Maurice Vellacott

[Marriage, February 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, a new Statistics Canada study adds to the research showing how important it is for children to be raised by both a mom and a dad.

Researchers found that teenagers “who reported that their relationship with their father had increased in closeness, understanding and affection over time” were less likely to have symptoms of depression. Statistics Canada reported that “these results occurred for both young men and women, regardless of household income or whether the young people lived in either single or two parent families”.

Teens were also shown to respond differently to changes in their relationship with their father in contrast to changes in their relationship with their mother. This Statistics Canada research found that changes in teens' relationship with their dad had a more significant impact on how they felt about themselves.

In the midst of the current marriage debate in this chamber, Statistics Canada has confirmed the vital importance of boys and girls having a positively involved mom and dad.

As parliamentarians, we have an obligation to take this latest scientific evidence into account and, based on it, should oppose Bill C-38 and affirm time honoured traditional marriage.

[Petitions, February 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition I wish to present is from 124 individuals who call on Parliament to use all possible legislative and administrative measures, including invoking the notwithstanding clause if necessary, to preserve the correct definition of marriage as between one man and one woman.

[Petitions, February 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to table a petition today from people in Prince Edward Island who call upon the government to return to its previous policy of allowing holy books to be made available to new citizens at citizenship ceremonies around the country.

The petitioners draw attention to the fact that a citizenship judge terminated this policy alleging that the policy discriminated against non-religious immigrants. Up until last year holy books were simply displayed on tables at the back of the hall, free for new citizens to take. The new citizens were not handed the books. They were not forced on them. The judge produced no evidence to justify his inappropriate decision to ban the availability of holy books.

The petitioners ask for the citizenship commission to return to the previous policy which has served our multicultural nation so very well.

[Civil Marriage Act, February 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to work with the member in committees. I have enjoyed some of the collaborations we have had with respect to some of the ventures in the committee work for the House of Commons over some period of time.

I want to respond to her in respect of one remark she has made. The member for London—Fanshawe made a comment with respect to it earlier. In particular she made somewhat negative remarks maligning a colleague of mine, the member for Calgary Southeast. It had to do with his remarks on the procreative element of marriage.

There are indeed several constituent elements of marriage. It is not just one thing. It is two people loving and living together. There are other things that make it up as well, one being the continuation of society. I would say gently to her, but I say it nevertheless, that when we look at society around us, yes indeed there are couples who do not have children, some by reasons of sterility. I have spoken with such couples. We know their heartache and heartbreak. We know other couples where for reasons of choice, career or whatever, it does not allow for children in their particular lifestyles. Simple logic would tell us that those are the exceptions that prove the rule.

Most heterosexual couples will and do have children at some point during their relationships. We know heterosexual couples have children and that is the rule. There is the exception to it. As the member opposite said, we know in homosexual relationships that is not a possibility. It is plain and simple. It is the birds and bees. We learned that very young. She is aware of that.

We do not want to be deluding ourselves on this point. For the continuation of society, some would strongly make the point, as did the member for Calgary Southeast, the procreative element is a necessary part of marriage. We can have other kinds of relationships that may not include that, but it is the exception which proves the rule when couples do not have children.

I want to correct for the record that very clearly our party believes, as does the member who was referenced from my party, that those marriages are every bit as valid. Heterosexual unions with no children by reason of sterility or choice are valid marriages and will continue to be. That is the view that my party strongly takes in respect of that. We have never said otherwise.

[Civil Marriage Act, February 21st, 2005]

A Liberal said that, the present Deputy Prime Minister in a letter dated April 24, 1998. The former justice minister who is now the Deputy Prime Minister, went on to say, “For us and for this government, marriage is a unique institution. It is one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others. We also want to ensure that unmarried relationships, be they same sex or opposite sex, are treated fairly and treated the same”.

In respect to a motion that was before the House in 1999, the very same individual lined up with a bunch of those other ministers on the other side of the House, the Prime Minister himself no less. That motion read:

That, in the opinion of this House, it is necessary, in light of public debate around recent court decisions, to state that marriage is and should remain the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, and that Parliament will take all necessary steps to preserve this definition of marriage in Canada.

The fact is that Liberal members have made statements and then have reversed themselves radically. They have stated themselves clearly and emphatically, and then have reversed themselves just as emphatically. In view of that fact, I ask the minister, how are we to believe and take to heart and trust anything that the Liberal government across the way would say to us on this or any other matter?

[Civil Marriage Act, February 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, if same sex marriage is really about human rights or upholding charter rights, as the minister insists, why did top Liberals vote in favour of the traditional definition of marriage in 1999? We all know who they are. They are the Prime Minister himself, the Deputy Prime Minister, the House leader, I could go on and on, ministers who are on the front bench across the way.

We have quotes from the one who is now in the role of the Deputy Prime Minister. She said:

The definition of marriage is already clear in law in Canada as the union of two persons of the opposite sex. Counsel from my department have successfully defended, and will continue to defend this concept of marriage [in the courts].... I continue to believe that it is not necessary to change well-understood concepts of spouse and marriage to deal with any fairness considerations the courts and tribunals may find.

[Petitions, February 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I present a petition signed by quite a number of people from Ontario and Manitoba. To sum it up, these fine folk are asking for the defence of traditional marriage as the bond between one man and one woman. It is a serious moral good they say. The petitioners allege that the recent rulings of the appeal courts of Ontario and British Columbia redefining marriage to include same sex partners destroys traditional marriage in law and it also endangers Canada's social stability.

They call upon Parliament to take the necessary steps to maintain the current definition of marriage in law in perpetuity and to prevent any court from overturning that in the future as well.

[Civil Marriage Act, February 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am aware that the member who will be responding to my question has a pretty good knowledge of constitutional law. It is in his background. I believe the member to be an honest man. I have these quick questions that I will put forward. Hopefully, we will have some enlightenment from him.

According to Tim Williams, a spokesperson for Saskatchewan justice minister Frank Quennell, in a meeting with provincial justice ministers, the federal justice minister said he was not going to try any longer to protect the religious and conscience freedoms of marriage commissioners because it was not in his jurisdiction. He said that he could not do anything about protecting those freedoms for marriage commissioners.

Now that the federal justice minister appears to have washed his hands, according to the Saskatchewan justice minister's office and Mr. Tim Williams to be exact, I would like to know from the Liberal member opposite, in respect to civic officials, how hollow is the justice minister's rhetoric about religious and conscience protection in the legally empty preface to his same sex marriage bill?

Second, I would appreciate the member responding to my question as it seems that both the Prime Minister and the justice minister are intending to violate the conscience of their friends and colleagues in the cabinet. How much more should we be concerned about the Prime Minister and justice minister violating the freedom of conscience and freedom of religious protection of Canadians?

[Petitions, February 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, this petition adds to probably some tens of thousands of other petitioners at this point, and to hundreds of letters I have received in my office on the subject.

These Canadians are calling upon Parliament to support the traditional, historic definition of marriage. The petitioners urge Parliament to be careful in its deliberations on the bill before us at the present time. I table that for the consideration of the House.

[Civil Marriage Act, February 16th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member could help me out a little on the history around the world as we have looked at the issue of extending the vote to different people over time, and rightly so, but specifically with respect to extending the vote to women. It has been done in various regimes and was long overdue.

At the time the vote was extended to women, for example, were women called men? To my knowledge, that is not the case anywhere. When bringing a new group in to have those particular rights, one does not need to call them the same thing in order to give them the equal benefits and rights, which is what our party is proposing to do by giving equal benefits and rights without terming it the same.

Unless I missed something in history, and I am certainly open to being enlightened, has there ever been a time where, when extending the right to vote, women have been termed men?