More from the Hansard

[bcholmes]

Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.) (for the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada) [Translated] Understand that in seven provinces and one territory, the lawful union of two people of the same sex in civil marriage is already the law of the land. The debate here today is not about whether to change the definition of marriage—it has been changed. The debate comes down to whether we should override a right that is now in place. The debate comes down to the charter, the protection of minority rights, and whether the federal government should invoke the notwithstanding clause.

I know that some think we should use the clause. For example, some religious leaders feel this way. I respect their candour in publicly recognizing that because same sex marriage is already legal in most of the country, the only way—the only way—to again make civil marriage the exclusive domain of opposite sex couples is to use the notwithstanding clause.

[English]

Ultimately, there is only one issue before the House in this debate. For most Canadians, in most parts of our country, same sex marriage is already the law of the land. Thus, the issue is not whether rights are to be granted. The issue is whether rights that have been granted are to be taken away.

Some are frank and straightforward and say yes. Others have not been so candid. Despite being confused--

An hon. member: Who's confused?

Right Hon. Paul Martin: You are.

Despite being confronted with clear facts, despite being confronted with the unanimous opinion of 134 legal scholars, experts in their field, intimately familiar with the Constitution, some have chosen to not be forthright with Canadians. They have eschewed the honest approach in favour of the political approach. They have attempted to cajole the public into believing that we can return to the past with a simple snap of the fingers, that we can revert to the traditional definition of marriage without consequence and without overriding the charter. They are insincere. They are disingenuous. And they are wrong.

There is one question that demands an answer, a straight answer, from those who would seek to lead this nation and its people. It is a simple question. Will the notwithstanding clause be used to overturn the definition of civil marriage and deny Canadians a right that is guaranteed under the charter?

This question does not demand rhetoric. It demands clarity. There are only two legitimate answers: yes or no. Not the demagoguery we have heard, not the dodging, not the flawed reasoning, not the false options, but simply yes or no. Will we take away a right that is guaranteed under the charter? I, for one, will answer that question and I will answer it clearly. I will say no.

I don't personally like Paul Martin as Prime Minister, but I think he did a good job yesterday.

Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleague and leader of the Bloc the following question.

One of the arguments presented by opponents of same sex marriage, as formulated by the leader of the opposition, is that of freedom of religion and the fear that adopting Bill C-38 would interfere with that freedom.

Is the opposite not true? In other words, is it not true that today, if the bill does not pass, and same sex marriage remains illegal, religious groups—I am thinking of the United Church, the Unitarian Church, the reformed branch of Judaism—who want to marry same sex couples, will not be able to do so because same sex marriage is illegal. If Bill C-38 does pass, it would permit these people—meaning these groups—who want to marry same sex couples to do so, while also protecting the right of the Catholic Church, the Baptist Church and other religious groups not to marry same sex couples if they so choose. In other words, will we not achieve the appropriate balance by protecting the right of some to perform marriages if they so choose and the right of others to not perform such marriages, if that is their choice?

Mr. Gilles Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, I am in complete agreement with my colleague's logic. In short, it should be extremely clear that, in all the positions taken and all the legislation adopted here, the state must never impose rules on any religion. I think we all agree on this. However, I would also like us all to agree that religions must not impose rights and ways of doing things on the secular state.

I repeat: the religious beliefs of some must not become the law of the land. Respecting everyone means having deep respect for the religious beliefs of those who have them, but it also means respecting the beliefs of faiths other than our own. Those are two things.

It is extremely dangerous to have this confusion between state and church. This leads to the type of regime we condemn. This leads to the worst excesses. I am not targeting any religion in particular. All religions have experienced such excesses. I hope that, one day, all religions will repudiate them.

Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the leader of the Bloc Québécois on his contention that the religion of some must not become the law of others. This is, without contradiction, the true expression of the freedom we would all like to enjoy in this country. Many religions want to impose their laws on the world. What matters is that, in our society, we are all free to pursue our own religions and values. This is the basis of Canadian society.

I would like to ask the hon. member this. I come from Toronto, which has a strong gay and lesbian community. I believe that this community makes a contribution to our city. I believe that their being free and able to contribute as full fledged citizens helps to enrich Canada. That will strengthen our rights.

Would the hon. member agree that it is the same in Quebec? Our common rights are strengthened when we all enjoy the same rights and live in a society where everyone can contribute to the fullest of their abilities. Does the hon. member not agree with this statement as it relates to Quebec as well as to the rest of Canada?

Mr. Gilles Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, I agree entirely with that statement. As hon. members know, the level of democracy in a society is measured by the respect it shows to its minorities. If we want these people to contribute fully to the well-being and growth of society in all its forms, in economic, cultural or sports terms, one of the most important conditions is that they be allowed to grow and be happy instead of being stigmatized.

Too many people have not fulfilled their potential because they felt restricted by their sexual orientation. Many rejected it, trying to escape themselves. But we do not choose our sexual orientation: we are born with it. To deny the reality is to say to some people that they should not have been born. I shall never tolerate such a thing.

Comments

[lovecraftienne.livejournal.com]

I hate when they get drawn into the red-herring argument about whether it's innate or chosen. Our Charter of Rights provides protections both on the basis of innate traits =and= chosen behaviours (skin colour and religion, to name a pair). It's an irritating way the Religious Reich are constantly trying to sidetrack the argument.

[bcholmes.livejournal.com]

On the other hand, there is (in my opinion) a valid argument that religion is not a choice but a calling.

[lovecraftienne.livejournal.com]

In any case, there are protections either way: it is a moot point whether sexual orientation comes from either source, as either source is shown as a protected class.

Myself, I tend to think there's a born quality that lends the potential, and our environment determines the expression of it.

[hobbitbabe.livejournal.com]

Hansard never made me cry before.

[the-siobhan.livejournal.com]

I love my country.

[hellsop.livejournal.com]

Excellence. Sheer excellence.

[50-ft-queenie.livejournal.com]

Wow. I'm speechless, in a good way.

[epi-lj.livejournal.com]

I've been proud to be a Canadian many times in my life. Reading these transcripts is one of them.

[sagesse.livejournal.com]

This makes me want to watch C-Span! What a bunch of great guys.

[hobbitbabe.livejournal.com]

Oh! Yet another thing that I would have loved sharing with my late father. He adored watching coverage of judicial hearings and stuff like that on television.

[beskippy.livejournal.com]

No kidding! They got right to the point, and made it clear that we need to drop all the rhetoric and BS. I also approved of the fact that they made it clear that church and state need to remain divided, but that people still have freedom of religion and can choose to marry/not marry same-sex couples. Good good.

[chemlabgoddess.livejournal.com]

I love your country too! I may cry a little now.