37th PARLIAMENT,
2nd SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 120
CONTENTS
Tuesday, September 16, 2003
|
 |
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
|
|
Government Response to Petitions |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Business of the House |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Petitions |
|
|
Religious Freedom |
|
|
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Ovid Jackson (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, Lib.) |
|
|
Marriage |
|
|
Mr. Ovid Jackson (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, Lib.) |
|
|
Foreign Affairs |
|
|
Mr. Ovid Jackson (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, Lib.) |
|
|
Religious Freedom |
|
|
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.) |
|
|
Marriage |
|
|
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.) |
|
|
Child Pornography |
|
|
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.) |
|
|
Religious Freedom |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Marriage |
|
|
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Questions Passed as Orders for Returns |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
|
|
Supply |
|
|
Allotted day—Marriage |
|
|
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Jacques Saada |
|
|
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Stephen Harper |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stephen Harper |
|
|
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Stephen Harper |
|
|
Mr. Ovid Jackson (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Stephen Harper |
|
|
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Martin Cauchon |
|
|
Hon. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Hedy Fry |
|
|
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Hedy Fry |
|
|
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Richard Marceau |
|
|
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Richard Marceau |
|
|
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Richard Marceau |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC) |
|
|
Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
|
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
|
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC) |
|
|
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Rick Borotsik |
|
|
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Rick Borotsik |
|
|
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Svend Robinson |
|
|
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Svend Robinson |
|
|
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
|
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ) |
|
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
|
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Vic Toews |
|
|
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Vic Toews |
|
|
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Vic Toews |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
|
|
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Pat O'Brien |
|
|
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Pat O'Brien |
|
|
Mrs. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Carol Skelton |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP) |
|
|
Mrs. Carol Skelton |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough |
|
|
Mrs. Carol Skelton |
|
|
Mr. John Bryden |
|
|
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
|
|
The Environment |
|
|
Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.) |
|
|
Firefighters Memorial |
|
|
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Cambridge Choir |
|
|
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.) |
|
|
Riding of Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière |
|
|
Mr. Christian Jobin (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Christian Jobin |
|
|
B.C. Forest Fires |
|
|
Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Nicole Demers |
|
|
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.) |
|
|
Les Invasions barbares |
|
|
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) |
|
|
Northern Ontario |
|
|
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Canadian Idol |
|
|
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
City of Barrie |
|
|
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.) |
|
|
Canadian Idol |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.) |
|
|
Employment Insurance |
|
|
Mr. Rex Barnes (Gander—Grand Falls, PC) |
|
|
Hermel Giard |
|
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ) |
|
|
Les Invasions barbares |
|
|
Ms. Carole-Marie Allard (Laval East, Lib.) |
|
|
Canadian Idol |
|
|
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP) |
|
|
Foreign Affairs |
|
|
Ms. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, Ind. BQ) |
|
|
Junction Arts Festival |
|
|
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.) |
|
|
Rural Expo 2003 |
|
|
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
|
|
Government Contracts |
|
|
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.) |
|
|
Agriculture |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
National Defence |
|
|
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Public Service |
|
|
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board, Lib.) |
|
|
Government Contracts |
|
|
Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.) |
|
|
Agriculture |
|
|
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Claude Duplain (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Claude Duplain (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
The Canadian Grand Prix |
|
|
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
|
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Foreign Affairs |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Agriculture |
|
|
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Claude Duplain (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.) |
|
|
The Economy |
|
|
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC) |
|
|
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC) |
|
|
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Government Contracts |
|
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.) |
|
|
Foreign Affairs |
|
|
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
BioChem Pharma |
|
|
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Industry, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Industry, Lib.) |
|
|
Human Resources Development |
|
|
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.) |
|
|
National Defence |
|
|
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Government Assistance |
|
|
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Marriage |
|
|
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Trade |
|
|
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Murray Calder (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade, Lib.) |
|
|
Marriage |
|
|
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ind.) |
|
|
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Highway Infrastructure |
|
|
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Industry, Lib.) |
|
|
Employment Insurance |
|
|
Ms. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Presence in Gallery |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Government Orders
|
|
|
Supply |
|
|
Allotted Day--Marriage |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day |
|
|
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC) |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day |
|
|
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Clifford Lincoln |
|
|
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Clifford Lincoln |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
|
|
Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
|
|
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Keith Martin |
|
|
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC) |
|
|
Mr. Keith Martin |
|
|
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Chuck Strahl |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC) |
|
|
Mr. Chuck Strahl |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.) |
|
|
Business of the House |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria |
|
|
Supply |
|
|
Allotted Day--Marriage |
|
|
Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
|
|
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
|
|
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Larry Spencer (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. John McKay |
|
|
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC) |
|
|
Mr. John McKay |
|
|
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough—Agincourt, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Bernard Patry |
|
|
(Division 209) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Division 210) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Jim Pankiw |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Private Members' Business
|
|
|
Chief Actuary Act |
|
|
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC) |
|
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Adjournment Proceedings
|
|
|
Health |
|
|
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Svend Robinson |
|
|
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay |
|
|
Employment Insurance |
|
|
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ind.) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Jim Pankiw |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Jim Pankiw |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
CANADA
OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)
Tuesday, September 16, 2003
Speaker: The Honourable Peter Milliken
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Routine Proceedings]
* * *
(1000)
[English]
Government Response to Petitions
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 20 petitions.
* * *
(1005)
[Translation]
Business of the House
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I hereby wish to designate Thursday, September 18, as an allotted day.
* * *
[English]
Petitions
Religious Freedom
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to present to the House today signed by a number of my constituents concerning religious freedom.
The petitioners are concerned that if sections 318 and 319 of the Criminal Code are amended the rights of their religious freedom would not be protected. The petitioners are asking that the rights of Canadians to be free to share their religious beliefs without fear of prosecution be recognized by Parliament.
Mr. Ovid Jackson (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present today three petitions on behalf of my constituents of Bruce--Grey--Owen Sound.
The first petition is an objection to Bill C-250.
* * *
Marriage
Mr. Ovid Jackson (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the second petition asks that Parliament uphold the definition of marriage which is the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
* * *
Foreign Affairs
Mr. Ovid Jackson (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the third petition asks that the Government of Canada not participate in the U.S. missile defence system.
* * *
Religious Freedom
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have the privilege to present to the House a petition signed by concerned constituents in my riding of Cambridge.
The petitioners call on Parliament to protect the rights of Canadians to express their religious beliefs without fear of prosecution. The petitioners are very concerned that expressing moral disapproval of a sexual practice by citing the Bible or other sacred religious books could be linked to a hate crime charge under Bill C-250.
* * *
Marriage
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would also like to table two petitions from citizens of the riding of Brant. In the first one, some 80 citizens urge Parliament to protect marriage as a union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
* * *
Child Pornography
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the second petition, some 50 citizens call on Parliament to strengthen the child pornography law.
* * *
Religious Freedom
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by a large number of Canadians, including from my own riding of Mississauga South.
The petitioners are concerned about Bill C-250 which proposes a change under section 318 and section 319 of the Criminal Code which could lead to individuals being unable to exercise their religious freedom as protected under the Charter of Rights of Freedoms, and to express their moral and religious doctrines without fear of criminal prosecutions.
The petitioners therefore call upon Parliament to protect the rights of Canadians and not make the Bible a piece of hate literature so that Canadians can be free to share their religious beliefs without fear of prosecution.
* * *
Marriage
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I have a petition that is really quite timely. It asks that Parliament, having the exclusive jurisdiction over marriage, not change the definition of marriage. With some 125 signatures to go, about 4,000 individuals are represented on this issue.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition that is timely. Citizens from my constituency call on Parliament to pass legislation recognizing the institution of marriage in federal law as being a lifelong union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
* * *
(1010)
Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 230 and 234 could be made orders for return, the returns would be tabled immediately.
And, Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is it agreed that the questions enumerated by the hon. parliamentary secretary be made orders for return?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: Is it agreed that all remaining questions be allowed to stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Text]
Question No. 230--Mr. Benoît Sauvageau:
For the 2002-2003, 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 fiscal
years, what are the best estimates of funds to be disbursed (in subsidies and
contributions) by each of the government's departments and quasi-or
non-governmental agencies subsidized by the government to: (a) support
the anglophone community in Quebec; (b) support francophone communities
outside Quebec; and (c) in each case, to fund what needs?
Return tabled.
Question No. 234--Mr. Scott Reid:
Concerning federal public servants, how many whose
first language is a) French, and b) English are employed in (i)
bilingual imperative positions, and (ii) bilingual non-imperative positions,
for each of the following Official Language profiles: “E” (Exempt from further
testing); “CCC” (Reading, Writing and Oral Interaction at Superior levels);
“CBC” (Reading and Oral Interaction at Superior levels, Writing at Intermediate
level); “CCB”(Reading and Writing at Superior Levels, Oral Interaction at
Intermediate Level); “CBB” (Reading at Superior Level, Writing and Oral
Interaction at Intermediate Levels); “BCB” (Reading and Oral Interaction at
Intermediate Levels, Writing at Superior Level); “BCC” (Reading at Intermediate
Level, Writing and Oral Interaction at Superior Levels); “BBB” (Reading,
Writing and Oral Interaction at Intermediate Levels); “BBC” (Reading and
Writing at Intermediate Levels, Oral Interaction at Superior Level); “BBA”
(Reading and Writing at Intermediate Levels, Oral Interaction at Minimum
Level); “BAA” (Reading at Intermediate Level, Oral Interaction and Writing at
Minimum Levels); “BAB” (Reading and Oral Interaction at Intermediate Levels,
Writing at Minimum Level); “ABA” (Reading and Oral Interaction at Minimum
Levels, Writing at Intermediate Level); “ABB” (Reading at Minimum Level,
Writing and Oral Interaction at Intermediate Levels); “AAB” (Reading and
Writing at Minimum Levels, Oral Interaction at Intermediate Level); and “AAA”
(Reading, Writing and Oral Interaction at Minimum Levels)?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board, Lib.):
Data on bilingualism in the federal Public Service are derived from the position and classification information system, PCIS, which is managed by the Treasury Board Secretariat but fed and updated by the departments. The PCIS contains information on all employees of federal departments and agencies for which the Treasury Board is the employer under the Public Service Staff Relations Act.
For this inquiry, it is not possible to provide a breakdown by imperative v. non-imperative positions, since this information has more to do with staffing than with position identification. Moreover, the E level is not really a linguistic profile; rather, it is an indication that an employee is sufficiently proficient in his or her second language to be exempted.
The following table shows, for each of the linguistic profiles requested, the number of bilingual positions held by anglophones and the number held by francophones, as well as the total number of bilingual positions.
Breakdown of Bilingual Positions by Anglophones & Francophones according to the Linguistic Profiles Requested
| Anglophones |
|
Francophones |
|
|
| Profile |
Total |
Profile |
Total |
Total global |
| CCC |
2082 |
CCC |
5668 |
7750 |
| CCB |
148 |
CCB |
104 |
252 |
| CBC |
3015 |
CBC |
2234 |
5249 |
| CBB |
313 |
CBB |
317 |
630 |
| BCC |
29 |
BCC |
77 |
106 |
| BCB |
10 |
BCB |
22 |
32 |
| BBC |
551 |
BBC |
1350 |
1901 |
| BBB |
12791 |
BBB |
20548 |
33339 |
| BBA |
45 |
BBA |
28 |
73 |
| BAB |
122 |
BAB |
335 |
457 |
| BAA |
18 |
BAA |
27 |
45 |
| ABB |
10 |
ABB |
30 |
40 |
| ABA |
0 |
ABA |
0 |
0 |
| AAB |
55 |
AAB |
230 |
285 |
| AAA |
51 |
AAA |
202 |
253 |
| Total |
19240 |
Total |
31172 |
50412 |
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Supply]
* * *
[Translation]
Supply
Allotted day—Marriage
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance) moved:
|
That, in the opinion of this House, it is necessary, in light of public debate around recent court decisions, to reaffirm that marriage is and should remain the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, and that Parliament take all necessary steps within the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada to preserve this definition of marriage in Canada. |
Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43(2), I wish to inform you that in today's debate on the Opposition motion all Liberal members intend to share their time.
[English]
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to debate this motion on preserving the traditional definition of marriage in Canada.
First, let me begin by recognizing that this is an emotional debate, one where views are strongly held. We should be clear on what the debate is and is not about. It is not about human rights. The rights and privileges of marriage have been extended in law across this country to gay and lesbians and to non-traditional relationships of various kinds already. That is not in contention here.
Also not in contention is the recognition of non-traditional relationships. Civil unions for gays and others exist in law at the provincial level. That jurisdiction and those arrangements are not challenged by any substantive body of opinion in the House.
What the motion is about is marriage: preserving in law an institution that is essential. It is about democracy. It is about the right of the people to make social value judgments and, more specifically, the right of judgments to be made by the representatives of the people rather than by the judges appointed by the government.
Finally, and perhaps most important, it is about honesty and political integrity, about a government that ran on one position and now doing another but, disgracefully, doing it in a way that avoids parliamentary consent and public debate.
Let me begin by commenting on marriage. I will read the following quote which summarizes my views:
|
Marriage has from time immemorial been firmly grounded in our legal tradition, one that is itself a reflection of longs-standing philosophical and religious traditions. 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. In this sense, marriage is by nature heterosexual. |
Interestingly, that quote comes from former Justice La Forest of the Supreme Court of Canada. I will comment on his quote and his position a little later.
The question we should really be asking today in this debate is whether this institution should be redefined in law. We on this side of the House say, no, but if the answer to that question were to be yes, the responsible thing to do would be for those who believe traditional marriage should be abolished to argue democratically and openly that it is desirable and socially necessary to do so.
However opponents of traditional marriage have refused to do that. Instead they have gone to the courts to contort this into a human rights issue. They have chosen to make change without social consensus and, in doing so, they have articulated a position which I believe is wrong in law, universally insulting, very dangerous as far as real rights are concerned and, of course, has been done so in a highly undemocratic manner.
First, this is wrong in law. Sexual orientation or, more accurately, what we are really talking about, sexual behaviour, the argument has been made by proponents of this position that this is analogous to race and ethnicity. This position was not included in the Charter of Rights when it was passed by Parliament in 1982. It was not included, not because of some kind of accident or oversight, but deliberately and explicitly by all sides of the House of Commons.
Sexual orientation was later read in to the charter. I would point out that an amendment to the constitution by the courts is not a power of the courts under our constitution. Something the House will have to address at some point in time is where its powers begin and where those of the courts end.
However, even accepting the reading in of sexual orientation, the addition of sexual orientation, unconstitutionally by the courts into the charter does not in itself mean automatically that traditional marriage should be deemed illegal and unconstitutional.
(1015)
I quoted former Justice La Forest earlier. Even the Supreme Court of Canada, when it was asked to address this question, defended the traditional definition of marriage. The quote I read from Justice La Forest comes from his judgment in the Egan decision of 1995. This is one reason why, of all the court decisions, the government has been so anxious to push this issue through. It has not been anxious to go to the Supreme Court of Canada because it has doubts the Supreme Court of Canada would actually agree with it on this position.
More serious than being wrong in law, this position of declaring traditional marriage unconstitutional and illegal is, in our view, very insulting.
Would the Supreme Court of Canada which, unlike lower courts, is under increasing public scrutiny, really want to be associated with the view that the traditional marriage arrangements of millions of Canadians constitute some kind of act of discrimination? That is now, we are told, the position of the Minister of Justice, that people who happen to believe that being married is different than just being any two people and that they are somehow involved in some kind of conspiracy of inequality or, as the member for Vancouver Centre, the former multiculturalism minister, has stated, traditional marriage is equivalent basically to denying public services based on race. It is something like race-based washrooms or golf clubs which exclude members of certain ethnic groups.
That is a long way from what the justice minister was telling the House in 1999 when we addressed this issue and this motion. The then justice minister, now the health minister, said the following:
|
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. |
She went on to say that the government would never consider making such a change to the definition of marriage.
Unfortunately for the Liberals, the view that being for traditional marriage is analogous to some kind of racist or ethnocentric agenda is, unfortunately, not just a slur in this case against political opponents, as they are all too willing to do. It is an attack on the traditional beliefs of every single culture and faith that has come to this country.
Whether we are talking about Britain, France, Europe, China, India, Asia or Africa, just name it, all of us came here to build a future that would respect the values and traditions of our ancestors and build a future for our children and families. One of those things was based on our traditional institutions like marriage. For the Liberals or anyone in the Liberal Party to equate the traditional definition of marriage with segregation and apartheid is vile and disgusting, and a position that has no place--
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Stephen Harper: Our society has come, over the decades in my lifetime, to respect and recognize in law the choices of consenting adults. It is time that traditional institutions like marriage be equally recognized and respected.
This position is also very dangerous because, no matter what the Liberals say today, the kind of mentality that would have traditional marriage declared illegal and unconstitutional would inevitably endanger actual rights that are enshrined in our constitution, not merely read in, such as freedom of religion.
The Liberals and the justice minister say today that they will not touch the ability of churches, temples, mosques and synagogues to determine their own definition of marriage but these are the same people who said in the last election that they would never consider touching the definition of marriage itself.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, and members of the Liberal Party who agree with us in principle to think very carefully about this. If the Liberals and some of their front bench people now say that the traditional definition of marriage is illegal, immoral, discriminatory and racist, what will stop them? Why would they ever tolerate those who, through their religious institutions, believe otherwise?
(1020)
We see before the House Bill C-250, which is, in our view, just another step down this course of criminalizing opinions on this subject that are simply not accepted by the Liberal left.
Finally, there is the notion that what is going on here is highly undemocratic. I do not think I have to explain this but let me go over the facts. In 1999 a virtually identical motion was passed through the House and supported by the Liberal Party: supported by the Prime Minister, the incoming prime minister and, in fact, I have to add, drafted in part through arrangements in the House by the then justice minister, now health minister.
How it is a trap now and was not some kind of a trap then I do not know. Actually, I do know. We were facing an election campaign where the Liberal Party would have to face its own conservative supporters who would simply not accept this categorization of their views. Therefore they adopted a position then and now they want to do something different, now that they are out of sight.
However nothing relevant to this motion has changed in the past four years. Public opinion on the motion is just as divided. If anything, it is actually slightly more in favour of traditional marriage than it was then but it is just as divided. Lower courts are ruling just as they were then, that we should go in a different direction. The bias of those courts was becoming apparent. This was all known. It was mentioned in the motion. It was precisely why the House of Commons passed that motion.
The motion said that the government would protect marriage and would use all necessary means. It did not say that it would use the notwithstanding clause as the first line of attack, that this was a chance to obliterate the charter. It never said any such thing. The Prime Minister is trying to claim that now. He did not try to claim that in 1999 when the same motion was being passed.
The motion does not say “the notwithstanding clause”. It says “what is necessary”. The government did not do what is necessary. The government did nothing to protect traditional marriage.
In fact the government did everything it could do within reason to overturn that definition of marriage. It did not, to begin with, ever introduce or pass through the House into statutory law the traditional definition of marriage. Parliament has never done that. What has been overturned in the courts has been simply a series of common law rulings.
The government then went to court and had an unblemished string of losses ending when Justice McMurtry and the Ontario Court of Appeal decided to unilaterally and instantaneously change the definition.
What the government then did was use that opportunity, not to appeal the case, not merely to refuse to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada where it feared it might lose, but is now in the courts of this country trying to block anyone else from appealing this decision in the Supreme Court of Canada.
Its position now is that it does not want a vote on this issue until after the next election. It does not want Parliament to look at this in the life of this Parliament. It wants the Supreme Court of Canada to approve its legislation but only to approve the questions that it asks. It does not ask the Supreme Court of Canada whether the traditional definition of marriage would be legal and constitutional in this country.
When it actually gives at some future date the Parliament of Canada the right to vote on its legislation, that vote will mean nothing because that vote will give members of Parliament two consequences: pass what the courts have already done or do not pass it and leave it the way it is. There will be absolutely no choice whatsoever.
In laying out these facts I have been accused of compiling some kind of conspiracy theory against the government. This is not conspiracy; this is dishonesty. It would be hard to be more open and transparently dishonest than this government has been on this question.
(1025)
To concede this kind of ground to the courts without so much as a debate or vote Parliament, what I wonder is where is the incoming prime minister? Where is Mr. Democratic Deficit, Mr. Fix the Democratic Deficit? All of a sudden his position is whatever the courts say that is fine with him. So much for elected people. But why should we be surprised that he seems to have no particular problem with scandals over there? He had no problem writing cheques for any number of boondoggles or anything else. In any case it would be difficult for the government to be more dishonest than it is being.
The motion has been previously passed by this House. In fact it was the House's last word on it. People on all sides, particularly in the Liberal Party, had to campaign hard on this issue. In some more conservative ridings they were elected on it, and absolutely nothing has changed.
What is before us today? It is a chance for the House, for the Liberals in particular, to come clean and do what we have done. We are a conservative party. We support traditional marriage. We voted for it and we believed in it. We ran on it and we meant it. I call on the Liberal Party to do the same thing.
If this motion is to pass today, we obviously need the votes of Liberals to do that. It will tell the government to take a different course of action. If it does not pass today, it will tell the people of Canada they need a different government.
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I want to make a brief comment. I want to remind the House that in May of 1996 the now Leader of the Opposition, then the member for Calgary, voted with the Reform Party against the most basic and fundamental protection of human rights of gays and lesbians in Canada and voted against the inclusion of gays and lesbians in human rights legislation. That is the context within which this member is speaking.
More fundamentally, I want to ask the hon. member to take this opportunity to rise in the House and apologize for the despicable and contemptuous attack that he launched on the judiciary of Canada in concocting a bizarre conspiracy theory suggesting that the Prime Minister of Canada was in cahoots with members of the judiciary to somehow impose an agenda of same sex marriage on the country. That kind of contemptuous attack on the judiciary is unworthy of the member. I hope he will take this opportunity to apologize.
Finally, will the Leader of the Opposition come clean with Canadians and make it clear to them that the Canadian Alliance agenda today in calling on Parliament to take all necessary steps is quite clearly calling on Parliament to use the notwithstanding clause to override the most basic and fundamental rights of Canadians?
If in fact the courts have ruled as they have in Ontario, British Columbia and Quebec, there is only one way to override the charter and that is to show contempt for the charter by overriding it. Will he at least have the honesty to admit that this is the agenda of the Canadian Alliance today?
(1030)
Mr. Stephen Harper: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has asked me to reply to three issues and I will take the time to do that.
First, the conspiracy theory that the Prime Minister has selected judges for decades to get a particular decision in a particular case is indeed bizarre. I do not hesitate to say so because it is not my theory.
My theory is much more straightforward than that. The Prime Minister knew the general direction of the courts. The Prime Minister does after all have some influence on who sits on the bench, but we knew where this was going in 1999. That is why we had this motion. The Prime Minister chose to use that process rather than Parliament and rather than public debate to see this come about. He has jumped on the Ontario decision to make it law without parliamentary debate.
I would say to the hon. member who has been an articulate and open defender of this position and in gay rights generally for a very long time, do not defend the Prime Minister on this. The hon. member and his party deserve credit for at least being open about this. The Liberals deserve no such credit.
Second, I am glad the hon. member raises the debate on the Human Rights Act. The hon. member will recall in 1996 I had expressed the view that I was not uncomfortable with some way of protecting gays and lesbians from acts of discrimination, and that remains my position. My concern was that kind of protection would be twisted into, as I specifically raised in the House, arguing that marriage was discriminatory and ultimately overturning the definition of marriage in Canada. Of course the Liberals denied there was any such plan or any such consequence of that kind of legislation.
Third, the member raises the notwithstanding clause. I know the hon. member opposed this motion but the powers of Parliament of Canada, notwithstanding the motion, is one of those. I do not believe we need to look at that today. All we need to look at is the Government of Canada to legislate the definition of marriage and at least let the Supreme Court to hear the matter.
Later this week I will introduce legislation in the House which if passed would enshrine in law the traditional definition of marriage and would not resort to use of the notwithstanding clause.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his constructive input to the debate. As most members of Parliament, I had an opportunity to consult with people in my area and with many Canadians across the country.
For those who have some concern about changing the current definition of marriage, I have found that one of the big reasons is that they see marriage as an environment, an institution which fosters the bearing and rearing of children. This is one of the most essential elements of their difference. Their view is not a matter of discrimination against anyone but rather affirmative discrimination in favour of the traditional family and the traditional definition of marriage.
As this debate carries on it will be fuzzied, I am sure, by the issue of the notwithstanding clause reference or insinuation. Would the leader of the official opposition consider deleting after “to the exclusion of all others” the balance of the motion so that we have a clear question on whether this Parliament is in favour of reaffirming the definition of marriage being the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others?
(1035)
Mr. Stephen Harper: Mr. Speaker, in order to get support for this motion, I would prefer to see this Parliament act honourably, and we will consider all options to get that support. I would be happy to have my House leader discuss that with him and other members of the Liberal Party.
However I have to say that there should be no shame for any member who voted for this motion in 1999, who ran on it and got elected on it to vote for it again. What they should be shamed of is not voting for it again.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, six times since 1993, the Canadian Alliance has voted against the rights of homosexuals. It seems to me that the leader of the Canadian Alliance should be clear about one thing. He does not believe that persons of a homosexual orientation can constitute families; he does not believe that individual homosexual people, including myself, can get married.
I ask the leader of the Canadian Alliance this question: why does he not believe that two men or two women can be inspired by the same loving feelings as a man and a woman? Does he realize that, since 1993 and right up to now, the Canadian Alliance has demonstrated a homophobic feeling that is unworthy of a party leader?
Mr. Stephen Harper: Mr. Speaker, I can only say, as I did in my remarks, the idea of traditional marriage is not a homophobic idea, but a basic idea for all societies in every culture.
No one is forbidding relations between gay individuals; we are only saying that by its very nature marriage is a permanent relationship or union between a man and a woman.
[English]
Mr. Ovid Jackson (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this occasion to make a comment to the Leader of the Opposition. He came to my riding and he wrote an article in the newspaper attacking my character. The Leader of the Opposition does not know me from a hole in the ground. With regard to same sex marriage, the next time he does that, I will do the exact same thing, and I hope his newspaper will cover it.
For the clarification of the House, I vote with my conscience and my conscience has to do with what is right. Fairness is important but to be equal does not have to be identical. Let us ensure that when this legislation goes through, it will go through the test that people will be treated fairly and that the church will be protected.
I would like to ask the Leader of the Opposition a question. Exactly how will he solve this problem? It is nice to use words and to make emotional statements and get everybody all stirred up. How will you solve this problem?
The Speaker: Of course we will all want to address our remarks to the Chair.
Mr. Stephen Harper: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure to what the hon. member refers. I was of course in his riding in the summer and he and I had a brief conversation. I was in the riding to deal with the issue of BSE., which is very important to his riding. At that meeting was one of his own colleagues, the member for Huron—Bruce. It was that member who got up that night and was very critical of the government's position on the marriage issue. I did not raise it that evening so I am not sure to what he is referring. He may be referring to some party literature or whatever. I do not know.
All I can say to him is this. He says that he might want to print some bad words about me and have them printed by newspapers in my area. I can assure him that newspapers in my area have only been all too willing to print any bad word about me. I can assure him we are treated fairly equally by newspapers across the country in that regard.
In terms of the member's contention that the government's position would protect the churches, I simply say to the hon. member that assertion is not credible. This is the government that said it would protect the traditional definition of marriage. Its argument now for overturning the traditional definition of marriage strikes at the right of any person or institution to believe in that definition and it is simply is not credible, especially in conjunction with Bill C-250, to say that would be maintained.
I notice the government has asked the Supreme Court of Canada to rule on the question of whether churches would be allowed to perform traditional marriage ceremonies or refuse to perform other ceremonies. However it has not asked the Supreme Court of Canada what penalties the churches, or synagogues or mosques would face if they refused. My contention is that those consequences would certainly cause them to have to adopt view of the Liberals view on same sex marriage.
(1040)
[Translation]
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in this debate that is of fundamental importance for Canadian society.
[English]
In 1999 I voted with the majority in this House. Like most members, like most Canadians, the definition of marriage that the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others is the one I grew up with, the one I learned from my parents. However let me remind members of parliament that our attachment to long cherished traditions and conventions is not the only, or even the best, measure of what is just or what is right.
There was a time in Canada, not all that long ago, when it was considered perfectly acceptable that women could not vote. There was a time when women were not even legally defined as persons.
There was a time when immigrants were denied the right to vote, when they were turned away from our shores, when visible minorities were denied access to their rightful opportunities for employment.
Yes, there was a time even in our more recent past when aboriginal people were also denied the vote, when aboriginal people were denied the basic right to hire a lawyer to bring claims to court.
There was a time in my own province of Quebec when it was very difficult for francophones to work in their own language or to be served in their mother tongue by their national government, even in this House of Commons.
Each convention in its time was considered perfectly appropriate. Each in its time was fuelled in part by prejudice and misunderstandings, but more profoundly by a subtle assumption that things were supposed to be this way, assumptions held without thought as to the pain and sense of exclusion it might inflict on others. Each convention had its time and that time has passed thanks, in part, to the acts and actions taken by the Parliament of Canada.
[Translation]
Today we are debating the legal definition of marriage and it is our intention, as you are aware, to introduce a bill on this in Parliament. We have a fundamental obligation to do so, in light of another parliamentary statute, the most important one in our history, the Constitution Act of 1982. Enacted with a huge majority in both chambers, this act gave birth to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The charter enshrined certain fundamental individual rights into law, investing each and every Canadian with the right to find out from the courts whether enacted legislation infringed upon rights. Adoption of the charter and its entrenchment by Parliament in the Constitution was the expression of the opinion of duly elected legislators, some of whom are still with us in this House. This means that, even if Parliament has the last word as far as legislation is concerned, this should not be the only word.
In short, the charter must serve as a vehicle for challenging established hypotheses, beliefs and attitudes, regardless of how familiar and comforting these may be, in order to ensure that all Canadians have equal treatment before the law. The charter has so far served Canada and Parliament well in this respect.
As for whether the current definition of marriage infringes on the charter guarantees of equality, the courts have been clear and consistent. It does. The British Columbia and Ontario appeal courts found that, in relation to the guarantees of equality conferred by the charter, limiting civil marriage to two individuals of opposite sex discriminated against the gays and lesbians of Canada who wished to demonstrate the same degree of commitment. A similar decision handed down in Quebec is currently being appealed.
(1045)
[English]
Courts also made it clear that their decisions affected civil marriage only. They emphasized that the charter also guarantees freedom of religion. All religious groups have the right to refuse to marry anyone who does not meet the requirements of their respective faith. They have it now and they will continue to have it.
Both fundamental principles--equality based on personal characteristics like race, language or sexual orientation, and freedom of religion--co-exist in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. One does not trump the other. That is why the two principles strike a balance in the marriage bill that has been drafted. There are only two provisions. The first defines marriage to be “the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others”. The second states, “Nothing in this Act affects the freedom of officials of religious groups to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs”.
To further ensure freedom of religion, the bill has been referred to the Supreme Court of Canada along with this specific question: “Does the freedom of religion guaranteed by paragraph 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protect religious officials from being compelled to perform a marriage between two persons of the same sex that is contrary to their religious beliefs?”
[Translation]
Hon. members will have the full advantage of the Supreme Court response in this matter when Parliament debates the bill. At the same time, it will have the opportunity to debate the government's proposals.
The notwithstanding clause is such a powerful tool that the federal Parliament has never had recourse to it. It would be a mistake to authorize such recourse by voting in favour of this motion and of the terms “take all necessary steps” without a full and separate debate.
[English]
Let me be clear. A vote in favour of the Alliance motion means a vote to use the notwithstanding clause. The Government of Canada has never invoked this clause to override the charter rights of a minority. I believe this would set a dangerous precedent.
The Alliance rejects equality in human rights. The Alliance rejects the charter. Let us not fall into the opposition's trap.
We are at an historic moment in time. We have the opportunity to challenge our settled assumptions and beliefs and do what is right in terms of equality: to vote down this motion that would once again restrict marriage to opposite sex couples.
And I believe this is the right thing to do. We cannot deny the rights of people who are part of our society. They are not to be ignored or made to feel invisible. Some may be our friends or our neighbours. Some may be our sons or our daughters. They live, work and contribute in our communities. They too pay taxes. They are in long term relationships and in some cases raise children. Their relationships deserve to be fully recognized too. Anything less is discrimination. I believe this is about equality, dignity and respect for all Canadians.
(1050)
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, how can he say that the protection of traditional marriage constitutes an act of prejudice and discrimination when this position apparently was his very own until four months ago? Is the member now admitting to us that he and his government, when they voted for this same motion in 1999, were engaged in an act of historic discrimination against a protected minority in Canada? The answer of course is no.
The answer is no. He referenced the adoption of the charter in this place in 1981. Perhaps he has forgotten that at the time, his predecessor as minister of justice, now the Right Hon. the Prime Minister, on behalf of the government, spoke against, voted against, and defeated proposed amendments by the member for Burnaby--Douglas to include the term sexual orientation under section 15 because, he said, he was concerned that it could lead to a misinterpretation to the right of same sex marriage. That was the position of the Liberal Party when the charter was adopted. That was the intent of Parliament when the charter was adopted.
He speaks about the consistency of the courts in this matter and yet he does not reference the last time that the Supreme Court of Canada spoke on this issue, at the Egan case in 1995 wherein Mr. Justice La Forest, writing for the majority, said:
|
...marriage is by nature heterosexual. 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. |
My question to the minister is this. How is that when Parliament specifically excluded the basis for this purported right and the Prime Minister himself did so because of the consequence which is now before us, when the last time the Supreme Court of Canada spoke on the matter it upheld the constitutionality of marriage? And why is it that when the minister himself voted for this position four years ago, what was once a valued legal convention worthy of parliamentary protection suddenly is now an act of prejudice and discrimination?
Hon. Martin Cauchon: Mr. Speaker, as I said in my opening remarks, society evolves. It changes over time. If we look at the situation we were in back at that time when we voted, which the member just referred to, we were not facing the same clarity with regard to court decisions, essentially.
Let me be clear. When we look at the various court decisions regarding section 15 and the current definition of marriage, I believe the court decisions have been clear. We as a government and the Liberal Party of Canada as well have decided that it is a question of rights and a question of dignity, and as well it is a question of policy. We have decided to give gays and lesbians in Canada full recognition within our Canadian society.
More than that, I was in western Canada last week. I have been discussing with people. I have been on radio shows. I have been talking to Canadians. Of course some raise concerns, but when we really take a look at the draft bill, Canadians understand that actually the draft bill respects who we are as Canadians. We respect a balanced approach that gives room to all Canadians and gives a place to all Canadians in our society.
Let me remind the House that as a society we are facing two very key basic principles that I will fight for: the question of protection of religious beliefs and the equality rights in section 15 as well. As justice minister, I will make sure those two principles will be respected in Canada today. When we look at the draft bill, we see that we respect the equality rights in giving gays and lesbians access to the institution of civil marriage, but at the same time we have to respect religious beliefs.
Today, when we look at the two institutions, we see that there are already fundamental differences between religious marriage and civil marriage. Some may say they disagree with the fact that some religions put in place some standards. As well, they may disagree with the standards that have been put in place by religious groups in this country, but we will respect those standards and we will respect those differences because we do believe in religious freedoms and, at the same time, equality rights. This is exactly what we are fighting for today as a society and we must be successful.
(1055)
Hon. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it will come as no surprise to anyone in the House that I would like to speak very strongly against this motion.
This is a deeply emotional debate and I hope that during the days that we debate the issue of marriage and the definition of marriage that we will do so with respect.
I respect the rights and the opinions of those who for religious reasons do not support the expansion of the definition of marriage, but for me this is a matter of rule of law and equality.
In section 15 of our charter we have enshrined minority rights. This is very clear. In section 2 of the charter we have also counterbalanced the rights of religious freedom, for religions to follow their own dictates and their own moral laws. Neither of these are contraindicated in an expansion of the definition of marriage to include same sex couples.
The law is a living thing and our charter gave voice to that. I want to quote Pierre Elliott Trudeau when he was speaking to the proposed charter. He said:
|
Perhaps a good place to begin is to ask what role we think the law should play in Canada. Is it to be, as is so often it now seems to be, little more than a set of rules...a body of statutes and judicial decisions which act as precedents for our conduct? Do we give the impression of persons constantly looking back over their shoulders, attempting to see what was done in the past? The law, by this definition, is static. Rather than serving us, we find that it controls us. It is a rigid framework within which we must remain, an inflexible harness which would bind us to the status quo, and intimidates our attempt to change. Surely this is not the proper role of law. |
|
Properly employed, the law is the instrument which will permit the preservation of our traditions and the pursuit of ideas which our society cherishes. These ideals or values are many, but the most basic of them, I suggest, are the freedom and dignity of the individual. If we as individuals do not have the opportunity to stand erect, to retain our self-respect, to move freely throughout our country unhindered by any artificial impediment, then we have not created in this land the political climate that we are capable of creating. We will not have made use of the law as we should. |
This was Pierre Elliott Trudeau when he was speaking as justice minister to the charter. In that charter he proposed that the rights of four different categories be constitutionally protected, rights such as freedom of expression, freedom of conscience and religion, freedom of assembly and association and legal rights such as security of life, liberty and property, the presumption of innocence and the right to be protected against self-incrimination, and egalitarian rights, the right not to be discriminated against.
These are the things we are debating here today in this Parliament when we discuss the issue of moving forward and evolving the law. Mr. Trudeau said as well about the charter:
|
In short, we should not underestimate the strengths of our society and assume that the public interest will automatically suffer if the interest of the individual is further protected. |
Over the course of time we have in this very Parliament , in this very country and indeed around the world looked at the status quo and we have tried to preserve it. We did so, as we heard, for millennia. We have tried to say that this is how the world should be and how it should continue to be. Take for example women. For millennia women were considered to be chattel. They were seen as unworthy to be part of the public institutions of Parliament. They were seen as unworthy to vote and they were seen as simple possessions.
I point out that this same Parliament, in its wisdom, has sought to protect the status quo with regard to women. There were debates in the House, as reported in the Globe and Mail on April 12, 1918, when women were seeking the vote. I will paraphrase what Mr. H. A. Fortier from Labelle said. He said that in fact the movement was one of the forms of feminism spreading around the world and that the matter should be studied before the government decided to make such a radical reform. He thought that a woman's place was in the home.
Bringing up the fear that if women should vote or if women should be allowed into Parliament, the danger to families and to family life would be absolute, the Globe and Mail article reported that Mr. DuTremblay said that women had their influence which they exercised through the medium of the home. He said that in the province of Quebec they had large families and their domestic duties employed all of their time and he thought it unwise to tempt women into political life and that it was not the time for government to try to make experiments.
In Paris, even then, the chamber of deputies talked about the natural order, which is another argument that is brought forward whenever there is to be change, that this is not how nature meant it. I quote Deputy Lafagette:
|
No one can do anything against the natural inequality of the sexes. If we pretended to create absolute equality the whole moral system and social laws would collapse and marriage be endangered. |
That was said in 1918. I want to quote what Mr. Fournier said in the House of Commons:
|
If we grant women the right to vote who can tell the result in two decades? Shall there not be a conflict between men and women? ... Women must be kept in the home, which is their proper sphere. The nation was not made up of individuals, but of families, and the suffrage bill will disrupt family ties and destroy parental authority. |
I stand in the House as clear evidence that by allowing women to vote, by treating women as persons, by bringing them to their full potential in the life of this country, it was indeed a good thing.
I also want to talk about the debates in Parliament regarding the Chinese exclusion act in the House in 1923 when Chinese were condemned and Chinese men were not allowed to bring their families into Canada. It was legally impossible for wives to join their husbands. At that time MacInnes in the “Oriental Occupation of British Columbia”, pages 12 and 13, said:
|
It may be very right indeed to separate a man by law from his wife and family if he belongs to a race whose increase in the country would be disastrous to those already in occupation of it; especially if such intruding race be very prolific and very difficult to assimilate; and by reason of a more meagre standard of living capable of undoing the masses of those to whom such a country belongs. But aside from all that, the Chinese cannot rightly be said to be separated by any Canadian law from their wives and children in China. They are free to go back to their wives and children any time, and God speed to them. |
(1105)
These were the thoughts of those days when those laws were created in Parliament, laws that we have since rescinded. All of us in the House agree that the laws against women; the Chinese exclusion act; the law creating places for the Japanese to go, taking away their citizenship and their right to mobility, which was repealed in the House in 1988; we know that laws live and that they change. They move forward as we seek to create a society in our country that is diverse and in which we recognize that minority rights are as important as majority rights and that they must co-exist side by side if we are to be spared from the tyranny of the majority. Indeed that is impossible in our country where there is no real, no particular majority. Everyone of us belongs to minority groups and we must be careful when we look at section 15 of the charter how we deal with our minority groups in this country, of which we are all part.
We must have learned something from our past mistakes with some of the things I have quoted with regard to women, to the Chinese exclusion act and to the Japanese internment.Our children have learned.
The Globe and Mail ran a series of 12 articles just before July 1, in which surveys were done. It found that our children, people under 34, have now come to believe that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the rule of law are of primary value for our country. They have said that they do not trust Parliament. We need to think about that. They trust the charter and the rule of law ahead of us in Parliament. We have made mistakes in the House. In this great House we have seen that we have created laws that were wrong and we sought to change them.
Marriage is what we are discussing here. Marriage is an anthropological, social, legal and religious institution. There is a deeply human need for us to be together, for us to love and be loved, for us to join with someone for life. This need is as old as humankind. There is also a deeply social need that when we meet someone whom we wish to spend our lives with we want to tell the world, our community and everyone around us that this is an important union, that we value and we cherish each other.
There is a legal need for marriage in which everyone's rights need to be protected. Those who are married need to have the full recourse of the law to protect them.
There is of course a religious need for marriage, which began in the Council of Trent in 1563 when marriage became a religious institution.
None of those things are being denied in this debate today. In fact, we know that marriage began a long time ago as a major legal and social institution. Indeed in Roman law there were legal reasons for marriage. It was felt that marriage was the transference of property because at the time a woman was chattel. As the woman was transferred to a husband, she moved all of her inheritance and her rights with her. It was also created for children. At the time children were seen to need to protect their inheritance.
Today all families have children. I ask members when they think about this to think about children and ensure that we do not create two sets of families with two sets of children, some of whom are less equal than others.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I proudly represent people in Langley and Abbotsford in British Columbia and I can assure you that the vast majority of people in my riding believe that the institution of marriage is an integral part of our society. The legal definition of marriage as the voluntary union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others has existed in Canada since Confederation and the vast majority of people in my riding firmly and earnestly believe that.
The minister talked about how much he had talked to Canadians across the country and how much he believed in what they were saying. He certainly did not talk to people in my riding about this issue. I have now heard from the member and the minister himself. They both talked about respect, but the people in my riding are asking why it is that the government will not respect them for what they are but for what the government wants them to be.
I would like to ask the member a question about the intent of the legislation that the minister talked about, that is, the union of any two persons. What many people in my riding are asking is what is next. Does that include any two persons, for instance any two persons in a family? Does that include a brother and a sister, a brother and a brother, a sister and a sister? It is not defined in the legislation as the minister put it. Is there an age differential that is intended? I would like to know what the member's opinion is on both of those items.
(1110)
Hon. Hedy Fry: Mr. Speaker, the legislation does not wish to, nor does it intend to change any of those statutes at the moment where it is in fact prohibited for brothers and sisters to marry, or for parents and children to marry, or for polygamy. In a free and democratic society in order to deny any group access to the legal and social institutions of that society, there must be justifiable reasons.
The reason for brothers and sisters and close family members not to marry is one based on a medical reason called consanguinity. We know that when close family members marry there is a risk of increasing the potential for certain diseases that are either genetic or that are carried through in terms of chromosome abnormalities. There is a real reason for it. There is harm to society.
We know that in polygamy there is also exploitation that is observed when there is not an equal relationship and there is one person with many others in a relationship.
Those are very clear reasons and justifiable ones in a society like ours.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member said something that is very frightening to me when she answered the question. She said that they have no intention of changing any statute, and then she added “at the moment”. That is a frightening term because there was no intention back in the days when they were trying to include sexual orientation in the constitution. The specific question that the justice committee was asked was will this lead to adoption or the changing of the definition of marriage? The answer from the government was “absolutely no, there is no intention”. They might as well have said “no intention at the moment”.
What does she mean by “not at the moment”? Does that mean they will in the future, or is she going to give us some more false promises for the future changes?
Hon. Hedy Fry: Mr. Speaker, I was responding to the question from the hon. member across the way who asked me about the current legislation. That is legislation that is here at the moment in the House when we bring the bill forward.
I also gave clear and justifiable reasons why marriage between close family members, such as brothers and sisters, et cetera, should not be allowed. I also gave very clear and justifiable reasons why polygamy would not be allowed. These are real, justifiable reasons, that it could harm society.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me, as the Bloc's justice critic, to speak in the House today on the motion by the Canadian Alliance.
The motion under debate today does not concern exclusively the rights of gays and lesbians in this country, any more than the right of women to vote or equal rights for women concerns only women, or anti-Semitism concerns only Jewish people or racism concerns only Black people or the Muslim community in Quebec and Canada since September 11.
It concerns social justice and human rights, and it affects society as a whole, meaning each and every one of us.
It is important to establish the context surrounding this debate. Why, today, are parliamentarians being asked to debate such an important issue? It is because various courts have ruled on the matter. The Court of Appeal of British Columbia, the Court of Appeal for Ontario and the Superior Court of Quebec all ruled that the definition of marriage, which states that marriage is the union of one man and one woman for life to the exclusion of all others, was discriminatory.
These same three courts also ruled that, in a free and democratic society, changes to this definition could not be prevented. In a society governed by the rule of law, such as our own, the legislative branch's powers are limited by other powers, including the weight of the judiciary.
In a country or society with a charter or charters, such as the Quebec charter of rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the elected representatives must take great pains to carefully weigh what the courts say in their interpretation of the documents our societies are founded on.
The justice committee crossed Canada to listen to Quebeckers' and Canadians' opinions on this issue.
From Vancouver to Halifax to Nunavut, in all the regions of Canada, we listened, discussed, debated and worked with these people. At times, I felt extremely uncomfortable being a member of this committee.
It was uncomfortable for me, as a young heterosexual man, married for nearly ten years, with two kids, to be judging the relationship shared by two individuals testifying before us to say they wanted to get married, two men or two women who wanted to get married, who had been together for many years and who, in some cases, had children. Some would have me say that their love is not as good as mine, that their relationship is not as valid as mine.
I refuse to judge as not as good, right or valid as mine the relationship between two individuals who love each other.
Besides, and I have put this question to many witnesses, what difference does it make if my neighbour happens to be a homosexual and has the right to get married? What difference does it make in your own relationship? What difference does it make in my marriage, I having been married for ten years, as I said earlier?
If my best friend, my brother and perhaps someday my son, who knows, were to marry someone of the same sex, would that take anything away from the spousal relationship I have been in with my wife Lori for nearly ten years now? The answer is no.
(1115)
To allow same-sex partners to marry does not take anything away from anybody. On the contrary, it affords more people an equal chance to celebrate the love they have for each other.
Our committee looked at four options. It is important that we consider these four options. These were: to keep marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others; to allow a form of civil union; to leave marriage up to organized religion; or to allow same-sex marriages.
Only one of these four options is in keeping with the Constitution. It is important that we, as lawmakers, base ourselves on legislation to find a solution that is consistent with this country's basic laws.
First, as I said at the beginning, the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others was found to be discriminatory by all three courts I mentioned earlier. When voting on such a major issue, parliamentarians will have to take that into account.
It was suggested by some that the federal Parliament approve some kind of civil union, of registered partnership or something of the sort.
Parliament cannot do that because family law comes under provincial jurisdiction. In matters of family law, the only things that come under federal jurisdiction are marriage and divorce. Any attempt by this Parliament to create another form of union under family law would be unconstitutional because it is ultra vires the authority of Parliament. In other words, this would go beyond the authority of Parliament.
We have heard this many times, not only from our researchers but also from several constitutional experts who appeared before us. I asked each of these constitutional experts from various universities if this were the case and they unanimously agreed.
The third point, or the third possibility that we examined, was to leave marriage in the hands of religious bodies. In other words, all couples would have access to a form of civil union and churches would perform marriages.
That is something else Parliament cannot do. The authority that decides who may be married is the province. Parliament cannot say that a certain priest, rabbi or imam can or cannot marry two people. Members of the clergy can celebrate a marriage if at some point, within their religious order, they become civil status officers.
Again, on the basis of shared jurisdictions, Parliament must leave marriage up to the churches and create another type of union.
Finally, the only other option would be to allow same sex marriage.
I would like to come back to civil unions for a few moments if I may. Not only would they be unconstitutional, but this also raises two points that, in my view, should stop anyone who is in favour of this option, even if it is unconstitutional.
The first is that we would be accepting the separate but equal doctrine north of the 45th parallel. As we know, this doctrine was rejected in the United States many years ago. Accepting this doctrine would be a major step backward for Quebec and Canadian society.
The other question is simpler: if this type of civil union conferred the same rights and responsibilities as for a married couple, why not call it a marriage? Why complicate matters?
(1120)
It is essential to remember that we are discussing civil and not religious marriage. Because freedom of religion has been mentioned many times in this debate, permit me to add a few words.
The concept of freedom of religion is part of this debate in two ways. The first is to ensure that churches, synagogues, temples and mosques are free not to marry same-sex couples. With freedom of religion already protected in the Quebec and Canadian charters, it seems to me that this is has been established.
We can make the analogy in two ways. To Catholics, we can say this. When people who marry in the Catholic faith get divorced, they cannot be remarried in the Catholic church. The Catholic church cannot be forced to remarry divorced persons because that is part of its dogma and its dogma is protected by freedom of religion.
It is the same thing, for example, in the synagogues. Most rabbis refuse to marry a Jew and a non-Jew. That is perfectly acceptable even if it appears discriminatory at first glance, because it is part of the Jewish religion and the rights are protected.
Thus, it is important to point out that permitting civil marriage between persons of the same sex will in no way oblige churches, temples, mosques or synagogues to marry same sex couples.
The other way freedom of religion enters this debate is this: There are denominations whose interpretation of the scriptures allows them to marry same sex couples. We could mention the United Church, the Unitarian Church and liberal Judaism, for example, which would like to marry same sex couples, but cannot because of the so-called traditional definition of marriage. Their freedom of religion is violated, because a religious definition of marriage that does not correspond with their own is being imposed on them.
Why impose on the United Church, which is, after all, the largest Protestant denomination in Canada, the Catholic, Evangelical, or Orthodox Jewish vision of marriage? That is unacceptable and infringes upon their freedom of religion.
Let us reverse the roles and reverse the problem. If civil marriage were permitted between same sex spouses, thus allowing these denominations to marry same sex couples, it would protect the religious freedom of the Catholic Church, the Evangelical church and others not to marry same sex couples.
With this second solution, the religious freedom of all denominations is protected. Is that not the best solution when talking about freedom of religion?
Furthermore, I heard the leader of the Canadian Alliance say earlier that all Canadians of all origins who came here recognize or adopt or have adopted the so-called traditional definition of marriage, meaning the union of one man and one woman. Unless his comments and intentions aim to exclude members of the United Church, the Unitarian Church, the Metropolitan Community Church of Toronto and the Liberal Judaism of the corpus politis in Quebec and Canada, I think he should come back to the House and say that this is not true. A great many denominations are in favour of this.
Also, I have rarely, if ever, heard a valid and strong argument against allowing same sex marriage. Who can say that two spouses of the same sex have no feelings for one another and cannot promise mutual support and fidelity to one another? Furthermore, I do not believe that, if they are unfaithful, they are any more or less unfaithful than heterosexuals.
(1125)
We often hear that a man and woman who are a couple complement one another.
Take my own marriage as an example. When I got married, I did not sign a collective agreement. No one said, “this is women's work and that men's work”. How each half of the couple complements the other half will vary from one couple to the next, and this is true of both heterosexual and homosexual couples.
I have a very simple example. At my house, the tools belong to my wife. It might seem unusual, but many people think that complementing each other means that the man does the manual labour and the woman does other things. But I am all thumbs. I am horrible at fixing things. My wife, however, is not bad at it.
So, how we complement one another is not based on the fact that she is a woman and that I am a man, but simply on the fact that we are two people who love each other and who want our marriage to work. This includes dividing the labour between us. How the labour is divided varies from one heterosexual couple to the next, and I am sure that it varies from one homosexual couple to the next. Sexuality has nothing to do with it.
Then there is the argument of procreation, which has been raised so often. First of all, it is incorrect to say that homosexual couples cannot have children, because they are able to adopt. Second, there are technologies that can enable them to have children.
Yesterday we met a charming young man at the press conference of the Quebec Coalition for Same-sex Relationship Recognition. Robby has two mothers and yet has absolutely no psychological problems. Some claim that children with two parents of the same sex will have all kinds of problems. This is a well-adjusted young man, intelligent and well-spoken, who strikes me as being perfectly healthy. I mention this just to show that now same sex couples can have children.
The other issue raised by this matter of procreation, or reproduction, is whether this is the primary objective of marriage. If so, what about heterosexual couples who cannot have children? Would women past menopause or heterosexual men who are impotent not have the right to marry also? No one would want to take away their right to marry because they cannot have children.
So it is wrong to say that the primary objective of marriage is reproduction, procreation, unless consistency is applied and an expiration date is assigned: “If you have no children by such and such a date, your marriage is invalid.” There must be consistency.
In conclusion, contrary to what the leader of the Canadian Alliance says, it is a matter of human rights. It is a matter of fundamental justice. The only way parliamentarians can prevent same sex couples from marrying is to do away with their rights, and those rights are recognized by the courts.
It is all very well to skate around the issue, but the crux of the matter is this: are we prepared, as parliamentarians—regardless of what we think of homosexuals and their relationships—to do away with their fundamental rights. If we go that route, and do away with the rights of that minority, then which minority will be next?
My wish in closing is for my five-year-olds to grow up in a society that is open and generous, not merely tolerant, a society which accepts and embraces difference. In voting against this motion, we will make it possible for them to grow up to vote in such a society.
(1130)
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons I am opposed to marriage between persons of the same sex and support the rule of law is that it was this House and this Prime Minister who, in 1981, made a deliberate decision to exclude the phrase about sexual orientation in section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
It was this House which, four years ago, made a deliberate decision to uphold the definition of marriage as the union of opposite sex spouses. Nine years ago, the Supreme Court itself determined, in the Egan case, that the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman was legal and constitutional. This was the last time the Supreme Court considered this issue. Allow me to quote Justice La Forest's decision in this matter. He wrote, and I quote:
[English]
|
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...In this sense, marriage is by nature heterosexual...But generally, the courts should not lightly use the Charter to second-guess legislative judgment [on this matter]. |
[Translation]
How can the hon. member say that the courts have clearly spoken on this issue, when the last time the Supreme Court looked into it, it supported the traditional definitions of marriage?
Mr. Richard Marceau: Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but express disappointment with the performance of the hon. member for Calgary Southeast, with whom I often disagree but whose intelligence I respect and, normally, his consistency as well.
What he fails to mention and should mention in quoting the Egan decision and Justice La Forest's comments is, first, that the decision deals with same sex benefits, and not marriage. He fails to mention that Justice La Forest does not speak on behalf of the majority.
When quoting a decision—I do not know if he studied law but I did—one must not quote what was quoted, which constitutes an obiter dictum, that is to say a statement by a judge which is beside the point and cannot be used as a precedent in a subsequent decision.
(1135)
[English]
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was following the debate by the hon. member from the Bloc Québécois who raised the issue of human rights. I have a document here which says that there is no jurisdiction in the world that defines marriage of same sex couples as a human rights issue. Even in Holland and Belgium they do not discuss it as a human rights issue. The UN does not define it as a human rights issue. New Zealand does not define it as a human rights issue.
Can the hon. member give an example of a jurisdiction that defines the marriage of same sex couples as a human rights issue?
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau: Mr. Speaker, once again, I must express my surprise at this kind of reasoning, “If it is not done in other places, it cannot be done here.” The way the result is achieved is not as important as the result itself.
Although Belgium and the Netherlands made their decisions to permit marriage between same sex couples on a different basis than ours, they are now examples of respect for minority rights when it comes to homosexual marriage.
And that leads me to say a few words about the consequences of allowing same sex marriages. In fact, people have been saying that if we permit such marriages, society will self-destruct, morality will fly out the window and grave danger will threaten our society.
But when we look at the figures—they are recent but they are the only ones available for same sex marriages in the Netherlands—there has been no decrease in the number of heterosexual marriages nor has there been a drop in the birth rate. Holland is still there and the Earth still turns.
Thus, despite all those who point to same sex marriage as a threat to the rest of society, we can see that society continues to function.
Moreover, to everyone who says that the fact of allowing or recognizing rights for homosexuals leads to societal decadence, I would like to remind them that the examples of Greece and Rome were often mentioned in committee. First of all, when Greece was in its golden age, homosexuality was very widespread. Secondly, Rome was first sacked in the year 410 A.D. and fell in 476, not while it was pagan, but when it was Christian.
Thus, the survival of a civilization has nothing to do with the rights of a minority, even a homosexual minority. On the contrary, I stand with those who believe that a society is judged on its treatment of its minorities.
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker, first, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, not only for his speech today, but for his leadership since this debate began. He worked extremely hard on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. It was very encouraging to see such leadership from the hon. member.
I want to ask the hon. member to again answer the question asked by my friend from Calgary Southeast. He suggested that the courts handed down rulings that are contrary to the will of members. He spoke of what happened with the Constitution committee in 1980-1981. It is true that I had proposed an amendment to explicitly include sexual orientation in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The members voted it down.
Back then, I asked the Prime Minister, then Minister of Justice, whether he thought that, once the charter was adopted, the courts would interpret it so as to exclude discrimination based on sexual orientation. He said that this was possible, that it was up to the courts to decide and that this issue was not yet resolved. In 1985, a parliamentary committee consisting of five Progressive Conservatives, one Liberal and one New Democrat unanimously decided that the Constitution should be interpreted as including sexual orientation. Such is history.
(1140)
Mr. Richard Marceau: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas for his kind words and for his question.
I was 11 years old in 1981, so certainly not much concerned about such things at that time. He is right, and has pointed out what was said at that time. Being a sovereignist, I will not conceal the fact that I want to get Quebec out of Canada. Nevertheless, we do have a Constitution in the meantime, and we are under the jurisdiction of that Constitution. According to a decision that dates way back to the 1930s, this Constitution is like a living and growing tree, not something that is rigidly frozen in time. It evolves and adapts to society. If it did not it would not survive for long.
The most admired constitution in the world, for a variety of reasons, and the oldest, is the Constitution of the United States. It has evolved with the times, in response to jurisprudence. The same thing goes for the Canadian Constitution. There are several things, moreover, that were not included in the Constitution of 1867, but are now in place.
To simply state that, because the words are not in section 15 of the 1981-82 Canadian Charter of RIghts and Freedoms, the Charter could never be interpreted as including them, is to make this into a rigid legal document incapable of adapting to the times, one with a very short life span.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to take part in this very important debate. I congratulate my colleague from Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier for his very interesting speech, which was both informative and tolerant. This is the appropriate tone for this debate, a tone that reflects tolerance. His approach is inclusive and modern.
[English]
I wish to indicate at the outset that I will be splitting my time with the member for Brandon—Souris.
I will preface my remarks again by stating categorically that we should be approaching this debate in an atmosphere of understanding, respect, tolerance, and constructive approach, and I think that has been the tone thus far.
I will also state categorically that I do not personally support changing the definition of marriage and yet I am cognizant of the fact that within my own party there is a difference of opinion, within my own family.
I want to echo one of the sentiments that was expressed by the member for Charlevoix. He talked about how society changes, how the advent of the charter has caused an evolution not only in the law but in the way society approaches the traditional definitions, whether it be of family or whether it be of marriage.
I came from what used to be called the product of a broken home. I had a single parent upbringing. That was viewed in many instances with some apprehension and intolerance. I developed an early understanding that the traditional definition of family does not always fit the mould. That is an important part of this debate. It is a comfort level which Canadians should feel with this issue. It is a comfort level that sometimes takes an evolution and that, I suppose, is a fundamental question. Are we ready? Is Canada ready to accept this change? I suggest that many Canadians are wrestling with this issue.
We should be looking for a pedway, a bridge across this chasm, not to tumble into a divisive and an intolerant atmosphere. We have seen that before in this place. We have seen discussions of capital punishment and abortion rip the country apart. Yet I suggest there are many intelligent minds who can turn their attention to this and look for an honourable approach that is going to give Canadians a level of comfort and allow us to move forward, and not become mired in what I believe can be a very destructive approach.
I have been clear in my statements and consistent that I would not support changing the definition of marriage. Yet I believe that this position is one which can be defended in the context of equality and allowing in fact for a definition to emerge that is equal to what has been the traditional and accepted definition of marriage. That is not to suggest this is solely an issue of semantics because that is clearly not the case, but I believe there is a way that we can sort through this issue without excluding people and without giving them the sense that their rights are being trampled.
This is very much an issue of equality, equality of access and protection, whether it be under the charter, the Criminal Code, access to pensions, or economic freedoms. These are important, tangible results of changing the definition of marriage.
There are a number of issues that I would like to refer to. First, many gay and lesbian, bisexual or transgender groups agree with this assertion that this is a matter of equality. Yet it would seem, in recent court decisions, that the judiciary and the provinces have embraced this ahead of the Parliament of Canada and that I fundamentally have a problem with.
In other religious communities we also see that this is a matter of faith based on religion, based on longstanding accepted tenets of religion. I myself have respect for both sides of this argument and yet what we have seen under the direction of the current Liberal government and its leadership is the larger issue of having ignored this matter and having the courts decide for Canadians. That, fundamentally, offends many. Is this country being governed by the judiciary or the Parliament of Canada?
To this end, I want to spend a brief part of my allotted time discussing the division of powers that we have witnessed. I want to turn the debate itself and offer my own opinion on this matter, which is not perfect. I suggest that there is no perfect answer, but there is a compromise that could be acceptable to all.
Members from St. John's to Saint John, throughout my caucus, have listened intently to the opinions that have been voiced in our caucus over the last year. I believe that is reflective of where Canadians are broadly. There is no right or wrong answer in this regard.
(1145)
Canadians have been concerned, obviously, about the appearance that the courts have encroached upon the supremacy of Canadian Parliament, reading in our laws interpretations that may in fact be inconsistent or outside the intent of the law as presented and passed by Parliament.
This in large part is why we should be having this debate today, but we should be debating the actual law, not a motion, not a revisiting of what we have seen in the past, in 1999, which I supported at the time. We should actually have the legislation before us. That is why I would urge the Government of Canada to withdraw this reference question. In the first instance, it is not phrased properly. It does not put forward the assertion that there is another way to proceed, that we could create a registered domestic partnership, a civil union that takes it out of the realm of religion solely and gives Canadians an option. We should be having this debate, but under the guise of the Parliament of Canada presenting legislation and being upfront and honest about that approach.
The extension of economic benefits protection under the charter or the Criminal Code should not be based on sexual orientation. Equality is the issue. I repeat again: human rights, the rights of homosexuals and heterosexuals, must be respected in this debate. However, as with any system, conflict will arise on competing sides.
In the last number of years, we have seen numerous cases in the Supreme Court and other courts in the land that did whittle away and undermine the supremacy of Parliament. I refer to the recent John Robin Sharpe case, which again, in my view, infringed upon Parliament's exclusive right, and to the right to give felons a vote in Canada. I believe that was out of step with where Canadians are on this issue. We have witnessed provincial cases in Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia, similarly on this issue, which I believe have not allowed for Parliament to speak.
To many, it seems that the reading into the intent of the laws has infringed upon the legitimacy of this place. We have to regain that. Because of the vacuum left by the government, we find ourselves in this dilemma.
In acknowledging that marriage is very sacred and has religious connotations and implications that stem very broadly, there is also the need for involvement of the church in this debate, and for that very reason. There is also the need to acknowledge that there is a great deal of tolerance and clear thinking that has to be put forward, with clear lines drawn and with clear legal definitions.
There are many who would argue, and in fact we have heard many of those arguments today, that there is an erosion of social morals and that this stems from the decline in the institution of marriage. I personally do not subscribe to that thought. I believe it runs much deeper and is far more complicated. In terms of the traditional definition of marriage, this motion is an attempt to seek out conflict on a moral issue. Again, I believe we have to avoid that.
I am afraid that leaders sometimes simplify these issues that divide rather than bind Canadians. I do not believe we should change the legal definition, but I do see that same sex couples should be afforded all the rights and privileges of married couples. And domestic registered partnerships or a definition such as that would allow for this: equal treatment. To be able to say one has “similar” does not mean distinctive, special, or more or less. It does not negate or entitle to more or less. There is value in preserving the definition of marriage, I would suggest: stability, conformity and a sense of comfort for many Canadians.
I believe we can have consultations. I believe the government should withdraw this reference, bring forward a bill and have a real debate on this, one that would matter. Identical treatment does not mean different in this instance.
I will conclude by saying I believe that this is the place for this debate. I believe there is a way in which we will attempt to bring legislation, either through this place or through the Senate of Canada, if the government is not prepared to do so. There are many who would argue that there is an erosion. I do not believe that is happening. It is not erosion. It is evolution.
(1150)
But let us do this with our eyes open. Let us do this in such a way that the Parliament of Canada restores its credibility. We in the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada will be allowing a free vote among our membership.
Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member and agree with much he said. I agree that there is no right and wrong in this issue and that there is not a riding in this country where there are not people on both sides of this very passionately felt issue.
In that respect, as a member I am very proud of Canadians, this Parliament and my constituents for the civility with which they have had this debate. They are thinking of the rights of others. They are tolerant of others and other points of view and are having a very reasonable debate.
I want to go on the record as saying that my constituents, like everyone else in the country, are very split on this. There are very passionate feelings on both sides of this issue. I, like the hon. member, would like a solution that unites the country rather than divides it, as it seems it is today. I am glad the member believes there are minds that can come up with that solution, one which would unite Canadians, not divide them.
I would like to ask the hon. member about one possible solution he has proposed in regard to a civil union. My sense is that it might backfire. People who would still want to be married and to use the term marriage might then challenge the churches in the courts. The churches might then lose that challenge. I think there would be chaos in the country if we tried to force various religions to do something they would not want to do. One of the aspects of the bill is to protect religious freedom as well as equality of access.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments and questions from the member for Yukon. I had the pleasure of visiting his beautiful riding this summer.
I would suggest that, in his words, compassion being the backdrop to all of this would prevent any suggestion of that, and regardless of the Parliament of Canada putting forward a definition that would create a new definition in the civil context, it would not result in some sort of marriage police going around the country chastising or charging individuals for using the term marriage as opposed to union or partnership.
Ironically, I first turned my mind to the issue of registered domestic partnerships or civil unions in speaking to a former Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons, the member from Edmonton, Ian McClelland. There is not a person in this country, I would suggest, who has not been touched in some way personally by this debate. I suggest that we can create a new definition of marriage outside of the religious aspect, leaving that sole jurisdiction to the churches of the country. In fact and in fairness, that is part of the spirit of the legislation, which is in draft form, but I believe we should instill within that definition that “marriage” is the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. Second, notwithstanding that definition, “union” or “partnership” for a civil purpose is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others.
There is a way. And I think the will exists among the silent majority on both sides of this debate to find an acceptable, tolerant, compassionate and inclusive way to allow two persons, regardless of their sexual orientation, to come together and receive equal treatment, equal benefits and equal respect under the law, but without infringing upon what has been there for time immemorial, and that is a definition of marriage that gives this country part of its moral fabric.
(1155)
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I clearly support the traditional definition of marriage and it is clear that the Liberal government does not support the traditional definition of marriage. It has broken its promise to Canadians by doing very little to protect the definition of marriage. The Prime Minister did not appeal the Ontario court decision and the justice minister has travelled the country promoting same sex marriage.
I want to ask my colleague, how can Canadians possibly trust this Liberal government to honour any promise it makes when it has so clearly broken its promise on such an important issue as marriage?
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. That is the fundamental issue here. The fundamental issue in the debate is equality. The fundamental issue of who we trust as our representative is also an important matter.
When this similar motion came before the House of Commons in 1999, a good number, and I would suggest the overwhelming majority, of the Liberal Party, including the minister of justice at the time, stated unequivocally that they would not change, tinker or amend the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman. Yet as we have seen repeatedly, this government broke faith, and after the election of course. But there is a record of this. We saw it on the red book. We saw it on so many issues. This one, I would suggest, is quite fundamental. It strikes at the very heart of democracy when the government says something as important as this and then turns around and votes the other way. But that is what we have come to expect.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise to debate this issue in the House of Commons. It was mentioned earlier that it is a very emotional and passionate debate and, in a lot of cases, certainly a divisive debate within what was mentioned, within constituencies and within families.
One of the advantages I have in my party is the opportunity of putting forward my position, my beliefs, my options and my concerns, contrary to the views my leader holds. We have the opportunity in our party to be our own people, to be ourselves, and I will respectfully be disagreeing with some of what my leader put forward on behalf of his own beliefs.
I would also like to say it does not surprise me that the Alliance would come forward with this somewhat hot button, divisive issue on the second day in the House of Commons, as opposed to something that is more rampant in our communities right now, which is the fact that a lot of families are being devastated with respect to the border closures on cattle because of BSE. Last night, with my leader, I attended a meeting of some 250 ranchers who are absolutely devastated and who have nowhere to turn. But today it seems that the Alliance would much rather put forward a divisive issue as opposed to trying to put forward something so that we could in fact assist those people.
I have found that this issue is broken up into three categories. The first one, without question, is that of equality and the charter that we hold dear and close to our hearts, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Without question, three superior courts in the land, those of British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec, have come forward and said they have interpreted our law. And it is our law. It is the law of the people who sit in the House. It is the law of the people I represent and the law of Canadians in the country: the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Unequivocally three courts said that it is our law and that in fact we are breaking our law, that we are not extending equality to those people who wish to have equality. Under section 15(1) of the charter, the courts have said that either we change the law or we comply with it.
I hold that charter dear and close to my heart because that is what it means to be a Canadian. That is our freedom. That is our cornerstone. If we change the law, then we change our society. Every night on the news we see examples of societies today and we see what happens when we do not have that Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Those courts have said to us, “Comply”. I know the argument is that this should have been appealed to the Supreme Court, but that is a stalling tactic. That is not taking responsibility. That is not making decisions. That is not acting on what we believe is right in our society. It is a stalling tactic to go forward to the Supreme Court. We recognize that it would come back to us at some point in time and say yes, we are in fact not complying with the law, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, so we must comply. And everybody would be happy to say that the courts had forced us to do it.
But it is our law. And we put it in place. I was not 11 years old when it came into the House, but I was not in the House, and I should tell the House that it is something I hold very dear and very close to my heart.
So right off the bat we have equality. We have that. Also, when people question how it would infringe other people and organizations with their rights and freedoms, I say there are reference questions. My leader said, “Withdraw the reference questions and let us put the legislation on the table”. I do not disagree with that. Let us discuss legislation. This is a motion from the Alliance Party, which wants to push those hot buttons, but let us get the legislation here. Let us talk about it. Let us look at how those rights are going to be protected, not just for same sex marriages and same sex couples but for the religious freedoms we hold so dear, in that same legislation. Let us bring it forward. But we do not have that. There are reference questions. My caveat will be that we cannot take rights away from one group to give to another.
The third reference question is quite specific. I hope everybody has read it. It asks if civil marriages, and I underline civil, are allowed in the country, will religious organizations have the right to refuse same sex marriage ceremonies in their religious churches and organizations? That question has to come back as “yes, those rights are protected under that same charter”. We cannot take rights away from one group or individual to give to another. Unequivocally we have to protect that right in the charter. I think reference question number three will certainly speak to that.
(1200)
There has been a lot of debate about the word marriage. Should that word be used with a same sex couple? I stand here having been married to a woman for 31 years, and I take those vows very seriously. In fact, I take those vows probably more seriously than a lot of people with whom I grew up who have not taken those vows very seriously and who have probably been divorced once if not twice. I can stand here and say that I do take my vows very seriously.
My wife and family disagree on this issue. My wife and I have had honest, open discussions, like the ones we are having here in the House. She said that marriage is something that we should sanctify. It should be a man and a woman. I said that currently there are in this society same sex marriages. We could pick a number: 100, 200, 300, 400, probably 500. There are probably 500 same sex marriages in this country right now which have already been sanctified by the courts. I asked my wife how that has detracted from our marriage of 31 years. Is it less today than it was yesterday when somebody took a vow in Toronto or someplace else in Ontario? I asked her if our marriage meant less to her than to me and she replied that it did not. After 31 years that is the relationship we have developed with or without a word.
The same is true of those loving relationships that have been sanctified by civil marriage in Ontario. Why take that right away from those couples because we think it will have an impact on them? That is marriage.
There is an issue with the freedom of religion and the protection of that freedom of religion. I will stand and fight anyone who suggests that right should not be extended to everyone who wishes to exercise that opinion and those beliefs. That is in the charter, the same charter that we say should have equality rights for same sex couples in relationships.
There are religious organizations in this country today that extend same sex marriages. The question is: Do they not have those same rights of religious freedom in the charter? Are we supposed to take those rights away from them because someone else says they are right and everyone else is wrong?
We have all had phone calls and letters and organized campaigns. The fact is that if the United Church in its wisdom decides to extend those rights to marriage should people not be given the right to religious freedom under the charter? In some cases I have heard people say no. I have heard people say that right should be taken away from them. That is a very slippery slope.
When I ask why people should not have the right to exercise their religious rights and opinions, the answer I have been getting in some cases is that they are right and the others are wrong. That is a very dangerous position to take because if they are right and others are wrong extends to religious beliefs and religious opinions where could that go?
Does the majority have the right to say they are right and others are wrong on other issues? Would there be freedom of speech, the ability to cast a ballot or the ability to travel across our country? I do not want to fearmonger because too much of that has already taken place but that is a slippery slope and we cannot get caught up in that movement.
This is a divisive issue, an emotional issue and it has the country divided. The issue will be resolved, not by the courts but by us in Parliament, by legislation that will be tabled in the House. This issue will be resolved on the basis of equality and equal rights. It will not be resolved on the basis of discrimination. It will be done in a free and just society. All of us should be proud to say that Canada has the ability to extend those rights to all equally.
(1205)
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to my hon. friend that my leader is concerned about the BSE issue. In fact he led a delegation to Washington and spoke with representatives of the congress, the senate, as well as the president's people on this very important issue. I think it is quite inappropriate to chastise us on that issue.
The issue we have before us is an issue that is here because of the actions of the government. The member talked about three courts in British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec finding that maintaining the traditional definition of marriage was contrary to the Charter of Rights. What I find curious and what I would like the member to comment on is that the Supreme Court of Canada, as recently as 1995 in the Egan case, found that marriage was the union of one man and one woman; that is to say that the Supreme Court of Canada found in favour of the traditional definition of marriage. It was fully aware of the obligations that the Charter of Rights imposes on all of us. Justice La Forest stated that because of its importance legal marriage may be viewed as fundamental to the stability and well-being of the family.
(1210)
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, there were three questions and I will deal with the first one.
My inappropriate suggestion that the Alliance was not dealing with BSE is not just my suggestion. Today the Calgary Herald stated:
|
Conservative Leader [member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough] stepped up as champion for the stricken beef industry Monday, using the first Commons question period.... |
It goes on to stated:
|
Oddly, even though the Canadian Alliance represents the majority of ridings in Western Canada, hurt most by the ban, party leader...did not mention the issue.... |
I suggest that there is a champion out there for the stricken producers of cattle.
We have talked about the Egan decision in the Supreme Court. I think that was answered quite emphatically by the Bloc member who said that this was an issue of same sex benefits, not a question of marriage. Although they try to, they cannot muddy the two issues. We have to be very specific but that certainly was not the case.
The courts of B.C., Quebec and Ontario, the three most populated provinces, the three jurisdictions that came forward and certainly the three superior courts, have looked at this piece of legislation we have, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I have read those orders and the order is quite specific. It says that they uphold the appeal. In fact, they say quite emphatically that in a just and democratic society marriage should be extended to same sex relationships.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I am a little confused about the position of this member because he described the retention of the ancient common law definition of marriage as being an assault against fundamental rights. He referenced the Charter of Rights several times.
First, is the member not aware that this House in 1981 voted against the inclusion of the term “sexual orientation” in section 15 of the charter in large part because of concerns that its inclusion could lead to this policy result on the part of the courts?
Second, he spoke at length about the retention of the traditional definition of marriage as being a fundamental assault on rights in Canada, and unless Hansard was mistaken, the hon. member for Brandon—Souris voted for precisely the same motion that is before us today in 1999. How is it then that he could go from supporting what he now regards as a fundamental assault on Canadian rights? I do not understand the sort of schizophrenia that is evident in the member's extreme, shall we say, flexibility.
The Deputy Speaker: I want to caution the hon. member for Brandon—Souris will have approximately one minute to reply.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely correct. In 1999 I did support the definition of one man and one woman but things change. Society evolves.
By the way, I do believe this same member also voted to not accept his pension when he was being elected as a Reform member. I think they changed their minds on that one. Did society change? Did other variables get thrown into the mix that the pension issue should change and now he has changed his mind on that?
Society does evolve and change. We now have the order of three different superior courts. We have a society that has evolved. We have issued and granted same sex benefits, which were not there in 1981 or 1982.
If we are not flexible enough to change with our society then we probably should not be in the House.
Again, I find it strange that they can change their minds on issues, and that is fine, but others cannot change their minds on issues.
(1215)
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I want to advise the House that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Vancouver East.
I want to start off by thanking the member for Brandon—Souris for his courageous and eloquent remarks in opposition to the motion before the House today.
“Why are they doing this?” That question was asked yesterday by an 11 year old boy, Robbie Barnett-Kemper, in this place at a press conference with the group Canadians for Equal Marriage. Robbie and his sister Hannah have two moms. They have been raised in a loving and nurturing family by Alison Kemper and Joyce Barnett, who have been together since 1984. Alison has said this.
|
Our lives together have been spent overcoming those who would wish us to be apart or invisible. We are committed to ensuring that our children have as secure and rich a life as possible. Marriage is one more step. |
Yesterday their son Robbie asked why the Canadian Alliance was trying to take away that marriage, that marriage that was celebrated with such great joy in June of this year. In answering that question I suppose one could say that the Canadian Alliance members at least have the virtue of consistency because we know that they have voted consistently. On every occasion that the House has been called on to speak out for equality for gay and lesbian people, they have voted against. This is entirely consistent with that position, whether it was on human rights legislation in 1996, hate crimes legislation, legislation recognizing same sex benefits or, as we know, tomorrow voting against legislation that would include sexual orientation in hate propaganda laws in Canada. The Alliance has been consistent.
I particularly want to appeal today, not to my colleagues in the Canadian Alliance because I understand that they do not fundamentally believe in equality based on their voting record so far, to my colleagues in the Liberal Party. As I look around the House, I know there is only one other member here, my friend from Calgary Centre, who was in this House on April 17 of 1985, the day that the Charter of Rights came into force.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: I was here, too.
Mr. Svend Robinson: My colleague from Regina—Qu'Appelle reminds me he was also in the House at that time.
It was the leader of the Liberal Party, today's Prime Minister, who celebrated the coming into force of the Charter of Rights and pointed out:
|
In a global sense we are all part of a minority, and thus subject to the tyranny of the majority. If we are not protected by the rule of the law which is embedded in the rock of our Constitution, what is left? |
We celebrated that day the coming into force of the Charter, and I think we should be very clear that the effect of the passage of this motion today would be to fundamentally and profoundly reject that Charter of Rights. It would be to override that Charter of Rights to deny the basic equality of gay and lesbian people in Canada.
I want to appeal particularly to Liberal members to reject that suggestion that we use the notwithstanding clause. Someone said that there would be an amendment and that they would take out any reference to all possible measures. The reality is that in law with the courts having ruled there is only one possible way to overturn those decisions and that is by using the notwithstanding clause. That is what this debate is fundamentally about today.
“Why are they doing this”, Robbie asked. “What is the threat?”
(1220)
My colleague from Brandon—Souris spoke eloquently about his marriage of 31 years. A couple of weeks ago there was a demonstration of about 200 people outside my office and I know outside many offices of members of Parliament. I spoke to those folks who had deeply held views, deeply religious views. I asked those who were married to put up their hands and many of them did. I asked those who raised their hands to tell me if their marriages would be any less strong, any less committed, any less loving, if I were able to celebrate the joy and the love of my partnership with my partner Max through marriage. I asked if it would it weaken their marriages? I would ask my friend from Saint John if her marriage with her husband Richard of so many years would be in any way diminished by allowing me to celebrate my relationship with my partner Max. I said, “Put up your hands if you believe that” and no one did. We know that it would not happen.
For us, as gay and lesbian people, this debate is not just a political debate. It is an intensely personal debate as well because we are talking about our lives, about my life, about my partner and about my ability as a citizen of this country to enjoy equal status. That goes to the core of the values which I believe we should be fighting for as Canadians.
Our relationship of a little over nine years is just as strong, just as loving, just as committed as any other relationship. In fact it was a life-sustaining relationship for me, following a near fatal accident. It kept me alive. If Max and I should choose to celebrate our love through marriage, why should that be denied us, or any other gay and lesbian couple in Canada today?
I have had the privilege of witnessing a number of marriages since they became legal in Canada and it is a very moving thing for me. In Toronto two men who had been together for 31 years, the same number of years as my friend from Brandon, said after the celebration of their marriage in front of their families and their friends that it was the first time in their 31 years that they felt truly equal in their own country. I celebrate that and I honour them.
As New Democrats we say that this is an issue of fundamental human rights. I want to particularly pay tribute to my colleagues, members like the member for Vancouver East who spoke out so courageously during the debate on my private member's bill in October of 2001, the member for Regina--Qu'Appelle who seconded my motion in 1981 to include sexual orientation in the Charter of Rights, the member for Palliser who spoke out with passion, with conviction and with courage at a demonstration outside his office for equality and dignity and yes, my leader Jack Layton who has said that for him this is a fundamental issue of justice and human rights, who at his own marriage to his partner, his wife, Olivia Chow, lamented the fact that his gay and lesbian friends were not able to celebrate their marriages, and who has talked of witnessing the tremendous love and bonds of gay men in the epidemic of AIDS.
It was only in 1967 in the United States that laws prohibiting interracial marriage were struck down. When some Canadians say that marriage is immutable, that it has not changed, I would remind them that in fact there have been significant changes.
Yes, of course we protect and we honour religious freedom. One of the essential elements of the government's draft legislation is to ensure that no one is required in any way to solemnize a marriage that does not respect their religious values. Indeed the Ontario Court of Appeals has said that freedom of religion ensures that religious groups have the option of refusing to solemnize same sex marriages. The equality guarantee, however, ensures that the beliefs and practices of various religious groups are not imposed upon persons who do not share those views.
Equality for gay and lesbian couples and respect for religious freedom is what this is about. The motion before the House today would override those fundamental principles, and I call on members of the House to reject the motion.
(1225)
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the speech from my colleague from Burnaby--Douglas. I certainly understand that he is a man of consistency and conviction on this issue. However for the sake of clarity for all those who are in the House and for Canadians who are paying attention to this debate, I have a question.
We know the Liberal Party will have a free vote on this issue. We know the Canadian Alliance leader has said that we are free to vote on this issue. The Bloc Quebecois has said the exact same thing. The leader of the Progressive Conservative Party has said the same thing for his party. I am not so sure about the NDP. That has not been clarified. Therefore, can the member can clarify that for the House?
He has said that to deny gay marriage is to deny the basic equality of gays and lesbians. It is bigotry, it is intolerance, it is denying fundamental human rights and it is a fundamental issue of justice. The member for Churchill has said that she will vote in favour of our motion. Is she a bigot?
Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Speaker, first, to set the record straight I would point out that each and every member of the New Democrat caucus in the House today will oppose this motion. This is an issue of fundamental human rights as our leader Jack Layton has said.
My colleague has referred to the member for Churchill. The member for Churchill has expressed concern around the change in definition, but I want to be very clear that the member for Churchill will not in any way be supporting a motion that calls on Parliament to override the most basic and fundamental rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. She will not vote for that, nor will any member of this caucus.
Not only have the courts spoken, the House of Commons justice committee has spoken. A motion which I proposed, calling on Parliament to accept the definition of marriage as the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled was supported by the justice committee. It is the courts, it is the justice committee and today I hope Parliament, by a majority, will reaffirm as well our commitment to equality, to religious freedom and most important, in the context of today's motion, to the Charter of Rights itself.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank our colleague from the NDP and my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois.
I have a fundamental problem with the speeches from the members opposite. I am glad the member for Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier pointed out that we are not talking about religious marriage here. The draft legislation tabled by the member for Outremont and Minister of Justice is clear on this.
If relationships between two people of the same sex are not to be recognized, then I would like the member to tell me how they should be described. It would be like a father telling his daughter that he is not racist, but he does not want her to marry a black man, or a husband telling is wife that he is for equal rights, but he does not want her to have the right to work.
Does our colleague not think that at some point we should practice what we preach? If we believe in equality there should be no exception.
Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to thank my colleague and friend, the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, for his work on this issue. I believe that in 1995 he put forward a motion to recognize same sex marriage. He has fought relentlessly for this recognition ever since.
The member is right. I do not understand what the threat is. In Quebec in particular, public opinion polls show that there is broad support for equal marriage rights. The fact that there is a Quebec coalition for the recognition of same sex marriage proves it. Canadians who are for equal marriage rights also showed their support. I hope the members from Quebec will not only reject this attack on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but will also support the fundamental equality of gay and lesbian couples across Canada, including in Quebec.
(1230)
[English]
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Canadian Alliance led off today on his motion by claiming that this issue of same sex marriage is not about human rights. That is how he started his debate today.
I think it needs to be said that he and his party are dead wrong. It is about human rights and no matter how the Canadian Alliance tries to squirm out of it or twist it or make it an issue that it is about the courts or grab any other kind of excuse they cannot escape judgment that this is about human rights. It is about their stance on human rights. It is about our Charter of Rights and Freedoms and it is about the value of our society and how the law is applied to all people regardless of their race, religion, disability, gender or sexual orientation.
I want to deal with one other statement that came from the leader of the Canadian Alliance this morning. He said that people had “contorted this issue into a human rights issue without public consensus”.
I find it reprehensible that he would challenge the constitutional rights of Canadians to seek justice before the courts. This is something that we have in this country. In fact I would say that we should be applauding the efforts of the people who have advanced this issue through the courts and asserted their own individual rights.
What is equally troubling is the notion of public consensus. What does he mean by this idea of public consensus? Is the Canadian Alliance suggesting that public consensus must exist for change to take place? Can we imagine if that position were applied to interracial marriage which in the past, as my colleague from Burnaby--Douglas has pointed out, was opposed in the United States and where certainly public opinion was very divided? There was no public consensus. Can we imagine if that same kind of position about public consensus were applied to that issue? I think even the Canadian Alliance would say, no, this would be unacceptable. Yet the principle is no different with regard to same sex marriage.
I do not believe that Parliament has the right to impose a definition of marriage that excludes some Canadians only for their sexual orientation, just as we have no right to outlaw interracial marriage or civil marriage between people of different faiths.
The proposed law that we hope that the Liberal government will bring in sooner than later is a permissive law and is not a mandatory law. This is a matter of a deeply personal choice. No one is forcing the leader of the Canadian Alliance to marry a man if he does not want to. Nor is there any suggestion that a religious institution must perform a marriage if it does not want to. This is about a civil marriage between people who are in a committed relationship and make their own choice that they want to marry, whether they are heterosexual or whether they are two women or two men.
Over the several months like every other member of the House I have had lots of e-mail, correspondence and discussions with people. At the end of the day having listened to all of the arguments about why this is wrong, I have to ask myself in terms of this motion that is before us today, that presents an exclusionary definition of marriage, what is it from the point of view of the Canadian Alliance that is wrong with this idea of equality in marriage.
I believe it comes from a very deeply ingrained fear, a perceived threat that somehow exists that displays a very deep prejudice toward people who are equal but different. This motion displays a very homophobic attitude. I know that members of the Canadian Alliance will hotly deny that, but at the end of the day when all the arguments are said and done, what it comes down to is a question of equality. I do not believe there is any escaping the fact that this motion through its definition is something that is exclusionary based on a homophobic attitude.
(1235)
I can accept that members of Parliament personally are opposed to same sex marriage, that they somehow find it difficult for whatever cultural reasons or religious reasons, but I want to say that we have a privilege here that other Canadians do not have. We have the privilege to vote. The 301 of us in this place have the privilege to vote. I believe that as a member of Parliament I have a duty to uphold human rights, not to diminish them.
What one's conscience says is one thing. It is a very important matter. But I believe that our duty as members of Parliament is to apply the law fairly and to apply the charter fairly, without prejudice and without bias.
I am very proud that our leader, Jack Layton, and our party, advocate and support equality marriage. Our party has had a long tradition of defending minority rights, whether it was Japanese Canadians who were imprisoned during the war or the rights of aboriginal people who still face terrible discrimination. We defend those rights as we do the rights of gays, lesbians and transgendered people, even when it is not popular to do so, in fact, even more so when it is not popular to do so.
I have been delighted to see the celebration of marriage of same sex couples in my own community, including people like Elizabeth and Dawn Barbeau, who are part of the legal struggle and victory for marriage equality. I would like to congratulate Claudette, who is one of the interpreters in the House, and her partner Gail, who were married on June 28. They are part of our community. I am part of the community too and my choice to marry my partner, who is a woman, is surely our choice and no one else's.
I call on members today to vote down what I think is just a horrible motion. There is the whole spectre of the use of the notwithstanding clause. We asked the Leader of the Opposition today if he would clearly enunciate that the Alliance was not contemplating as one of the necessary steps using the notwithstanding clause and he would not be clear on that question. We have to call on all members of the House to say that this is really a very profound vote.
If we believe in equality for Canadians on all of the grounds that exist, then we should be striking down this motion. We should have the courage to do so, even though we know there are varying opinions in the community. We should do it on the basis of equality. We should do it on the basis of justice. We should do it on the basis that if two people, whoever they are, whether they are two men, two women, a man and a woman, make a choice that they want to have a civil marriage, they should be allowed to do so.
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's remarks. I happen to agree with the Leader of the Opposition, that this is a bogus human rights issue. I do not see it as a matter of human rights or equality.
I sat on the justice committee for several months and listened to colleagues on both sides of the House and both sides of the table, including some of my colleagues in this party, trying to equate the black civil rights movement and the women's rights movement to the demand for same sex marriage. That is specious logic, at best. It is simply illogical. It shows an incredible ignorance of history. Quite frankly, it is insulting to just about everybody concerned when one tries to draw that comparison.
I wonder if the member honestly believes that one can draw a direct parallel between Martin Luther King standing up on his religious principles and fighting to defend the natural moral law that people are not unequal because of the pigmentation of their skin and a relationship called same sex relationship which fundamentally goes against the natural moral law? Does she really believe that?
Ms. Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, I find it really sad to hear a member of Parliament, a Liberal member, say that human rights around marriage equality is somehow a bogus issue. I really am at a loss to understand how someone would arrive at that position.
The work that Martin Luther King did in advancing the civil, political and legal rights of African Americans, of advancing the human rights of all people, is a tremendous step in the victory of equality and human rights in a global sense.
This is part of that struggle. We cannot separate it out. We cannot make a rationalization that somehow because it involved African Americans or people of colour that is human rights but this is not. This is about the application of the law. This is about our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is about what we do without prejudice and without bias and what we say to Canadians.
I am very sorry to hear that the member thinks that this is somehow a bogus issue. I hope that people in his constituency will discuss that question with him.
What we should be doing here today is affirming and upholding human rights and on that basis voting down this reprehensible motion.
(1240)
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first, I thank the hon. member for her great speech. She has, however, only partially answered the question put to her by my colleague from London—Fanshawe. I would like her to explain to this House what her response is when someone invokes natural moral law and what she thinks of it.
Whose moral law are we talking about? Does a single moral law apply universally or would it not be a slippery slope to embark on to speak of moral law and impose the morals of one person or group of persons upon another person or group of persons?
[English]
Ms. Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, this is very implicit in the question that came from the Liberal member. It really gets to the essence of the question that a moral standard is being imposed by a political party on other Canadians.
This is not a moral question but a question of a legal basis of human rights as applied through the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That is how we should be debating and applying this issue. How people think personally is one thing but as members of Parliament, our duty is to apply the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Our duty is to uphold people's rights, not diminish them. To bring in a moral question completely detracts and undermines what the debate is really about.
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, since the lower court ruling in Ontario in Halpern v the Attorney General struck down the definition of marriage as unconstitutional 14 months ago, this is the first opportunity that elected members of Parliament have had to discuss this issue on the floor of the House of Commons. Naturally, I am pleased to have the opportunity to address the issue of same sex marriage in Parliament, in the public, democratic forum that Canadians look to for both leadership and representation on social policy issues.
Unfortunately however, so far the expectations of Canadians have been frustrated on both fronts. Recent decisions regarding the status of the definition of marriage in Canada have taken place almost entirely outside of the context of public debate or consideration of the public's elected representatives, something which is astounding considering the magnitude of the societal change these decisions are likely to effect.
Most, if not all of us, agree that this debate today is long overdue and should be looked upon as a starting point for parliamentary debate on this important social policy matter. I would like to begin with a quotation and it states:
|
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. |
These are the words of the former justice minister, the current Minister of Health and MP for Edmonton West, from Hansard on June 8, 1999. On February 15, 2000, during the parliamentary debate on Bill C-23, the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act, she said:
|
This definition of marriage, which has been consistently applied in Canada and which was reaffirmed last year through a resolution of the House, dates back to 1866. It has served us well and will not change. We recognize that marriage is a fundamental value and important to Canadians. |
She added, and I think importantly for this debate:
|
Important matters of social policy should not be left to the courts to decide. If parliament does not address the issue, the courts will continue to hand down decisions in a piecemeal fashion, interpreting narrow points of law on the specific questions before them. This guarantees confusion and continuing costly litigation. Most worrisome, it risks removing us from the social policy process altogether. |
What she was talking about when she referred to us was the democratic institution of Parliament.
Just four years later, and the minister's words notwithstanding, the jurisdiction of Parliament to legislate on matters of social policy has been effectively derailed by the courts.
The 1999 promise to protect marriage was made by the former justice minister, the Prime Minister, the former finance minister who will soon become the next Prime Minister, the current Minister of Justice, and by a total of 31 current cabinet ministers. They have broken their word to Canadians and they have consistently failed to clearly explain why they have done so.
Canadians expect better than this from their government. It is clear that the Liberals have failed Canadians and they have failed democracy. Despite the former and the current justice minister's promise to take all necessary steps to preserve the definition of marriage, they have failed to do so. Indeed, they have failed to take even the most basic step of appealing the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court.
(1245)
They have sat idly by while lower courts have improperly appropriated the jurisdiction to redefine marriage and the courts have fundamentally changed the definition of marriage.
Some have suggested that the charter is there to protect the minority against the tyranny of the majority. That is not correct. I find it amazing, coming from a party that calls itself the New Democratic Party, this absolute abdication of its responsibility as the democratic voice on social policy matters by simply turning them over to unelected judicial figures appointed by the Prime Minister.
The charter is not there to protect the minority against the tyranny of the majority. It protects everyone who relies on its provisions, regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with the application of that principle.
We look at what are the principles in the charter. The institution of marriage is a matter that was specifically reserved for Parliament in 1982 and does not fall within the scope of the charter. As such, the time honoured rules of parliamentary democracy, including a majority vote, are applicable to this social policy issue. It is not for the courts to alter these rules. It is for the court to obey the law by properly applying the principles that Parliament enshrined in the charter.
If the charter is to be amended, the courts must, in our democracy, defer to the judgment of Parliament in respect of the nature of those amendments. There is a democratic deficit in the House and it comes from the frontbenches of our Liberal government.
They have failed to appeal the British Columbia and Ontario court decisions to the Supreme Court of Canada, despite the justice minister's clear responsibility as the chief law officer of Canada to uphold the jurisdiction of Parliament. As the Attorney General, the Minister of Justice does not have a responsibility to the government. He has a responsibility to the rule of law and he has substituted the rule of law for crass party politics. He has confused his political role as a Minister of Justice with the legal office he holds as the Attorney General and he has done the bidding of the Liberal Party rather than his duty as the Attorney General.
Despite spending $250,000 and having heard from over 400 witnesses in person in a dozen cities with an additional 400 written briefs submitted, this minister simply decided to shut down the justice committee because he was not getting the response he needed to sell the same sex marriage debate to Canadians.
It is not enough that he shut down the justice committee. It is not enough that he refused to appeal the Ontario Court of Appeal decision. He went further to actively undermine those who would seek leave to the Supreme Court of Canada, who hoped to be able to argue their case in front of the Supreme Court to clarify that this was an issue that remained within the jurisdiction of Parliament and that the Supreme Court clearly tell the lower courts that they had overstepped their jurisdiction and had wrongfully appropriated the jurisdiction of this democratic institution.
(1250)
The justice minister's reference to the Supreme Court does not address the constitutionality of the traditional definition of marriage. All it does is ask the court whether same sex marriage is constitutional. This softball lob to the Supreme Court is worded in such a way that the court has little choice but to agree.
What do the nine Supreme Court justices feel like, being used as a political tool by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice? They should stand up and say they will hear the appeal, they will do the right thing, and they will respect the jurisdiction of Parliament to make decisions on matters of social policy.
Then the Prime Minister attempts to pass this charade off with a so-called free vote. When the same sex legislation eventually comes before Parliament, sooner or later, even if it is soundly defeated in the House, same sex marriage will continue to be the law in Canada since it is now the law by default, by judicial fiat.
The Prime Minister told his caucus as much in a closed door meeting. Unfortunately, he has not shown the courage to tell the general public the same.
Even those countries that have legalized the marriage of same sex couples do not treat those relationships in exactly the same manner as the traditional marriage relationship. For example, in Belgium, same sex married couples are not permitted to adopt children. Furthermore, the decision to legalize same sex marriage in both the cases of Belgium and the Netherlands is not based on a judicial interpretation of human rights as is the case in Canada. It was done as a matter of social policy.
It is interesting to note that the final vote on Bill C-250 is scheduled to take place tomorrow. Make no mistake about it, Bill C-250 is one side of the same sex marriage debate. It is the side that brings the weight of the criminal law to bear on those who for one reason or another disagree with the institution of same sex marriage. The one agenda is to push same sex marriage, the other is to stop any criticism of it by the imposition of criminal penalties. Bill C-250 will further erode the ability of Canadians to speak out in a free and open manner.
The suppression of legitimate expression is a threat to our democracy, to our basic freedoms, and the values that are in fact enshrined in the charter of rights. There is no comfort in the promise of the justice minister that religious freedoms will be protected. He has broken his word in the past and there is no reason to take him on his word now.
I want to focus for a few moments on the assertion that some of the courts are simply adhering to the charter by imposing same sex marriage on Canadian society. The proponents of this view have conveniently forgotten that in 1981 the House of Commons subcommittee debated for two days whether to include sexual orientation in section 15 and it voted to leave it out. It voted to leave it within the jurisdiction of Parliament to determine. Of course the courts wrongfully appropriated that jurisdiction by improperly amending our Constitution.
The last clear statement we have from the Supreme Court of Canada on this issue is from Mr. Justice La Forest. It should be stated that those who would discount that judgment failed to point out that of the four judges who agreed with the La Forest judgment, none of the others disagreed. They were silent.
The last clear statement we have from four judges of the Supreme Court who constituted the majority decision in Egan was a defence of the definition of a marriage and the rejection that Parliament, providing special support and recognition to the traditional definition of marriage, does not constitute discrimination against other types of relationships, including common-law heterosexual relationships or homosexual relationships.
(1255)
To avoid living up to the responsibilities, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice said in respect of the 1999 resolution that they did not somehow realize that this might involve a commitment to the use of the notwithstanding clause. As the leader of the Canadian Alliance stated earlier, that is an argument that is without merit. However I want to make it easier for anyone who has any concerns about voting for the traditional definition of marriage as one man and one woman because of the reference to all necessary steps in the 1999 motion and the motion here before us.
Accordingly, I make the following motion, seconded by the member for Crowfoot. I move:
|
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “others”. |
I will bring this forward Mr. Speaker, and I am sure the Clerk will pick that up.
Today I say to this Minister of Justice, the cabinet and colleagues, now is the time to end the deafening silence and tell Canadians where we stand. Do we believe in the traditional definition of marriage or not?
With my proposed amendment, the motion is clear. Where do we stand on the definition of marriage? It is time to end the kind of nonsense that the Liberals have tried to raise in order to take a clear stand on this issue. Will members reaffirm the definition of marriage as being one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others or do members vote against that definition?
The members' votes on the amended motion will tell Canada where they stand.
(1300)
The Deputy Speaker: If I could address the House, particularly the member for Provencher who has provided the House with an amendment, I want our officers at the Table to verify the procedural aspects of the amendment. In the meantime, I would like to pursue the debate with questions or comments. The hon. member for Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey.
Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment the member for Provencher on his amendment. It is a very good one.
I have a question and I know he has good legal knowledge. What caused this whole issue with an appointed justice, which causes me a lot of problems, is the fact that they used section 15.1 out of the charter and within that the justice said that equal meant identical. Thereby they struck down the law.
I believe the answer then to that is to take marriage out of civil law and replace it with civil union and leave the sacrament of marriage where it should be which is within the church.
I am not saying that there cannot be a same sex marriage because there are churches that will perform that ceremony, but it satisfies section 15.1 within the charter and it would not discriminate against the church because the church can perform the ceremonies based on whatever its religious beliefs is. I would like the member's comment on that.
Mr. Vic Toews: Mr. Speaker, those are all good points that have been raised and I thank the member for bringing them forward.
These are exactly the kinds of discussions that we should have in Parliament. It should not be up to the courts to dictate this issue for us. I take issue not with the member's comments as much as I do with the appropriation by the courts of this entire social policy issue, effectively stifling debate in the House. This is a complex matter.
I refer the courts and the member to some of the earlier charter decisions where the courts said that they did not create these rights in a vacuum, that they looked at the historical, cultural, social and all aspects of our society in arriving at a definition of what these principles include. What we increasingly have seen is the courts simply substituting their own political decision for that of elected representatives.
There should be deference by the courts in respect of defining this kind of an issue when they knew that this was an area of the law that was specifically reserved to Parliament, not only under the BNA Act of 1867 or the Constitution Act, 1867, but through the votes that led up to the debate of the final drafting of the charter.
The comments that the member makes are worthy of debate and the place to debate them is here. I would like to hear the Supreme Court of Canada say that those lower courts were wrong in appropriating that jurisdiction, that the hot potato should be sent back to Parliament and let parliamentarians stand, earn their money and make the decisions.
(1305)
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is important that parliamentarians stand and tell the truth about what has happened, both in Parliament and in the courts. The fact of the matter is that this member should know that in 1981, while a motion to explicitly include sexual orientation in section 15 of the Charter of Rights was rejected, the minister of justice at the time explicitly stated as well that he was leaving section 15 open-ended to allow for the possibility that the courts might in future include new grounds, including sexual orientation.
In fact in 1985 a parliamentary committee made up of five Conservatives, one Liberal and one New Democrat, myself, travelled across the country to hear the views of Canadians about what section 15 should in fact encompass. Should it include sexual orientation and other grounds? That parliamentary committee made up of elected representatives unanimously said yes, that section 15 should in fact prohibit discrimination based upon sexual orientation. It was in March of 1986 that the then minister of justice, John Crosbie, accepted that.
When the member stands and says that the courts are taking on jurisdiction, that they are not listening to Parliament, the fact of the matter is Parliament almost a decade before the Supreme Court included sexual orientation in Egan and Nesbit. Parliament spoke then.
Finally, I would point out that Parliament spoke through the justice committee earlier in saying “Accept this resolution”. Tell the truth.
An hon. member: Out of order, Mr. Speaker, out of order. Throw him out.
The Deputy Speaker: I know this issue, as with others from time to time, raises some very strong views and strong emotions to express those views, but ultimately Canadians look to us to debate, to express our views, as differing as they might be from time to time, as is quite often the case from one side to the other and quite appropriately, and to conduct ourselves and our business in a fashion that is respectful of one another and of the matter being debated on the floor of the House. I would simply appeal to everyone to be mindful of the tremendous importance of the subject matter and the attention that it is being given.
The hon. member for Provencher.
Mr. Vic Toews: Mr. Speaker, it does not surprise me that member, who puts the jackboot of fascism on the necks of our people with Bill C-250, would say things like that. I expect it of him, but I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for bringing the member in line. It will not do any good because his ideology is fascism and not free speech.
In respect of the specific issue that has been raised by this individual and the comments of the Prime Minister, I believe somewhere in the range of January 29, 1981, the Prime Minister who was then minister of justice stated that he did not want sexual orientation in the Charter of Rights. He was remarkably clear for that individual that it had no place in the Charter of Rights. Perhaps at another time he said something else and it does not surprise me if he did because he likes to be on many sides of every issue.
In 1985 after the Constitution was drafted, the committee members went around and came up with a resolution saying that they should include sexual orientation. I am taking the member's word for that. I will have to check that out but I will take his word for it.
The proper response then is to bring an amendment to the Charter. It is not to say, “We five committee members we would like it changed, so maybe the judges will do the work for us”. If one wants to change the Constitution there is a process and it does not simply involve passing a resolution of a committee. It involves passing a resolution of this House, the other place and the proper representation from the provinces.
(1310)
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I have great agreement with much of what the member opposite has said. To me this struggle is not so much an issue of the definition even of marriage as it is a struggle about the supremacy of Parliament and the life of the charter. If we have a situation where unelected judges can overtake the decisions of Parliament, how can we expect Canadians, particularly new Canadians, to have confidence in Parliament and have confidence in the charter when the charter is used to destroy revered institutions?
Mr. Vic Toews: Mr. Speaker, I think that is the point exactly. I want to commend the member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot for some of the other work that he has done in respect of trying to open up the institution of Parliament.
Parliament, with all of its defects, is not reason enough to simply say there are shortcomings in our democratic process. That member and other members have worked hard to make this a more democratic process. Certainly for members of the Canadian Alliance and Preston Manning, the former leader of my party, that was the raison d'être to come here. Yes, this is not only about the institution of marriage. This is about the institution of Parliament, and I thank the member for bringing that up.
The Deputy Speaker: Before calling for the resumption of debate, let me inform the House that the amendment provided by the hon. member for Provencher, seconded by the member for Crowfoot, is in order and reads as follows:
|
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “others”. |
Just for everyone's benefit, let me read the motion now as it stands with the amendment:
|
That, in the opinion of this House, it is necessary, in light of public debate around recent court decisions, to reaffirm that marriage is and should remain the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. |
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for London--Fanshawe.
Since this is a debate that is taking place across the country right now I would caution that we take it easy on the rhetoric. Referring to people as jackboots of fascisms is totally inappropriate. As a matter of fact it trivializes the sufferings of millions and millions of victims who have actually suffered the jackboots of fascism under Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and other dictators.
Having said that, I certainly want to pay tribute to my parents: my stepfather, who survived the Holocaust as well as a Communist dictatorship; my mother, who was a Catholic and who actually had the guts to marry a Jew.
I also pay tribute to Buddy Recalma who died around the end of last year in Qualicum, British Columbia. Buddy Recalma was an hereditary chief who he gave me a gift which I try to wear at times when we are dealing with issues of human rights. That gift is my lapel pin, which was to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the Native Brotherhood of British Columbia. Buddy Recalma was a survivor of the residential schools. He was a victim of policy by the government and the churches to commit cultural genocide against our first nations.
We are also talking about things like religious freedom. Let me say that I had two wonderful examples in my life. One was Joseph Mindszenty who was a Catholic bishop when he was imprisoned by the Germans. He was made an archbishop and was jailed by the Communists. It was not until the Hungarian revolution that he was freed. Eventually he was made a cardinal.
The second was Bishop Laszlo Tokes who stood up against the tyranny of the Ceausescu regime in Romania and he helped to make that dictatorship fall.
We are talking about an evolving society that changes. Back in 1692 we had the Salem witch hunts. Looking at Canada's history, we had the cultural genocide against the first nations. We also had the Asian Exclusion Act, the Chinese head tax and the internment of Ukrainians and Japanese. We also had a policy of non-immigration for the Jews. We had an Immigration Act that was not repealed until 1976 when we removed the colour barrier to immigration to this country.
I mention those things because I think it is that history that resulted in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms being enacted in Canada on April 17, 1982. I think what is so critically important for members of the House to understand is that by passing the constitution we have a constitutional democracy instead of a parliamentary democracy, notwithstanding the fact that we have the notwithstanding clause in the constitution. Under fundamental freedoms it talks about the freedom of conscience and religion. Under section 15, the equality rights section of the charter, it is critical for people to understand what it says.
(1315)
Section 15 states:
|
Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. |
Given the history of this country, it is important to understand that we have matured. We recognize that when we are dealing with the issue of rights, the determination of human rights and civil liberties is left with the courts.
I want to read subsection 52.1 of the Constitution Act. It states:
|
The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect. |
That is critical because we are saying that instead of having rights determined by the popular will at the time, it is determined by our laws in our courts. I can tell members that the Chinese head tax was very popular in its time. The internment of Japanese members was very popular in its time. There were all sorts of politicians who made a career out of fostering hatred and were very successful at it.
When I say that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the document that rules on this question, it is important that we all understand it because it is one of the foundations of Canadian society.
It is amazing that young people do not have the same kind of problem as older people have with this concept. As a matter of fact, they look to the charter and they look to our courts. In some ways they look upon us in Parliament as being irrelevant, and that is very sad.
Tomorrow we will be dealing with another piece of legislation, the hate propaganda bill. Tomorrow we will be voting to lend the protection of the legislation that we have on hate crimes and put it into the Criminal Code so that the people who are now victimized, a very vulnerable group, will be afforded the protection of the law that we afford to other areas, such as ethnic origins, religion, colour and nationality.
It is interesting that some of the same debates are taking place in the United States of America. It was not until just recently that the supreme court struck down Texas sodomy laws. It is amazing because 17 years before that, the supreme court ruled the other way; 17 years later, the supreme court saw the need to strike down that law.
When we talk about discrimination and hate crimes against gays, we have to understand that we are dealing with a vulnerable group in our society. Maybe the member for Burnaby--Douglas does not look that vulnerable but there are people in this country and on this continent who are killed for no other reason than their sexual orientation, and this is no joking matter.
I will conclude in a very real way. We are dealing with an issue that is causing us some discomfort, but if we think back about 40 years ago when we were dealing with the segregation in the United States of America, the courts had the courage to stand and strike down segregation. We had police dogs attacking blacks. We had the Ku Klux Klan attacking blacks. I am sure all of us, especially in my age group, remember that, but let us not forget that it was on September 15, 1963 that the Ku Klux Klan bombed the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, killing four pre-teen girls. America was in flames. Within months the President of the United States was assassinated.
(1320)
In our Canadian way, yes, we have strong words, yes, we have strong feelings but we have to understand that discrimination has no place in a country that is so very proud of its Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I commend the previous speaker, the member for Kitchener—Waterloo, for his very strong condemnation of the invoking by the previous Alliance speaker the image of the jackboot of fascism in the context of this debate and directed at those who would advocate the full right of same sex couples to marry in a civil ceremony in our society.
Not only is it profoundly disrespectful of the six million Jews and many hundreds of thousands of others who were murdered in cold blood in the Holocaust, but it displays a profound ignorance by that member of the lessons of history, particularly the lessons of the Holocaust. It is a matter of fact that tens of thousands, we do not know for sure the number, possibly hundreds of thousands, of gay citizens of Germany were exterminated in the Holocaust. I cannot believe for a moment that the Alliance member does not know that fact.
I think the member for Kitchener—Waterloo is to be commended for he has set out a very clear argument that anything in law that renders a citizen less than equal to all other citizens is an appropriate matter for human rights struggles and human rights concerns.
We have heard the argument again and again from Alliance members that somehow allowing the courts to dictate the definition of marriage is completely unacceptable.
I would like to ask the member whether he sees any evidence in the kinds of arguments that we have heard today from the official opposition members who have spoken or leading up to this debate today that if the Parliament of Canada does redefine marriage as between two persons, including same sex couples, that they will accept that as a just and fair definition of marriage and stop railing and ranting against the judiciary as if this were not a matter of concern to Canadians.
(1325)
Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Mr. Speaker, there is no question that when we are dealing with rights and equality we cannot pick and choose. As soon as we get into that game we do not have equality and we do not have an end to discrimination.
I am not sure at what point the Alliance will embrace the charter but I can say that I strongly believe Canadians have embraced the charter. Let us make no mistake, the courts and the charter are under attack. Some people do not like it but I think there are a lot more Canadians ready to stand and defend it than there are to tear it down. However at some point in time I think they will embrace the charter because their constituents will have embraced the charter. I think that is the direction that we are heading.
It is important to remember that we cannot pick and choose who gets equality. Canada is a collection of minorities. At any one particular time we might be on the majority side in terms of opinion but the next day we could be in a minority position that we represent. It is the courts that will create that fairness and interpret rights, not the politicians. The politicians are not judges.
If we were to look at the segregation in the United States we would see that all sorts of politicians made a career on the basis of discrimination, such as George Wallace, Lester Maddox, and the list goes on and on.
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I firmly believe that all persons, including homosexuals, deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. However, that does not require us as a nation to redefine marriage so as to include persons in a same sex relationship. To do so would be illogical and, in the minds of millions of Canadians, immoral.
On August 29, 2003, I wrote an open letter to the Prime Minister. I would like to quote from that letter now. It states:
|
At our National Liberal Caucus in North Bay you gave a public speech with which I strongly disagree and to which I feel compelled to respond publicly. You cautioned the many Liberal M.P.s who oppose redefining marriage to include same sex unions, not to fall into the “trap” of the Canadian Alliance. Your advice in this matter is politically simplistic and dismissive of the serious concerns of many members of our caucus. |
|
Your advice misses the point completely: that this divisive debate transcends partisan politics because of the enormity of the issue. For me, preserving and protecting the traditional definition of marriage is a core moral belief on which I cannot compromise in good conscience. I made my view abundantly clear in a letter to then Justice Minister Anne McLellan in November, 1999, in which I stated “Same sex marriage is an oxymoron. No Court can make it otherwise”. |
|
Tens of thousands of real Liberals share this view and none of us are being duped by anybody, least of all the Canadian Alliance, with whom we will continue to disagree on most issues of public policy. |
|
You also stated that the demand for so-called same sex marriage “is not about weakening the Canadian social fabric.” With all due respect, Prime Minister, on that point, you are as wrong as you could possibly be. |
|
Listen to the words of John McKellar, executive director of H.O.P.E., Homosexuals Opposed to Pride Extremism, who said it is “selfish and rude for the gay community to push same sex marriage legislation and redefine society's traditions and conventions for our own self-indulgence. Federal and provincial laws are being changed and the traditional values are being compromised just to appease a tiny, self-anointed clique”, who represent only a fraction of the gay community which McKellar estimates to be, in total, only two to four per cent of the Canadian population. |
|
During seven months of hearings at the Justice Committee of the House of Commons, we heard compelling evidence from experts in the fields of anthropology, physiology, psychology, sociology, history, law and religion. These experts argued convincingly that to redefine marriage so as to include gay and lesbian unions would pose several serious threats to the stability of Canadian society. |
|
I implore you, Prime Minister, to familiarize yourself with this evidence and think again about the potential deleterious effects to the Canadian social fabric if you continue to follow those who would so cavalierly and illogically threaten the institution of marriage as Canadians have defined it for the entire history of our nation. |
|
Prime Minister, you stated further that you “have learned over forty years in public life that society evolves”, and you offer this observation as a sort of rationale for your acquiescence in the attempt to redefine marriage, as if this change is somehow inevitable and thereby, transformed into a right which must be defended. Well, Sir, I beg to differ. Consider the evolution of Quebec's society resulting in the separatist movement. Does the change the separatists want make it inevitable and even a right to be defended? I think not, and so must you, based on your courageous fight against the separatists throughout your entire career. |
|
Obviously I do not equate the demand for same sex marriage to the separatist movement, however, I do challenge the specious logic, which says that because both demands represent change, they are somehow inevitable and even desirable. Based on my twenty-three years in public life, I would argue that not all changes that occur in society are either positive or inexorable. Simply because society evolves is not sufficient argument for discarding the traditional definition of marriage and redefining it in a way which is totally illogical, and, to millions of Canadians, immoral. |
(1330)
|
Finally, Prime Minister, you advise, “at the end of the day, we have to live up to our responsibilities”. On that at least I agree, and that is why, as long as I am a Member of Parliament, I will vote against any and every attempt to redefine marriage. |
|
As leader of the Liberal Party, I would argue that you should follow the clearly expressed will of the party at the Biennial Meeting in March, 2000, when the members of the Liberal Party defeated a motion to endorse recognizing same sex marriage. |
|
Previously, in June, 1999, you were one of 216 M.P.s who voted to uphold the traditional definition of marriage as “one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others”. You further voted to take “all necessary steps” to defend that definition. What has changed since that time? Three Ontario Judges in an arrogant, activist ruling instantly redefined marriage thereby deliberately overruling the repeated statements of Parliament in defence of the traditional definition. Now that very judgement and others similar are being used as justification for redefining marriage, as if it was not only inevitable but also somehow just and good. Sadly, you failed to act when called on by many Canadians to appeal that arrogant judicial decision. To millions of Canadians that is unacceptable! To me that was an enormous mistake! |
|
Prime Minister, I call on you now to show real leadership and keep your word to Canadians. You alone have the power to lead. In speaking of the notwithstanding clause-- |
And I note, Mr. Speaker, that this possibility is now removed from this motion, but it is part of the larger debate.
|
--in the past you have said that, “there are some situations where it is absolutely needed... without it you leave all decisions in the hands of the courts”. Marriage is the issue and now is the the time to follow your own advice and use the notwithstanding clause to defend marriage. |
And I stress: if necessary.
I know my time is short. Tomorrow in the House of Commons I will present petitions from thousands of Canadian citizens who live in southern Ontario. These petitioners will be calling on the Government of Canada to defend the traditional definition of marriage, which is thousands of years old and predates any known state in the history of the world.
The heterosexual understanding of marriage is endorsed overwhelmingly by the five major world religions: Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism. As well, the two officially atheistic giants, the former Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China have both supported heterosexual marriage.
Surely there are very sound historical and societal reasons for this common understanding of what marriage is. In my view, it would be both foolish and dangerous to discard the traditional definition of marriage. I cannot in good conscience and I will not support any attempt to redefine marriage.
Like all who have spoken, I could use another 10 minutes, but I know I only have probably about one. I will wrap up with three major arguments. There is the bogus human rights argument. I dealt with that earlier in a question.
There is the question, “Where is the harm?” The member for Burnaby—Douglas puts this question all the time. I do not have time to explain the harm, but we can review the evidence from the experts, some of them even gay and lesbian people themselves who honestly admit that there are very serious consequences for what this government is proposing to do.
Finally, there is the question of following the people under 25 or 30, who are all for doing this, for changing the definition of marriage. As a teacher and student of history, I know that most societies, if not all in the world, have traditionally followed the wisdom of their elders. And the elders in Canada are opposed. I am opposed, and I will vote against redefining marriage.
(1335)
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have two questions for my hon. colleague from London—Fanshawe.
My first question is: In debate with my hon. colleague from Vancouver East, he spoke of moral law, saying that we must follow moral law. I would like to know what moral law he was referring to? His own? Mine? That of the Catholic Church? Of the United Church? Of the Evangelical Church? Was he alluding to Liberal Judaism? What moral law was he referring to, or is there just one universal one?
My second question is: How can he contend that the five major world religions are in favour of maintaining the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman, when the United Church, which is the main Protestant denomination in Canada, wants the definition changed? And so do the Unitarian Church and Liberal Judaism.
Yesterday, at a press conference, Rabbi Garter, of the Temple Israel Synagogue of Ottawa, told us how much he would like this definition to be changed and that, in his opinion, this change was essential. On what basis can he make such a statement then? He was there, like me, yesterday at the Standing Committee on Justice, when several religious leaders came and told us they were prepared to see the definition changed. How can he make such a statement?
[English]
Mr. Pat O'Brien: Mr. Speaker, first I want to say there are those who are crying “let us have respect in this debate and let us have tolerance” and then show precious little. My colleague opposite has shown both respect and tolerance in the debate and I applaud him for that even though he and I strongly disagree on this issue and will continue to.
I will respectfully answer his two questions which were respectfully put. In my view, yes, there is a creator, called by various names, that started this world. There are different views of how it was started. The key principle of that creator is that all human life is sacred, and that is the natural moral law which I think is endorsed by the overwhelming percentage of the population of the universe and has been over time.
Yes, there is one natural moral law in my view, which descends from the creator. I am not getting into the denominational invitation the member gave me. That is not the point. It is the natural moral law that all human life is sacred. I would argue that to try to take something, a same sex relationship, and try to call that marriage, goes against and transcends that natural moral law. This is the moral belief of millions of Canadians and billions of people around the world, of various religions.
The second question my colleague put speaks to the fact that not all of the great religions are unanimous. I never used the word unanimous. I used the word overwhelming. Indeed, in my own particular denomination there are a few voices who are on the opposite side of this, even in the clergy, but precious few, I note. It is the same in most of the great religions. They are certainly the exception.
A number of my constituents are Muslims of the Islamic faith and they are overwhelmingly opposed to changing the definition of marriage. I do not share their religious views, but I share their views on the natural moral law my colleague spoke about.
(1340)
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the member for London—Fanshawe was a member of the justice committee when it was travelling and he did touch on the overwhelming evidence that was presented to the justice committee on this issue of same sex marriage.
For the benefit of Canadians who were not privy to those discussions, could he summarize the justice committee and the information it got and might he speculate on why that justice committee was shut down?
Mr. Pat O'Brien: Mr. Speaker, the justice committee process I was part of was perhaps the most disrespectful and undemocratic process I have been through in 23 years of elected office. The committee was stacked to achieve a vote that it looks like was wanted by the upper echelons of the government. Three Liberal members, colleagues of mine, refused to come out of the hall to give us quorum along with some other opposition members so that we could even discuss another view opposite to theirs. It was an incredibly disrespectful process. I was very disappointed. It was a sad day to be a member of Parliament, let alone a member of that committee.
One colleague on the committee said there were more witnesses who supported same sex marriage than not. That is not the point and my colleague has referred to it. The preponderance of evidence, particularly the expert evidence from various fields, overwhelmingly argues for leaving the definition of marriage exactly as it is. It has served this country and this world quite well.
Mrs. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to share my time today with the hon. member for Okanagan—Coquihalla.
The issue that has brought us here is our shared concern over the court decision that has ordered Parliament to redefine the institution of marriage to include same sex couples.
Most Canadians believe that the institution of marriage is an important part of our society. The legal definition of marriage, the voluntary union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, has existed in Canada since Confederation and the Canadian courts have consistently applied this definition until very recently. Let me say in no uncertain terms, I support the traditional definition of marriage.
Lower court rulings this summer in Ontario and Quebec ruled that same sex couples are entitled to be legally married and ordered Parliament to change the laws accordingly.
Initially the justice minister appealed the trial court decision and referred the matter to the House of Commons justice committee to get input from Canadians. Hearings were conducted across Canada for several months and thousands of Canadians submitted their views through written briefs or oral presentations.The overwhelming response that committee members received through mail and telephone calls reflected a strong desire in retaining the traditional definition of marriage.
Although the justice minister asked the justice committee to travel across the country and hear representations on same sex marriages from all walks of life, he did not wait for the committee to produce its report before making a final decision on this matter. He simply accepted the decision of unelected judges. This undemocratic process has effectively silenced the voices of thousands of Canadians who submitted briefs and made oral presentations to the committee.
Let me make one other point clear at this time. The jurisdiction to review and strike down laws that violated the Constitution that was given to the courts by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982 did not include jurisdiction for the courts to rule on the issue of sexual orientation. During the debates and numerous votes that led to the final draft of the charter, Parliament was very clear in holding that the issue of sexual orientation did not fall within the scope of the text of the charter. This issue was to remain within the scope of Parliament's jurisdiction to consider and legislate.
Notwithstanding the clear direction of Parliament, the courts have simply ignored Parliament's decision and improperly amended the Constitution themselves by reading in the term “sexual orientation” into our Constitution. It is on that erroneous basis that our courts continue to act.
In 1999 members of Parliament voted 216 to 55 in favour of a motion brought forward by the Reform Party, now the Canadian Alliance, holding that marriage should remain the union of one man and one woman and to take all necessary steps to protect that definition.
The Prime Minister, the current justice minister and the future Liberal leader all voted in favour of the motion at that time, although all three now have changed their position to agree with same sex marriage. In fact, the then justice minister, the member of Parliament for Edmonton West, speaking for the Liberal government, assured Canadians of the government's intentions when she stated:
|
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. |
She went on to assure Canadians:
|
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. |
Why did the Liberal government mislead Canadians? Why have the Liberals broken their promise from barely four years ago?
(1345)
The Liberals promised to take all necessary steps to preserve the traditional definition of marriage. They have now broken that promise.
Their new promise is to protect the rights of religious organizations to refuse to marry same sex couples. This does not in any way comfort us. In recent years we have seen a Catholic school forced to allow a same sex date at a school prom, despite constitutional guarantees of religious independence. We have seen a teacher and guidance counsellor suspended without pay for expressing an opinion on teaching material. We have seen a printer fined for refusing to print in his own shop materials that conflicted with his religious views.
The Liberals have so far failed miserably in protecting religious freedom and there is no reason to believe that they will now begin to do so effectively. In an attempt to leave the impression that Parliament will in fact determine the definition of marriage, the Prime Minister has announced that there will be a free vote on the legislation that he has referred to the Supreme Court on the issue of same sex marriage. This legislation is without legislative or constitutional significance if the present charter does not protect existing religious freedoms. The proposed legislation will do nothing of the sort.
Furthermore, the free vote offered by the Prime Minister to members of Parliament on same sex marriages is meaningless. The proposed legislation will simply spell out the procedural basis by which these marriages will be implemented. Even if Parliament rejects the proposed legislation, same sex marriages are now legally valid in Canada. This so-called free vote is simply a cynical communications exercise by the Liberals to try to hide the fact that they have let unelected judges make the laws of our country.
Such a fundamental change to an important social, legal and religious institution as marriage should not even be contemplated without the input of Canadians and elected parliamentarians. Unfortunately, just the opposite has happened and this issue has been forced on Canadians by an unelected and unaccountable judiciary.
Canadians must continue to call for the Liberals to live up to their promise to Canadians to defend marriage. The Canadian Alliance has consistently maintained that we will live up to the commitments that Parliament made on this issue in 1999. The Canadian Alliance will continue to call on the Liberal government to keep its promise to Canadians. I would encourage each and every person watching to contact the Minister of Justice, the Prime Minister and the prime minister in waiting to remind them of the commitment they made on the issue in 1999.
The Canadian Alliance firmly believes that this is an issue that should be decided by Parliament after MPs have heard from all Canadians, not the courts. This issue relates not only to the institution of marriage, but deals fundamentally with the institution of Parliament and our future as a democratic nation.
Democracy was not a gift that came easily to the western world. Let us be very vigilant before we entrust its future to those who are not accountable to the people, or those who, like our Liberal government, take the voice of the people for granted.
(1350)
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the Halpern case in 2001 before the Ontario Superior Court, the court then cited the modernization of benefits act, C-23, and the definition of marriage as a heterosexual union that was put into that legislation in the year 2000. The court dismissed that definition as the preamble of the legislation, which incidentally it was not, it was part of the body of the legislation. Nevertheless it dismissed that definition of marriage as a union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others on the justification that it was not really meant to be a legislative definition, it was merely a clarification.
Had that judge read the debates in Hansard he would surely have come to another conclusion.
The question for the member is, if the courts can change the law without paying any attention to the debates of Parliament, is there any point in Parliament having debates at all?
Mrs. Carol Skelton: Mr. Speaker, not being a lawyer I cannot give a legal opinion, but I agree totally with the member that there is no place for Parliament at all if the courts can come forward and make these kinds of decisions.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the comments of the member for Saskatoon--Rosetown--Biggar. I want to admit at the outset that I do not even like in my own response the kind of intolerance that I find rushing to the surface in response to some of the arguments that I find so offensive that are offered in this debate. I work hard at trying to curb that reaction.
I listened very carefully to the member. She is not the only member on both sides of the House who has invoked the argument that the institution of marriage is so important to our society that we have to protect it. She talked about it being central to the lives of many Canadians. I find myself struggling to try to understand that if that is the weight of the argument, what is it that makes it impossible for such members of Parliament to extend the full benefits of traditional marriage to same sex couples?
I want to ask a question of the member quite sincerely. If she were the mother of a daughter who was involved in a same sex relationship and who wanted to commit to all of the aspects of a traditional marriage and take on the responsibilities and the obligations that go with that and engage in the joyful expression of that in a public way as we celebrate other marriages, would she not have a problem denying that opportunity to her own daughter?
If I could go one step further and ask the member to try to imagine if she had a daughter who was involved in a same sex relationship and her daughter bore and was raising a child, would she not have difficulty in saying to her grandchild that his or her parents had no right to celebrate their marriage as an institution equal to the marriage relationship that is available to all other citizens? I ask that question in all sincerity because I think that is something that every member of Parliament should be prepared to recognize as being at the heart of this debate.
(1355)
Mrs. Carol Skelton: Mr. Speaker, I am the mother of three children and the grandmother of five granddaughters. I love every one of them dearly. I believe that Parliament, and not the courts, should make the decisions for my children on social issues.
Ms. Alexa McDonough: Mr. Speaker, I do not for a moment doubt that the member loves her children and her grandchildren. Of course she loves them.
I want to beg her again to address the questions I raised. If one of those children that she loves wanted to participate in the full aspect of marriage as an equal to other citizens who enjoy the full benefits of marriage, could she deny it? To go further, would she address the question of whether she could deny her grandchildren the opportunity for the parents of those grandchildren who happen to be a same sex couple to enjoy the full benefits of marriage in our society?
Mrs. Carol Skelton: Mr. Speaker, other than the label of marriage, my children can enjoy everything else.
Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Yesterday I raised a point of privilege in the House and Hansard made an error that I would like to see corrected on the record.
In citing a justice of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, the audio record will reveal that I cited it as Mr. Justice LaForme. In Hansard it is the wrong name. I hope the record will be corrected. It is a pity because I thought it was an important point of privilege and I would certainly want the record to be exact.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[S. O. 31]
* * *
[English]
The Environment
Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today is the International Day of the Ozone Layer. Canada was a principal architect of the 1987 Montreal protocol, which phased out substances that damage the earth's ozone layer. This year's theme, “Save Our Sky: There is a Hole Lot More to Do for Our Children”, emphasizes the need to remain vigilant about this important issue.
The Canadian government continues to work in cooperation with other countries to research the state of the ozone layer and fulfill our international obligations to protect the global commons.
Preservation of the earth's ozone layer continues to be equally as important today as it was 16 years ago. We have had much success thanks to the efforts of Canadian citizens, scientists and corporations.
I ask all members to join me in promoting these efforts to Canadians, especially to students and young people.
* * *
Firefighters Memorial
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, during the second world war, 422 Canadian firefighters volunteered to assist their British allies in helping save lives on the home front. They were known as Team Mitzi.
Today, a senior team of Canadian firefighters is attending services at St. Paul's Cathedral, unveiling the National Fallen Firefighters Memorial. The memorial includes the names of three Canadians: J.S. Coull, A. Lapierre and L.E. Woodhead. These men made the ultimate sacrifice fighting fires during the darkest days of the London blitz.
The monument erected today will ensure that their service and the 1,000 other firefighters who died alongside them are never forgotten.
Canadian firefighters put their lives on the line every day. Today we pay tribute to a proud moment in the history of Canadian firefighting. I encourage all Canadians to take a moment of silence and remember the sacrifice of the brave men of Team Mitzi.
* * *
(1400)
Cambridge Choir
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Cambridge Kiwanis Boys' Choir and Young Men's Chorus celebrated its 25th anniversary with performances in cathedrals and historical churches throughout England.
For 25 years, the choir has performed at community centres, senior citizens' residences, and hospitals and churches in Canada, the United States, Europe and Asia. Founded by James and Jean Kropf, this remarkable choir is a member of the Royal School of Church Music, Choirs Ontario and the Choristers Guild and is supported by the Kiwanis Club of Cambridge. The choir has produced six impressive recordings and has been featured on local and national television.
I join all members in congratulating the Cambridge Kiwanis Boys' Choir and Young Men's Chorus on their many achievements and I wish them another 25 years of success.
* * *
[Translation]
Riding of Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière
Mr. Christian Jobin (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is with some emotion that I rise in the House of Commons today to make my maiden speech.
An hon. member: Hear, hear.
Mr. Christian Jobin: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to say how proud I am to have been elected the member of Parliament for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière and to be able to work with all the members of this House.
My riding, Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, is located opposite Quebec City and borders the St. Lawrence Seaway over a distance of 45 kilometres. It is a rapidly developing riding, socially, economically and industrially, and is making great strides with respect to tourism as well.
I would like to remind you that the riding of Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière includes the second largest refinery in Canada, namely Ultramar, and also the Davie shipyard which also has the two largest drydocks in Canada. The shipyard is in difficulty and deserves the help of all parliamentarians in order to permit competition in shipbuilding within Canada.
I thank the House for its attention and for its welcome.
* * *
[English]
B.C. Forest Fires
Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to pay tribute to the people of Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys and the many other British Columbians who have endured and battled this summer's fierce forest fires.
Cohesion, compassion and a pioneering spirit are our greatest weapons against such adversity. I want to thank the countless volunteers and professionals who assisted both directly and indirectly in fighting the fires, as well as those who continue to devote their time and energy to the recovery effort.
I want to make special mention of the Mennonite Disaster Service, whose volunteers from the riding of my colleague from Provencher and other areas pitched in to clean up the aftermath.
I also want to thank the ranchers from the riding of Wild Rose, Alberta, who have come to the rescue with generous donations of hay and straw for the multitude of livestock whose pasture was destroyed in the fires.
I wish there were some way to appropriately and individually recognize each and every person. Unfortunately this is not possible, given the number of firefighters, military personnel--
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Laval West.
* * *
[Translation]
Nicole Demers
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this October a woman from Laval will receive the Governor General's Award in Commemoration of the Persons Case for her activities aimed at improving the status of women.
Nicole Demers has been fighting for many years, representing women, seniors and the poor in the Laval area and helping them to make their voices heard.
Ms. Demers is a model for us all and I hope that the example she sets will inspire many people. Thanks to people like her, social inequalities can be overcome.
I congratulate Nicole Demers on winning the Governor General's Award and wish this outstanding woman many more years of helping those who need help most.
* * *
Les Invasions barbares
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Denys Arcand film Les Invasions barbares won best Canadian feature film at the 28th Toronto International Film Festival.
After the film's success at Cannes and at the box office, Arcand had every reason to be pleased with this new honour for his latest production.
The Bloc Quebecois salutes the work of filmmaker Denys Arcand, the actors, the technicians and the producer Denise Robert. It is encouraging to see that Quebec productions are achieving such renown.
Not only did Les Invasions barbares deserve these awards, but it was also a box office hit in Quebec with over $5 million in ticket sales. The promotional tour in Paris, Berlin and London was met with enthusiasm. After the Toronto film festival, the film will open in theatres throughout Canada and the United States.
Long live Les Invasions barbares and Quebec cinema.
* * *
(1405)
[English]
Northern Ontario
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the people of northwestern Ontario to offer condolences to the many people who have suffered tragic losses as a result of two separate airplane crashes in northern Ontario last week.
The community of Nibinamik lost seven community members, including three elected band council members, on September 11, 2003, in the rugged and isolated bush north of Thunder Bay. The close-knit community of roughly 350 people is now struggling to cope with this terrible loss. Wasaya Airways also lost a pilot in this incident.
In a separate incident, two people believed to be from British Columbia were also lost north of Thunder Bay.
As the family and friends of the deceased struggle to deal with their losses, it is important that we understand that they are in our thoughts and in our prayers. In times such as these, northerners have a way of caring for each other, and the response in the region has been overwhelming. I would like to take this opportunity to recognize and thank--
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona.
* * *
Canadian Idol
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, tonight Canadians will choose the first ever Canadian Idol. Ryan Malcolm of Kingston, Ontario, is facing off against Gary Beals of Cherry Brook, Nova Scotia. Both Gary and Ryan have survived the grueling audition process, which narrowed a field of thousands of Canadians down to twelve and now two.
Over the summer millions of Canadians have watched as these two competed against ten other young people from all over Canada, including Edmonton's hometown favourite, Tyler Hamilton.
We have been there to witness the triumphs and the heartbreaks these contestants have felt. Now, only six hours away from tonight's final episode, the votes are in and counted.
Being involved in tonight's show myself as the Idol correspondent in Ottawa, I know the excitement these two young people feel and especially the excitement that host Ben is feeling. The Mulroneys have always had a knack for song and dance.
I urge all Canadians to tune into Canadian Idol tonight and support both Ryan and Gary. I know I will be watching.
* * *
City of Barrie
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in 1853 about 800 people living in small wooden buildings along a short stretch of Kempenfelt Bay on Lake Simcoe became the first official residents of the Town of Barrie.
This year our city is celebrating its 150th birthday. The City of Barrie is one of the fastest growing municipalities in Canada, with a population that has more than doubled in 20 years. The volunteer sesquicentennial committee has worked very hard to organize a number of events to commemorate this special year. The next event, Heritage Day, will be held on September 20. Heritage Day celebrations will include a re-enactment of the Nine Mile Portage historic trade route.
I would like to offer my appreciation and congratulations to the large number of volunteers and local sponsors who have worked tirelessly to make this year a year for the residents of Barrie to remember. I would also like to express special thanks to Alderman Patricia Copeland and John Bearcroft, sesquicentennial committee co-chairs.
* * *
Canadian Idol
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, tonight an important decision will be made. Tonight Canadians from coast to coast will be intently fixated on their televisions as history unfolds before them.
Tonight, Mr. Speaker, Gary Beals is going to beat one of your constituents and become the first ever Canadian Idol.
This incredibly talented young man from Cherry Brook, Nova Scotia, has become the pride of Halifax, pouring his heart and soul into performance after performance and proving once again and once and for all that Nova Scotia is the home of the country's most talented performers.
I also want to mention how struck I have been by the breadth of talent this show has brought to Canadians. Both our diversity and our similarities have been obvious the whole way through.
I want to wish Gary, his family and friends all the best and tell him that as proud as all of us in Nova Scotia are of him today, we are going to be even more proud tonight.
* * *
Employment Insurance
Mr. Rex Barnes (Gander—Grand Falls, PC): Mr. Speaker, rural Canada is very different from the way it was a decade ago. Jobs are fewer, unemployment is greater and there is a greater need for leadership from the Canadian government.
Since 1991, many millions of dollars a year less in employment insurance benefits are being paid out to people in my riding of Gander--Grand Falls. Many organizations, including the Canadian Labour Congress, state that changes in the EI act are needed to better reflect the changing economies in rural areas.
The Government of Canada now has a surplus of $45 billion in the EI fund. It is more difficult to receive EI benefits, the period of time to receive EI benefits is much shorter, it is more difficult for young people to obtain sponsorship for training, and it is more difficult for older workers to obtain meaningful work.
I agree with the president of the CLC, who states, “Times are changing. Work is changing. Canada's unemployment insurance needs to change too”. I say, stop abusing the EI fund and stop overcharging Canadian workers.
* * *
(1410)
[Translation]
Hermel Giard
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Hermel Giard was recently inducted into Quebec's agricultural hall of fame. This is the highest honour awarded to a farmer for his life's work and contribution to the development of agriculture.
Mr. Giard, who was mayor of Saint-Simon-de-Bagot for 14 years, fully deserves this honour. A distinguished dairy farmer and renowned Holstein breeder and judge, he was also active in the Ordre des agronomes, the Société d'agriculture, the Mouvement Desjardins and the Ordre des médecins vétérinaires du Québec.
He and his son, who is continuing his father's work in various agricultural sectors, won the Mérite agricole gold medal in 1995.
Mr. Giard has made agriculture a way of life and a passion. His is an undeniable passion, which leads him to say that Quebec agriculture is among the best in the world, that dairy quotas are still a great idea and that family farms must remain the mainstay of agriculture in Quebec.
My heartiest congratulations to this friend and major contributor to Quebec agriculture and society.
* * *
Les Invasions barbares
Ms. Carole-Marie Allard (Laval East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate Denys Arcand and all those who worked on Les Invasions barbares, which literally captured the hearts of festival-goers at the 28th Toronto International Film Festival.
The success Les Invasions barbares enjoyed with the public and the festival's jury reflects the immense talent of this world renowned Canadian filmmaker. The film won top prize in Toronto in the feature film category and a prize for best screenplay at the 56th Cannes Film Festival.
The Government of Canada is proud to support the Canadian film industry, which projects the richness and diversity of our culture on the big screen.
Bravo to Denys Arcand, to Les Invasions barbares and to all the artists.
* * *
[English]
Canadian Idol
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to represent the community of Cherry Brook, which is part of my riding of Dartmouth. It is also the home of Canadian Idol finalist Gary Beals.
All summer long Gary has demonstrated the spirit of his community with his soulful tunes. His commitment to his family and his faith continues to remain strong throughout the intense media attention and the stress of weekly performances.
Gary is a theatre student at Acadia University and has sung with its gospel choir. He started singing in the Cherry Brook United Baptist Church at the age of 12.
In Cherry Brook, in Dartmouth and all over Nova Scotia, people are hoping for the best for this young man. We hope he will win the final tonight, but no matter what the results are, I expect we will all continue to hear about Gary Beals. We wish him good luck and we wish to thank him for taking up this challenge.
* * *
[Translation]
Foreign Affairs
Ms. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, Ind. BQ): Mr. Speaker, Canadian diplomacy has been severely tested lately. The Sampson and Kazemi cases have shown how insignificant Canada has become on the international scene.
After Mr. Sampson was sentenced to death by beheading on the strength of confessions that were obtained by torture, the Canadian government let him rot in a Saudi prison for 31 months.
Ms. Kazemi died on July 10, in Iran, after receiving a blow to the head during an interrogation and the Canadian government was not even able to repatriate her remains.
We have reason to be concerned about the safety that comes with our nice little Canadian passport and its no-smile photo. Clearly our diplomats have no influence and it is certainly not by entrusting diplomacy to disgraced ex-ministers that Canada will regain its much envied status of the 1950s.
* * *
[English]
Junction Arts Festival
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my congratulations to the artists, organizers, sponsors and participants of the 11th annual Junction Arts Festival.
The Junction Arts Festival is one of Toronto's many array of community arts festivals. Its incredible growth is testament to the tremendous neighbourhood team spirit in the Junction and the great organizational work of Karen Cecy-Lemieux, the festival coordinator and Piera Pugliese, the chair of the festival and the chair of the Junction Gardens BIA.
This year's festival attracted 31 juried artists from as far away as Lithuania and Thailand, and involved 27 participating local businesses. The first festival in 1982 consisted of a single wall in a local framing shop and attracted about 2,000 people. Now with the festival dominating the neighbourhood, over 20,000 visitors enjoy the art, musical performances, literary readings, music and writing workshops, and the popular “poems on a post”.
I wish to commend the Junction community for hosting and supporting this event, and understanding how important the arts are in our community.
* * *
(1415)
Rural Expo 2003
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to draw the attention of the House to an important event taking place this week in Lanark County.
Rural Expo 2003, the Lanark County International Plowing Match and Farm Machinery Show opens tomorrow in beautiful Beckwith Township, just east of Carleton Place. The tented city and its surrounding grounds cover 1500 acres.
Rural Expo is a celebration of rural living, both past and present, and of the vibrant future that we envision for rural Canada. Thanks to the hard work of Gordon and Ann Munroe, the co-chairs of Rural Expo 2003, and more than 1,000 other dedicated volunteers, this is sure to be an event to remember.
Highlights include music and entertainment from across the Ottawa Valley and around the world, hundreds of exhibits, and of course the excitement of competitive plowing using both traditional and modern equipment.
Those of us who make our home in Lanark County know what a great place it is, and I have no doubt that the tens of thousands who visit Rural Expo will be charmed, delighted and enthralled by our beautiful county.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[Oral Questions]
* * *
[English]
Government Contracts
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister was asked about criminal investigations into the Liberal Party of Canada. He said the RCMP and the Auditor General are doing investigations. I have to tell the Prime Minister that is not good enough. I have to remind him that he is the leader of this country and the leader of his party.
I ask him, what steps has he taken to assure himself that public funds have not been misused by his own political party?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the financing of a political party is the same for everybody. Every contribution that is given to the Liberal Party above $100 is public information that can be found on the Internet any day of the week. This is the only way that we have raised money for the Liberal Party over the last 10 years.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, maybe he could do a little more thorough investigation than that.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the criminal investigation of the Liberal Party of Canada in Quebec is under way. The Minister of Justice is responsible for supervising the laying of criminal charges, and is also the political minister for the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party.
Is this not a good enough reason why the government ought to allow an independent criminal investigation?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is the Solicitor General and not the Minister of Justice who is responsible here. The hon. member ought to find out who is responsible for what before standing up in the House. It is a bit ridiculous not to know that the RCMP is under the jurisdiction of the Solicitor General.
[English]
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it will have to be the Attorney General and Minister of Justice who prosecutes the charges and these will be potentially against members of his own party.
The Prime Minister said yesterday that his ministers “probably” did nothing wrong. The former public works minister, and I am not sure we put him in the “probably” category, avoided accountability when the Prime Minister assisted his flight from Canada with an ambassadorship in Denmark.
How many more people who “probably” were not involved in scandals does the Prime Minister intend to give patronage appointments to before he leaves office?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I must go back to my role as a professor of law and tell the hon. member that when there are prosecutions under the Criminal Code in one province it is the attorney general of that province who lays the charge, not the Attorney General of Canada.
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, Communication Coffin is facing 18 fraud charges. A 2000 public works audit red flagged that company. Wrongdoing was exposed, yet the government continued to award new contracts. Corruption and political interference continue. Rules by themselves will not end political corruption. Political interference must end and ministers must be held accountable.
Will the government initiate a judicial inquiry into the public works scandals that will include recalling the former public works minister, Alfonso Gagliano?
(1420)
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, from the very beginning of my responsibility in this file I have been very careful to ensure that the proper steps were taken, first things first, step by step, every step on a solid foundation and then moving on in a progressive manner to ensure that all matters were properly exposed, all investigations were properly undertaken, and the public interest was satisfied. I have embarked on that course and I intend to continue it.
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the fact is that in spite of what the minister says we saw another summer of scandals: a $1.4 billion Royal LePage contract, so bad it had to be re-tendered; Allan McGuire writing himself $250,000 worth of cheques, never audited; the department purposely bankrupting a Canadian company; and now the Liberal Party is under investigation. Canadians do not believe that corruption will end with the claims of the minister.
To deal with the sponsorship scandals, will the government initiate a judicial inquiry into the sponsorship program?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, specifically with respect to sponsorships, it is very important that the two official investigations that are presently underway be allowed to proceed to their full conclusion without any interference of any kind whatsoever.
One set of investigations is being presided over by the RCMP. It is obviously doing its job. The other set of investigations is being presided over by the Auditor General. We have in fact complied with her request to expand her mandate to allow her to do her full job in this matter. Those things must not be impeded.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party of Canada is under police investigation, and disciplinary measures will soon be taken against the people who ran the sponsorship program for Alfonso Gagliano. But while all indications are that politics were involved, strangely, no one is looking at the role played by the ministers in this scandal.
Since only an independent public inquiry could shed light on the political dimension of the sponsorship scandal, why is the Prime Minister so determined to protect his ministers by refusing to hold such an inquiry?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there are two investigations under way, one by the RCMP and one by the Auditor General. These agencies are both completely independent of the government. So far, they have been doing very good work. There is no reason to change the policy adopted by this government a very long time ago.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister wants to limit himself to the RCMP and the Auditor General and not discuss politics. Let us see why.
In May 2002 in Winnipeg, speaking to Liberal supporters, the Prime Minister admitted, and I quote, “Perhaps there was a few million dollars that may have been stolen in the process,” but, he added, “we have re-established the stability of Canada.”
If the Prime Minister refuses to launch an independent public inquiry, might it be because his government, his ministers and he, himself, authorized the shameless use of public money to promote Canadian unity while lining the pockets of friends of the party?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is a law and it is the role of the police to investigate theft. That is the case in all jurisdictions, and that is exactly what the police are doing at this moment. The police have the authority to act when there are charges of theft.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister says that a few million dollars may have been stolen, but that since this saved Canada, it is not serious, I would like to remind him that in 1970, it was also said in his circles that it was OK to burn barns in Quebec and steal books from PQ members. It was not serious, it saved Canada.
Does the Prime Minister remember that a public inquiry was commissioned at the time—the MacDonald Commission—and that it revealed a fair bit about the government he belonged to?
[English]
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has always said in this matter that where there was administration that needed to be corrected, that correction would be done, wherever there were audits that needed to be performed, those audits would be done, wherever there were criminal matters that needed to be investigated, that that indeed would be done, and if anyone had broken any rule, they would pay the consequences.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the RCMP is only investigating criminal acts. It is highly likely that cabinet ministers violated ethics rules and independence rules and crossed a line without going so far as stealing. The RCMP would never look into this type of behaviour.
Does the government not understand that we want to know what part the ministers played? We do not think they stole anything directly, but we would like to know what role they had in the sponsorship affair. That is not something we are going to find out from the RCMP.
(1425)
[English]
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would again emphasize what I said yesterday. It is very important in this matter to proceed in a steady and logical fashion, first things first, step by step. Let us ensure that we do not make a misstep that fouls up the investigations that are presently underway.
It is very important not to take any action that would in any way impede the activity of the RCMP or the Auditor General. We are absolutely determined that those two bodies should be allowed to do their work and to ventilate this matter to the satisfaction of the public interest.
* * *
Agriculture
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr. Speaker, last evening I attended a meeting of area farmers in St-Albert, Ontario, who are concerned over the ongoing ban of beef that is keeping their product from the market. The border is still not open and farmers' lives are at stake. Their livelihoods are being lost because they cannot move their cattle. Their entire lives and way of life is at threat.
The Prime Minister is scheduled to be in New York for a meeting at the UN. Will he request, will he intelligently and intensely make the case on behalf of Canadian farmers to open the border to Canadian cattle?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have always done that with the President and other people at the White House with whom I have had the occasion to meet. I think that I will have occasion to meet with President Bush. Whenever I talked with him he had always said and agreed with me that this had to be based on a scientific basis.
I wish to report that the only country that has managed to go back into the American market after having a case of mad cow is Canada. The beef has started to move but not fast enough and we are keeping the pressure on the American government.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr. Speaker, the beef is moving at a trickle across the border. That answer is not good enough.
I challenge the Prime Minister to give that type of drivel to the farmers who are going to gather on the lawn here tomorrow. The Prime Minister has to get active on this file. If he is not going to get active, maybe he should back to 24 Sussex and start packing. There are people in this country who need his government's help, need his leadership.
When is he going to actively engage in this file and help Canadian farm families?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have been extremely active with this file. We have put in more than half a billion dollars to help the farmers who are affected by this ban of the export of beef and we are doing our best with the American government. Ministers raise that all the time. I did that all the time.
I talked with the ambassador here about it many times. The Canadian ambassador in Washington raises this matter all the time. Ambassador Cellucci has said, “The relationship is in very good shape. We are working each and every day. We are making progress”. When the ambassador says that we are working well with them on all the files, I think that this--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona.
* * *
National Defence
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the good news is that hurricane Isabel has been downgraded and may not be a serious threat by the time it reaches Canada, but of course the bad news is this can change. Also the bad news is that we have a government that does not exactly have a sterling record when it comes to being prepared for crises.
Could the Minister of National Defence tell the House what he is doing to be in a state of readiness should hurricane Isabel prove more destructive than we hope it will be. We do not want the minister of defence operating by candlelight after the fashion of the Prime Minister during the blackout?
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the member that just an hour ago the public security committee of the cabinet had a fulsome discussion of this matter, a briefing from OCIPEP so we would be fully briefed and aware of all scenarios in advance of such an event. Of course we hope that it will not happen but we must always be prepared.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Well I am glad to know they are meeting, Mr. Speaker, but I want to ask the Minister of National Defence this, looking beyond hurricane Isabel, and as I say, hopefully there will not be anything for which to be prepared.
Is the Minister of National Defence considering what has been suggested by a number of people, including my leader, that there be set up something like a Canadian security council and a permanent situation room, something that is independent of the risk factors that come with crises so we know the government can be in charge no matter what the circumstances?
(1430)
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that kind of issue is beyond my purview involving the machinery of government. However let me remind the hon. member that when it comes to things that really matter, the federal government was there backing up the province of Ontario in the power storm and backing up the province of British Columbia for the forest fires.
Ernie Eves does not always say great things about this government. He was unequivocal in his thanks, as was the case with the Premier of British Columbia. So we delivered.
* * *
Public Service
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Public Service Integrity Officer, Edward Keyserlingk, has stated a strong call for whistleblower legislation. We should not have to wait 10 years.
Will the minister commit now to introducing a comprehensive bill? Does the minister finally admit that her internal memo policy did not work and that real whistleblower legislation is sorely needed?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I really welcome Dr. Keyserlingk's report and I thank him for his thoughtful and judicious comments. As he recommended that we need perhaps deeper reflection on that matter, I announced this morning that we would have a working group, including Dr. Keyserlingk, to propose a Canadian model. I also intend to give that report directly to parliamentarians so they can review it and have consultations so that we can make the final solution about that problem.
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I had to convince the minister to even get a passing reference to whistleblower protection in Bill C-25. The former finance minister who was responsible for creating the red book in 1993 promised it back then. For 10 years he had the money, he had the cabinet influence and yet all we have today is a memo.
When honest public servants try to report wrongdoing and political interference, will they be left unprotected?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, Dr. Keyserlingk reports on the internal disclosure policy on wrongdoing. I think the member on the opposite side when he brought in an amendment, it was not to a memo, it was to a policy already designed by the government.
I am telling members that we are ready to act on that matter when we receive that report and that parliamentarians also will make recommendations to the government.
* * *
[Translation]
Government Contracts
Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, with regard to the sponsorship scandal, the police investigation led to the Liberal Party. The Prime Minister's conduct and that of his ministers is not under investigation. The Prime Minister was unable to confirm that none of his ministers were involved.
Is there not just one way to clear his government, namely holding a public inquiry on the role his ministers played in the sponsorship scandal? Perhaps that would satisfy us.
[English]
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the RCMP, in dealing with this matter, has already indicated that it will follow this issue wherever the trail may lead. It is completely independent. It exercises its own discretion to ensure that justice is properly done.
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the sponsorship scandal did not happen on its own. Decisions were made and someone untied the purse strings and invested dozens of millions of dollars in this scandal.
The Prime Minister should admit that it would be in the public's interest to find out the role of the future Prime Minister, then Minister of Finance, in the sponsorship scandal.
[English]
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is obviously engaging in a good deal of smear and innuendo.
The fact of the matter is, if one is really interested in determining what unfolded, who was responsible and so forth, the very best way to do that is to rely upon the RCMP and the Auditor General step by step methodically moving forward ensuring that justice is properly done.
* * *
Agriculture
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government mistakenly believes that it has reopened the border to trade for Canadian livestock. Far from it. Limited trade in muscle cuts will never save our livestock industry. It is really death by a thousand cuts.
Trade of live animals represented more than half of our sales pre-May 20. Now hundreds of thousands of culled and aged animals have little or no value.
When will the minister table his plan to deal with this escalating problem, or does he just not give a damn?
(1435)
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Duplain (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not understand how the hon. member can say that the border is not open. The border is in fact open and meat can now cross the border. There are still problems to resolve. The border needs to be fully reopened. The minister is currently working on this with his American counterparts.
[English]
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary proved to the world he does not get it. That is the problem.
The borders are open about 20%. We can get parts and pieces of cattle through but not a live one. That is the problem. Aged cattle are piling up in this country and there is no processing to handle them, sir. That is the problem. Farmers and ranchers are going broke here day by day. These guys do not get it.
Why is the minister letting the livestock industry crisis get worse while he plays politics with agriculture aid? What is he doing?
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Duplain (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the border is open, and work needs to be done to open it fully. Now, the member needs to understand that this is the first time ever that a country has managed within 100 days to open its borders after detecting a case of BSE, and this needs to be said.
If the member is unable to explain this to his constituents, I humbly offer my services to go to his riding to help him explain—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve.
* * *
The Canadian Grand Prix
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the federal government—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. It is impossible to hear the question. The hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve has the floor. The noise is coming from both sides of the House.
[English]
The hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve has the floor. I urge order.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, the federal government is expressing a desire to save the Grand Prix, while at the same time rejecting any amendment to the Tobacco Act—with which we agree—but also rejecting the idea of an interim fund.
If the Prime Minister rejects both of these solutions, can he tell us what other strategy he has in mind for saving the Grand Prix?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as far as the Canadian Grand Prix is concerned, everyone in this House is aware of its economic importance and the spin-offs, not just for Montreal and Quebec, but for all of Canada as well.
That said, the government already deferred the legislation seven years ago. Back then, the time frame allowed was felt to be satisfactory.
On the other hand, are we supposed to use public funds in order to obtain a brand name free race? I think it would, in fact, be highly inappropriate of the government to start using public funds to maintain Formula 1 racing.
That said, there is still a little time left before the racing schedule is published. We will leave no stone unturned in order to keep—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if Montreal lost the Grand Prix, the fallout would be enormous, as far as employment, the economy and lost tax revenue are concerned.
I am asking the Prime Minister why he is refusing to set up a two-year interim fund that could involve all of the partners, that is the private sector and the public sector, including all three levels of government?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, how could we propose to this House a transition fund just for Formula 1?
I think that if the Bloc Quebecois wanted to talk about a transition fund, and really examined the situation, fairness would force us to include a whole series of events. Since we want to be fair, we do not believe that at this time we ought to be going ahead with a transition fund, an idea that has already been rejected. What is more, if we Canadians really believe in it, this legislation is about public health.
Obviously the Grand Prix does have economic spinoffs. We still have some room to manoeuvre. Give us some time. We will leave no stone unturned.
* * *
[English]
Foreign Affairs
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, almost two years ago the whole world learned that British nationals who were arrested along with Bill Sampson had been savagely tortured in Saudi jails. The Brits reported that Mr. Sampson, still in jail, was continuing to be tortured. How did the foreign affairs minister respond to this alarming revelation? I will quote his response:
|
We received assurances from the Saudi government that this case would be handled with full respect for human rights. |
Why did the minister publicly accept these false Saudi assurances when former prisoners had already revealed the torture was going on? Was the minister just naive or was he trying to cover up and protect cozy--
(1440)
The Speaker: The Hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we acted for the reason we did which was for our desire to get Mr. Sampson home safely, which is what occurred in the circumstances. Let us not lose that from perspective. The House and I believe everyone here well knows that doing the wrong thing at the wrong time in these circumstances could cost the life of a Canadian citizen.
It is very easy for the opposition now to wish to rewrite history. Let us bear in mind our responsibility on this side of the House and a government's responsibility is the protection first of the lives of its citizens. That is what governed our conduct and that will always govern our conduct.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it should try doing the right thing any time. The government continues to get nowhere with its weak and belated request for an investigation into the Saudi torture of Bill Sampson, and the reason is simple. As we learned in the tragic case of Ms. Kazemi, soft power doctrine is impotent when we are confronting dictators. Demands must be backed with consequences.
Instead of abandoning Canadians, why will the government not abandon its soft power policy when dealing with dictators and get that apology from the Saudi ambassador, send him home and get an apology and compensation for Mr. Sampson?
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member speaks of soft power but let me suggest he has the idea to send the Saudi ambassador home, and perhaps have our ambassador return to Canada, when there are 8,000 Canadians living and working in Saudi Arabia who need diplomatic representation in times of difficulty. This is not soft power. This is useless power. This is political rhetoric for one purpose only, political rhetoric, that is all.
* * *
Agriculture
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and it concerns the United Nations biosafety protocol.
Given that 57 nations have ratified the biosafety protocol, given the fact that it has entered into force and given that Canada is host to the UN Secretariat on Biodiversity, when will the minister be in a position to give the green light so that the government can ratify this important protocol?
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Duplain (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has a strong interest in the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and supports the environmental objectives of the protocol on biosafety.
Canada signed this protocol in 2001 and is committed to addressing the concerns of stakeholders in the agri-food and biotechnology industries.
The agri-food sectors support the protocol's goals and have agreed to work with us in accordance with the protocol and to minimize the uncertainties related to trade.
* * *
[English]
The Economy
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, the finance minister has admitted that due to the Prime Minister's long goodbye Canadians will just have to do without a February budget. It is another case of Liberal leadership politics trumping the interests of ordinary Canadians.
Why will the Prime Minister, who the Liberals do not want, not step down in November so Canadians can have the budget they need in February?
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the fact is that I will present the usual fiscal and economic update this fall. Even today the finance committee has commenced its normal prebudget consultations.
I am happy to say that despite the fact that we face some challenges in our economy this year because of SARS, BSE and other things, we had enough prudence and enough contingency built into the February budget that our fiscal plan is still in very good shape.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, Canada is reeling from an unprecedented series of disasters: SARS, BSE, power blackouts, western forest fires and floods in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. As a result the Canadian economy shrank more than expected in the last quarter and 50,000 Canadians have lost their jobs.
Why will the finance minister not commit today to presenting a full budget in February to provide Canadians with a real plan to address Canada's economic uncertainties?
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member has trouble recognizing a good thing when he sees it.
Since the beginning of last year the Canadian economy has created over 600,000 jobs while at the same time the U.S. economy has lost over 900,000 jobs.
I might mention to the hon. member that the U.S. economy is 10 times larger than the Canadian economy and yet its job performance record is many times worse.
I think the fact is that we are in very good shape because of the prudent planning that was embodied in the February budget. We were in good shape to face even the emergencies that presented themselves unexpectedly to us this year.
* * *
(1445)
Government Contracts
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Today we learned that Onex Corporation is again looking to buy Air Canada; yes, the same Onex that is the biggest donor to the leadership campaign of the former finance minister. I guess it is buying a lot these days, including influence, which comes with a price tag of $173,000 and counting.
Will the Prime Minister ensure a tough new ethics package is in place before he leaves office or is he fine watching corporations getting into a bidding war to buy Paul Martin?
The Speaker: I suspect the hon. member meant the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard when she mentioned someone by name a moment ago. She knows it is quite wrong to refer to another hon. member, if that is what she was doing, by name. I would not want to presume. The hon. government House leader.
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to note the interest that the hon. member has in Bill C-34, the ethics bill.
As she will know the debate was concluded yesterday at report stage and second reading. The vote will occur later today. We are looking forward to enthusiastic support for that legislative measure.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I apologize for calling the member for LaSalle—Émard by his name.
Again, my question is for the Prime Minister. It is increasingly clear that the ad scandal in Quebec was designed to pump money into the Quebec Liberal Party coffers. Surely there are better ways to invest Canadian tax dollars than blowing them on the Quebec Liberal Party.
We need a public inquiry now. We need the mastermind of this scheme, Alfonso Gagliano, fired now.
Will the Prime Minister pick up the phone and tell Fonzy that his happy days in Denmark are done?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the matters pertaining to the sponsorship issue are serious matters and they deserve serious attention from people like the Auditor General and investigators like the RCMP. These issues will not be resolved through glib one-liners.
* * *
Foreign Affairs
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, on January 31 of this year the foreign affairs minister said “We are making sure that Bill Sampson is well treated and that he has all rights available to him”.
We now know of course that nothing could have been further from the truth.
How can the minister explain the government's total incompetence in allowing a Canadian citizen to be brutally tortured while doing nothing to protect his rights?
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, this has been discussed in the House many times.
The hon. House leader went to see Prince Abdullah. I personally took a letter from the Prime Minister of Canada to the ruling royal family. We made representations. Hon. members on this side of the House personally intervened. Members of the opposition saw Mr. Sampson. We all made an effort to make sure that Mr. Sampson came back safely. We were assured by the royal family that he would be returned safely if we worked with them. We did. We brought him home. Let us let the results speak for themselves.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister has not noticed that he has not come home because of his disgust with the government's mistreatment of his case.
Is it not interesting that the opposition member who visited him seems to remember his claims of torture whereas the government House leader somehow seems to have forgotten it?
A couple of years ago the parliamentary secretary said that Mr. Sampson was not tortured or physically abused and that the government was confident that he would continue to receive due process. Some due process.
I simply want to know why the government covered for the Saudi regime. Has the government apologized to Bill Sampson for not protecting his rights?
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government did not cover for the Saudi regime. The government acted in a way which ensured the safety of Mr. Sampson in a very difficult situation. Mr. Sampson returned. He left Saudi Arabia. I remind members of the House that he had a sentence of execution against him. That sentence might have been carried out. We acted in a responsible way to ensure that it was not.
I think it is very unwise of hon. members opposite to now seek to rewrite history for the sake of pure cheap politics.
* * *
(1450)
[Translation]
BioChem Pharma
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Industry told us that he would ensure that Shire respects all its commitments following the closure of BioChem Pharma in Laval, but he refuses to make these commitments public.
Is the minister prepared to demand, as compensation for Shire's failure to honour its commitment, that the company give up intellectual property rights to the research projects, which are not a priority for it, in order to help BioChem Pharma get back on its feet?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I invite the hon. member to examine the federal law on this matter. It is clear that the commitments are confidential for now. We cannot disclose them.
At the same time, we have certain rights and powers under the law. We intend to use them to ensure that the company honours all its commitments.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I think that the hon. minister must adjust his attitude and allow the relaunch of BioChem Pharma by promoters associated with the researchers who were laid off.
The minister has enough tools to do the job. In this context, how does he intend to use federal legislation to save BioChem Pharma?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have already stated, my concern is to ensure that all commitments are honoured. If there is a way to save the company, I am sure that private enterprise will find it. To my knowledge, the people in Montreal involved in this matter are working to see that all possibilities are examined.
* * *
[English]
Human Resources Development
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the HRDC minister went into damage control mode and tried to deflect blame for the most recent boondoggle instalment rather than accepting personal responsibility.
According to her, and I quote:
|
In any organization, there are a few bad apples. |
Given her party's current situation, she should know. It is pretty sad when the captain of a sinking ship wants to be first on the lifeboat. What ever happened to ministerial accountability?
If the minister is not responsible for the conduct of her employees, who is?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, perhaps I will just take this opportunity to remind the hon. member of what we have done.
We received information from the police that some of our employees might be involved in an investigation. At that point we conducted our own investigation. We examined our files. We called in forensic auditors. We called in the RCMP. We have taken severe disciplinary action, including firing.
It is our obligation to make sure that those who choose to work outside the rules face the consequences, and that is what we are doing here.
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, none of that is attributable to the internal work of department. The credit belongs to the Toronto municipal police force here.
This is her failed $50 million plan we are talking about. This is her department and her responsibility but it is not her money. It belongs to Canadians and Canadians deserve honest answers to clear questions.
Let me ask a simple question. Boondoggle 2: how much money is involved and how many employees?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I take full responsibility to work with the police to ensure that those who are cheating the system are caught and that the full impact of the law is placed on them.
As I said yesterday, the police have asked us not to share any further details so as not to jeopardize their investigation. Surely the hon. member would want to make sure that all charges are laid as appropriate.
* * *
National Defence
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
The second largest deployment of Canadian Forces is currently engaged in fighting forest fires in British Columbia. With these fires largely under control, could the minister advise the House how much longer the forces will continue their firefighting efforts in B.C.?
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, because of an improvement in conditions in British Columbia, I am pleased to announce that the Government of B.C. and the Canadian Forces have agreed that military firefighting assistance will end today.
I have observed the soldiers at work. It is difficult work. Generally they go out in teams of two, one with a hose and one with a pick axe.
I know that the whole House would want to join me in thanking the more than 2,600 reservists and regular forces for a job extremely well done.
* * *
(1455)
Government Assistance
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the firestorms devastated homes and businesses in Kelowna during the firestorm that happened recently.
Could the Prime Minister tell us today how he will assure that the people who need the money to get the financial assistance will in fact go to the people who need it? When will that money come and where will the money come from in order to give the financial assistance that he promised when he was there?
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I just said, our members of the Canadian Forces have done a magnificent job in fighting these fires in Kelowna and elsewhere. The federal government has worked very closely with Minister Rich Coleman and the premier. All are highly satisfied with our work together.
We have agreed to provide financial assistance under the DFAA and the sums that are due will be calculated according to the usual formula and will be paid.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, with that kind of answer one wonders how sincere their promises really are.
I will turn to the Minister of Human Resources Development and ask her how serious it is. These families are in dire circumstances. They have lost their homes and their businesses. Why does she refuse to waive the two week waiting period before these people get unemployment insurance benefits?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very sensitive to the devastating impact that these fires have had on individuals in the Okanagan. I am happy today to tell the hon. member that the employment insurance commission has agreed to make more flexible the work sharing provisions so that those businesses that have been affected can ensure they can continue and that their employees can continue to go to work.
In that context I would remind the hon. member that there is no two week waiting period associated with work sharing.
* * *
[Translation]
Marriage
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the future Prime Minister, the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard, wants an immediate vote on same sex legislation, without waiting for the Supreme Court's opinion, doubtless to avoid dealing with this thorny issue during the next election campaign.
Does the Prime Minister feel the same way as his potential successor, or will he wait for the opinion of the Supreme Court requested by his own government?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government has implemented a process. This process is clear and contains a clear policy. This process is a respectful one.
The government is seeking and will obtain the court's opinion on draft legislation. The Supreme Court's opinion will address the three questions it was asked. Then, obviously, once we have obtained the court's opinion, all parliamentarians will have the opportunity to take part in a free vote in the House.
In my opinion, the government has chosen a good process that respects the various parties involved.
* * *
[English]
Trade
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada has a very reputable wine and spirits industry. In fact, some international award winning vintages have been produced from some of our over 170 wineries from all provinces of Canada. Yet the industry faces obstacles to access its product in the European Union.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade tell us what developments have happened regarding our increased access to the European Union?
Mr. Murray Calder (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to announce today that the Minister for International Trade, along with his colleague, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, in Niagara-on-the-Lake signed the Canada-EU wines and spirits agreement.
The federal government has worked in close consultation with the industry and the provinces. This agreement will benefit both Canadian and EU wine and spirits industries. It will enhance trade opportunities for both regions while providing a larger variety for consumers.
* * *
Marriage
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Alliance leader stated that he supports codifying civil unions in law for homosexuals.
However, the biggest failure on same sex marriage rests with the Prime Minister. He is refusing to honour the clause that he himself put in the Constitution, a clause that acts as a legitimate check and balance against laws made by unelected and unaccountable judges.
Why is the Prime Minister refusing to invoke his own constitutional notwithstanding clause to protect the legal definition of marriage?
(1500)
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we said many times that it is a question of rights. We are talking about equality rights. It is a question of dignity as well. The course of action that has been chosen by the government is the right course of action.
We are striking the right balance with the draft bill because we are facing essentially two principles: equality rights as well as the protection of religious belief. We will obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada and then parliamentarians will have their say on a free vote.
* * *
Highway Infrastructure
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, during the past four years there have been 24 deaths on a 25 kilometre stretch of the Trans-Canada Highway in Banff National Park in my riding.
I have been asking the government for 10 years to do something about this dangerous road. The transport minister says it is not his problem; it is the problem of the heritage minister. She says it is not her problem; it belongs to Parks Canada. Parks Canada says it is not its problem; it does not have enough money in its budget to even consider it. Failure to widen this highway is sheer negligence.
I ask the Prime Minister today, who in the heck is in charge of fixing this highway?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this road needs to be improved. We will soon be announcing, under the infrastructure fund, a strategic investment by the Government of Canada to ensure that happens, to protect the lives of those who travel this road, to ensure that Banff National Park is accessible, and to upgrade the infrastructure in that park.
* * *
[Translation]
Employment Insurance
Ms. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last March, a report from Status of Women Canada confirmed that employment insurance restrictions on individuals returning to the labour market were affecting a disproportionate number of women, particularly those seeking parental benefits, as well as those who are self-employed, who continue to be excluded from this program.
Can the parliamentary secretary for Status of Women Canada tell us what she has done to date to remedy the situation criticized by that report?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question gives me the opportunity again to recognize that the government has doubled parental benefits, not only providing benefits for Canadian mothers but also for Canadian fathers.
As well, we find that the employment insurance system, by moving to an hours based program, allows more women to be eligible for employment insurance.
We also find that more women are working and, in fact, as a result of the increased jobs in our strong economy, women are working and bringing home employment wages to help support themselves and their families.
* * *
Presence in Gallery
The Speaker: I would like to draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of Minister-President Professor Dr. Wolfgang Boehmer, President of the Bundesrat of the Federal Republic of Germany.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Government Orders
[Supply]
* * *
(1505)
[English]
Supply
Allotted Day--Marriage
The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the amendment.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, today, as parliamentarians we each bring to the floor of the House a condensation of the myriad heartfelt expressions from the nation's citizens on this subject of marriage. I pray that the product that is distilled from the debate today will be positive and not toxic or debilitating to the future health of our country, its families and its people.
I find it somewhat curious that some in this debate have said that we should not even be dealing in Parliament with anything at all that has a religious connotation, notwithstanding the fact that marriage of course is supported by those of a religious or non-religious view.
Let us consider our history. From aboriginal spiritual beliefs to the spiritual declarations of our first explorers, to recent changes of Canada's Constitution, we see that it is the rule, not the exception, that we allow religious expression and views in all places. Canada's constitutional founders and framers, in pre-1867 Charlottetown discussions, accepted the suggestion of an Atlantic Canadian premier that our nation's motto should be taken from the Bible, from the book of Psalms, chapter 72, verse 8, which says, “He shall have dominion also from sea to sea”. And so it remains today on Canada's coat of arms right here in the House of Commons, and in courtrooms and classrooms across the country.
The granite foundations of this very building, the Peace Tower, have scripture verses carved into them. When our Constitution was repatriated, an important phrase was placed in its preamble declaring Parliament as “recognizing the supremacy of God”. That is in the preamble of our Constitution. Our national anthem rings forth the prayerful plea “God keep our land”. At the beginning of every day right here in Parliament, Mr. Speaker, you lead us in public prayer.
Given these past and present historical realities of our nation, respected by believers and non-believers alike, let us please dispel this notion that religious expressions or reflections on the topic of marriage or on any other issue should be prohibited.
There is a book in the parliamentary library entitled Religion, the missing dimension of statecraft which is very helpful on this subject. One of several reasons that Bill C-250 is so ill advised, intolerant and dangerous is that it could be used to squash freedom of expression and freedom of speech in this regard. As a matter of fact, on the question of changing the meaning of marriage, it should be noted that the narrowly activist views of the member for Burnaby--Douglas are not even representative of the 3% of our population who claim to be homosexual. Official statements have come forth from representatives of the homosexual community who believe the definition of marriage should be left intact and not changed at all. It is important to note that this activist assault on marriage is not even unanimously supported by the homosexual community.
It brings me to the matter of people whether we are talking about people who have a religious or non-religious persuasion. People are being described as hateful or homophobic because they disagree with the homosexual lifestyle or because they want to see the marriage definition left alone. Many people have been intimidated into silence out of the fear of being stung with these labels and accusations.
On the other side of the ledger, I have seen books, articles and seminars which decry marriage as hateful and evil, and as a dangerous institution. While I profoundly disagree with that position, I will never try to legislate into silence those who propagate such a view, and nobody should.
Let us look at the trend that is developing. It is deplorable that a school teacher in British Columbia has been savaged because he made public in a newspaper his views about homosexuality. School board members in Surrey have been verbally and legally attacked because they voted not to expose grade one children to homosexual literature and other examples abound. This quasi-legal bullying has taken place without the added clout of Parliament or the Supreme Court trashing the heterosexual definition of marriage.
Imagine the programs of compulsory social reprogramming that will befall proponents of heterosexuality should we erringly vote today to change the clear meaning of marriage. This forced culturalization is taking place now with those who err in the area of political correctness, and it is happening with a vengeance in other jurisdictions also. It can happen here further. Let us not encourage that by changing the definition of marriage in our Parliament today.
Further to the question of definition is the incumbent lack of definition of what may evolve months or years from now as marriage itself is redefined, given the total lack of definition of the term sexual orientation. I have asked for definitions of that term and cannot get that definition.
(1510)
Critics sneer at those who suggest that an open-ended definition of marriage would soon result in legal challenges from those demanding the right to legal recognition of other types of partnerships such as multi-partner marriage, either on religious grounds or for reasons of orientation. That concern that some have raised should not be derided or dismissed. Those demands are already in fact on our doorstep. As a legislator, I have already sat and received a presentation made to me with that request, for the change in the definition of marriage to allow multi-partner marriages.
In Canada, on this matter of rights, adults and in some cases children as young as 14 years old already have the right to cohabit in any consensual relationship they want. Same sex benefits apply in most union and corporate contracts already. Quebec has a domestic relations act. Alberta has a civil unions act. Ontario and other provinces make similar provisions already for same sex unions. This should cause even less compulsion and not more by the activists who want to change the definition of marriage. It does make one wonder, what is the real agenda driving this tiny group of activists?
While on the topic of activism, we need to address the matter of the courts. Our present system of democratic and judicial checks and balances has been widely predicated on some realities, first the reality that human beings are imperfect and at times human beings will choose to do what is wrong and in pursuit of their own freedoms they will rob others of their freedoms.
Society also recognizes that human beings, as being created by God, have certain rights which need to be protected. Along with that there is an awareness that there will always be demagogues who believe they can create utopia on earth by enforcing their particular system on society as a whole. Marxism and Fascism represent two such examples.
Not perfect but in a fairly good attempt to deal with these realities, western democracies devised a somewhat ingenious yet utilitarian way of parliamentary democracy whereby elected citizens would make the laws while the courts would rule on those who break the laws, laws given to the courts by the elected legislative assemblies.
Judges would be protected from political and mob intimidation by being given long tenures of service and citizens would be protected from out of touch law makers by having the electoral power on a regular basis to throw them out of office and elect those who would create better laws or repeal bad ones.
This somewhat precarious social equilibrium has served us fairly well up until the last couple of decades. Following a disturbing international trend, Canadian judges are increasingly upsetting the social apple cart by taking it upon themselves to read into existing legislation things which were never intended by the elected framers of that legislation.
This lack of respect for the democratic process is unfortunately resulting in a growing lack of public respect for the judicial process and that trend, if it continues to go unchecked, will move us dangerously down the road to social anarchy. Along with that, citizens will wonder why we bother with elected democracy at all if a small group of selected, unelected and protected people are making all the decisions.
It has been unsettling enough to see courts telling governments what they can or cannot do on items such as reducing taxes or providing social benefits. The trend is now at its zenith as many of us watch in awe as unelected judges take it upon themselves to order parliaments to change the legal and dictionary definition of marriage.
Just as an aside, in talking to editors of the Oxford dictionary, they have no intention whatsoever to change the age old definition of marriage. They recognize better than the courts and some politicians that the definition of marriage predates governments, religious systems and in fact the written word.
We must restore the balance to our judicial and democratic process, and today we must stand for what we know to be true about the effect on society of marriage. History is clear, as cited by Toynbee and others, that no civilization has ever survived a societal decision to cease protecting and promoting this thing we call marriage, the legal, unique definition of a union between a man and a women.
(1515)
I make these comments today encouraged by the majority view of my constituents and by the phrase in our Canadian constitution imploring me to recognize the supremacy of God and the conviction deep in my heart that Canada will not be able to handle financially or socially the effects and consequences of a parliamentary or judicial decree putting an end to marriage as we know it.
May we keep these things in mind as we debate this. May God keep our land.
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon. member a question which has come to me after listening to the debate today.
Several members on all sides of the House and somebody from the Conservative Party quite eloquently asked what it was about the idea of same sex relationships and their impact on heterosexual relationships? How will someone who has a longstanding, loving relationship with someone of the same sex dilute in any way impact on your own relationship which I gather is with someone of the opposite sex. I clearly do not understand why you have that problem seeing as we are talking about tolerance and loving relationships.
The Speaker: I remind the hon. member for Dartmouth to address her comments to the Chair.
Mr. Stockwell Day: Mr. Speaker, we have acknowledged that people can have relations with whomever they choose. They have the legal right in practically every province to do that.
The member asked what is there about different types of relationships that will dilute marriage. It is the changing of the definition of marriage that will dilute the notion of the uniqueness of marriage between a man and a woman.
About three years ago we saw a reversal in the somewhat disturbing trend of people abandoning the idea of marriage as a social institution as people once again began to embrace and put faith in the aspect of family and of marriage as defined between a man and a woman. Is it not now ironic that as society moves to embrace the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman, the courts and their parliamentary accomplices are about to drive a legal stake through the heart of the definition of marriage? We do not have the mandate to do that. It is not our role to do that.
It is not other relationships that will affect marriage itself. It is we as elected people in conjunction with the courts ending marriage as we know it that will weaken marriage.
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, I recently read a very informative, insightful and well thought out column by Richard Gwyn which I do not know if any other members read. He said:
|
Now that the law is to be amended to legalize marriages between same-sex couples, in what way is an intimate relationship between a man and two women or between two men and a woman...less deserving of being recognized as a legitimate marriage? |
He went on to say:
|
[It] is wrong only to assume implicitly that the current change--permitting same-sex marriages--will be the last change... |
|
At some point, a marriage will cease to be a marriage in any recognizable sense of that term. |
I want to ask the member if we are not running the risk of destroying the institution of marriage entirely. What is the member's opinion that same sex marriage is indeed a contradiction in terms, that marriage is a heterosexual relationship, is a unique form of sexual expression and is necessary to procreation?
(1520)
Mr. Stockwell Day: Mr. Speaker, I find myself agreeing with the premise of the hon. member's question. I made reference to it in my remarks. I would forewarn the member because he has raised the possibility.
Because there is no clear definition of what sexual orientation is and once we abandon a clear definition of what marriage should be, he has suggested, in quoting a reporter or journalist, that other types of relationships will come to the fore demanding legal recognition. I can almost guarantee he will be ridiculed and derided by some of the all-wise elites who say what a ridiculous notion that is. I do not think it is a ridiculous notion. It is a very clear possibility.
As I indicated, I have already had an occasion in my office where a gentleman was making a proposal that we should change the definition of marriage to accommodate his particular orientation to have more than one wife. As a matter of fact, he had two at that particular time. He had recently emigrated here. He was a hard-working guy, a taxpayer, a law-abiding individual, which I appreciated, but he wanted me to change the law so he could legalize the present relationship which he was now in. I told him that he was living that situation now and that he was not going to get arrested for that. However he was asking me to go out to my constituents and make a change to allow him to be legally recognized as married to two women now, and he suggested there could be more in the future, with all the incumbent rights.
As I referenced earlier, society cannot afford the effects of the abandoning of the definition of marriage. We cannot afford young couples moving away from an enhanced sense of responsibility when it comes to the upbringing of children. We cannot afford society moving away from a sense of responsibility to care for the aging members of a marriage union. We cannot afford, as the hon. member mentioned, society moving to embrace the rights and all the incumbent costs of a variety of types of relationships, some which maybe those of us here in the House have not even imagined or contemplated.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I believe there is a consensus among us, and I am convinced there is, that this issue is complex, it is sensitive, it is emotional and it is divisive. This is why I think we should approach it with great mutual respect and with tolerance.
I would like to say here and now that I approach it with a feeling of total understanding of the position of the side that I do not share. At the same time, I have always had and continue to have a profound conviction and belief in the traditional definition of marriage.
While I treat the views of the other side with the greatest respect and sensitivity, I think we should be extremely cautious before we abandon the traditional definition of marriage and rely on the judgment of the Ontario court, which I have read and reread with a lot of seriousness. I would like to refer to that.
The position adopted by the judges was that the provisions of section 15(1), which enshrine the equality of individuals under law, when measured against the intent of section 1, which provides for reasonable limits in the application of rights and freedoms under the charter, should predominate. The court came to the conclusion that section 15 (1) should predominate because there were no grounds for invoking the reasonable limits under section 1. The court ruled unreservedly in favour of same sex marriage on the basis inter alia of section 15(1) of the charter.
Recently, before my colleagues, I deplored the fact that no consultation or debate took place as to whether we should appeal or not appeal to the Supreme Court, and how, if the decision were to refer, we should have had more debate or consultation as to what the substance of that reference should be. It was all imposed from on high.
The Globe and Mail published a long article after my caucus intervention, following which I declined to give an interview, recognizing the confidentiality of caucus. It followed that up with an editorial questioning my good faith and bringing into comparison a speech I made in 1988 in the Quebec National Assembly about rights, a speech known as “rights are rights are rights”.
The contexts were totally different. In the 1988 case, the right of freedom of expression, a universal and fundamental human right enshrined in the universal declaration of human rights, was taken away by legislation. Five resolutions of the party in power, my party, had been passed, saying we would recognize a judgment of the Supreme Court. When the Supreme Court judged, we decided to use the notwithstanding clause to suspend the judgment.
What I said this time was very different. My questions were rhetorical in form. I addressed the whole question of limitation of acquired rights. I said that marriage in its traditional definition has been a universally accepted institution over the millennia. It is not just a matter of law. It is a complex web of social, legal, moral, religious, sociological and natural elements.
On this basis could it be, and it was a question, that the Supreme Court might see differently from the Ontario and B.C. courts regarding the reasonable limits provision of section 1 of the charter? Maybe not, but possibly yes. After all, this is why we have a Supreme Court: to have a court of last resort that reflects on these issues after lower courts have decided.
I looked at the judgment of the Ontario court. In its analysis, it says, “the issues raised in this appeal are questions of law”. It said further, “In our view, 'marriage' does not have a constitutionally fixed meaning”. In this it contradicts our previous justice minister, who felt it did. In saying it did not have a constitutionally fixed meaning, the court said that society evolves and compared this to banking and criminal law.
(1525)
Many of us feel that marriage is far more than a strict question of law, that certain institutions, because of their intrinsic nature, are surely less flexible and evolutive than others. What about monogamy? Should it be evolutive under the law according to the evolving mores of society? Should we accept, in due course, poly-unions or polygamy because societal evolution dictates that way?
This is where the role of Parliament comes in. The role of Parliament is to address far more than the strict definition of laws. It is to take into account social mores and sociological impacts, all the various components that form a whole, a far broader concept of societal issues. Otherwise, EI as we know it today, employment insurance, would be ultra vires under the law because it does put people in different categories. An appeal would have given us time to address these issues and possibly craft a consensus among mutually respectful people.
When I married, I got married in two separate phases. There were two ceremonies, one a civil union, and, on a completely different date, a religious marriage. For me, I took the religious marriage as the date of my marriage.
There are solutions ahead of us if we had just looked at them, if we had discussed them, if we had had a debate here before the minister decided on his reference, which he imposed upon us, including the substance of it.
It is symptomatic that the U.K., which cherishes human rights just as much as we do, has decided to take 10 years to evolve on this issue and to find a consensus. It is symptomatic that so far only two nations in the world, the Netherlands and Belgium, have decided to put aside the universal acceptance of marriage.
I am extremely sad that because of the hasty and autocratic treatment of this very delicate issue by our government, we are now living polarization and emotion such that Canadians have been divided into two camps. The letters fly back and forth; the emotion is intense. I am convinced that if we had adopted a more judicious treatment of it, we could have avoided the division and malaise we have visited upon ourselves.
I keep hoping and praying, against all hopes I must say, but one has to hope, that somehow we will find it in ourselves, maybe through this debate, to get together and find a solution that is acceptable to those who claim that marriage is for all of us and to those who claim, like I do, that the traditional definition of marriage between a man and a woman should endure into the long term.
(1530)
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity to express my sentiments on this to the hon. member who just spoke and get his comments.
My position echoes the sentiments of Norman Spector, who is a B.C. political commentator and in fact was previously a Canadian ambassador. For a variety of reasons, Canadians have an interest in finding ways to strengthen marriage, especially given the relationship between poverty and family breakdown. I really congratulate the hon. member for pointing out, I believe, that it is inappropriate to have the flavour of the month override the fabric of our society throughout the ages.
I acknowledge that gays and lesbians raise kids, that not all heterosexual couples have children, and that society allows infertile men and women to marry. However, these exceptions do not prove the rule and the rule is that gay and lesbian unions, while professing to share much in common with traditional marriage, can never be about procreation and therefore are different in one very fundamental respect. Neither the courts, political parties nor societies at large should seek to change or erode this distinction.
I look at this the way my parents would look at it. I know how they would feel. In fact, ironically, the hon. member knew my father very well, and I am sure he knows how he would feel on this as well. I appreciate the hon. member's words. I invite his