Rob Moore

[Civil Marriage Act, February 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would say some of that discussion is cold comfort to the people who have already lost their jobs. Those marriage commissioners were the front line.

I asked the Prime Minister a question in the House before the Christmas break. He became quite excited and leapt out of his chair because I questioned him on that very issue. Canadians who have been working in the same job for years are all of a sudden being pushed to the margins. Because their personal beliefs, the beliefs with which they came into the jobs, which were fine when they first applied for and received their positions, are no longer valid, they are therefore non-compliant and they do not fit into Canadian society any more.

I appreciate the question. In light of what the federal government is doing, I would encourage provincial governments to do everything they can to protect their citizens. There is a federal sphere and a provincial sphere. There really would be no way to contain the impact that we would make at the federal level by changing the definition of marriage. No way should we be pushing a problem that we have created onto the provinces.

We already have seen individuals lose their jobs. I mentioned charitable organizations in my speech. What about the Knights of Columbus which is currently before the B.C. Human Rights tribunal because it does not want to sanction a same sex union? It runs completely counter to its value system of what a marriage is, yet there is an attempt to thrust that view on to it. There has to be a balance.

The Liberal government has failed to achieve that Canadian balance. As Canadians we are all interested in equality and fairness before the law. The majority of Canadians and the Supreme Court have never said to change the definition. Apparently at the United Nations, it is not the opinion of any body, any national court or any international court that we have to change the meaning of the word “marriage”. It is an institution that existed long before Canada was ever conceived of or thought of. Yet somehow we, as a country, are taking it upon ourselves to change what the word “marriage” means to address these concerns when the Canadian public believes these equality concerns can be addressed without changing the definition of marriage.

[Civil Marriage Act, February 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting dilemma in which the Liberals have put Canada. The normal course, as anyone who follows judicial cases at all would know, when one loses at the court of appeal in our country, one appeals to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Supreme Court of Canada is the only judicial body whose decisions apply to all the provinces. The various court of appeal decisions, including the one specifically in Halpern decision in Ontario, do not apply to the rest of Canada. By not appealing the court of appeal decision in Ontario, the Liberal government has created a patchwork of legal realities, where in some provinces same sex marriage is legal and in some provinces same sex marriage is not legal.

It is very much a situation that the Liberals have created.

We have been very firm that we will not be taking rights away from anyone. My personal position is that we should define marriage, as I have said, and continue to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Our party has put forward a proposal to extend all those equality rights to same sex unions. Therefore, there will be no loss of rights should the bill be defeated.

[Civil Marriage Act, February 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to participate in this debate on Bill C-38, the civil marriage act. It has been interesting to hear comment from all sides of the House on what is a very important issue.

On February 16 when the Prime Minister began this debate, he stated that it was an important day. In that respect I am in agreement with the Prime Minister. However, that is where my agreement with the Prime Minister ends on this issue.

This is an important debate. The decision we make as a Parliament will have a profound impact on Canada and the rights and freedoms we cherish.

First, I would like to explore the government's principal rationale for moving forward with redefining marriage at this time.

I listened carefully to what the Prime Minister said last week in his speech and also to what he did not say. What he did not say was most telling. The Prime Minister never once said that he actually supported same sex marriage. He talked at some length about the charter of rights and about the supposed need to change the definition of marriage in order to conform with lower court rulings, but he never actually said that he himself supported same sex marriage.

From a political standpoint it is perhaps understandable why he failed to do so. This is because the Prime Minister himself stood in this House six years ago and voted for a motion to protect the definition of marriage. He voted for a motion that pledged the House of Commons to use all necessary means to defend the definition of marriage. That is the same definition that has existed in Canada since Confederation and is universally known throughout cultures, countries, religions and communities.

For the Prime Minister now to openly utter the words “I support same sex marriage”, would beg the question: why, then, did he support the exact opposite position less than six years ago? Why did he stand in the House and promise to Canadians to protect the institution of marriage? Why should anyone in Canada trust any promise he makes about protecting freedom of religion and freedom of conscience in Canada now? For that matter, why should anyone trust him at all?

Instead of openly admitting to having changed his position, the Prime Minister has attempted to hide behind particular lower court interpretations of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Prime Minister now argues that the government simply has no choice, that the courts have spoken and that the government is compelled to act. This is completely false. It was the Liberal government itself that refused to appeal the various lower court rulings on same sex marriage. That was a conscious and deliberate decision. Indeed, it was a decision made within the highest order of government, within cabinet itself.

The same government that in 1999 pledged to use all necessary means to defend marriage made a deliberate decision to break that promise and simply accept a lower court's findings. It made a deliberate decision to suddenly begin to argue that in fact the definition of marriage that has existed for millennia is now somehow unconstitutional.

The Liberal government went so far as to stack a parliamentary committee that was considering advising the justice minister on whether to appeal a certain lower court decision. Suddenly the government decided to shift positions and argue that the charter of rights had to be interpreted to mean that some sex marriage was a fundamental right enshrined in the charter.

How can something that was not considered a fundamental right just a few years ago, and indeed has never been considered a fundamental right anywhere else on earth, suddenly become a fundamental right? In fact, the United Nations Human Rights Commission ruled just in 2002 that it is not necessary to change the definition of marriage to accommodate equality concerns.

Is it now the Liberal government's position that countries which handle same sex relationships differently are somehow violating fundamental human rights? Are countries like Finland, Norway, Sweden, France, New Zealand and the United Kingdom going to be targeted by our Prime Minister as human rights violators? That would seem to be the logical conclusion of what the government is now arguing.

It is ludicrous to argue that a few court rulings by a handful of lower court judges must now serve as the sole justification for fundamentally altering a social institution that has served as the bedrock of our society for centuries.

Indeed, the Government of Canada itself argued a similar point less than two years ago in a factum it submitted to one of the marriage cases. It said:

In a constitutional democracy, it is the legislature, as the elected branch of government, that should assume the major responsibility for law reform. Major revisions of legal text, i.e. the common law, with complex or uncertain ramifications are best left to the legislature.

In other words, decisions of immense social significance should not be made flippantly. There must be a meaningful dialogue between the judiciary and the legislative branches of government.

The legislative branches are under no obligation to simply accept individual rulings by lower courts without challenging them. Indeed, an extremely dangerous precedent is established when they begin to do so. However that is exactly what the federal government has done in this instance.

I believe that the evidence is clear that the Supreme Court itself has signalled as much to the federal government in its response to the government's reference questions. When the government submitted its reference case on same sex marriage it asked, very specifically, whether the traditional definition of marriage was constitutional, and the Supreme Court of Canada did not answer that question, in effect turning the issue back to elected members of Parliament.

The court made the ruling despite the fact that the Government of Canada was now arguing that the traditional definition of marriage was unconstitutional.

The failure of the Liberal government to live up to its solemn promise to Canadians has left us with no final legal opinion on the traditional definition of marriage. Not only did the Liberals fail to take all necessary steps, after the court of appeal decision in Halpern, they failed to take any steps. Even worse, they began to argue on the other side against those seeking to maintain the definition of marriage.

Oftentimes it is the case that the Supreme Court of Canada has overturned a Court of Appeal decision in favour of the reasoning in a lower court. Therefore there is the very real possibility that the Supreme Court would have upheld the traditional definition of marriage had that Court of Appeal decision been appealed.

For instance, the Supreme Court of British Columbia, in a recent EGALE marriage case, and the Divisional Court of Ontario in 1993 both upheld the traditional definition of marriage. The B.C. case reads:

Same-sex and opposite-sex relationships are, at their core, demonstrably different. They cannot be equated except by changing the deep-rooted social and legal relationship around which Canadian society has evolved and continues to evolve. Because of the importance of marriage in the Canadian context, past and present, the salutary effect associated with the preservation of its opposite-sex core far outweighs the deleterious effect resulting from the refusal to provide legal status to same-sex relationships under the rubric of marriage. That is particularly so when the practical effect of recent legislative change has been to remove or minimize, where possible, the differences between the relationships as regards day to day living.

Further, the Supreme Court of Canada has never indicated in any ruling, and this was alluded to earlier, that the traditional definition of marriage was unconstitutional.

To the contrary, the Supreme Court last commented at length on the constitutionality of the definition of marriage. In the Egan decision on marriage, Justice La Forest clearly stated:

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.

He upheld the constitutionality of the traditional definition of marriage and said the marriage or relationship could quite rightly be identified as being a union of one man and one woman.

The fact that the Supreme Court of Canada may have upheld the traditional definition of marriage as constitutional is, in my opinion, one of the reasons that the government did not appeal the lower court decisions as normally would be the case. This has led to what anyone on any side of the issue would agree is a patchwork of legal realities across our country that we are currently seeing.

The evidence is quite clear that it is the Liberal government and not the courts that is now interpreting the charter to read same sex marriage rights into it. It is a deliberate policy choice that has been made by the government. It is not a policy that has been forced on the government by the courts, certainly not the Supreme Court.

The position first adopted by Parliament in 1999, when a true free vote took place, was very clear: same sex marriage has never been a fundamental right under Canadian law; it is not a fundamental right today; and no matter what the Prime Minister may claim, legislation that is coerced out of Parliament today cannot make it a fundamental right in the future.

We are beginning to see some of the grave implications as a result of this move by the government to change what the word marriage means.

In the Halpern decision, before the Liberal government switched sides in this debate, in typical Liberal fashion, the Attorney General of Canada submitted evidence to support the traditional definition of marriage. The factum of the attorney general in that case reads:

Marriage has always been understood as a special kind of monogamous opposite-sex union, with spiritual, social, economic and contractual dimensions, for the purposes of uniting the opposite sexes, encouraging the birth and raising of children of the marriage, and companionship.

The Government of Canada in its factum further warned of the negative consequences of changing an institution as fundamental to our society as marriage. Page 10 of that factum reads:

A profound impact on each of the universal or nearly universal features of marriage, leading to the loss of cultural norm of opposite-sex marriage;

The further de-stabilization of marriage privately and publicly by breaking the sense of constancy in its mission--“the most durable union through which to bear and raise children”;

It was in 1999 when Canadians relied on promises from the then justice minister and now our current Deputy Prime Minister. It is alarming to see the change in the government's position.

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...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.

That is a quote from the then justice minister and our current Deputy Prime Minister.

She said further:

I support the motion for maintaining the clear legal definition of marriage in Canada as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

It is a flip-flop of the most immense proportions.

In justifying that position, she said:

We on this side agree that the institution of marriage is a central and important institution in the lives of many Canadians. It plays an important part in all societies worldwide, second only to the fundamental importance of family to all of us....

In essence, the Deputy Prime Minister put the full force and power of the government behind that promise as justice minister. Parliament, in turn, through an overwhelming cross party vote clearly signalled its intent on the matter as well.

What is the Deputy Prime Minister saying today? She is simply dismissing the promises made by both the executive and legislative branches of government in 1999. Last week, as I watched the debate, she seemed to shrug her shoulders as if to say “well, things change”.

This 180° change of position could have the most alarming of consequences. It makes the most fundamental guarantees and promises of the Government of Canada completely unreliable. In fact, it makes them utterly worthless. All of the assurances made now by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice about freedom of religion and freedom of conscience are simply without substance.

For instance, in his speech last week, the Prime Minister said:

...in no church, no synagogue, no mosque, no temple--in no religious house will those who disagree with same-sex unions be compelled to perform them.

Will we be standing in the House in 5 years, 10 years or 20 years from now reading that quotation back to the Prime Minister or the Minister of Justice of the day and have the Minister of Justice shrug and say “Oh well, things change?”

What the Prime Minister does not want Canadians to know is that the Supreme Court of Canada has already found that the provisions of Bill C-38 that purport to protect Canadians' fundamental freedoms are outside the jurisdiction of the Government of Canada and are therefore unconstitutional.

One would think, in light of that, that the government would have left those provisions out. They are simply meaningless. However that is not what the Prime Minister has done. The Prime Minister's efforts to sell his agenda to Canadians seems to know no bounds, including putting hollow and misleading provisions in the legislation.

Regrettably, given what we already know about how the courts balance equality rights and religious freedoms, we have to conclude that it is highly likely and highly probable that, for example, the charitable status of religious based institutions that refuse to recognize same sex unions will increasingly be called into question. Religious based institutions, schools and charitable and other organizations will increasingly be taken before human rights tribunals. We are already seeing this. This is not some slippery slope that may happen some day in the future. It is happening today, simply for believing what they believe.

It is also instructive to examine other comments that the Prime Minister did not say. He did not say that his government would protect freedom of conscience for individuals and organizations who cannot support same sex marriage because of their beliefs. Members of the House should ask themselves if the Prime Minister had anything at all to say to the dozens of marriage commissioners across our country who have already lost their jobs because same sex marriage conflicts with their religious beliefs.

The deputy leader of the government in the House has already stated quite clearly that civil servants with responsibilities in this area should be sanctioned or fired if they do not go along with something that violates their most personal beliefs. What does the Prime Minister have to say about any of this? Nothing at all, just as I believe he will have nothing to say when other Canadian rights are trampled as a result of this legislation should it pass.

What the Prime Minister has not been saying in his words he is signalling with his actions in the House. He has already denied any dissenters in his cabinet who may oppose the bill on grounds of conscience a free vote on the question. The Prime Minister who came to power under the promise of addressing the democratic deficit has done everything he could to prevent this issue from being debated, from Canadians having input, and now, when a bill is finally brought before the House as a fait accompli, he is telling his cabinet ministers and certain parliamentary secretaries they must vote this way. They are being told simply they can support the policy shift or they can resign their positions.

That may soon be the choice that many ordinary Canadians face as well, for if a member of the cabinet of this House and many members of Parliament cannot be protected, cannot voice their concerns freely, then how can we expect that other Canadians' rights will be protected?

If the bill passes we will be redefining marriage in a way that Canadians do not want and do not believe is necessary to address equality rights. We know that no national court in our country, certainly the Supreme Court of Canada, or in the world for that matter has ever said that this is a fundamental right. As a matter of fact, the United Nations has not said that this is a fundamental right. If we look at where Canadians' views are on this, they believe in equality for all Canadians and they believe we can address all equality concerns without fundamentally altering an institution that has been the bedrock of our society and the world societies for centuries.

I will be opposing Bill C-38 in its current form and I encourage all members to consider those implications when they deliberate on whether they will support the bill.

[Definition of Marriage Act, February 18th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank all my colleagues in the House today for their contributions to this debate. I regret that it was only one hour of debate and there will not be a second hour, as all the other private members' bills will have, and a vote.

It raises an interesting point. This week the Prime Minister introduced his version of a marriage bill. He argued it was a fundamental human right and not once in his speech did he say “I support changing the definition of marriage”. He does not want to say that because probably somewhere deep down he does not believe it, but he is going to do it anyway. I thought that was telling. He said he supported all kinds of things but he would not say that he supports changing the definition of marriage. He called it a fundamental human right.

We do not pull fundamental human rights out of a hat. They are fundamental. There is no other jurisdiction on earth that has treated this issue as a fundamental human right. It is a social policy decision that the government is embarking on.

I want to comment on something my colleague from Burnaby--Douglas mentioned. He also introduced a bill on the definition of marriage similar to the government's bill. I commend him because it showed some leadership. It showed some courage. That is something the Prime Minister completely lacks.

If the Prime Minister and the cabinet thought for one minute that this was a fundamental right, then why were they not leading the charge all along? Why did they not vote against that very definition in 1999 if they truly believed it was a fundamental right?

The member for Burnaby--Douglas introduced his legislation. The Prime Minister has been dragged kicking and screaming. He has delayed the democratic process. The Liberals have had every opportunity to allow Canadians to engage in this debate, to allow Canadians input into the democratic process, and at every turn Canadians were denied that input.

The definition of marriage is of importance to all Canadians. We have heard that today in the House. There are those who are not in favour of changing what that word marriage means. We feel that in doing so we are embarking on a course and we do not know where that will lead us.

I feel very strongly that the onus is on those who would wish to change the status quo. I commend the leadership that has been shown within my own party. What we have done is we have come up with where Canadians are at.

The Prime Minister is increasingly realizing Canadians are a tolerant people. We believe in equality for all of our citizens, equality before the law. We do not believe that involves changing what the word marriage means, a word that predates Confederation, a word that the federal government does not own. Governments do not own what the word marriage means.

I am encouraged that we are now into a debate. We are hearing all sides. If we wanted to hear what Canadians had to say, we are hearing it now because we are receiving e-mails, letters and faxes by the thousands. Canadians are finally engaged, much to the dismay of the Prime Minister, much to the dismay of some who in 1999 voted to uphold the traditional definition of marriage, knowing full well that they were embarking on a course to change what that institution means.

I find it ironic, and I mentioned this before, that the committee found my bill to be unconstitutional, when we know from what the Supreme Court has said that my bill is not unconstitutional.

However, and this is so important, the protection of other basic fundamental rights in Canada are threatened by changing the definition of marriage. The clause put into the government's bill is a hollow shell. It contains no force and effect. The Supreme Court of Canada has already said that this matter is not within the jurisdiction of the federal government, it is unconstitutional.

I conclude by saying that I am pleased to have had this hour of debate and I am thankful for the input from all sides. I look forward to a day when we can really slay that democratic deficit, not just in words but in actions.

[Definition of Marriage Act, February 18th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I wish that this debate would have had meaning and that my bill, like all of the others in Parliament, would have been votable.

I also look forward to the day when we truly address the democratic deficit so that all bills, not just those that serve the government's agenda, can be moved forward, debated and voted on by duly elected members of Parliament.

[Definition of Marriage Act, February 18th, 2005]

moved that Bill C-268, an act to confirm the definition of marriage and to preserve ceremonial rights, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker,I rise today to speak to my private member's bill, Bill C-268, an act to confirm the definition of marriage.

I was first elected to this House in June 2004. As a new member of Parliament, I was pleased when I was drawn fourth overall in the lottery on private members' business. Under the rules for private members' business this meant that I would be able to introduce a bill and have it considered, debated and voted on by members of Parliament.

I must say, however, that my work on this bill has been a reality check and illustrates to me that the democratic deficit our current Prime Minister had promised to slay is indeed alive and well.

My bill is unique in that it is relevant to the debate we are having in this House today on the Liberals' plan to change the definition of marriage. It is also unique because it is the only private member's bill in this session that has been deemed non-votable.

This private member's bill, like the government's Bill C-38, provides a legislated definition of marriage. However, unlike Bill C-38, my bill defines marriage as it always has been known: as the union of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others.

However, my bill will not be voted on, as the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs ruled that my bill would be non-votable. The Liberals prevented my bill from bill being voted on so that this issue would only come forward to this House in their timing.

This constitutes, in my opinion, a gross interference by the Liberal government in private members' business. Private members' business is limited to only a few hours per week and there is already too little opportunity for members of Parliament to represent their constituents in this House.

To say the least, I also found the rationale for the committee's rejection of votable status for my bill to be without merit. I find that the process that led them to the decision was certainly flawed.

First, the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business met in private and in camera, without any representation from me, and acted as judge, jury and executioner of my bill by declaring it non-votable.

I of course appealed this decision to the full membership of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, where the membership also prevented my bill from being made votable. Their flawed argument was that my bill was clearly unconstitutional.

To suggest that my private members' bill is clearly in violation of the Constitution is to take on the role of justices of the court, not parliamentarians. It is the constitutionality of the traditional definition of marriage that was the very issue in the reference the Attorney General of Canada put forward to the Supreme Court on January 28 of last year. The reference question states:

Is the opposite-sex requirement for marriage for civil purposes, as established by the common law and set out for Quebec in section 5 of the Federal Law-Civil Law Harmonization Act, No. 1, consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? If not, in what particular or particulars and to what extent?

The committee prejudged the outcome of this important reference to the highest court of the land and therefore acted contemptuous to both the Supreme Court of Canada and to the Attorney General of Canada.

I argued at committee that if the constitutionality of even the common law definition of marriage, let alone a legislated definition of marriage, were clear, then there would be no need to ask the Supreme Court of Canada the question.

The Attorney General had put a bona fide question to the court. Why would the Attorney General waste taxpayers' money and the high court's time to answer a question that clearly had already been answered?

Under our judicial system, a decision of a provincial court only has application within the province in which that decision was rendered. The only court decision that applies to every province is that of the Supreme Court of Canada. In fact, this is the definition most recently upheld by Parliament as part of the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act.

In this respect, the ruling of the committee was in breach of the law passed by Parliament four years ago.

The definition of marriage contained in the bill is the same one that is the law in four provinces and two territories in this country. Further, British Columbia and Ontario courts of appeals went to great lengths to emphasize that they were changing the common law definition of marriage and that there was no legislated definition of marriage for them to deal with.

Bill C-268 contains a legislated definition of marriage with which the courts have not yet dealt.

Oftentimes a provincial court of appeal decision is overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada in favour of the reasoning of the original court. In both B.C. and Ontario there are lower court decisions that found the traditional definition of marriage was in fact constitutional. Further, the Supreme Court of Canada has never indicated in any ruling that the traditional definition of marriage was unconstitutional. To the contrary, when the Supreme Court ruled in the Egan case, Justice La Forest stated:

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.

He went on to say, “In this sense marriage is by nature heterosexual”.

In spite of all this, the committee found that my bill was clearly unconstitutional.

The Standing Orders do not say that a bill is non-votable because it may, could, likely, or possibly violates the Constitution. The threshold is much higher. A bill must clearly violate the Constitution to be deemed non-votable. I submit that in light of the facts that I have already set out, my bill fell far short of that threshold.

In the meantime, since the committee ruled my bill non-votable, the Supreme Court has finally rendered its decision in the reference case. In the case it did not in fact find that the traditional definition of marriage was unconstitutional. As a matter of fact, it did not answer the very question that was put to it by the attorney general and therefore it put the issue back into the hands of Parliament. This is exactly what my bill would have done.

The great irony of my bill and the government's bill is that the Supreme Court ruling did not in any way whatsoever indicate that the traditional definition of marriage contained in my bill was unconstitutional. However, the court did rule that the government's bill, specifically the clause that purports to protect religious freedoms, was in fact ultra vires and unconstitutional.

I think it is important for members to remember, and for Canadians to understand, that allowing my bill to proceed through our democratic process in no way indicates support for the substance of the bill, but failure to do so clearly indicates suppression of democracy. By denying parliamentarians the opportunity to vote on my bill, we are subverting the limited democratic gains that we have made in the House.

We must remember that it is the role of Parliament to legislate, not to determine the validity of legislation. That role in our system is filled by the courts. It is the responsibility of Parliament to deal with matters of important social policy.

At every turn the Liberal government has sought to avoid meaningful public consultation and debate on the very important and foundational issue of marriage. When the House of Commons considered the issue of same sex marriage in 1999, not that long ago, the then justice minister and current Deputy Prime Minister clearly stated to Canadians, “The government has no intention of changing the definition of marriage or of legislating same sex marriages”.

At that time the government supported a motion which promised to use all necessary means to defend the traditional definition of marriage. In a true free vote the motion passed the House of Commons by a margin of 215 to 55, with the current Prime Minister and most of the then cabinet voting in favour of the traditional definition of marriage.

We fast forward a few years and today the position of the government stands exactly opposite to the position it promised to uphold in 1999. Instead of using all necessary means to uphold the traditional definition of marriage, the government is relying on a whipped vote to force cabinet ministers and some parliamentary secretaries to support legislation that would change the definition of marriage. Simultaneously we know that intense pressure is being applied on the government's own backbenches to ensure a favourable outcome for the government's controversial legislation.

What occurred between 1999 and 2005? How can something that is not considered a fundamental right in 1999 suddenly be so promoted in 2005?

The simple answer is that over the past five years the government has slowly, methodically and deliberately circumvented the democratic process. It has used litigation at lower court levels to try to create a fait accompli on the issue of same sex marriage.

Over the past several years, individual judges in lower courts of several provinces have struck down the traditional definition of marriage. However, the federal government refused to appeal lower court rulings, suddenly adopting the position that same sex marriage constitutes a fundamental right.

The federal government went so far as to stack the justice committee for an important vote on whether to appeal the Halpern Ontario Court of Appeal decision in this matter. It has further argued that Parliament itself has no right to respond to these rulings with legislation to protect the traditional definition of marriage.

In essence, the government attempted to shut down all meaningful debate on a vital question that has far-reaching policy implications. It was especially urgent for the Liberals that this issue not be front and centre in the last election, so they did all in their power to stifle debate and public input.

Last year this hidden Liberal agenda hit its first major snag. The government had referred the issue of same sex marriage to the Supreme Court asking four questions, one of which was whether the traditional definition of marriage was constitutional. Although federal lawyers tried to argue before the court that the traditional definition of marriage was not constitutional, the Supreme Court refused to be drawn into the political debate and declined to answer the question.

As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court, when we read its decision, contemplated answering the question either way. This has returned the matter to Parliament, which is exactly where it should be, for the consequences of what the government is attempting to do are serious.

Same sex marriage could have a profound implication on freedom of religion and freedom of conscience in Canada. For example, we have seen already where marriage commissioners in several provinces have already lost their jobs for refusing to agree to same sex marriage because it goes against their conscience. In an interview on CPAC on December 12, 2004, the deputy House leader for the Liberals stated that public servants, such as marriage commissioners, who refused to accept same sex marriage should be sanctioned or fired. That is shameful.

There is now a great concern in Canada that if same sex marriage is legalized, it will have a profound and long-lasting implication for freedom of religion and freedom of conscience, and it will become increasingly difficult for people who do not agree with same sex marriage to participate in public life.

While the government has claimed that it will protect religious freedoms, the evidence does not support this assertion. After all, past promises to use all necessary means to protect the traditional definition of marriage were violated in less than five years.

Moreover, a clear signal has already been sent by virtue of the fact that even cabinet ministers will not be permitted a free vote on this question. If even the rights of cabinet ministers to express their views on an issue of personal conscience cannot be protected, one can hardly place much confidence in promises to protect the freedom of other Canadians.

Further, the justice committee heard evidence that warned of the social impact on changing the definition of marriage. Experts testified that we were embarking on a policy experiment that would have a profound impact on the way we view relationships and value marriage in our society.

It was for these reasons that I introduced my bill, so that Canadians could be engaged in a debate that the Liberals tried to prevent from taking place. I am pleased that we were able to spark an interest in this issue. I am grateful to the thousands of Canadians who expressed support for our effort to preserve our most basic social institution.

In light of the fact that the committee members did not have the benefit of seeing the Supreme Court's decision before they made their own decision, and in light of the fact that the court has not ruled that the traditional definition of marriage is unconstitutional, I would now ask for unanimous consent that my bill be made votable.

[Equalization Program, February 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday the Minister of National Revenue referred to a province receiving equalization payments as being “mired in the world of have not clamouring for subsidies”.

As Minister of National Revenue, his remarks were totally inappropriate and degrading. Canadians in so-called have not provinces work just as hard as anyone and positive attitudes can be found in any part of Canada. The minister's remarks were insulting and divisive and I call on him to apologize in the House.

[Firefighters, February 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honour the many career and volunteer firefighters in my constituency of Fundy Royal.

On Monday, June 14 of last year Albert County suffered one of the worst fires southeast New Brunswick had seen in the past two decades. This fire consumed 125 acres of forest and resulted in 100 homes being evacuated.

If it was not for the heroic efforts of the firefighters and other emergency service providers in our community, the results of that fire could have been much more devastating. These brave men and women willingly put their lives on the line to protect others and they deserve our appreciation.

At this time I would like to extend my congratulations to the community of Riverview which is preparing the official opening of its new fire station in May of this year. Riverview Fire & Rescue provides fire and emergency services to 20,000 citizens in the town of Riverview and neighbouring areas in Albert County and responds to over 1,000 emergency incidents per year.

Again, congratulations to Riverview Fire & Rescue.

[Marriage, December 14th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is simply outrageous for members on that side to state that people should be fired or disciplined for their religious beliefs. This is a direct attack on Canadians' freedom of both conscience and religion.

Why is the government's position that individuals who do not agree with changing the definition of marriage should be excluded from public life?

[Marriage, December 10th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the veil is off the Liberals' plan to change the definition of marriage. The Liberals misled Canadians when they told us that their legislation would protect religious freedom. The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that this provision of their act was not even within federal jurisdiction. In fact, across the country marriage commissioners are being told to resign if they will not perform ceremonies that conflict with their religious beliefs.

The Liberals told Canadians that they would defend the traditional definition of marriage and they did not. They told Canadians that they would protect religious freedoms and they have not. Why should we believe that they will protect--