask members whether they want to reopen the debate in order to develop a bill to restore the traditional definition of marriage.
The members of this House have two choices when they vote this week on this motion. For those who support the traditional definition of marriage—the union between a man and a woman, which excludes all same-sex couples—the choice is to vote for the motion. For those who believe that the definition of marriage goes beyond the traditional definition and includes same-sex couples, the choice is to respect the existing law on civil marriage and vote against this motion.
I want to respect the current law, which is in line with my personal values and protects the fundamental rights of Canadians.
I am convinced that we do not have to amend this law, because it still respects the traditional definition of marriage.
I, myself, have been married for more than 25 years. I am the mother of three children and I believe that this act in no way undermines the importance of my union and the solidity of my family. I sincerely believe that the Civil Marriage Act continues to enable all heterosexual couples to marry, as they have done for a long time. The current legislation enables same sex couples to benefit from the same right.
The real question that needs to be asked is this: does the government have the moral authority to decide whether two people, a man and a woman, or same sex partners, can be legally united? In my opinion, the answer is clear and simple: two people who want to live together within a civil marriage, regardless of their sexual orientation, must be able to do so without the interference of the State.
I am one of those who firmly believe in the separation of church and state. In my view, one person’s religion must not become another person’s law.
While the debate deals with a motion that was tabled by the government, I want to emphasize that the government has taken no position on this question. Unlike the previous government, all members on this side of the House, including ministers, are free to vote according to their conscience. In that regard, I must severely criticize the Liberal government for having presented that legislation to the House without allowing a truly free vote on such a sensitive issue.
I am proud to belong to a government that believes that matters of personal conviction should be decided by a truly free vote. As a minister in this government, I feel privileged to be able to express my views on this issue and to vote freely on the motion tabled by this same government.
In closing, I congratulate the government for allowing members of this House to express their points of view of in a spirit of mutual respect.
I take this opportunity to inform the House that I do not wish to reopen the debate, that I intend to respect the current legislation on civil marriage and, consequently, I will be voting against this motion.