JUST Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, June 12, 2003

¹

1540

The Chair (Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.))

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ)

¹

1545

¹

1550

¹

1555

º

1600

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.)

º

1605

º

1610

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance)

º

1615

The Chair

Mr. Joe Peschisolido (Richmond, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.)

º

1620

º

1625

The Chair

Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance)

º

1630

º

1635

The Chair

Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance)

º

1640

º

1645

The Chair

Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.)

º

1650

º

1655

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP)

The Chair

Mr. Pat O'Brien

The Chair

Mr. Pat O'Brien

The Chair

Mr. John McKay

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Mr. Joe Peschisolido

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.)

The Chair

»

1700

The Chair

Mr. Pat O'Brien

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

»

1705

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ)

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Mr. Pat O'Brien

»

1710

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

»

1715

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Ms. Marlene Jennings

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Ms. Marlene Jennings

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Ms. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Réal Ménard

Ms. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Réal Ménard

Ms. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Réal Ménard

Ms. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Réal Ménard

Ms. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Réal Ménard

Ms. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Réal Ménard

Ms. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

»

1750

The Chair

Mr. Pat O'Brien

The Chair

Mr. Pat O'Brien

The Chair

Mr. Pat O'Brien

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

»

1755

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Jennings

0000

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

¼

1805

¼

1810

Ms. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

Mr. Pat O'Brien

The Chair

Mr. Pat O'Brien

The Chair

Mr. John Maloney

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

---

NUMBER 062

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Thursday, June 12, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1540)  

[English]

    The Chair (Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.)): I call to order the 62nd meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

    Today we are continuing discussion of Mr. Robinson's motion. I am simply continuing on the list that began this morning. The next speaker on the motion by Mr. Robinson is Monsieur Ménard.

[Translation]

    Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I would first like to congratulate our colleague from Burnaby--Douglas for introducing this motion. I think it's a democratic move that will allow us to express a certain number of things. I would like to express myself not through legal argument—I think our arguments are known—but perhaps by addressing this in a more personal manner and by making an effort to understand the logic of those who are not prepared to vote in favour of our colleague Svend's motion.

    However, I will not make a secret of the fact that I do have a bit of a problem. This is the seventh time we are debating this matter in the Commons. You will remember that in 1995 I had introduced a motion requesting recognition for same-sex spouses. The interesting thing is that in 1995 the then member for Saint-Léonard, Alphonso Gagliano, had orchestrated things and managed to have a vote held on the Monday morning and the only person from Cabinet who showed up—I don't know if my colleague remembers this—was Sheila Copps. I found her very courageous. So we've had seven debates since the Chrétien government has been steering the Canadian ship of state. There was the one on my motion; there was the one on clause 718 of the Criminal Code, about hate crimes, there was the one about the whole matter of the Rosenberg decision and pensions; there was the one on common-law same-sex spouses; of course, there was the one about sexual orientation in the Canadian Human Rights Act; there was the one initiated by our colleagues from the Reform Party who tabled a motion in 1999; and now there is Svend's, that is the government one, in other words, the consultations we are now undertaking.

    There are two or three arguments that come up time after time and that are hard to understand. It seems to me the effort we should be making today is to understand why homosexual people want to get married. I don't think that marriage is entered into primarily for legal consideration. It is true that in most laws that we have today concerning common-law spouses, benefits are recognized equally for people who are of the same sex.

    I was both intrigued and slightly surprised by the speech made by the Member for London--Fanshawe, but I respect what was said and I understand his point of view. Later on, if he takes the floor, I'd like him to explain if his grandson or even his son were to announce that he had a homosexual orientation... No one, as a parliamentarian, is sheltered from that. There are realities based on probabilities and others based on statistics, but no one around this table can ignore the fact that some day or another his children or grandchildren might announce they are homosexual.

    Isn't it the role of the legislator to try to make sure that we are living in a society where there is less and less discrimination? Why is marriage important? Marriage is important for all the reasons that are given in the area of equality, but also because one hopes that the 13 or 14-year-old living in London, Toronto, Burnaby, Hochelaga--Maisonneuve or New Brunswick can know that we are preparing a kind of society where being homosexual will be a positive reality.

    Mr. Chairman, we were five children at home, each and every one them more charming than the other. So my elder brother is a police officer, I have a twin brother who is heterosexual and very much so, I also have a sister, and my mother had a child at the age of 40 years with my father. Now, when I told my family, when I was 18, that I was homosexual I know that for my parents it wasn't something very positive, not because my parents weren't open-minded or because they didn't love me, but because they were raised in the 1940s Montreal public schools because they lived in Quebec in the 1940s, and nothing had prepared them for this to be something positive. Of course, because I've been living as a couple with someone else for many years now, my parents have learned to know and understand what homosexual reality is.

    I'm trying to understand and I'm making quite an effort humanly speaking to understand the argument of those who are opposed to the motion put forward by our colleague and those who are opposed to recognizing marriage as an institution.

    First of all, someone will eventually have to tell us if those values having to do with marriage... I think that when we decide to marry, there is a commitment to at least a certain number of values, if only support, fidelity and reciprocal commitment. I'd like our colleagues to explain to us, Mr. Speaker, in what way those values differ for homosexuals as compared to heterosexuals.

¹  (1545)  

    I'm not saying that when you're living as a couple with a same-sex partner that it's easier and that everything is magical and that everything is always fine for that couple. But, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to be told how that will change our values. I'd like someone to tell me how the institution of marriage is threatened, why it is less noble and why it will be less positive. That is my first argument.

    Second, Mr. Chairman, it is difficult to reconcile oneself with the arguments coming from our colleagues telling us that they are against discrimination, that they think that gays should be treated like any ordinary citizen, but, when faced with the most important thing one can do in one's life, which is to make a commitment in a loving relationship and publicly recognize that commitment, then they say no, that it's not true that equality should go that far. And they're ready to set limits and barriers.

    So there are some questions that need answers. But we're also going to have to put an end to a certain kind of contradiction which is that we should go before the courts, but that they still want parliamentarians to assume their responsibilities.

    I think we should be grateful to Svend Robinson for what he has done, which means that there will be no further complacency because we're going to have to vote. It won't be possible to say that you want... Since they've set foot in this Parliament, our friends from the Canadian Alliance have been saying, and have had reason to say, that we have to put an end to legal activism. It's not up to the courts to decide instead of the legislators. We earn $137,000 per year, we are part of a select club of 301 people out of 30 million and we have the opportunity to be leaders and show the way.

    I do actually think that our colleagues from the Canadian Alliance are right in saying that we have to put an end to legal activism. Parliamentarians must make a decision and show the way. But it won't be possible to say that we are in favour of the right to equality and full citizenship for all people living in Canada and Quebec, but that we don't want to recognize their right to marry. One will have to live with the consequences. Those who vote against marriage for homosexual people will have to accept the fact that it is a discriminatory act. I will go even further and say that it is evidence of institutionalized homophobia.

    Institutionalized homophobia is when you do something that means that you don't want to recognize those with a homosexual orientation as being true citizens. You have the right to be homophobic, but you have to accept that that's what it means when you don't vote in favour of recognizing the right for homosexuals to marry.

    I'll end on this note. It's institutionalized homophobia and we shouldn't be afraid to recognize it. There is no other way to describe this denial of rights of homosexuals than to recognize that it is a form of institutionalized homophobia. Homophobia is subtle. Homophobia doesn't only mean calling people names; there is more to it than just beating up on gays and lesbians.

    Laurent McCutcheon who appeared before this committee, here in Ottawa, and who was mandated by the previous Government of Quebec, got $65,000 from the Department of Relations with Citizens and Immigration to hold a national anti-homophobia day. All across Quebec, in rural communities as well as urban, there were all kinds of demonstrations. But what does it change if governments give budgets allowing the different communities to make more room for homosexuals in public life if we don't show consistency where rights are concerned? And the consistency in this matter of their rights, the cross-road, the borderline, the road we are walking down, is definitely the right to marry.

¹  (1550)  

    I'll end with the matter of those who have had only outside relationships with homosexuality. I understand that there are members who may not have direct contact with homosexual people. When you live in Montreal or Toronto or Vancouver, when you live in a big city, you always know homosexual people if only through others. But when you live in a small community, I understand it's not the same thing. Let's ask ourselves: what is the message we're going to send if, as parliamentarians, we can't recognize one of the most positive things in life which is the one of wanting to make a commitment, and to make such a serious commitment that we're ready to celebrate this commitment so that it may be recognized publicly and made known, Mr. Chairman, to our families, our friends and the people we live with?

    Mr. Chairman, we're going to need explanations. We're told it's going to threaten the family. That argument comes back like clockwork. First of all, those who have dealt the most mortal blow to the family—and we can agree on this, Mr. Chairman— are the heterosexuals, because the people divorcing right now are actually heterosexual persons. So the most difficult cases, those who have shown the most disrespect, who have mangled the family, are, of course, heterosexuals.

    Mr. Chairman, should a few words not be devoted to those who are married, who have mistresses, who show no loyalty towards their marriage? However, do we say that those who have not honoured those commitments are not real heterosexuals, are not real citizens and that they should renounce the institution of marriage? Of course not.

    So, Mr. Chairman, I hope that later on, our colleague for London--Fanshawe, our colleague for Scarborough-Est and our colleagues who show some reticence... I can understand their point of view. Once again, we all come from heterosexual families and all homosexuals can testify as to how hard it was for their family and to what extent that reality is not rapidly and immediately accepted. But the following question is the one we will have to ask ourselves. Is there really someone around this table who believes that the feeling of love is different?

    For me, the most beautiful moment of the day, Mr. Chairman, is of course when I'm sitting here with you at the Justice Committee but it's also when I go back home at night and see Thomas after I haven't seen him all day. I go back home to my chum. We're together again and it's a joy to be together. Is the feeling of love I have for Thomas or that others have for their spouses different according to whether you're a man or a woman? Mr. Chairman, if the answer to that question is yes, then I understand a vote against marriage, but it still bears explaining. If our friend John McKay thinks that the feeling of love is not different whether you're in a homosexual relationship or a heterosexual relationship, then I think that voting against the right to marry is a show of discrimination, inconsistency, irrationality and institutionalized homophobia.

    Let's not make the mistake of thinking that if we don't deal with the question ourselves the courts won't deal with it. I am sure there are activists in this room or elsewhere in Canada hoping that we'll go before the Supreme Court because, statistically speaking, very plausibly, chances are that the people on the Supreme Court, who know the law and who know the scope of clause 15, who know what the lower courts have said, will render a decision favourable to homosexual couples. But then the parliamentary institution will be devalued. How can people trust parliamentarians, men and women elected by the population, paid a wage that can be called generous—not excessive, but generous—if we abdicate our responsibilities?

    Mr. Chairman, once again, every time there has been debate in this chamber, the same arguments have always been brought back onto the floor. The arguments of those opposed can be summarized in a few lines: threat to the family, has nothing to do with procreation. Not a real commitment. Not natural, goes against God's will. Mr. Chairman, all those arguments were shot down one by one by the people who came before us and by the courts.

¹  (1555)  

    Let's ask ourselves if the feeling of love exists for persons with a homosexual orientation and if it is authentic love. We know a lot of people who have been committed to a homosexual relationship for 20, 30 or 40 years and were there reciprocally when one or the other needed support.

    For all those reasons, marriage must be allowed to be celebrated. Does that mean that all homosexuals want to get married? If I put that question to my neighbour on the left, I don't know what his answer would be. I for one, when I put that question to my chum, he shows a bit of a doubt. I'm not sure that he wants to marry me tomorrow morning. However, Mr. Chairman, I take the whole thing rather personally.

    In any case, what is a certainty is that you have to have a choice and when homosexually-oriented people want to marry, they must be able to have the choice if we give them the possibility to do so.

    Last summer, I went to the wedding of my best friend. His name is Dominic. He's a professor of management at Concordia University. His partner is a morals teacher who teaches in a public school in Montreal. They married before a pastor in Montreal, in the heart of the village.

    Don't you think that that is the most beautiful day of their lives? Don't you think that for them, it wasn't as important as when the Member for London asked for his beloved's hand in marriage? I think that the answer is yes and if they were with us today, they'd have no problem in saying so.

    So I'll conclude by saying: let's assume our responsibilities, let's push back the frontiers of intolerance ourselves. There is no state religion in Canada. Whether Catholic, Hindu, Muslim or Orthodox Jew, no group in our society can impose its own vision of family or religion on any other group. There is no state religion.

    You can't say that you're going to refuse the institution of marriage to people whose orientation is homosexual simply on the basis of religious reality. What is sacred is the right of believers to practice their beliefs and be recognized as being committed to those beliefs. But there is no state religion.

    So I'll conclude and say that I have not lost all hope that the exercise we are going through this afternoon will turn out to be an extremely salutary and healthy one. Thus, I am not despairing either that from our reciprocal influences we can't come up with a majority. So I hope that when you call the vote, Mr. Chairman, we will remember that there are people in all of Canada's major cities who get beaten up and who have to live with rejection. The suicide rate is higher for homosexuals than for any other group in society.

    What is our responsibility, as legislators? It's to work so that there will be an environment such that anyone in Montreal, London, Quebec City, Burnaby or Winnipeg who discovers he or she is a homosexual at the age of 16 in a public school knows full well that we who are standing in Parliament are working to see to it that in a few years, that person will be living in an environment totally free from discrimination.

    Thank you.

º  (1600)  

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    I'm going to read the rest of the list so that everyone knows where we are: Ms. Fry, Mr. Cadman, Mr. Peschisolido, Mr. McKay, Mr. Maloney, Mr. Sorenson, and Mr. McNally.

    Ms. Fry.

    Ms. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

    I know it will come as no surprise to everyone in this room that I support Mr. Robinson's motion. And I also respect the rights of some of my colleagues who have spoken around this table who, for various religious and personally held convictions, do not support Mr. Robinson's motion or the widening of the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples.

    However, while on the basis of conscience, belief, and value I support Mr. Robinson's motion, I think we can't pit values against each other; I would believe this is a matter of equality and the law at the end of the day.

    We have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms in this country that gave to the judges the right and the power to interpret our laws and to look at our institutions and our policies based on that charter. We gave that right to judges. So the argument that we should not allow judges to take the right that we gave to them is one that I do not accept.

    I think when we look at the document of the decision that came out of the Supreme Court, I think they made a very important point when they said:

That said, this case is ultimately about the recognition and protection of human dignity and equality in the context of the social structures available to conjugal couples in Canada.

    So there are some things that are fundamental here. Human dignity: it is inherent in every human being. It's a deeply human need. It's an anthropological fact that all of us, as individuals, regardless of our sexual orientation, our race, our colour, our religion, have this need to love and to be loved, to form long and lasting relationships wherever we can, and to have our society recognize the fundamental love and the relationship when we come together. We want to, in a deeply personal way, say to the world and to the people in our community, ”This person loves me and I love them, and I want you to know this. We're committing to each other to stay together.”

    This is a human need. This is not a need that is only inherent to any one group or to any one religion or to any one sector of our human race; it is a fundamentally human need.

    To suggest that a group, based on their sexual orientation, does not have that need is to completely disregard that inherent human dignity. That is one of the reasons I support expanding the definition and support Mr. Robinson's motion.

    Mr. Speaker, there are some other things here. Every time we have evolved as people, as a human race, as a world--and locally here, as a nation--there have always been challenges to the status quo. There have always been challenges to the institutions and the way they were.

    Let us look at some of our institutions, Mr. Chair. For millennia, women have been seen as chattel. Women have been seen as unworthy to be part of the public institutions of Parliament. They have been seen as unworthy to vote. Therefore, they have been seen as simple possessions.

    It is Parliament, Mr. Speaker, when women applied not only for the vote but as lately as 1929, when women asked to be considered persons so they could sit in the Senate, that each time said they couldn't. In fact, we had to go to the highest court at the time, the Privy Council in England, for them to say that women were persons.

    We're back again to what my colleague Mr. Harvard said, that he would love to have been a fly on the wall listening to all the arguments as to why women should not have been there. Those arguments, I can tell you, had to do with harm to society--the harm to society that would happen if women, who obviously were not necessarily equal, had to make decisions on who should represent them in Parliament--or whether women should have to make major decisions within the Senate or in the House of Commons, or whether women were capable of doing that for the very nature of their being women.

    Mr. Chair, today most people around this room would laugh at that. They would say, well, that's ridiculous. It was the same thing about different races. And it was said then that if you allowed women to go, the fundamental harm to society was that they'd leave their children, their children would have no one to look after them, and therefore society would go to hell in a handbasket.

º  (1605)  

    We heard this about slavery, that slaves were not worthy, they were not equal, they were inferior on the basis of their colour and their station in life. We've seen that move forward. Today, no one in this room would ever dare to say that, because we have seen and proven that it was not so.

    But we saw that when people of different races and different religions sought to marry, again this issue popped up: the harm to society, that this would fundamentally harm society. What would happen to the children of people of different religions and different cultures and different races? Their children would be confused, would be caught in some sort of deep morass, and they would not be able to come out.

    We heard that from some people here: What would happen to the children of same-sex couples if the couple was allowed to marry? Would these children become confused?

    Mr. Chairman, none of that happened with mixed-race marriages. None of the harms that were predicted actually happened when women were allowed into society. None of the harms that were predicted to happen to society happened when we allowed slavery to end.

    So each time, it is fundamentally about protecting the status quo, about protecting the old ways, about saying things must be because they have always been, thus they must continue to do so.

    I have yet to hear a reason from anyone that there will be...and not the fear that there might be. We've heard those fears. For millennia we have heard the fears every time we've tried to move institutions, but at the end of the day, according to our charter, this is a public institution. The institution of marriage is a legal and public institution. We are denying a group access to a legal and public institution for no reason other than their sexual orientation.

    I don't believe that could hold water any more than denying women or different races or mixed marriages between religions and different races. Actually, the various harms we talked about did not come to pass.

    That is another reason I want to support this. Always we deal with the same thing: something is going to happen, the sky is going to fall, and harm will occur to society. And it never does.

    The thing is, Mr. Speaker, here is an institution, as we have heard said time and time again around this place, and again by those who came as witnesses, that is shaky. The institution of marriage has a 50% or 55% divorce rate, and to allow others to come in would actually make this institution dissolve. Well, you know, this institution became a shaky one when only heterosexuals had access to it. It wasn't same-sex couples who made the institution shaky.

    Here we have an institution that some people, same-sex couples, are saying they can believe in. They have said that they think it's a great institution and they want to strengthen the institution and belong to it. By belonging to it, they will strengthen it even more. Therefore, it seems to me it's reasonable to allow them to strengthen this institution.

    Toward the arguments that were brought up, Mr. Chair, about the fact that same-sex couples do not have...we even sat here and argued about having children, whether they could be allowed to have children.

    I'll tell you, about “having children”, there may be those who have adopted children who take a great deal of exception to the fact that they “don't have children”, but even more so, all of the heterosexuals currently who have access to reproductive technologies, who carry a child to full term for nine months, would take a lot of exception to those saying that they “didn't have children”.

    In the old days, marriage was about procreation. It has been proven through technology that procreation is no longer limited to heterosexual couples, that same-sex couples procreate and have children by whatever means. They have them. They carry them. They bear them. Therefore, they now have families. So the institution of the family has fundamentally changed, not because a law changed it but because it actually just changed through the process of evolution. Those children and those families deserve access to an institution that is so fundamentally valued in our society that we sit here debating access to it.

    It is such an institution that is so valued that to deny groups and families access to that institution says that we believe they are not worthy. We can no longer believe they can't have access because of procreation—that's not true any more—or they can't have access because they do not have children. They do have children. Therefore, the only reason we're back to is that they are somehow less worthy. And why? Because of their sexual orientation. This cannot be so in a free and democratic society.

º  (1610)  

    Mr. Chair, I have three sons. As far as I know, they're all straight, but if one of them turned out to be gay, that's okay by me as well. But they all have told me very clearly, all three of them, we would be so disappointed in you, Mother, if you did not vote very strongly to change the definition of marriage, because we want to get married not because of its religious connotations but because we think it's a valuable institution. And to deny other couples who love each other and want to form lasting bonds, or the children of those couples, the ability to be in a family that is recognized and accepted by society...we would be really disappointed in you.

    You know, those are my three sons, Mr. Speaker, but I'll tell you, a week ago there was an article in The Globe and Mail about “New Canada”. Our children, those under 34, are telling us--69% of them have said--that they believe same-sex couples should have access to marriage. Our children do not any longer trust Parliament. They place their highest priority for trust in the courts of our land and in the charter.

    What does that tell you, Mr. Chair? It says they have rejected parliamentarians as being people they trust and they respect, because they don't think we have the ability to make decisions without allowing all kinds of political machinations to get in the way.

    So they see the courts as being able to interpret law, they believe in the rule of law, and they believe in the strong values that the charter espouses.

    For those reasons, Mr. Chair, I strongly support this motion. I just want us to get on with it. Justice delayed is justice denied. We can no longer deny justice to same-sex couples.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    It's an emotional roller coaster for me, going from Mr. Speaker to Mr. Chair, and then from Mr. Chair to Mr. Speaker. I keep on getting promoted and then demoted.

    Ms. Hedy Fry: I'm just elevating your status.

    The Chair: Don't tell Bernard Lord that someone from New Brunswick who's a Liberal wants to be a speaker, because it will make his day.

    Mr. Cadman.

    Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    For those members of this committee who have been around for awhile, as I have, you'll know that I am usually pretty brief, and I'm not going to disappoint you today either.

    And I want to be brief, because we've heard arguments around this table this afternoon, or this morning, and possibly into tonight, that we've heard before. We certainly heard all these issues, brought with great eloquence by speakers on both sides, through our deliberations and our discussions over the past number of months. But I'm not sure this is the place for those arguments.

    I want to cut directly to what this motion is all about. What this motion is all about is for this committee to support the recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision. It will essentially do an end...around the months of work and the time this committee has spent hearing from hundreds of Canadians over hundreds of hours, travelling thousands of miles--including, I might add, for some of us, spending a few hours in a snowbank on a bus outside Moose Jaw--listening to testimony, and good testimony, on all sides. Basically what this motion wants us to do is to throw the whole works into the garbage can. That's in effect what we're looking at here.

    This committee is in the final stage of preparing its report. Now, we don't know what that report will say. Some people may be disappointed in what that report says, but that report is in the final stages, and that report will go to Parliament. I'm sure there'll be much debate in Parliament on the outcome of what that report will recommend; we don't know yet. But Parliament will have its say.

    In the end, I will abide by what Parliament decides, but I'm not about to roll over and allow three unelected judges to take all the work and all the representations that Canadians have made to us over the past number of months and make all that work absolutely irrelevant, because that's what we're talking about here. It will make it irrelevant by short-circuiting the process.

    In the end, yes, our process does call for the courts to ultimately decide at some point, and I will abide by that process, but I'm not prepared to support any motion that will short-circuit that and make what Canadians have told us over the last six months absolutely irrelevant.

    I'll leave it at that.

    Thank you.

º  (1615)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Cadman.

    Mr. Peschisolido.

    Mr. Joe Peschisolido (Richmond, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I too will try to be brief.

    I'll be voting “no” to the motion put forth by Mr. Robinson. The reasons will be based on two issues or factors--one, the role and the nature of the judiciary, and two, the role of a member of Parliament.

    On the issue of what constitutes marriage, personally, for a variety of reasons, I believe that man, woman, to the exclusion of others, is the definition of family. However, I'm not a priest, I'm not an imam, I'm not a minister, I'm a member of Parliament. And that doesn't determine my views but it does inform them. I also have to take into account what goes on in my constituency, what I hear from individuals. But I also have to take into account what the court says. Yes, we do have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. No, the judiciary ought not to exclusively determine law, but it has a fundamental part in that. And I view the creation of law, when it comes to this issue here, as an interplay.

    The motion asks for this committee to support the Ontario Court of Appeal decision. Well, I don't know what the law of the land here says, because there is a process, there is an interplay. There's a Supreme Court of Canada.

    For those who argue that this is an issue exclusively of equality, I don't think it is as simple as that. The Constitution...the charter is a multifaceted document, and if and when it goes to the Supreme Court, I'm sure all of the values and issues will be looked at.

    Now, if and when it goes to the Supreme Court and the ruling comes down, I then as a member of Parliament will have to determine whether or not to support that decision, or invoke the notwithstanding clause, but we haven't arrived at that point.

    There is a process in place for a good reason: That's the way our system functions. There are a lot of people in my riding of Richmond who have come to me and said, “You know what? No one has asked me what I believe the definition of family ought to be.” My role as a member of Parliament is to voice that.

    Going through all that process in the town halls, the meetings, in the interplay of what the judiciary has said, I've come to the conclusion that marriage here in Canada ought to remain as man, woman, to the exclusion of others.

    It's a combination of things. I don't believe it is proper at this point in the debate and in the legal process to accept this motion here, because I as a member of Parliament have not heard from the supreme law of the land, the Supreme Court of Canada, and perhaps more importantly for me, as a member of Parliament, they have not heard from me. They have not heard what the committee will say. We have not had a full debate in the House of Commons.

    For those two reasons--and I will be brief, and won't get into all of the other discussions pro or con, because I don't think this is the place for it--specifically to this motion, Mr. Chair, I will be voting “no” to supporting the Court of Appeal decision here in Ontario.

    The Chair: Mr. McKay.

    Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Thank you, Chair.

    Strangely, Mr. Cadman anticipated some of my remarks on this.

    An hon. member: That's a switch.

    Mr. John McKay: That is a switch indeed.

    Similarly, with him and a number of other members on this committee, I have spent literally months going from coast to coast to coast--12 different cities, 475 witnesses, 250 briefs, and literally thousands of letters to this committee and to members of Parliament.

    As of yesterday, I don't know why I spent all that time doing all of that work, since that was essentially a pre-emptive strike on the part of the courts over our committee work. I thought what we were there to do was to listen to and to reflect upon what we heard from Canadians.

    These were fairly animated discussions, and by and large quite respectful, I thought. I was rather encouraged by the process. In fact, I recollect a committee meeting where this committee actually got a standing ovation for listening to what Canadians had to say. That may not go down well with the chattering classes, of which I'm a charter member. Nevertheless, we listened, and I thought Canadians appreciated our listening to them and our making the effort to get out to their various communities.

    As a consequence of yesterday, our report is irrelevant, frankly. I don't know why we'll be bothering even putting this in the word processor, or into the computer, because it will hit the dustbin of history fairly quickly. Parliament will not speak. For those who urged caution on this very fundamental issue of our society, we'll just simply say, well, forget that. For those who suggested some sort of a third way, well, forget that; it won't be explored. For those who gave very impassioned pleas about their religious freedoms, frankly, we'll just ignore all of that and leave them to the whims of the charter.

    So in my view, Mr. Chair, Parliament will not speak on this matter. Whatever it has to say will be largely irrelevant if in fact this motion proceeds and there's not an appeal lodged. The justice committee will not be able to speak through its report. Even if we do have a debate on this, it will be largely ignored.

    I went through the court case yesterday, and I don't believe there's any reference to the debate Parliament did have in 1999 on this very subject.

    So this is a strange state of affairs, Mr. Chairman, because we have the illusion that we have a dialogue with the courts when in fact yesterday, I thought, was one of the more gross forms of monologue. Frankly, the decision simply got made and people have acted on the decision. If I were them, I'd have done exactly the same thing. I'd have lined up to get my licence and gotten married.

    If we do not appeal this decision and stay the implications of the decision, I fear that Parliament will be largely perceived as a lay-down. Maybe it is. As one speaker said, maybe it is a mere irrelevancy, and it's courts and other institutions that are trusted more than Parliament. Maybe that's appropriate. I don't really know. I think if that's true, that's pretty regrettable. I think it's going to be regrettable because parliamentarians are not going to stand up.

    The phrase “democratic deficit” seems to get batted around here, and I thought that's what we were trying to address when we did this cross-country tour. People said some things that were pretty strong, and I thought we listened. It's no secret this committee is a very divided committee, as are Canadians very divided, but we do live in a democracy, and my goodness, I think these people are entitled to speak. I don't think they want to be told by courts just what the end result will be on this thing. For better or for worse, I think, Parliament is their only vehicle for speaking, and as of yesterday they're shut out.

º  (1620)  

    I take some pride in our country's sense of fair play. I take some pride in the fact that section 15 actually exists in our charter. I take some pride in the fact that we make every effort to treat people in an equal sort of way. But I don't know that this is merely a section 15 argument. A lot of people of good will and good faith really would like to find another way to address this very significant issue.

    Ultimately, courts are fairly limited and crude instruments. I have been in and around courts for the last 20 or 30 years, and I don't think it's any great insight to say that lawyers and judges are not people who are greatly different from the rest of us. They have their strengths and their weaknesses and their biases and their intuition. But the court structure does not allow for a nuanced approach. Courts result in “yes” and “no” answers.

    That's what happened yesterday. It was a sledgehammer approach. It does not allow for the subtlety of views that Parliament can express in trying to fashion a solution to a delicate problem.

    For those who think Parliament has not been dealing with this, I take issue with that. Not only has this committee been going at it for six months, but Parliament has spoken several times on this issue.

    I must admit to just a hint of cynicism on the timing of the release of the decision. Again, my experience is that the courts take somewhere on average of six to ten months to release a decision. Remarkably, this one only took six weeks. Now, it may be that this was of such significance that it had to be dealt with in a pre-emptive way, but that's exactly the interpretation I put on it, that the timing of the decision was in fact pre-emptive and there was an effort to, if you will, shut down what Parliament would like to say on this issue.

    In my view, and in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, this government must appeal yesterday's decision; must appeal the B.C. decision; and must ask for a stay of the application of this decision so that Parliament can speak, so that we can honour the people who actually came before us, and so that we can meet the expectations of those who elected us.

    Thank you.

º  (1625)  

    The Chair: Mr. Maloney.

    Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    We've heard some very passionate, eloquent, and persuasive arguments on both side of the issue here today, as we did during the committee's cross-country hearings. I certainly share Mr. Cadman's and Mr. McKay's position on the work of this committee and what this decision has done for it, but I would still urge the committee to proceed with and finalize that report, especially as to the recommendations that we may deem necessary.

    I feel this is an issue of such critical social importance that if there is to be an adjudication, the adjudication should be from the highest judicial body in the land, the Supreme Court of Canada. Otherwise...and I say that no matter where you come down on this issue. If you disagree with the Ontario decision or the B.C. decision, obviously you would like it appealed, because there'd be a further day in court. Even if you agreed with the Ontario and B.C. decisions, I think a pronouncement of the court at the highest level is so important to ensure that there isn't perhaps second-guessing: What if? What if?

    So it has to come from the highest level simply because of the significance of the impact this will have on our country. It's an issue that, again, needs the highest adjudication by the highest court and should be nothing less.

    That's my position, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Maloney.

    Mr. Sorenson.

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance): Yes, thanks, Mr. Chair.

    I want to echo a lot of the sentiments we've heard from other members on this committee--not only from one party, not only from this side, but from the government side as well.

    I recall the day the phone rang and we were asked to come to a reception with the justice minister. We sat down around the table and he commissioned us to travel across the country to dialogue with Canadians, to meet groups of all persuasions, and to make a report back to Parliament, to make a report back to Parliament with a recommendation dealing with same-sex marriage.

    The Minister of Justice was well prepared. He came with the book on marriage and legal recognition of same-sex marriage. The document talks about the role of Parliament. The document talks about the need to have Parliament look at the definition of marriage and whether or not we should consider a change to the definition, or maintain the traditional definition, of marriage, that being the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

    I, like many of the other committee members who've already spoken, have sat through meetings, and meetings, and meetings. We've come back early from our constituencies. We've been here some evenings late at night. We've talked about the issue and we've met witnesses.

    Only last week we discussed the court's decision and how that impacted the responsibility and the work we had as Parliament. People from other sides of this committee talking about the need to appeal...and I'm not sure I hear the same passion in their arguments today, when we have all the media and the television cameras here. We're here today to discuss this motion. We aren't here today to rerun the last six months of committee meetings. We aren't here in front of the media to build our arguments, either pro or con, on the definition of marriage. We've done that. We've discussed it. We've sat down. We've looked at discussion papers and draft reports and documents--waist-high when you start piling them up--but today we've started to rehash all the old arguments.

    It's very clear that the motion before this House is whether or not we will ask the justice minister to appeal the decisions to the Supreme Court. This motion asking us not to appeal is a motion that I and my party cannot support and will not support.

    It's not because we do support or we don't support the decision that has come out of the Ontario court. In my opinion, that is not what the issue is here today. That's not what we're here to discuss. As much as some of the other members have gone on at great lengths about the marriage in the park, and the expression of love in marriage, that's not what we're here to discuss today. We're here to discuss whether or not we should appeal this to the Supreme Court.

    I don't support this motion. I believe, as my colleague Mr. Toews has pointed out day after day after day, it's Parliament, not the courts, that should be writing the law in this country. Each one of us campaigned. Each one of us stepped out. Each one of us from whichever party we were decided that we would run to be members of Parliament. We knew the responsibilities of that would be to represent our riding, to do what was right. And it was to build law.

    We emphasized that point, I think about a month ago, when we had a supply day motion in the House of Commons. We called upon the government to protect and reassert the will of Parliament, and to reassert the position of Parliament. All day long, again, members from all parties discussed, talked about, and debated the relevancy and the importance of Parliament.

    During that debate, an article from the Ottawa Citizen was read, dated August 13, 2002. The quote said:

...it's not judges that deserve to be pummelled. It's the elected politicians who didn't have the guts and vision their job demanded.

º  (1630)  

    To the committee, I say that we're seeing that here today. We're seeing exactly what was said in the paper. Politicians don't have guts to stand up and say, this is Parliament's role, this is what we should be moving on.

    And it's everywhere you turn. You pick up the paper, you watch the television--it's everywhere you turn. A May 8 article in the National Post said:

Canadians expect that their elected representatives will have the courage to tackle divisive questions head-on. Yet on two of the most prominent issues facing this country--marijuana decriminalization and gay marriage--it is the court system, not Parliament, that has taken the lead. Will the federal government take a definitive stand now that lower court decisions are piling up on both issues? Or will it stand back and let the Supreme Court usurp the role of legislator--as it has regrettably done in the past...?

    This isn't even the Supreme Court that's made the decisions we're discussing today. It's the court in British Columbia, it's the court in Ontario.

    So I do not support this motion. I believe this motion would be a major error, a major mistake, for Parliament. I think what we're viewing today is some who would say, let's just turn over to the courts the role of not only interpretation of law but also the building of law. And that's a huge mistake.

    Mr. Ménard in his presentation today talked about Catholics, talked about Hindus, talked about Muslims, and talked about those from many faiths. Then he said there is not one group that can impose their views on us.

    Friends, that's wrong, because we're seeing it happen here today. We're seeing it where the courts are imposing their view on us as parliamentarians, and I think it's shameful.

    Mr. Chair, I think it's time that all Canadians see...and I agree with Mr. McKay when he says we must ask the Supreme Court, we must go to the Supreme Court, we must appeal, we must keep the door open, and we must also ask for a stay of application of their decision.

    Back in 1995 we made the decision on what marriage was. Part of that motion that day in 1995 was that Parliament would take all necessary steps to preserve this definition of marriage. The current Prime Minister voted for it, the former finance minister voted for it, the justice minister voted for it, the deputy prime minister voted for it, and now, four years later, we're saying let's not preserve, let's not do what we have to, let's just give up and turn this thing over to the courts.

    As parliamentarians we have the responsibility to take a stand, and I'm asking you to do that today. You should vote against this motion.

    Thank you.

º  (1635)  

    The Chair: Mr. McNally.

    Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I do not support this motion either. I will be voting against it. I strongly support the definition of marriage as being the union of a single man and a single woman to the exclusion of all others, as is the long-standing tradition in our country.

    I also believe this motion in effect says to not only parliamentarians but to all Canadians, “It doesn't matter what you think about this issue. It just doesn't matter.”

    I talk to a lot of people in my riding, as we all do, and there's a feeling out there that a lot of people are just throwing their hands up on these major issues because it doesn't matter. If three judges can make the decision, if there isn't an open debate, if the decision isn't made by Parliament, that circumvention throws people across the country into a bit of despair in terms of, “It doesn't matter what we think.” Because it's not only about this issue; it spreads to other issues.

    I don't think that's the feeling we want people to be carrying around in our country. We want people to know that it does matter what they think, and that we will act on the decisions of people and where we should go, not only with this question but with others as well.

    Let's not kid ourselves. When we talk about imposing morality, as has been mentioned a couple of times, there are 301 members of Parliament in this country. Our job is to legislate, to bring in laws, and what do those laws in effect do? They proclaim something to be so. They impose a moral decision in some area, one decision or another. That is in effect what's happening with this decision through the courts that should happen through Parliament.

    That is clear to me and that is clear to many others. I reject the argument about imposing morality, that one group shouldn't impose its morality on others. That is what happens all the time, as my colleagues have stated, and we should not be afraid to say so. That's what we are paid to do, to make laws.

    Let's get on with it. Let's defeat this motion and have this kind of debate in the House of Commons.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Mr. Day.

    Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance): Thanks, Mr. Chair.

    I thank everybody who has both participated in this debate and been transparent and honest about their feelings.

    I happen to agree with my colleague, the member for Burnaby--Douglas, on part of this question. That may surprise some people. Some people may actually be surprised to know that he and I have worked together on a number of issues, a number of items, successfully to conclusion--items related to democracy, human rights, and other related items. It shows that members of Parliament can address a situation like this, and can do it respectfully, and can do it acknowledging that we live in a democratic society. We don't have to demean one another because of the positions we take.

    The part of the discussion on which I agree with the member who has brought this forward is that members of Parliament should take their place and take a stand on this issue. We concur on this. It should not be sloughed off in some way. We shouldn't hide and run from the discussion, and we certainly should not leave it to the courts.

    Anybody who knows my position related to the jurisdiction of the courts knows that I have concerns related to activism on the courts, that there should be a clear designation that judicial items and judges determine, and that their job is to find the law, not to order elected representatives to write new laws. That should rest with us. We should bear the responsibility and the accountability, and face the voters in terms of decisions we make.

    So I appreciate his and others' points of view around this table that we should be addressing this.

    The position right now of the government, and it happens to be the Canadian Alliance position, is that marriage should be defined as a union between a man and a woman. That is also the position of tens of thousands of members of the Canadian Alliance across the country, including thousands of my own constituents. And it happens to be my own position.

    We live in a society where, quite rightly, people have the right to choose the relationships of their choice. The social construct, and the social contract of Canada today, as a matter of fact, even guarantees that the nature of one's relationship with another person cannot be used to deprive them of their rights, be it their rights in the workplace, where they live, or where they invest...and I do get somewhat upset when people characterize this debate as people trying to force, or steal, or impose their rights on the other side of this debate, one upon the other. That's not the issue. The rights of Canadians allow for that full choice of the type of relationships that they feel they are most suited to.

    We have a time-tested definition of marriage that, as I said, defines that union as being between a man and a woman. It is not belittling any other group to have that definition in place. It is not attacking any other group. It is simply something that has been there for centuries. Volumes have been written on the efficacy of that definition. Though marriages are not perfect unions, this definition has served society well, and continues to do so. For that reason, and for other reasons, it should be left.

    This is not a betrayal of the charter, as we have heard in some of the discussion today, that the charter, as constituted and framed...and I would like to suggest, to those who have suggested that this is some kind of a betrayal of the charter, that when the charter was being put together, whether we agree with it or not, and certainly we have around this table some differing views on the charter, the framers, including Pierre Trudeau, looked at the question of sexual orientation, so-called, and said we are not putting that in. They very specifically left it out.

    That's why it should be left to parliamentarians today to decide if it should be addressed and should be in there. It was never the intent of the framers of the charter to include sexual orientation. It doesn't mean it shouldn't be looked at years later, as we're doing now. But it is no betrayal of the charter when we take this particular position, so it should be left to us.

    We are in an interesting situation in that some of the views expressed by the gay, homosexual, lesbian community...in fact, like any community, their views are not monolithic. They do not have in that community a unitary view on this. I've talked to many people I know in the homosexual and lesbian community who in fact have said they don't want the government to be involved in this at all. They're not advocating for a change.

º  (1640)  

    I just think it's important that Canadians do know that. It is not one group or one class of people who are being deprived of something here, because there is diversity of opinion within that group. There are many within that group who believed Pierre Trudeau when he said the government should stay out of the bedrooms of the nation. They're saying they don't want the government in any way, shape, or form to be involved in this. So that's an important piece of information.

    As this debate will certainly wind down--and I hope the presenter of the motion will have concluding remarks, if that is the process--I have a question that has not been appropriately addressed, and maybe he can help me do this, or have it addressed.

    If we are coming to something as dramatic as a change in this definition, the definition that's being proposed is that it should just be a voluntary union between two people, and man and woman should not be designated. Now, I am using the time-tested tradition...and I could quote many other sources in terms of why I think it should be left as it is.

    But I would like to ask a question of those who are in support of this motion. That is, where do they get the notion, or I would say the right, to say that marriage should only be confined to two people? Where do they get that notion? In fact, I had a gentleman in my office who asked if I would work to change the definition of marriage that confines a man only to one woman. This was a very serious item for him. He was a recent landed immigrant, and one of his wives had been permitted to come into the country; his other wife had not been permitted. It was a point of chagrin and pain for him and for the wife with whom he lives here. He had asked that the other woman, with whom he had lived in a marriage relationship in another country for a number of years.... He had asked if we could change the law to accommodate a definition of marriage that would allow him to have in fact two wives at the same time.

    So if we simply open things up to using the term “sexual orientation”, or if we keep it at just “two people”, then just as those who want to see marriage defined heterosexually as between a man and a woman--and we are quite rightly asked for our reasons for that--where do those who want to change this get the right to limit this to just two people?

    Here I was, confronted with three people, the three who were in love, three who had lived together for a number of years, three who had every intention of living together for the rest of their lives in a marriage situation, and our laws deprive them of that.

    Yes, it's true, laws at times limit other people's choices. That is true. So what limits are there--or are there intended limits--in the change of orientation that's being suggested here? This is a significant question that clearly must be addressed.

    I appreciate the fact that this has come up for debate. Clearly I will be voting against this motion and against the suggestion, and clearly I will be acknowledging and giving respect to all people, regardless of where they are on this particular question. And I thank the member for bringing it forward.

º  (1645)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Day.

    I'm going to go to Mr. O'Brien, the last name on the list, and then Mr. Robinson will close.

    Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.): I guess maybe that's appropriate, in some ways.

    Mr. Chairman, I am going to be brief. I was invited by a couple of colleagues to answer certain questions they had...from our colleague and friend, Monsieur Ménard. So I want to take that up briefly, because I know he was serious in that invitation.

    I first want to refer, with all due respect, to the attempt in this committee to repeatedly make an analogy between slavery, specifically victimizing blacks...although, I can tell you, as a teacher of history, the vast majority of slavery throughout history has involved white slaves. Any kind of slavery is, of course, abhorrent and immoral--and, happily, illegal--but there has been this attempt to draw an analogy between slavery and the denial of rights to women and this situation of gay marriage.

    You know, Mr. Speaker, it's just not on. It's specious logic. I am for rights, equality rights, for individual gays and lesbians. Indeed, I voted that way, for individual gays and lesbians. But it's a huge leap of logic to say that because of that, I must now somehow turn myself into a pretzel intellectually and say, you know, the relationship of two men and the relationship of two women equates to that of the heterosexual relationship. It's just illogical. I'm sorry to have to say, with all due respect, that the analogy between slavery and denial of rights to women and this situation is just not logical.

    I've been asked by my colleague Monsieur Ménard, and others from time to time, questions I would like to address. First, what's the harm? We've heard this all over. What's the harm of allowing two gay men to marry, or two lesbian women to marry? Well, this committee has heard all kinds of evidence, including expert opinion, that, yes, there is potentially grave harm to our society. When you start to deconstruct marriages and institutions, you know where you start but you don't know where it will end. I'm not prepared, as one member of Parliament or Canadian, to support taking that gamble.

    I want to quote, Mr. Chairman, a theorist on this point who was quoted in our hearings. Lesbian theorist Ladelle McWhorter puts it well, pointing out that if gay people are:

...allowed to participate as gay people in the communities and institutions they [heterosexuals] claim as theirs, our presence will change those institutions and practices enough to undermine their preferred version of heterosexuality and, in turn, they themselves will not be the same.

    Mr. Chair, this is a lesbian woman, an expert in this field, honest enough to admit that of course you can't deconstruct something as fundamental as marriage without potentially significant and serious consequences.

    So I don't want to hear any more this argument...well, I suppose I will, because you have a right to say it. But I'll continue to say: What harm? Potentially grave harm.

    That's how many of us see it. That's how many Canadians see it. That is for my friend, Monsieur Ménard, when he put that question to me.

    The second point put is, you know, you're a nice guy, we're all Canadians, we're all nice people, so why are you against equality for gays and lesbians? I repeat, I am not against equal treatment under the law for individual gays and lesbians, but please don't insult my intelligence. Please don't ask me to go against my core beliefs. Please don't ask me to ignore my conscience. Please don't ask millions of Canadians who share this point of view to do that either, and to say that the homosexual relationship is the same as the heterosexual relationship.

    We have had expert opinion--medical opinion, anthropological opinion, historical opinion, religious opinion, sociological opinion, and legal opinion--saying that those two relationships are fundamentally different. They just aren't the same.

º  (1650)  

    Mr. Chairman, I would like to quote Mr. Justice Pitfield in a B.C. case--

    An hon. member: He was overruled.

    Mr. Pat O'Brien: He may have been overruled, but he has a right to speak as well as everyone else. I know that Mr. Robinson, from B.C., wouldn't want to deny Mr. Justice Pitfield that right.

    So here's what he said, and I quote:

The only issue is whether marriage must be made something it is not in order to embrace other relationships.

    Mr. Chairman, it's easy to dismiss him, as he was overruled by some other judges of a different point of view, but this is a respected person from the legal community.

    I'm asked why I am against equality for gays and lesbians. But I am not against equality for gays and lesbians, for individual gays and lesbians; I am against deconstructing something as fundamental as marriage and trying to make it be something it isn't to satisfy an activist agenda.

    You know, it's ironic that throughout the 1970s and 1980s, Mr. Chair, a quick reading on this would tell you that then gay and lesbian activists, leaders, and theorists were arguing against heterosexual marriage as being irrelevant to their experience. So this is a new phenomenon in the 1990s, driven by a small number of Canadians...heterosexual couples in Canada are less than 1% of the population.

    I'm not about to ignore logic, history, common sense, millions of Canadians' opinions, and my own conscience to roll the dice in that direction. I'm certainly not for it.

    I'll finish on this point, Andy. Some people were a little dismissive when Stockwell Day raised the polygamy question, although I don't think he used the word. But that question was seriously asked in this committee.

    In my home city of London, Ontario, right now there's a court case going on where they are trying to have three parents. It's called the “three-parent case”. A law brief recently said that the Law Commission pointed out that you can't necessarily draw the line at two persons in a marriage.

    When we start to deconstruct the definition of marriage, we know where we start but we don't know where we will end. Let's not even start.

    So I can't support my colleague's motion.

º  (1655)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. O'Brien.

    Mr. Robinson.

    Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Chairman, I think the time has come for us to make a decision as a committee on the motion.

    I would just remind members that the motion calls on this committee to support the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal while at the same time fully respecting the freedom of religion guaranteed under the Charter of Rights.

    I would just draw to the attention of members of the committee the unanimous words of the judges the Court of Appeal when they said:

Exclusion perpetuates the view that same-sex relationships are less worthy of recognition than opposite-sex relationships. In doing so, it offends the dignity of persons in same-sex relationships.

    I hope we can respect that sentiment, Mr. Chairman. I hope we can respect the right of gay and lesbian people to be treated as fully equal, and I urge members to support the motion.

    The Chair: Mr. O'Brien.

    Mr. Pat O'Brien: On a point of order, Mr. Chair, a number of substitutes have come in, I guess to vote on this motion. Can we be very clear on who are the signed-in voting members of the committee before you call the vote?

    The Chair: We'll have a roll call vote.

    Mr. Pat O'Brien: Okay, that's fine. I just note that a number of members have come in to vote on this motion, which is interesting.

    The Chair: On the same point of order, Mr. McKay?

    Mr. John McKay: Yes, on the same point of order, Mr. Chair.

    This is to inform the committee, through the chair, that I just spoke with Mr. Lee, who of course has been a member of this committee, a very active member of this committee. He's been in government operations up until just now. I said to him that we would be voting very soon. I think to respect our colleague, we should possibly postpone our vote until Mr. Lee arrives.

    The Chair: I'm looking for direction from the committee.

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    Some hon. members: No.

[Translation]

    Mr. Réal Ménard: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

    Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, I do believe our colleague legitimately asked that we have an indication as to those who have the right to vote. We take it for granted that those sitting around the table have the right to vote. Our colleague Svend Robinson's time has expired and I think it is our duty to vote. We are ready for the question, Mr. Speaker.

[English]

    The Chair: I'll go to two more people and then I'll give you my decision.

    Mr. Peschisolido and Ms. Jennings.

    Mr. Joe Peschisolido: I think we would all agree that Mr. Lee has been an active member of this committee, has sat through all the hearings, has put forth many amendments, and I would argue respectfully that allowing him not to vote on this one may de-legitimate the actual vote. I would hope that courtesy to our colleague Mr. Lee--and I'm in your hands, Mr. Chair--would allow him the two or three minutes needed for him to come over here and vote.

    The Chair: Ms. Jennings, quickly.

[Translation]

    Ms. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Maybe it's a problem I could attribute to my legal training, but the question has been put; now, in my opinion, once the question has been put, we must proceed with the vote. The question as to the presence or non-presence of a regular member of the committee...

[English]

    The Chair: I've heard the arguments put, and I'm going to call the vote. The reality is, we knew we were here at 3:30, choices were taken, and those choices will have to be lived with.

    I'll read the motion:

That this committee support the recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision which redefines the common law definition of marriage as the “voluntary union for life of two persons to the exclusion of all others”, while fully respecting freedom of religion as guaranteed under the Charter of Rights.

    I'll now go to the roll call vote.

    I think in New Brunswick this is called a “recount”....

    The result is an 8-8 tie.

    The rules of the House allow me to make a statement now.

    I've paid a great deal of attention over the course of these hearings in every part of Canada. I had a forum in my own constituency, which had 675 people there, and I listened. In 1999, I voted to keep the definition of “marriage” as it had existed. I have listened. I've listened with great respect to my colleagues, with a variety of views. I also have been informed by a number of judgments of the courts. I don't feel compelled to vote in any particular way because of what those judgments have said, but I also feel that I feel informed by them. It's a part of this process, in my opinion. Therefore, I will be voting in support of the motion of Mr. Robinson.

    (Motion agreed to: yeas 9; nays 8 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

»  (1700)  

    The Chair: If I may, just to conclude, to speak to one question about Parliament--that is, who gets to do this, the judges or Parliament--I believe this is Parliament.

    Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

    The Chair: We have another motion, I believe.

    Mr. Pat O'Brien: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, yes, I'm happy to present my motion. I was holding off on the understanding that Mr. Lee was going to put a similar motion, but I don't see him doing that. I've given proper notice.

    My motion is that the committee advise the minister that he appeal both the recent B.C. court decision and the Ontario court decision as soon as possible to the Supreme Court of Canada.

    If it's still in order, I would put the motion, but I don't know that it is.

    The Chair: If I may, I believe the motion to appeal the Ontario decision would no longer be in order, but the motion to appeal the British Columbia decision would.

    Mr. Robinson.

    Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, just on that point, the motion this committee just adopted urged support for the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal, which in fact redefines the definition of marriage to be inclusive and respects freedom or religion.

    Surely, having adopted that motion, a motion that in effect would say to appeal the essence of that decision by any other court would not be in order.

    The Chair: I'm going to say that it is in order, because you could appeal it for other reasons. That argument has been put by Ms. Jennings and others. I suspect the result of the last vote could inform this vote, but I do think it's in order.

    An hon. member: [Inaudible—Editor]

    The Chair: If I may, Monsieur Ménard, there's another question...but we're dealing with this motion first, Ms. Jennings.

    Sorry, Mr. Robinson.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Okay. I just want to make sure that you don't forget--

    The Chair: We know there are other motions to follow of a more administrative nature.

    Mr. Robinson.

    Mr. Svend Robinson: This is a debatable motion, is it?

    The Chair: Yes, it is.

    Mr. Ménard, on a point of order.

    One at a time, please.

[Translation]

    Mr. Réal Ménard: Just so we understand what's going on, it's not a matter of preventing anyone from expressing themselves, of course. We have voted on a motion whereby we maintain our support for the principle of the decision made by the Ontario Court of Appeal with everything that involves as to the consequences.

    Now, there's a colleague inviting this same committee, subsequently, to appeal a decision of the British Columbia Supreme Court. So, simply as a matter of consistency, I'd like to know what decision you made. After that, you could tell us if we should debate the motion here and now or whether we should take that as being a notice of motion.

[English]

    The Chair: He gave notice 48 hours ago, as did Mr. Lee. The only reason I'm separating the two is that arguments have been made that appealing doesn't necessarily mean you're challenging the reason. Therefore, it isn't just a matter of the substance of this.

    So I believe it's in order to entertain the motion to appeal the B.C. decision, notwithstanding the vote that has just been taken.

    And it's a debatable motion as put by Mr. O'Brien.

»  (1705)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, I'm just trying to understand the situation on the basis of consistency. That means that even though the vote we've just held binds the committee, of course, your interpretation, your understanding of things means that the chair could be getting ready to accept motions from any provincial appeals court and allow that a debate be held without taking into account the meaning of the vote we have just held. The meaning of the vote we have just held, it seems to me, was to recognize the institution of marriage and its possible application to persons of homosexual orientation. That is the premise of the vote we have just held and you are ready to hear a motion stating exactly the contrary.

    I know that you studied Marxism-Leninism. Perhaps this may have something to do with dialectics, but I would like to understand the consistency of the vote that we're getting ready to take.

[English]

    The Chair: I've made my point. You may not agree with me, but I've made it.

    Monsieur Marceau.

[Translation]

    Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ): Mr. Chairman, on a matter of procedure. As you have decided that the motion from our colleague Pat O'Brien cannot be debated nor voted upon, am I also to understand that the procedures applied to Svend Robinson's motion also apply, which means that we can debate the matter until someone officially asks for the question to be put?

[English]

    The Chair: This is on the motion in terms of the British Columbia decision.

    Mr. Robinson.

    Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, clearly the committee has had a very intensive discussion about the implications of the motion of which I gave notice, and has passed that motion. And I want to thank those members of the committee who supported this motion. I think we've made, frankly, a very historic step forward for equality in this country. This is the first time the Parliament of Canada has spoken out in support of the recognition of equality of gay and lesbian couples in marriage. So I think we should acknowledge that. This is a remarkable, remarkable victory for equality for gay and lesbian people in Canada.

    That said, the implications of adopting another motion that would in effect say, well, no, no, we don't accept equality because it comes from a different court, from the B.C. Court of Appeal....

    Frankly, I think it would make this committee look like a laughingstock. If we are about to embark on that course, I think there are going to have to be some very intensive discussions about this. It raises some very profound questions.

    As a preliminary point, I want to just ask--and I assume the committee is scheduled to adjourn at 5:30--when the committee would--

    The Chair: No, we hadn't made any decision. Understand the sequence of events of today: we weren't even intending to meet at 3:30 p.m. today. We're meeting today because we ran out of time at noon.

    Mr. O'Brien has put his motion. I've gotten advice procedurally, and I'm advised that there is a distinction between supporting the Ontario decision and calling on the government to appeal B.C. It may be a subtle distinction, but there is a distinction.

    I recall very specifically Ms. Jennings, for one, arguing passionately that calling for an appeal doesn't necessarily mean you don't support the position.

    So that's the basis of this.

    That said--

    An hon. member: [Inaudible—Editor]

    Mr. Svend Robinson: This is a debatable motion.

    The Chair: Order!

    Mr. Réal Ménard: Can we adjourn five minutes to drink a beer and celebrate?

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    The Chair: You certainly are free to leave, but I'm now going to....

    Order!

    Mr. O'Brien is the sponsor of the motion.

    You can speak to it.

    Mr. Pat O'Brien: Oh, I've spoken to it, Mr. Chairman, and I'd like to have a recorded vote. I don't know, maybe we're going to have another.....

    Well, at some point we'll have a recorded vote, but I suspect maybe we'll have another filibuster. I mean, we all can play that game. I was tempted, I must admit, to filibuster--the thought crossed my mind--and prevent the vote on Mr. Robinson's motion, but in the spirit of democratic debate and wanting to see these matters resolved, I decided I wouldn't filibuster.

    I suspect I could filibuster, if I can brag a bit, as well as any colleague here, but I decided that would be fundamentally undemocratic and counterproductive. So I resisted the temptation to do that.

    I am in no hurry to go home, Mr. Chairman. This is a vital matter to Canadians. I'm prepared to have the necessary debate on this. I'm in your hands.

    The original motion I attempted to put was to appeal the Ontario and B.C. recent court decisions. You have ruled--and I think properly, I must admit--the Ontario part out of order as per the vote that just happened. You've ruled the B.C. appeal part as in order.

    Let's not get the beer too soon, Monsieur Ménard, and celebrate this issue, because the point is...and I hope I'm not being misconstrued here.

    The justice minister should have appealed this weeks ago. He should have been at the Supreme Court weeks ago; this government should have appealed the B.C. decision. Just because the justice committee, loaded up with some subs and absent some of the members who, for whatever reason, weren't here, went through this debate, absent some of those members...and this committee, on a vote broken by the chairman, which is his right...to conclude that just because the justice committee, on a tie vote broken by the chairman, it somehow prevents the justice minister from moving forward on the B.C. court decision or the Ontario court decision....

    I mean, it's patently absurd. It does no such thing.

    Of course, he has every right to appeal, no matter what this committee says. We're only giving advice. I would submit that he has the responsibility and the duty to appeal. I call on him one more time to appeal.

    Mr. Chairman, I'm prepared to hear the debate until hell freezes over and to stay for the vote, as long as it takes.

»  (1710)  

    The Chair: Perhaps I would advise members that there are votes tonight at 8 o'clock.

    Monsieur Marceau....

    He's not here.

    Mr. Robinson.

    Mr. Svend Robinson: On a point of order just arising from the chair's comment, I assume that the committee would adjourn at 8 o'clock for the votes.

    The Chair: Yes, we're voting at 8 o'clock. We'll probably adjourn slightly before that.

    An hon. member: So we'll filibuster until 8 o'clock.

    The Chair: No, it doesn't work that way.

    Mr. Sorenson.

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Obviously we're looking forward to debating and voting on this very important motion that's been brought forward by Mr. O'Brien.

    It's disappointing to lose the last vote, and disappointing that some were coming in late for the vote and others, who we hadn't seen here before, obviously voting the way the government instructed them to vote. It's disappointing to look around the table and see full chairs, except again the Progressive Conservative chair. When we get to these controversial issues, they tend to stay away from them. I think that's a sad commentary on Parliament and on their responsibilities here.

    We have throughout these hearings in the past spoken about the need for a justice minister to have the courage to stand up, to have the courage to come forward to the courts and say, listen, we need to hear from the highest court of the land.

    Parliamentarians sitting here today, looking at the small picture, the small picture of, “Can we win on the issue of definition of marriage?”, and giving up the issue of where Parliament's role stands in this country....

    I think it's a shame and a sham and a sorry commentary on those constituents who believe we need to stand by and watch a court make decisions that are rightfully those for Parliament. It's sad that the Conservatives don't feel it's important enough to be here on an issue that hundreds of thousands have written in on, with tens of thousands petitions, and even in my constituency, thousands and thousands.

    So I commend the member for bringing this motion forward, asking again that our justice minister step forward and ask for an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, ask for a stay on the decision that's been granted in some of the lower courts, other courts, and I am very much looking forward to supporting this motion.

    An hon. member: It's now my turn, I think.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): No, it's not. It's Mr. Robinson--and I imagine if this goes to a tie vote again the results will be different.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    An hon. member: I told him to keep the beer on ice.

»  (1715)  

    Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, I've had the privilege of speaking briefly to this, and I'm happy to yield to my colleagues. I understand there are others on the list.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Thank you for that brevity, Mr. Robinson.

    Mr. Harvard....

    He's gone.

    Ms. Jennings.

[Translation]

    Ms. Marlene Jennings: Can I see or hear the specific motion put forward by Mr. O'Brien? I do not have anything in writing in front of me. The only documents I received deal with Mr. Robinson's motion and one presented by Mr. McKay. I have never seen Mr. O'Brien's motion. Before speaking to it, I would like to know what it is about.

[English]

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Are you finished, Ms. Jennings?

[Translation]

    Ms. Marlene Jennings: No, I am not finished.

[English]

    I want to see the actual motion so that I can speak to it.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Now that you've seen it, do you want to continue to speak?

[Translation]

    Ms. Marlene Jennings: Yes, I would like to continue.

    Mr. Réal Ménard: Can you read it, Marlene?

    Ms. Marlene Jennings: Sure, the motion reads as follows:

That the Government of Canada appeal both the B.C. Court and the Ontario Court decisions (re: same-sex marriage) to the Supreme Court.

    In English it reads:

[English]

That the Government of Canada appeal both the B.C. Court and the Ontario Court decisions (re: same-sex marriage) to the Supreme Court.

[Translation]

    It is true that a while back, we had a discussion on the court's decision ...

    Mr. Réal Ménard: I am sorry, colleagues, but I have a point of order.

    Mr. Chairman, can you see if we have quorum? I do not think so.

[English]

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): What is quorum, 10 members?

    We're not calling the vote yet, though.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: It doesn't matter; if we don't have quorum....

[Translation]

    Mr. Réal Ménard: No, we cannot have a debate if there is no quorum.

    Can we suspend and restart our deliberations a little later on, Mr. Chairman?

    Ms. Marlene Jennings: Yes.

    Mr. Réal Ménard: Let us suspend for 15 minutes.

    Ms. Marlene Jennings: Is there no quorum?

    Mr. Réal Ménard: We do not have a quorum.

    Ms. Marlene Jennings: Does it take that long to count to 10?

    Mr. Réal Ménard: We do not have a quorum.

    Ms. Marlene Jennings: Well, if we do not have quorum, we will have to suspend the meeting.

    Mr. Réal Ménard: Yes, you have to suspend the meeting, Mr. Chairman.

    Ms. Marlene Jennings: Mr. Chairman ....

[English]

    Mr. Réal Ménard: There's no quorum. You have to suspend.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): I am suspending, for five minutes.

»    

---

»    

»  (1750)  

    The Chair: I see quorum.

    Mr. O'Brien.

    Mr. Pat O'Brien: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the way the whip's put it, I think if you seek it--I hope if you seek it--you might find agreement to hold the vote on my motion and then dispose of it however we see fit.

    The Chair: Order.

    Mr. O'Brien, continue.

    Mr. Pat O'Brien: I thought perhaps there was an appetite to--

    The Chair: Members, he has a point of order.

    Mr. Pat O'Brien: My point of order is, I thought perhaps there was some interest in holding the vote among the colleagues and forgoing further debate. So I'm asking to see if that's the case.

    The Chair: Is it the case?

[Translation]

    Mr. Réal Ménard: I would like to speak to the motion. I understand that there is no time limit, but I would like to speak to the motion.

[English]

    The Chair: I appreciate that you'd like to do that, but it's not your turn.

[Translation]

    Mr. Réal Ménard: Then, when it will be my turn to speak after Ms. Jennings...

»  (1755)  

[English]

    The Chair: Ms. Jennings.

[Translation]

    Ms. Marlene Jennings: First, I would like to thank the committee clerk for having given me a written copy of Mr. O'Brien's motion. I would also like to thank Mr. O'Brien for having presented his motion. I think the committee members who were at a meeting of the Committee on Justice and Human Rights about a week ago, which was held almost immediately after the British Columbia Court of Appeal made its ruling, may remember that I had addressed the issue as to whether the government should appeal the ruling or whether it should refer the matter to the Supreme Court of Canada.

    At the time, I argued with ardour, emotion and passion, I believe, that, as a jurist, perhaps due to an occupational bias, I believed appealing a decision or a ruling did not necessarily mean that one disagreed with the ruling, but that issues of law may be in contention. Therefore, in my opinion, as a member of this committee, as a woman and as a lawyer, I felt that the British Columbia Court of Appeal ruling did not clearly and decisively address certain issues which, in my view, were of capital,and even national, interest.

    Since that ruling, however, the Ontario Court of Appeal made its ruling, and I must say that the Ontario ruling addressed, at least to my mind, all the outstanding issues from the British Columbia Court of Appeal ruling. At issue was whether the government had the sole power to change the definition of marriage, or whether, given the fact that the definition is based in common law, the courts had the right to do so. If the court decided that the current definition was a violation of rights guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, could the matter be resolved only by passing legislation or by changing the common law definition?

    The Ontario Court of Appeal was very eloquent; it even referred to former rulings. I think the ruling in the Swain case set out the stages a tribunal or a judge must follow before concluding, once a decision has been made, that there was discrimination and that the discrimination is not justified under section 1 of the Charter. The ruling established the process to address the discrimination, the violation. That is one issue.

    The other issue I did not think the British Columbia Court of Appeal addressed was the protection of freedom of religious belief under the Charter.

    I think the Ontario Court of Appeal addressed nearly 100 per cent of my question, but not completely, because the Court of Appeal, if I may quote it, I have the decision here .... Given the testimony we heard, I was really shocked. One of our witnesses was from the Metropolitan Community Church of Toronto. But the Ontario Court of Appeal referred to the third issue, which deals with religious rights under subsections 15(1) and 15(2) of the Charter. The Court of Appeal simply said that:

  (1800)  

[English]

[53] In our view, this case does not engage religious rights and freedoms. Marriage is a legal institution, as well as a religious and a social institution. This case is solely about the legal institution of marriage. It is not about the religious validity or invalidity of various forms of marriage. We do not view this case as, in any way, dealing or interfering with the religious institution of marriage.

[Translation]

    I think the court was right. The problem is that under the current system, the provinces grant the authority to recognize legally, in civil court, religious marriages celebrated by religious institutions. But this church, the Metropolitan Community Church of Toronto, testified before this committee, I don't have their brief with me, but I read it again after having seen this passage of the Ontario Court of Appeal's ruling.

    Representatives from this Church clearly told us during their testimony that the Ontario registrar had threatened to repeal their right to conduct civilian marriages. Let me explain. Should they conduct a religious marriage ceremony, they were told that this religious marriage would not be recognized by civilian authorities if the church continued to conduct same-sex marriages, despite the fact that the church had said that it would not register these unions. The registrar said that it would take away the church's right to marry people.

    Therefore, I think that this small aspect regarding the protection of religious rights must be examined, but I don't think it should be done through an appeal; I think that the matter should ultimately be brought before the Supreme Court of Canada.

    So, for this and other reasons, I cannot support the motion presented by my esteemed colleague Mr. O'Brien, despite the position I took a certain while ago. As I said, the Ontario Court of Appeal decision shook things up. That's the beauty of law. The law can change, and people who base their decisions on the law can also change. It's unfortunate that some members of our committee have not changed their position with regard to this legal matter, but I can always hope that they will.

    Mr. Chairman, I must tell my colleague Mr. O'Brien that I do not take this position without regret, because I truly do regret it. I cannot support your motion, but I respect your right to propose it, to trigger a debate on the issue and to vote on it.

    Thank you.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Monsieur Ménard.

[Translation]

    Mr. Réal Ménard: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I would like to reiterate the fact that you are my friend and I would like to congratulate you for the astuteness you have demonstrated in carrying out your work. But my friendship is not reserved for you alone; of course, I also extend the hand of friendship to the Member for London--Fanshawe and to all my colleagues, and I take up the challenge of the former leader of the Canadian Alliance to participate in the debate.

    Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether you understand the significance of today's vote, but this truly is a historic day. In fact, I wanted to suggest to all members, including those from the Canadian Alliance, the Liberals and my colleagues from the Bloc, to go for 10 per cent in their riding in order to show that the expression of democracy is still alive and well today.

    As you know, Mr. Chairman, I am a jurist in the making. As for the member for Charlesbourg--Jacques-Cartier, he is a true jurist. One of the first things you learn in law—and this, of course, goes back to Montesquieu; you have studied Karl Marx, whereas others have studied Montesquieu—is the fact that you have to understand the division of powers. Under our system, the executive, the judiciary and the legislative branches each have their own responsibilities. Of course, this is something you learn in school throughout Canada. We are legislators and therefore must pass legislation and provide the direction on moral, social, economic and cultural issues.

    Today, an event happened which we will not forget to include in our memoirs. I don't know if you intend to write yours, but when I write mine, I will not give them the title "Memoirs of an obedient member of Parliament". I know that this title does not apply to me, but I will never forget the moment when we all told homosexuals that equality was accessible to them. I will never forget the moment when... I believe my colleague, the Member for Scarborough-East, will also write his memoirs, and I am convinced that they will reflect a spirit of inertia and conservatism which you will not find in my own memoirs. But please don't think that I don't like him; I am sure that he is just as pleased as I am about the vote we have held today.

    I don't know if you have already reflected on this matter, but what is extraordinary about democracy is that sometimes your opinion reflects that of the minority; sometimes it reflects that of the majority; sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, but majorities can be rebuilt, after which they may disappear and then come back again.

    Today, I repeat, we have reflected the true, noble and authentic values of democracy, because we have voted to the best of our conscience, of that I have no doubt.

    I would be remiss if I did not voice a vibrant tribute to my colleague, the Member for Burnaby--Douglas. As you know, the Member for Burnaby--Douglas will soon be 50, though he is just as sharp as always, as you can see. But the Member for Burnaby--Douglas, of course, has carved out a very special role for himself in Parliament, because he has been involved in every debate on human rights. The Member for Burnaby--Douglas is truly a person born before his time. I don't think he will hold it against me when I say that after he came out, the glass window of his Burnaby office, in the Vancouver area, was smashed in. It just goes to show how much things have changed. When the Member for Burnaby--Douglas came out, when he publicly said that he was gay, there were people who reacted with extreme hostility, to the point where the window of his office was smashed in.

    When I came out of the closet in 1994 or 1995—your colleague from Halifax knows what I'm talking about—the reaction was very, very different. However, what we had in common is that it is never easy to come out publicly and that our party leaders do not like risks. I don't know if the Member for Charlesbourg--Jacques-Cartier would agree with me. Our former party leader had the reputation of being daring, I admit, but generally speaking, party leaders do not like risks. I think Ed Broadbent had advised the Member for Burnaby--Douglas not to come out of the closet.

    Everyone knows just how good a premier Mr. Bouchard was. He was one of the most interesting sovereignists to come out of Quebec. He balanced the budget. He launched many major progressive measures in modern Quebec, including $5 a day daycare. As for employment equity, you should hear what Ms. Louise Harel has to say about it. Mr. Bouchard was truly an exceptional man. I think that the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce--Lachine would agree with me that Lucien Bouchard stood head and shoulders above the rest. In the 19^th century, we had Henri Bourassa and in the 20^th century we had Lucien Bouchard.

    Of course, there were other great leaders, but I believe that...

¼  (1805)  

¼  (1810)  

    Ms. Marlene Jennings: René Lévesque.

    Mr. Réal Ménard: Oh! There was also Mr. René Lévesque; I'm just getting to him. Please don't think that I would have forgotten to mention Mr. Lévesque.

    As for Pierre Elliott Trudeau, I would ask you to please remain calm. But what's interesting is that when I speak with the Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce--Lachine, she mentions the name of Pierre Elliott Trudeau. It's interesting to ask why. Did Pierre Elliott Trudeau—former Member for Mont-Royal, public law professor at the Université de Montréal, member of the Cohen Commission which studied—the Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce--Lachine may remember— in 1964-1965, the whole issue of hate propaganda? You were too young. It's true that when you go to a bar, they probably still ask you for i.d.

    The Cohen report had been tabled by Chairman Cohen, who was...

[English]

    The Chair: Is this going to get to the subject soon?

[Translation]

    Mr. Réal Ménard: I'm getting there, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

    The Chair: Okay, thank you.

[Translation]

    Mr. Réal Ménard: So, the Cohen report, which had been produced at the request of Mr. Favreau, a former minister, dealt with hate propaganda. You may remember that at the time there was a lot of resistance. What connects the issue of hate propaganda and the motion which is before us is the fact that it is always incumbent on lawmakers to assume their responsibilities.

    In 1999, when our Canadian Alliance colleagues tabled a motion on marriage, they wanted to put an end to judicial activism. I have often heard the members of the Canadian Alliance invite their colleagues to assume their responsibilities, and they are right to do so. We are elected, we make fairly good money—$137,000 a year—and our job is to pass legislation. That is why I find it very hard to understand the motion presented by the Member for London--Fanshawe. His motion says that even though we are here, in a parliamentary committee... I remember something Lucien Bouchard told us at our first caucus meeting. It was that a member of Parliament shows his or her true mettle on a parliamentary committee. A member of Parliament doesn't always have to prove his or her mettle in question period, but always when sitting on a committee.

    Believe you me...

[English]

    Mr. Pat O'Brien: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: Go ahead.

    Mr. Pat O'Brien: I apologize, because I certainly don't want to circumvent or to short-circuit my colleague's...but we're all trying to maximize the use of our time. You mentioned a couple of times that we're paid by the taxpayers, and we all have many other duties we could go to.

    We're all experienced parliamentarians here, and I suspect we won't get to the vote today before we have to rise to go to the House. I'm wondering if there's a spirit here of collegiality that we rise now--it's clear we're not going to get to vote on this motion today--and come back at it next meeting.

    I would propose that as a suggestion.

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: Okay, I see agreement.

    Mr. Maloney.

    Mr. John Maloney: What about Mr. Macklin's motion?

    The Chair: Not necessary.

    The meeting's adjourned.