Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, Lib.)

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to stand and be counted. I say with great respect to the member who has just spoken that I profoundly disagree with him, but I certainly respect his position.

The proposed legislation enshrines religious liberty. The legislation says any church, any mosque, and any religious organization that does not support same sex marriage does not have to be a part of same sex marriage. They do not have to conduct any kind of ceremony with respect to same sex marriage. I am glad that we have that in the legislation because I can assure the House that if we did not have that kind of religious liberty I would not be supporting it, but I do.

I am sure that the member believes in religious liberty as well, but what does he say to the United Church of Canada which has evolved like so many institutions and now is in favour of same sex marriage? What does he say to the Unitarian Church of Canada? What does he say to the Quaker's of Canada who want to marry same sex couples? Will he deny them that religious liberty?

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Mr. Speaker, I would say three things to that. One is that it is interesting that the member who just spoke supported this same motion in 1999. He felt it was a good idea at the time and has changed his mind now. I do not know what has changed. If it is a principled decision he is making, I do not know what principle has changed over the last four years. I would suggest none. In fact it is exactly the same motion. Nothing has been changed.

Second, the promise in the proposed legislation, which we are not dealing with today and which has been referred to the Supreme Court, there is a line about protecting religious institutions that choose not to marry same sex couples.

On Wednesday we will be dealing with Bill C-250 which would add sexual orientation to the list of protected groups under the hate crimes legislation. If that goes through I guarantee that someone will bring forward an argument that not agreeing to marry someone of the same sex constitutes an infringement on their rights and an identifiable hate crime under this section of the law if that legislation passes on Wednesday, which is a good possibility.

I would say that it is faint reassurance to say to people that it is in legislation so they can be confident. Many people are not even confident given the charter protections, let alone legislative protection, because they see it as a win for the government, not something that we can count on in the long term. That is a problem that will not satisfy, not just the religious groups but it will not satisfy people who just want to believe in one thing and not the other. However not even being allowed to say it is a serious concern, not only for religious groups but for society at large.

I wish to give one of the hon. members who has not yet spoken today an opportunity to do so.

The hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska.

Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC)

Mr. Speaker, in the same vein as my Liberal colleague, I would like to remind my hon. colleague from the Canadian Alliance that his leader, after oral question period—not concerning Bill C-250, but rather the bill he will introduce this week—made it very clear that if a church in Canada, any church at all, marries two people of the same sex, that is illegal. Is that what religious freedom looks like in Canada?

After oral question period, the leader of the Canadian Alliance said that if churches marry same sex couples, it is illegal. But for religious freedom to be protected, it goes both ways.

What does the hon. member think of his leader's remarks?

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Mr. Speaker, I think we are talking about two separate issues. What we are talking about is if an organization of whatever sort wants to hold a meeting and say that it declares the following, it can do whatever it likes. There is nothing to stop anyone from doing whatever they like. What we are talking about is the definition of marriage under federal statute. That is our job. Churches will do as they will. They have meetings, their own constitutions and they will decide internally about their own policies and what they will do and who stands in the pulpit, who gives an oration and that is their business.

I would encourage people to vote for the current definition and work toward an understanding in a compassionate way to deal with other relationships. As the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca said, we must find another way to deal with other relationships that are important, that are part of a changing and evolving society but not to attack the institution of marriage in order to do it. It does not help anyone's case to say that he or she must have something that was started in the misty past of the dawn of history in legislation or else it is not fair. That is not true. It is an evolving society. We must have evolving institutions but that does not mean we have to redefine marriage in order to do it.

Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas, Health; the hon. member from Saskatoon—Humboldt, Employment Insurance.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.)

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Scarborough East for agreeing to share his time with me as I acknowledge this issue which is occupying a great proportion of Canadians' collective consciousness. It is a debate where everyone has a usually firm opinion.

I would even add that this debate gives rise to more than argumentation, reasoning and ideas. It also gives rise to strong emotions, since morality, social conscience and religious beliefs come into play, whether we will or no.

It is therefore with some trepidation and with humility that I engage in this debate hoping to encourage a dialogue between groups and individuals of deferring views, and to encourage understanding, not only among colleagues who will be called to vote on the issue, but also among our constituents to whom we are all ultimately accountable.

As members of Parliament, we must look at all issues from a number of different perspectives, since we are simultaneously individuals, elected representatives and lawmakers. For the hon. members, in my opinion, examining these three roles is essential when establishing one's position on topics like the one now before us.

It is up to Parliament to protect minorities and it does so by first debating and then passing legislation. It does so when members of Parliament strike a balance between the three roles they play when they consider, not only their personal beliefs but also the opinions of their constituents and the implications for our constitution, our charter and all of the laws they encompass.

Personally, I am a Canadian citizen, a native of Ontario and a child of francophone parents. This is an important aspect of my life, since I have often fought long and hard—and sometimes still do—to obtain certain fundamental rights, such as the right to be educated in my mother tongue. As a result, I became very aware of the reality faced by minorities. This was primarily before the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was adopted.

I want to recognize the contribution of a Premier of Ontario, the Hon. Bill Davis, without whom francophones would probably not have access to a high school education.

This was before the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which was adopted in 1982. People knew at the time that it would have a major impact on our society. It did, in fact, have such an impact.

The charter that we adopted is of great importance in my life and in the lives of numerous individuals and minority groups. In the application of the charter and laws that have been adopted since, we as a society have learned to live and let live, and to respect that others may and will have different points of view. I have also learned to be proud of my country and in its capacity to evolve, to accept and then to embrace change both pre- and post-charter.

Various fundamental decisions have been mentioned, such as giving women the right to vote. No one would dare consider reopening this for debate today.

Remember the flag debate. It was divisive, but today we are all proud of the flag.

The same is true of the decriminalization of homosexuality in 1969. No one I talked to since this debate began has suggested that we go back to the way things were in 1969.

On the issue of marriage, I think that there has also been an evolution. That is why I am talking about it today. I think that most Canadians agree that marriage is not just an institution to ensure procreation and the survival of the species. It is also a social institution covered by legislation and by comprehensive jurisprudence to protect spouses and their offspring, if any. Finally, it is also an institution by which a couple seeks love, a shared life and understanding.

As members of the House of Commons, we have a responsibility to represent the will of the citizens of our ridings to the best of our abilities, citizens who come from all walks of life, who adhere to different political philosophies and who hold every opinion imaginable. In this sense, the views of the majority must be carefully weighed and given precedence when they do not impede on the rights of the minority.

This brings me to the point that, in addition to representing the many points of view of my constituents, I was also elected to make decisions. Of course we always do our best to make the right decision, in other words, the decision that best represents the will of the public we represent.

The wonderful thing about this responsibility for making decisions is that the final decision always rests with the public we represent. If the people in my riding are unhappy with my decisions or my votes, they can choose, every four years or less, not to re-elect me.

Judging from the correspondence, the telephone calls, the e-mails, the conversations I have had and the comments I have heard since the Ontario Court of Appeal precipitated this debate, a majority, albeit a slim one, but a majority of the constituents of Ottawa—Vanier are in favour of recognizing the rights of homosexuals to marry.

Polls published in different papers, undertaken by different companies, have tended to indicate that is so. Therefore, in the case of Ottawa—Vanier, I believe I uphold both the will of the majority and the rights of the minority by being in favour of extending the right of marriage to same sex couples.

There is the issue of member as legislator. Before beginning my work, I took an oath, and from time to time, I have to think back to this oath to uphold the Constitution, the laws of the land and democracy.

I had to do so in two cases where I intervened in court proceedings to help people who were appearing before the courts to have their rights upheld, namely in the Montreal rally case, and now in another case that will soon be heard: the Quigley case, which pits an individual against this parliament.

I must perform my role as legislator with respect, responsibility and balance. In terms of respect, I would like to refer to the religious aspect of the word “marriage”. I think it behooves us to protect the ability of religious groups to discriminate, to say that they will not offer the sacrament of marriage to homosexual couples, based on their own beliefs, the way the Roman Catholic Church does with divorced couples, or other religions.

We must also protect the ability of a religious group to say yes, we agree to recognize same sex couples, the way the United Church does.

Because the charter guarantees freedom of conscience and religion, this freedom must be available to all and not just to those who accept, or do not accept, same sex marriages.

Then there is the aspect of responsibility. There is no doubt whatsoever, under the Canadian constitution, section 91, subsection 26—which I imagine we are now all familiar with—that the matter of marriage and its fundamental conditions falls under the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada. It is also a matter of national uniformity on this. As a result, when the constitution was drafted in 1867, this matter was designated as a federal responsibility.

I have read the court interpretations of the cases in Quebec, British Columbia and Ontario, and accept them. I am applying my own reasoning. I also believe that the charter is very clear, and this is what is seen from a reading of these decisions. The charter is very clear; we cannot discriminate, we cannot have a separate regime unless we invoke the notwithstanding clause, and that is a debate for another day.

Finally, we must seek some balance. This leads to this criterion, where I believe it is possible for Parliament, with one law, to respect the charter, that is the civil aspect of the word marriage, to recognize that all couples, whether of the same sex or opposite sexes, must be able to be married, because this is a contractual matter, and to also recognize the religious meaning of marriage and to protect that, in order to protect the ability of the various churches and sects to discriminate.

I think that the legislator would in this way have attained a respectful and responsible balance, and this law would then meet the charter test and the section 1 test. I would just like to quote section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which reads as follows:

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

I therefore believe that all of the elements are in place in order to be able to effectively fulfill our triple role as MPs and to create a situation with which the large majority of Canadians can identify and feel comfortable.

Finally, I wish to share with colleagues that the notion that this Parliament should deal with this legislation is one that I share. I have heard many colleagues mention today that they would prefer that Parliament be seized of this bill instead of sending it to the Supreme Court for reference. I share that view and I believe that if we as parliamentarians were seized of that legislation and passed it, it would stand the test of the charter and section 1 of the charter.

Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among House leaders and I have a series of motions which I would like to propose to the House. All of them have been agreed to by House leaders of the various parties.

The first one is, that the division on report stage of Bill C-34 be further deferred to immediately before any deferred division on private member's business at 5:30 p.m. on Wednesday, September 17, 2003.:

The division was scheduled for later this day. In other words, the motion is to defer that vote until tomorrow.

Is there unanimous consent?

Agreed.

Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Mr. Speaker, there has been unanimous consent for the following:

That, during debate on Bill C-421, the Speaker shall not receive any quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent and when debate concludes, a division shall be deemed to have been requested and deferred to Wednesday, September 17, 2003 at 5:30 p.m.

Is there unanimous consent?

Agreed.

Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Mr. Speaker, I think you would find unanimous consent for the following:

That Motion No. 200 be withdrawn from the Order Paper.

This is at the request of the hon. member for Beaches--East York, in whose name the motion stands.

Is it agreed?

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

Hon. Don Boudria

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House that I shall be proposing that Bill C-49 be referred to committee before second reading.

Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the last speaker and I have two questions I would like to ask him.

Would he agree that the majority of Canadians who agree with the change to the definition of marriage are actually unaware that same sex couples already enjoy the rights and privileges of common law couples?

I have to tell him that in my own riding three mainstream ministers have told me that they will no longer marry anyone of either persuasion if this is upheld in the House of Commons. Does the member think there would be any valid reason for people to feel that uncomfortable that they are going to refuse to marry any couples?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

Mr. Speaker, the answer to both questions is no.