Kevin Sorenson

[Civil Marriage Act, April 4th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak in opposition to Bill C-38, perhaps the most contentious piece of legislation that I have debated since coming to this House in 2000.

Debates on moral issues are always contentious and intense because arguments for or against these issues are based on values. It is extremely difficult, and rightfully so, for most people to abandon their values, especially if those values have been ingrained and nurtured over many years within the home, school and the church.

The most important aspect of today's debate, in my opinion, will be respecting the views and values of those on either side of this issue, respecting that regardless of what others say, many Canadians will refuse to accept the fact that marriage is anything but the union of one man and one woman.

That refusal is based on long held values that no one can or should deny. That refusal is based on the principal premise that the union of one man and one woman is a very unique and sacred relationship and that it is at the root of all humanity.

As Justice La Forest pointed out in Egan v. Canada in 1995:

Marriage has from time immemorial been firmly grounded in our legal tradition, one that is itself a reflection of long-standing philosophical and religious traditions, but its ultimate raison d'etre transcends all of these and is firmly anchored in the biological...realities that heterosexual couples have the unique ability to procreate....

As John H. Redecop, professor emeritus of political science, wrote on March 5, 2005:

--[La Forest's] perspective has been affirmed, since time immemorial, by all societies, all major cultures and all major religions. The state did not invent the institution of marriage and our government, which has the constitutional responsibility to regulate it, should not fundamentally redefine it.

Like many other academics, this professor also reinforces a point that has been raised numerous times in the House during the debate on Bill C-38, which is that same sex marriage is not essentially a rights issue and that not every rights claim is a valid claim. Need I remind the House that article 1 of the charter states:

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

I would strongly suggest, especially in recognition of Justice La Forest's learned remarks, that marriage is by nature heterosexual and that limiting marriage to the union of one man and one woman is a reasonable limit. To emphasize this point, I refer to observations made in a letter to me:

It must be stressed that homosexuals need to be treated fairly and homophobia must be rejected vigorously. But a commitment to fairness and justice does not require the government or private citizens to mete out identical treatment. Not all differentiation is unwarranted or evil. Nor is every restriction of perceived rights a denial of justice. The crucial issue is whether any given restriction is reasonable...Good public policy must incorporate the making of informed and reasonable distinctions. Further, an insistence to call different entities by the same name is itself an inconsistency; it creates confusion and weakens credibility.

What is being said here, a sentiment I strongly agree with, is that the procreative or unique relationship that exists only between a man and a woman should be recognized and it should be recognized by allowing only this relationship to be defined by the word “marriage”. This is not to say that same sex couples should not enjoy the same benefits and protection under the law and be legally recognized couples within civil unions.

I will oppose this legislation and I will do so with the overwhelming support of the people of my riding of Crowfoot.

Unlike some of those opposite, I am speaking on behalf of my constituents. Based on the numerous town hall meetings I have hosted and on thousands of letters, emails, faxes and telephone calls, I am honestly and accurately reflecting the majority opinion within my constituency.

I ask how many on the opposite side can say the same. If the most recent poll, which shows that 66% of Canadians support the traditional definition of marriage, is any indication, then the answer is that not very many on the other side are representing their constituents.

I stand in the House to oppose Bill C-38, with the support of the leader of the Conservative Party. Unlike the Liberal leader, our leader believes in free votes. He believes that members of Parliament must vote according to the majority views in their riding. The Conservative Party believes in democracy.

The Liberal government has, and I quote from the February 3 National Post , “spent the last two months trying to convince Canadians that the Supreme Court said something it didn't: that the current definition of marriage in unconstitutional”.

Appealing to the vague emotional attachments many Canadians have to the charter, the Prime Minister and the justice minister have falsely declared that implementing gay marriage is necessary to protect the document and suggests that--

[Border Security, March 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, concerned front line RCMP officers, in direct contradiction of the commissioner of the RCMP, insist that the closure of these detachments will result in more criminals crossing the border into Canada illegally.

Will the minister prevent the closure of the nine RCMP detachments along the U.S. border in Quebec as recommended by the justice committee and front line officers and allow the RCMP to simply do its job?

[Border Security, March 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in 2004 thousands of vehicles entered Canada without reporting to customs. In one three-week period, 17 vehicles blew through a major border crossing in Quebec. Quite obviously, law-abiding citizens were not behind the wheels of those vehicles.

Despite these statistics the Liberal government insists on shutting down border RCMP detachments in Quebec. My question is for the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. Why?

[Canadian Livestock Industry, March 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for being here and I thank the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster for bringing forward this emergency debate.

I wish the minister could hear the calls that come into the offices of most of the MPs, calls from feedlot operators and producers. They are saying that the fat market has dropped $10 a hundred. They are getting 10¢ a pound for their calf prices. Their cattle are down $100 to $150. They are losing our shirts. I had a call from a pastor about a guy who was ready to release his cattle. He had given up hope.

People are looking at the minister to step forward and make a difference. If there are issues that are dividing us with the U.S., let us deal with them. I know the minister will stand and say that the President does this and he does that. However, is there anything the minister can do that he has not done already to get money into extra slaughter plants? The loan loss reserve is not working. What more can he do?

[Justice, February 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the lack of empathy that the government has for murdered police officers in this country is absolutely appalling while its leniency toward their killers is shocking.

The government refused to intervene to have Constable Joe MacDonald's killer, Clinton Suzack, removed from a club fed style prison. Hopefully, this leniency will not be repeated in the case of Claude Forget. Forget, convicted of two counts of attempted murder against Montreal police officers, is about to walk after serving a little over half his 20 year sentence.

My question is for the Minister of Public Safety. Will she ensure that Claude Forget does not receive statutory release?

[The Budget, February 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for coming today to speak on the budget. I was disappointed, though, with the minister's announcement, not so much with the content of the announcement but with the fact that he would come here and announce that Canada would not be involved in the ballistic missile defence system.

The reason I am frustrated with that is because the same Prime Minister and the minister himself always gave indications that we would be bringing the debate to the House of Commons, that before there was a decision, there would be a debate and questions asked here in the House of Commons.

The NDP stands and claims great victory, but we have not had that opportunity. In committee, every time that we have looked at the ballistic missile defence system, we have had major concerns with the system, but the government was on the other side. Government members were explaining why we needed it. The parliamentary secretary was explaining why we needed the ballistic missile defence system. The Conservative Party had concerns. Now the minister stands in the House and makes this announcement.

The Prime Minister, even at a town hall meeting with CBC said, “Before any decision is made, there will be a vote in the House of Commons”. That did not happen. I am frustrated and disappointed with the government on that count.

I am also disappointed that we have been waiting in Parliament and in our committee for the international policy review.

We have had the empty promises with BMD. We have had the empty promises that the IPR would be coming in August, then in October, and then at the end of January, or the beginning of February. We are now coming into March and the foreign affairs and international trade committee still has not had the opportunity to take a look at the vision that this government has on international policy.

I am wondering if the minister would stand today and tell us when we can expect the international policy review so that the foreign affairs and international trade committee can study it and Parliament can have an opportunity to debate it.

[National Defence, February 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are asking what is this Prime Minister's word worth? On numerous occasions and in one very public forum, a CBC Town Hall , the Prime Minister promised that there would certainly be debate, a national debate, before any final agreement was signed on ballistic missile defence.

Why has he misled Canadians again?

[National Defence, February 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, there is no dithering with Frank McKenna. According to Canada's ambassador to the United States, it is a done deal. Canada has signed on to the U.S. missile defence plan.

In the throne speech the Prime Minister promised a full and open debate on the issue of ballistic missile defence followed by a vote in the House of Commons. Why has the Prime Minister reneged on that promise?

[Civil Marriage Act, February 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity of serving with the member on the justice committee when we studied the question that was put by the justice minister to our committee regarding same sex marriage and the definition of marriage. I appreciated the time I was able to work with him.

I listened with some interest to his concerns in his speech. He spoke about a free vote. Certainly in this party we are given a free vote. In fact, the people of Crowfoot, whom I represent, have made it very clear that they want me to represent their wishes on these questions of social experimentation and social policy in our country. I appreciate that he himself on the other side called on his very own government to offer the same ability of members of Parliament to represent their constituents.

I have some grave concerns with some of the religious freedom aspects of what the bill may bring forward. Promises from the government to defend religious freedom I do not believe can be trusted.

In 1999 the Prime Minister also promised to use “all necessary means” to defend the traditional definition of marriage. At the time, the Deputy Prime Minister stated, “The government has no intention of changing the definition of marriage or legislating same sex marriage”.

Quite simply, I think that the government on some of these issues cannot be trusted. The record shows it blatantly violated these promises.

The member brought up the question of religious freedom. When we bring that up, the government responds by saying that it would want to enshrine that no church, no priest, no preacher, should ever be forced to conduct a ceremony for same sex couples. I wonder if the member could enlarge on that. Perhaps the church would not be forced to conduct a same sex marriage, but does it go beyond that?

There are certain churches in our constituencies that offer marriage counselling. They sent out brochures to their communities and invite all married couples to come to the church for marriage counselling seminars on the weekends. Some of those churches have wondered if, for example, same sex couples were to show up to prove a point, what would they do? Some have said that they would be concerned if they denied them the right to come to these seminars, that they would be hauled before the courts. Would they have to defend their actions in some court? With a great deal of reservation and hesitancy, they are even now concerned about what they can put forward as far as “ministries” of their local church.

It may not only be the marriage ceremony; so many other things may play into religious freedom. I wonder if the member, whom I respect, could enlarge on that. Does he see the same concerns coming from the government side? Does he believe that those things could happen?

[National Security, February 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in response to a question last April, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness indignantly dismissed my request to expand the CSIS mandate to operate overseas.

Now, in the wake of revelations that threats of terrorism are worse than before 9/11, the minister is trying to convince us that she has always wanted to broaden the CSIS mandate.

Why the about-face?