JUST Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA JUSTICE ET DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, March 23, 2000

• 0944

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose (Oshawa, Lib.)): I now call this meeting to order.

The first order of business is the last order of business of yesterday. In the opinion of this chair, it has been well debated. I think we were running a little awry at the end of yesterday's meeting. I think it's an appropriate time to call the vote on Mr. Maloney's amendment.

Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, first of all, in response to the comments of the chair, and with great respect to the chair, the chair of course will be aware that particularly on an issue this serious, there is no provision for limitation of time on debate within this committee. I know the chair is aware of that.

• 0945

But I'm going to raise a substantive issue if the parliamentary secretary is proceeding this morning with this amendment. Members of the group Égalité pour les gaies et les lesbiennes, EGALE, have distributed a letter. I don't know if the clerk has circulated the letter to all members of the committee or not.

Has that not been circulated?

The Clerk of the Committee: No.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Well, Mr. Chairman, I will give a copy to the clerk and ask that he—

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Copies of the letter will be circulated.

Mr. Svend Robinson: It was sent to the chair and to the clerk. I believe we have copies available here.

In essence, what EGALE, through its executive director, John Fisher, is pointing out is that if the committee wishes to proceed with this proposed new amendment defining marriage in this way—

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, is this a document for which we should receive notice, or this document in both official languages?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): We have accepted this in the past and there is no motion.

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Mr. Saada.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Chairman, whatever the substance of what we are going to debate here, we cannot change our mind like we change our shirt just because it seems practical to do so. We have always had the rule here that documents would be officially distributed only if they were in both languages. My colleague, Mr. Ménard, is the most ardent defender of that policy, and yet today he is ready to change the rule for reasons of political expediency. I am not going along with it.

Mr. Réal Ménard: I have a point of order.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): First, Mr. Robinson, please.

Mr. Svend Robinson: In the interests of expediting this, I'm quite prepared to read the letter in full, and that way it will be translated if Mr. Saada prefers that.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: No, no, I speak English very well and I do not need interpretation. I think this is a question of principle. The principle is...

Mr. Réal Ménard: [Editor's Note: Inaudible]... documents that were not in both languages.

[English]

Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Order, Mr. Chairman. One person has the floor.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Myers, you are not the chairman.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Mr. Ménard, please....

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, I will read the letter.

Mr. John McKay: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, is this letter an introduction of new evidence?

Mr. Svend Robinson: No, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. John McKay: Then what possible relevance could it be to the committee?

A voice: Actually none.

Mr. John McKay: Actually none, exactly. So the introduction of new evidence after the closing of the aspects of hearing on evidence is, in my view, out of order and should not be permitted.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order, this letter does not constitute new evidence. I'm raising a point of order, though, suggesting that in light of the fact that the amendment that is proposed by Mr. Maloney raises a very significant new issue....

In fact, EGALE as well makes that point. At no time were they or other witnesses asked to make representations with respect to marriage. In fact I reviewed the very lengthy brief that was submitted by EGALE on Bill C-23, and it doesn't touch on the issue of marriage.

If this amendment is to be proceeded with, surely it is not unreasonable to ask that the committee stand down clause-by-clause and allow witnesses to be heard on both sides of this issue. But right now we haven't heard witnesses on this issue at all, and that's the request that I would make. I'm quite prepared to move a motion to that effect.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Thank you. Give the chair a moment, please, while I consult.

• 0950

Mr. Robinson, so I'm clear on this—I think I'm getting involved with lawyers here—you are asking that we recall witnesses.

Mr. Svend Robinson: What I'm proposing, what I'm moving, is that the committee allow further witnesses to be heard on the specific issue that is dealt with by this amendment in view of the fact that we heard literally no witnesses on the implications of a specific definition of marriage.

I would hope that would meet with agreement. I know you want to move this bill forward. Until yesterday I certainly agreed with that, but I think it's essential that both those who oppose this definition and those who support the definition have an opportunity to be heard by this committee. If not, we are voting in the absence of any evidence on this absolutely fundamental issue. I remind the committee that this will be the first time in Canadian history that there's a statutory definition of marriage. If this committee proceeds to adopt this motion without even allowing people to be heard, frankly, it's outrageous.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Thank you, Mr. Robinson.

Quite frankly, my decision is that it's a matter for the committee to solve. So I would ask that if you want to make a motion to the effect of what you just said—you gave your testimony for the motion—then it's up to the committee.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, I would move that the committee stand down clause-by-clause consideration in order to give those witnesses who wish to be heard on the specific issue of the definition of marriage an opportunity to be heard by this committee—obviously not all witnesses, but the steering committee would decide.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Mr. McKay.

Mr. John McKay: I was just asking that the question be called.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Monsieur Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: No, Mr. Chairman. I would like to speak to the motion.

I will begin with a clarification for Mr. Saada. I will remind him that his colleagues regularly took presentations to read that were available in only one language. So when it suits them...

I would like to finish, Mr. Chairman.

We have always been flexible. You know that that is one of my best qualities. When we need to, we are prepared to do what is necessary so that the committee is not deprived of any information.

Mr. Chairman, the motion of our colleague, Svend Robinson, is very important. I think that you can attest to the fact that I have always taken part in this committee's work with a great deal of energy and good will. We are supporting this bill and, all of a sudden, without any warning, in total contradiction to what the government had been saying up to this point, the Parliamentary secretary comes here with a motion that says exactly the opposite of what the Minister told the committee. You were there, Mr. Saada. You remember that the Minister came and she told us that this bill had nothing to do with marriage.

Mr. Chairman, there is a very large coalition in Canada that is authorized to speak on behalf of gays and lesbians; it works closely with those people and has been following the human rights file for a number of years. This group appeared before us after carefully reading the bill. I believe that their evidence would have been radically different if their analysis had had to take into account the amendment proposed by the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. Chairman, you know very well that EGALE is not an ordinary witness; it is an authorized national umbrella group which possesses a tremendous amount of expertise, has argued before the Supreme Court and has been following all the issues connected with recognition for same-sex couples for years.

I think we should show them at least the basic courtesy of allowing them to express their opinions on behalf of the thousands of people they represent. These people, whether they live in Newfoundland, British Columbia, Quebec, Saskatchewan, Alberta, New Brunswick or Ontario, Mr. Chairman, are part of a true coalition in the Canadian sense of the word.

This request is therefore entirely reasonable. I think there is nothing unreasonable in what is being proposed by our colleague, Svend Robinson, and I hope that the government, for reasons of transparency and also in order to make sure that the debate remains civilized...

We have been working on this for several weeks. Like a number of the members around the table, I have been here to listen to all the witnesses. It has been a pleasure to hear them. We have had the feeling that we are building something. We know that human rights are central to the concerns expressed in this bill.

We do need to keep in mind the need for consistency. Mr. Chairman, why is the Parliamentary Secretary's amendment dangerous? I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, who is a highly intellectual person, understands this. We cannot say, on the one hand, that this bill has nothing to do with marriage and, on the other, that it needs to include the definition of marriage.

• 0955

Our colleague, Jacques Saada, quoted the Civil Code here yesterday. Mr. Chairman, this is radically different from what was said. When Serge Ménard spoke in the National Assembly, he told the MNAs that he was amending some 30 laws, but that he was not changing the Civil Code, since the Civil Code does not recognize heterosexual common-law relationships. Because that recognition is not in the Civil Code, it is understandable that homosexual couples would not be recognized either.

There will be a debate. Mr. Saada, I invite you to follow that debate. There will be a debate in the National Assembly before long on revisions to the Civil Code and what gay activists have called for.

Mr. Chairman, I want to make my case. I also want to take this opportunity to pay a wholehearted tribute to EGALE. The human rights situation in Canada would have been radically different if EGALE did not exist. Who among us has not, at one time or another, been witness to an informed, warm, generous, dynamic and dignified presentation by a group like EGALE, which has attended despite its extremely limited financial means.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to remind you that EGALE will be holding a gala in May, around the time of my birthday, around the 13th of May, to raise money so that it can continue its activities in the area of human rights.

Mr. Chairman, we are really not talking about an ordinary witness. All witnesses are important for parliamentarians. I think that my colleague, Svend Robinson, will agree with me. All witnesses are important, but EGALE falls into a separate category.

Mr. Chairman, EGALE has argued cases a number of times before the Supreme Court of Canada. Its main spokesperson, John Fisher, studied law, in New Zealand, I believe. I hope he will correct me if I am wrong.

I believe that the motion before us, Mr. Chairman, and I will end on this, is reasonable and shows sincere respect for our parliamentary practices. We should have the courage to recognize that if the witnesses had had before them from the outset the Parliamentary Secretary's motion, their testimony would have been radically different. Mr. Chairman, let us take the time to do things right.

I will close by referring to the German philosopher, Max Engels, who said that speed was the enemy of intelligence. We need to take the time to weigh the merits of the Parliamentary Secretary's amendment. Let us not deprive ourselves of the very practical, grassroots genuine expertise of one of the most dynamic coalitions in Canada. I am talking, of course, about EGALE.

I hope that the committee members, whom I know intimately from working with all of them and whom I consider to be friends in at least seven cases out of eight, will support the amendment of our colleague, Svend Robinson, to the effect that EGALE...

Moreover, Mr. Chairman, they are here with us in the room. It would only take a few minutes. They would come to the table and the Parliamentary Secretary, with his typical graciousness, would let them take his place. The senior official would also agree to step aside for a minute. They could come back as soon as we heard from EGALE about what gays and lesbians think of an amendment like this one.

However, I will not claim that this bill concerns only gays and lesbians. This bill concerns all democrats. Mr. Chairman, is there any value more important to democracy than equality among individuals? This value is so important that it is enshrined in all anti-discrimination provisions.

Mr. Chairman, if I were to ask all parliamentarians who do not believe in such equality to raise their hands, I'm absolutely convinced that we would not see even one hand raised. After all, we are here to work for equality.

I would therefore hope, Mr. Chairman, that all parliamentarians will subscribe to the argument I respectfully submit, and I hope that before the end of this morning, we will have an opportunity to engage in dialogue with EGALE, which is quite prepared to do just that.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Thank you, Mr. Ménard. I almost moved against you on relevance, but then I decided that your birthday is of general interest to most of us here, so I didn't.

Mr. Lowther, then Ms. Torsney.

• 1000

Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Regarding this motion, I think it should be noted that the Reform Party members of this committee have long advocated for greater consultation with Canadians on this bill. In fact, we had a motion before this committee to hear from provincial witnesses and provincial government representatives to give us their perspectives on the bill. The committee deemed at that time to not approve that motion, and that was voted down.

We have a number of concerns on the bill and we'd like to see Canadians from coast to coast have input on this bill, not just for the particular clause but for the whole question around the definition of who qualifies. This bill refuses to make clear who qualifies for these benefits. There are a number of other issues we have, but that is not something the committee has been open to so far.

In addition, Mr. Chair, I know a number of witnesses would have liked to appear before this committee but were unable to or, for whatever reason, were not allowed to appear here. I guess it was because of time constraints. That's what I was told. I felt that even the witness list we had was heavily weighted in favour of those who were in favour of the bill. There were many voices that weren't heard that had concerns about the bill. If that continues to be the way we decide on who appears before this committee, I'd be reluctant to open up more testimony from one side of the equation or one side of the issue.

When I look at the track record of this committee so far, it is slanted in one direction. Unless we had assurances that all members of the committee could bring forward voices that wanted to be heard and they were going to be heard, and we got some provincial input on this issue, I'd be reluctant to support the motion.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Thank you, Mr. Lowther.

Ms. Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Chair, I'd just like to put the question. I think the strange bedfellows opposite have finished their debate.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): There's one more.

Mr. MacKay, please.

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr. Chair, this doesn't just go to any one specific group, with respect. This includes the entire tenure of how this committee approached the question and approached this legislation. It's not just gays and lesbians. It's all Canadians.

We were looking at this legislation on this premise and we were told specifically.... I want to quote for the committee from the minister, who appeared before us on this legislation on February 29. In fact I remember it, Mr. Chair, because I asked her the specific question that's being discussed here today. I asked her specifically whether her department had contemplated including the definition of marriage at some point in the legislation. I believe Mr. Lowther, with respect, also asked her similar questions. This is what she had to say. She replied, “Marriage is a distinct institution that is not implicated in this legislation in any way”.

She goes on further, Mr. Chair. She was asked again, I believe by Mr. McKay opposite, why this legislation wasn't clear. We know this government is a big fan of clarity, Mr. Chair. This is what she said at that point. I'm quoting directly from the minister on February 29:

Marriage is clearly defined in the common law of this country and the civil law of this country, and there's no confusion about the definition of marriage. This deals with a different set of relationships, and we want to make that plain.

Further, the same day, Mr. Chair, there was a question from Mr. John McKay. Response: “This legislation doesn't deal with the institution of marriage.” She goes on to say: “We try to deal with the subject matter of the legislation. ... This legislation does not deal with the definition of marriage.” Further, on the same page: “Marriage is clear. It is clearly defined in the law of this country.” She also says: “And I don't think one necessarily wants to confuse the two in the same piece of legislation.”

Further, in answer to Mr. McKay:

It's defined in the common law. Everybody knows what marriage is. There's no point to put it in here. ... There's no need to put it in here, because this doesn't deal with the institution of marriage.

Further, from the minister:

There's no need to put it in here, because this doesn't deal with the institution of marriage. There is legislation, the Marriage Act, that does deal with the institution of marriage. But this doesn't. I don't think it would serve society well to confuse the two in this legislation.

Mr. Chair, the entire testimony, the entire tenure of the government's presentation of this legislation was that we weren't dealing with marriage, we were dealing with financial obligations and benefits. Whether you are for this insertion or not is irrelevant at this point. I'm suggesting that we weren't looking at it. The goalposts have been completely moved now by the insertion of this clause at this point.

• 1005

If we had been told at the outset that we would be discussing it, fine. We would have heard testimony about it. We would have had a clearer view as to what this legislation was about. The minister has swallowed herself whole. I suggest, if need be, we go back and we hear evidence on this point. I may very well end up supporting it at the end of the day. In fact, when I asked her about it, I was suggesting that maybe we should be doing it, and she told us—assured us—that this wasn't the case.

Now, presumably because of public pressure.... We've all been feeling it, as members of Parliament. Canadians again are speaking. This is akin to what happened with the NHL subsidies. The government has completely reversed itself because of the prevailing public opinion. If that's the case, let's not rush to judgment. Let's make an informed decision. We have time. We don't have to ramrod and bulldoze this thing through committee. You said yourself yesterday, Mr. Chairman, that we have the time to deliberate on this. Let's make the right choice and let's make an informed decision, not just rush to judgment.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Thank you, Mr. MacKay. Your analogy about the NHL situation was very interesting.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Quite apt.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): I'll explain it to you someday.

Ms. Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you.

Mr. Chair, just for the benefit of members, it's completely consistent that members of the general public, representatives of fine national organizations or even regional organizations, make representation to committee members from time to time on issues of importance as the amendment process in the clause-by-clause is being considered. The reality is that this amendment Mr. Maloney is going to put forward as the parliamentary secretary is completely consistent with what the minister has said before this committee, in the House, and all across the country.

The reality is that we have clarified, which is something surely the members opposite would want to do, that this bill confirms the government's commitment to the institution of marriage, that it continues to extend benefits, that we will amend 68 federal statutes to extend benefits and obligations to same-sex couples on the basis of common-law, opposite-sex relationships. It will amend legislation to recognize the principle of equal treatment for common-law relationships under federal law in relation to benefits and obligations.

To quote the minister, from her own release:

I have repeatedly said that this bill is about fairness. It is not about marriage and will not change the legal definition of marriage. Having said that, I recognize that it is important to Canadians to clearly indicate in Bill C-23 that the definition of marriage will not change.

This amendment that would be before us is in fact completely consistent with what the minister has said over and over again. It is to ensure that Canadians who are paying attention to this debate have a clear understanding of what we are trying to do with this piece of legislation and that it is absolutely consistent.

I think the proposition that this committee would hear new testimony from groups is completely absurd and the motion should be voted down.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Thank you, Ms. Torsney.

Mr. DeVillers.

Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Thank you.

I wanted to rebut some of the points Mr. MacKay just made, where he indicates that this is inconsistent with the minister's position. I totally disagree. The position has been clear from the beginning that this legislation has nothing to do with marriage. The reason for an amendment at this point is simply that there have been allegations made that it has something to do with marriage, and that is what created the necessity to clarify it.

The bill also has nothing to do with the five principles of the Canada Health Act, but we're not adding an amendment to say the bill has nothing to do with the five principles of the Canada Health Act, because no witnesses have alleged that it has anything to do with the five principles of the Canada Health Act. In this case, in spite of Mr. Robinson's intervention and Mr. MacKay's intervention, we did have witnesses who said that this bill is about marriage. We've had many witnesses, not the witnesses we want to hear from now, but we did have them. I haven't been at every hearing, but in many of the hearings I've been at, that allegation was made.

That is why I think it is completely consistent with the minister's position that we add this clarification, by way of amendment, at this point. I agree with Ms. Torsney that we should get on with the business of dealing with the motion.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Thank you, Mr. DeVillers.

I sense, Mr. Robinson—

Mr. Svend Robinson: I'd like to read the motion, if I may.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): I will read the motion and I will call the question.

• 1010

Mr. Svend Robinson: The motion reads as follows:

That the committee stand down clause-by-clause study of Bill C-23 in order to permit further witnesses to be heard on the issue of the definition of marriage, with a balance of witnesses from those opposing the proposed amendment and those supporting the proposed amendment on the definition of marriage.

So the motion very clearly states there must be a balance of witnesses from both perspectives, Mr. Chairman.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Thank you, Mr. Robinson. I'll call the question.

An hon. member: Roll call.

(Motion negatived: nays 10; yeas 4; abstentions 1)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Now we're back to consideration of Mr. Maloney's amendment.

Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, we're now on debate?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Yes.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the amendment, I want to propose a subamendment as follows. The subamendment is that the amendment be amended by deleting all of the words after “marriage”. I will speak to that, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I want to first of all note that the committee, in proceeding with this amendment to include an explicit definition of marriage as being “the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others” is in my view embarking on a very unprecedented and dangerous course.

The chair has ruled the motion in order, and obviously the committee accepts that ruling, but Mr. Chairman, I want to plead with members of this committee to recognize that if the concern of the minister is to ensure that for those people who believe that somehow this is a “death of marriage act” or that it is an attack or an assault on marriage, if they need some comfort, she can achieve that objective without actually explicitly including a definition of marriage.

If the subamendment were adopted, the amendment would read as follows: “For greater certainty, the amendments made by this Act do not affect the meaning of the word “marriage”. Full stop. If the amendment goes on and then explicitly includes a definition of marriage, then the minister is doing precisely what she said she wasn't going to do. She is dealing with the substantive issue of the definition of marriage.

Mr. MacKay spoke eloquently earlier about some of the comments made by the minister in committee on this issue. I understand and I know there has been significant pressure on Liberal backbenchers particularly, given some of the misrepresentations and the campaigns of hysteria and fearmongering that have taken place around this issue.

I have a press release issued by a member of this House, the Reform Party member for Yorkton—Melville. The headline is as follows: “Breitkreuz Renames Bill C-23, the Death of Marriage Act”. He goes on to say a number of things, including: “In the 1950s, buggery was a criminal offence, now it's a requirement to receive benefits from the federal government.”

• 1015

Mr. Chairman, that's typical of the kind of fearmongering and hysteria that we've seen around this issue of marriage. This bill has absolutely nothing to do with a redefinition of marriage, and I challenge any member of this committee to look anywhere in their briefing book or in the bill to find one comma or one word that changes that definition of marriage that was recently affirmed in Layland and Beaulne—and I'll come to Layland and Beaulne in a minute, Mr. Chairman.

So the bill doesn't deal with that, and if the government wants to say the bill doesn't deal with marriage, fine. But to then go on, Mr. Chairman, and say “The bill doesn't deal with marriage, but here is what “marriage” means” is deeply offensive and, in my view, an outrageous betrayal of the role of this committee.

So what this has done is force us into a substantive discussion that no witness entered into. But we have no choice, because if the minister in fact wants to define marriage, then as a committee we have to apply our best possible resources to determine whether it's a good amendment or a bad amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I would argue that this is a destructive amendment, and I want to make a couple of arguments as to why I believe that to be the case. I know members on the opposite side of the table have pronounced themselves on this issue. Indeed, the member who moved the amendment, Mr. Maloney, is on record during the debate on a Reform Party motion on June 8 last year. It was very clear, and I quote Mr. Maloney—he wouldn't object. He said: “Same sex marriages do nothing to advance the position of family. Same sex marriages are the antithesis of family.” That's a Liberal member, Mr. Chairman, and I repeat: “Same sex marriages are the antithesis of family.”

So it's no surprise that this member would be proposing a motion, as the Reform Party proposed earlier, that in effect encapsulates that philosophy. That's no surprise. But, Mr. Chairman, what is shocking is that it's being done at this stage of the process, after the minister assured us that this was not in fact a part of this bill. And it was interesting to look at that debate, Mr. Chairman, on the Reform Party's motion around the definition of marriage.

A member of the Liberal caucus was here yesterday, Eleni Bakopanos. She's not here today. She said:

I would like to respond to comments made by opposition members. If the government has never expressed any intention to change the legal definition of marriage, then what is the point of the Reform Party's motion?

That's a good question. Substitute the word “Liberal” for “Reform”, and I ask exactly the same question to this committee. That's exactly the same issue. What's the point, when it isn't dealt with in the bill at all?

So here we are. We have to decide whether or not we want to do this, if we want to entrench for the first time in Canadian history an exclusive definition of marriage in statute law. That's what this committee is being asked to do. I would argue this is a mistake, and that's why I am proposing this amendment.

First of all, I want to point out that despite some suggestions by the Reform Party to the contrary, to the extent that public opinion has been canvassed on this issue of marriage, it supports an amendment. The most recent published poll that I've seen on the issue of marriage—and our justice department officials may be able to assist us—showed that as long ago as June 1996, Mr. Chairman—and this is an Angus Reid poll of over 1,516 Canadian adults from across Canada—the results were as follows....

I apologize for my voice. I will speak for as long as I can. I know that's a great disappointment to some.

This is public opinion on same-sex marriages. These poll results show that public opinion is divided on the issue of legal recognition of same-sex marriages, with 49% saying homosexual couples who wish to marry should qualify for legal recognition of marriage, while 47% are opposed.

So even if the test were to be, what's the public telling us? As long ago as 1996 the public was saying—by a majority, albeit a small majority—do this. It's the right thing to do. Okay? I would venture to suggest that since then the majority has become even bigger, because what the poll also showed is that there was a huge age difference. In fact, Mr. Chairman, Canadians aged 18 to 34 supported recognition of same-sex marriage by a margin of over two to one; 67% supported recognition, 31% opposed it. And in the last three years it has been even more so.

• 1020

If you want to take public opinion as the criterion, which the Reform Party always say they want to do.... They say they're listening to the grassroots, Mr. Chairman. They're concerned about grassroots public opinion. They believe in referendums. Mr. Chairman, if they are concerned about grassroots public opinion, I suggest they read the polls on this issue. And if that's what they believe, Mr. Chairman, they'd be voting for this motion.

I want to say a couple of other things, Mr. Chairman. There can be probably no issue more sensitive than this in many respects, because it goes to the core of our view of families. I want to remind the members of this committee that the definition that is now being entrenched in law, if this committee passes this motion, this definition dates to a decision in 1866—that's 1866—in a case called Hyde and Hyde v. Woodmansee. Mr. Chairman, this definition, which we are now entrenching in law, clearly states that marriage, as understood in Christendom—because of course it was defined as a Christian institution—may for this purpose be defined as the voluntary union for life of one woman and one man, to the exclusion of all others.

Mr. Chairman, that's changed. We know now that in fact there are marriages that, tragically, break up. Even there the definition that is being relied on has changed. It has evolved with the passage of time, Mr. Chairman. We know as well—and I want to remind members of the committee of this, because some members of the committee may not be aware of this—that in fact when we look at the whole issue of the history of marriage and how marriage has evolved, our notion of marriage and our recognition of marriage has evolved over the passage of time.

Mr. Chairman, in 1967, a little over 30 years ago, not that long ago, in 1967, there were 16 American states—16 American states—that barred interracial marriage. So when we talk about this definition of marriage that dates back to antiquity, in fact until very recently interracial marriage was barred in 16 American states and it was only struck down in 1967 by the United States Supreme Court.

Mr. Chairman, we know as well that there have been many other arguments about how marriage was being eroded. I want to remind the committee of some of those. We were told in the 19th century by a lot of legislators that altering marriage would virtually destroy the moral and social efficacy of the marriage institution. Mr. Chairman, this was in the 19th century. What was this threat to marriage then that would destroy the institution? Mr. Chairman, it was allowing married women to own property. Allowing married women to own property—that was going to destroy the institution of marriage. No question about it.

So that was the first suggestion, that somehow this would be the end of marriage, the death of marriage. That's the definition that you want to rely on, that you want to entrench in law. That's what it's been used for.

Let me give you another example, Mr. Chairman. Teddy Roosevelt and many other distinguished politicians in the early years of this century said that there was another assault on marriage, Mr. Chairman. They said this is not what the God of nature and grace ordained marriage to be. Religion shudders at the wild orgy of atheism and immorality the situation forebodes. Mr. Chairman, what was that all about? What was this grave threat to marriage then? Mr. Chairman, it was contraception. Contraception was going to destroy marriage, it would be the end of the institution of marriage. That was it—all over.

So first of all, married women owning property was the end of marriage. Then contraception was definitely the end of marriage. The last bastion, the last frontier, Mr. Chairman, was of course interracial marriage. Interracial marriage, Mr. Chairman, interbreeding. It wasn't just politicians. A judge wrote that if we allowed interracial marriages this would be the destruction of marriage, that it would be unnatural and revolting.

• 1025

Mr. Chairman, until 1967 a lot of states accepted that. The point I'm making here, Mr. Chairman, is that the definition of marriage has evolved to recognize realities of change. And one of those realities, Mr. Chairman, is that lesbian and gay people in fact do enter into committed loving relationships, which indeed should have the option of being recognized as marriages. I can imagine a group of legislators sitting around a table like this back in the 1800s or the 1900s and having the same discussion around contraception or married women owning property or interracial marriages and then saying, no, no, no, that's going to destroy marriage. Allowing gay and lesbian people to enter the institution of marriage will no more destroy marriage than interracial marriages, or contraception or allowing married women to own property. That's the reality, Mr. Chairman.

I'm going to finish up, Mr. Chairman, in terms of the substance of this by referring to a decision of the Ontario Court general division, divisional court, from 1993. This was a decision, Mr. Chairman, a two-to-one decision that upheld the traditional definition of marriage, the common-law definition of marriage in 1993. Mr. Chairman, I cite this case from 1993 for a couple of reasons. One is to suggest that if this case were argued today in the year 2000 after Egan and Nesbit, after Vriend, and after M. and H., the results and the outcome may very well be different. So, Mr. Chairman, what we're being asked to embark upon, if we adopt this motion, I believe strongly is to take a course that may very well be unconstitutional, that may very well be in breach of the Charter of Rights itself.

I have no doubt, Mr. Chairman, and I can assure the members of the committee, that this will be challenged. This definition here will be challenged, and I believe there are substantial grounds to believe that the challenge will be successful and indeed the courts will strike down this narrow definition.

Why do I believe that, Mr. Chairman? I want to refer specifically to a couple of things. First of all, one of the key arguments that was made by the majority in arriving at their conclusion, and it's an argument that's been made by Reform Party members as well.... Here's what the majority judge said, Mr. Chairman: “The law does not prohibit marriage by homosexuals, provided it takes place between persons of the opposite sex.”

Think about that for a minute, Mr. Chairman. The law doesn't prohibit marriage by homosexuals provided it takes place between persons of the opposite sex. That's a problem. If you're gay or lesbian, you can marry somebody of the opposite sex. So what's the big deal. Mr. Chairman, it's ludicrous. And it's also bad law, I would argue.

So, Mr. Chairman, that is the legal underpinning of this particular argument.

Let's look finally at the dissenting judgment, and I believe this dissenting judgment will ultimately be upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada. I would note that the Attorney General of Canada intervened in this particular case—it may have been...no, I don't think it was anybody sitting at this table—to oppose the application upholding the traditional definition of marriage, but there was a strong and eloquent dissenting judgment, Mr. Chairman, a judgment that ruled that restricting marriages to heterosexual couples infringes and violates the applicants' section 15(1) charter rights and it can't be justified under section 1 of the charter.

Judge Greer was that dissenting judge, and I want to quote from that judgment. First of all, Judge Greer notes that nowhere—and I want to be very clear on this—does the provincial legislature or the federal government by statute prohibit marriages of same-sex persons. So again, this is the first time in any statutory form that this is taking place. It's a very significant statutory change and I think it's unconstitutional.

Judge Greer goes on to note some of the history that I've referred to already and I won't repeat what she says on that. And Judge Greer says this: “there is no rational connection between supporting heterosexual families and denying homosexuals the right to marry.” There is no rational connection. To deny them the right to marry is a complete denial of their relationship and a denial of their constitutional rights.

And she's right. And if we adopt this motion unamended, we are taking an unconstitutional step. Counsel for the applicants argued, and I believe this is the case, the granting of marriage licences for same-sex unions would be a substantial step towards alleviating the stigma that is associated with homosexual orientation and would help to strengthen their ties to each other, their families—

• 1030

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Svend, just a moment, we're having trouble with the sound system.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I'm sorry.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): It's not your fault.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, is this microphone working now?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Yes.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Good.

Mr. Chairman, in closing then, I want to appeal to members of the committee to do the right thing. If you wish to affirm that this bill doesn't touch marriage in any way, fine, you can do that by supporting the subamendment. The effect of the subamendment would be to do precisely that, to state for greater certainty that the amendments made by this act do not affect the meaning of the word “marriage”, period. But Mr. Chairman, to go beyond that and to define marriage explicitly and exclusively in the way it's being done here as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others is not only procedurally wrong, but I believe it demeans and trivializes the recognition of the relationships of gay and lesbian people.

Not all gay and lesbian people who are involved in relationships want to marry, Mr. Chairman. Some do, some don't. It's like straight couples; some do, some don't. Some live common law, others don't. But surely to goodness, Mr. Chairman, the members of this committee don't want to close that door, to slam that door shut, to preclude the possibility that indeed, as our understanding of marriage evolves, just as it has evolved around the issue of contraception, interracial marriages, and the ownership of property by women, so too that recognition of full equality may very well—if not today, at some point in the future—recognize the loving, committed relationships of gay and lesbian people and recognize our right, as among those who are in a relationship of that nature, to choose to marry.

Mr. Chairman, I want to close by quoting from the majority judgment. It was a reference that was made by a psychologist at the Women's College Hospital, Dr. Rosemary Barnes, who may be known by some members of this committee. She—and I'll have to conclude whether I want to or not; my voice is just about gone—said:

Legally recognized marriage would contribute substantially to the well being of lesbians, gay men, their families of origin and their children. The opportunity for marriage would reduce the stigmatization of all lesbians and gay men, enhance the stability of the relationships of lesbians and gay men who do choose to marry and provide a socially and legally recognized structure for the functioning of lesbian and gay partners at times of family transitions or crises such as childbirth, illness, disability, and death. The provision of full legal recognition and authority to lesbian and gay relationships would enhance the integration of lesbians and gay men into the mainstream of society, improve the psychological well being of individual lesbians and gay men and provide less stigmatized and more consistent parenting arrangements for the children of lesbians and gay men.

Mr. Chairman, for all those reasons, I appeal to members of this committee to support this amendment, to not explicitly define marriage in the way that is suggested, but if the committee wishes to reaffirm the existing definition of marriage without that definition, to do so.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Thank you, Mr. Robinson. I congratulate you, I didn't think you were going to make it to the end.

Mr. Saada.

Mr. Jacques Saada: No.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Mr. Lowther.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to speak to this motion a bit as well. I think Mr. Robinson makes some interesting points, but I think he's missed a couple of key ones that need to be considered by this committee.

• 1035

Number one, one of the reasons we have this motion before us today is largely the quite amazing number of e-mails, faxes, and letters that every MP has received on this issue that are concerned about what Bill C-23 does in undermining the strength of marriage in this country. It's come forward in a response to the concern of Canadians.

I would also point to a poll. Mr. Robinson likes to refer to polls, but I'm less enamoured of polls. He quotes Angus Reid, but I'd just point out to the committee that it was Angus Reid who initially predicted that the Liberals would win the provincial election here in Ontario, and that didn't turn out to be true. We can't always rely on polls.

Even if we are to look at polls, the justice department in their own document of June 23, 1999, refers to a poll, which I think was done in fact by Angus Reid. It points out that two-thirds, 67%, of Canadians agree with the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

I would remind the members of the committee that in the democratic House of Canada only nine short months ago, parliamentarians said that marriage should remain the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. That was in a four-to-one margin, Mr. Chair.

So through the polling system, through the letters and faxes we've received.... I've had many members tell me they have never received more on any other issue than on this issue: people in support of strengthening the definition of marriage in law. Whether it's people or polls or Parliament, every democratic House has spoken, and that is the reason Canadians are concerned about this particular bill.

In addition, we can just look at the facts, Mr. Chair. According to StatsCan, 85.5% of families are made up of a husband-and-wife marriage. The majority of children are raised in those families. In fact there are about 6.2 million marriages in Canada, and each year only about 2% of those 6.2 million ever decide to divorce. So that means 98% of people say “This is working for me. I'm going to stay married.”

Mr. Robinson makes the point that marriages break up. Yes, they do break up, but when they break up there's no longer a marriage. “Marriage” has meaning to people as a definitive term. It defines a particular type of relationship. Canadians don't really want to see that changed.

He draws an analogy by saying that allowing interracial marriage is like allowing homosexual marriage. I'm not certain that I've ever heard anybody say that those who choose to participate in a homosexual lifestyle are a distinct race. To draw that analogy demeans people who are of distinct races and puts them on the same comparative. I don't think it is a fair comparison.

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, as the justice minister said when this bill was announced, this bill was about tolerance. From Mr. Robinson's point of view and from those who want to advance same-sex marriage in this country, I'd suggest that it's not really about tolerance. If it was about tolerance, tolerance says that we'll acknowledge and put up with perhaps some lifestyles that we're not personally predisposed to or really feel that comfortable in promoting. Mr. Robinson is actually looking for a forced social legitimization of this chosen lifestyle on all Canadians. That's not tolerance. That's imposing the lifestyle endorsement he's chosen on the rest of Canadians, and he wants us to legitimize it in marriage.

Clearly, based on the e-mails and faxes I've been getting, that's not where Canadians are at, and I would suggest Canadians and members of Parliament would concur with that. We supported that in the vote nine months ago.

Mr. Chair, he quotes also from the court. The court has made a number of statements on this. And I don't think we should always take our direction from the court; the highest court in the land is Parliament. But we can also quote from the court that said very clearly...Justice La Forest in the Egan decision. I've read that into the record before and I'm not going to do it again here, but I certainly could.

• 1040

It's very clear in his statement that “legal marriage may properly be viewed as fundamental to the stability and well-being of the family”. He goes on there to say that “Parliament may quite properly give special support to the institution of marriage”.

So we have heard from the court in some cases that support the public will and the public sentiment of Canadians.

Let me also say in closing then, Mr. Chair, and on behalf of the committee, that this amendment that would strike the definition of what marriage means would effectively render this amendment meaningless. In fact I'm not sure how meaningful the amendment is, even as it is. I'm hoping today that we get an opportunity to ask the Justice bureaucrats and department officials who are here just what kind of legal weight this amendment would have even if it was passed.

Certainly, wouldn't want to see it weakened so it has no meaning at all. In fact I hope it has some meaning, and I hope to be able to pose those questions. As I've given notice, I have an amendment of my own that I'd like to put forward to actually secure this definition in a broader suite of statutes if in fact it does have any legal influence as we go forward.

As Mr. Robinson and others have said before this committee, we can fully expect that there will be charter challenges on the definition of marriage. I'm not so sure that this definition will really do much to protect us against that when those do come. Canadians will again be overruled by the court. So I want to get an assessment of that.

So in light of those comments, Mr. Chairman, we could not support the motion that's on the floor. Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for Mr. Lowther. Mr. Lowther has referred, on a number of occasions, to a “chosen lifestyle”. I wonder if he could perhaps elaborate on the evidence to support his suggestion that those who are gay or lesbian choose a particular lifestyle. The fact is that there's not a shred of evidence to support that particular argument, and he's referred to it time and again.

What was his evidence to support the suggestion that somehow he or anybody else woke up one morning and poured some milk on their wheaties and decided that they were going to be straight or gay that morning, Mr. Chairman? What's the basis for this idea that somehow being gay or lesbian is a “chosen lifestyle”, in his words?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Mr. Lowther, I see a reason for this to be replied to.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Certainly. There are reports on both sides of this equation, and I'm not going to go there. I've seen both sides of it. To equate it with interracial marriage is inappropriate, and that was the thrust of my comments. We're not really here in this committee to determine the predisposition or not to a certain type of lifestyle. We're here to decide on this particular amendment that's before us and on this particular bill, and that's where I think we should focus our attention.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Lowther just said that there are studies on both sides of this issue. I wonder if he could perhaps refer us to any credible studies or documents that suggest...or relevant studies, as Mr. Forseth says, and I'm happy to accept that amendment from Mr. Forseth—

Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order. We ought to leave our discussion of this particular amendment that Mr. Robinson made. I think we're now starting to wither away into Never-Never Land, and we really should get back to the point. The point is quite clear, so let's get on with the debate.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Perhaps you can stick strictly to your amendment, please.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, I know that Mr. Myers wants us to get back to the issue of equality for gay and lesbian people as fast as we can, and that's the focus here.

Mr. Chairman, again, since Mr. Lowther has referred to studies, I do want to ask if he could table with the committee any studies that are relevant, topical, or credible that would suggest that being gay or lesbian is a chosen lifestyle.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Mr. Lowther, would you be willing to table those references you made?

Mr. Eric Lowther: I'd be willing to provide Mr. Robinson with that material off-line. If the committee wants that material here, then perhaps we could consider that, but I would suggest that, really—

• 1045

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Mr. Robinson has the right to ask that you table your evidence to back up your statement.

Mr. Eric Lowther: I'd prefer to do it off-line, outside of this committee. If it's a request he's making of me, he can make it here or he can make it anywhere else, but I don't think that's the relevancy of this committee and the direction in which we're trying to go, to determine that aspect of a person's personal lifestyle.

The Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Mr. Robinson, would that be satisfactory to you?

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, if Mr. Lowther is stating that he will table the documents with me, I'd be pleased to circulate them to members of the committee as well, and I look forward to receiving them.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): That solves the problem.

Mr. Eric Lowther: On a point of order, I made one mistake in my closing comments earlier in that I was assuming that we were still debating the subamendment from Mr. Robinson.

Some hon. members: We are.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Then my comments stand that we would not be in support of that subamendment.

Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): I'm going to call the question.

Mr. Robinson, I think we've flogged this one pretty well to death.

Mr. Svend Robinson: There's no provision for calling the question in committee. Perhaps—

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): I realize that, but I'm asking your indulgence.

Please, if you're going to make comments, do so through the chair, please.

Mr. Robinson, as I see it, the subamendment is that the amendment be amended by deleting all the words after “marriage”. Does that agree with your interpretation?

Mr. Svend Robinson: I would seek some clarification from Mr. Maloney as the mover of the amendment as to why he feels it necessary to explicitly exclude gay and lesbian people from the institution of marriage.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Mr. Maloney.

Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): What we're trying to do, Mr. Robinson, is simply to clarify the definition of marriage as it's commonly known, as we see it in Hyde and Hyde, and as was put forward to this House last June. We're trying to be consistent.

Mr. Svend Robinson: That doesn't answer it. What Mr. Maloney is saying is, well, we want to confirm the existing definition. We're now being asked to substantively state that gay and lesbian people should not be allowed to marry.

That's exactly what's being done. If we entrench—

Mr. John McKay: That's your opinion.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Well, of course it is. If we entrench this definition, that's precisely what we're doing.

Members of the committee are shaking their heads. If in fact—

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Mr. Robinson, you're going to have to accept Mr. Maloney's answer. That's his answer, and you'll have run with it.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I want to ask again, if Mr. Maloney isn't prepared to answer this question, if there is any member on the Liberal side of the House who is prepared to explain—because this is a substantive issue we're dealing with now—why they believe gay and lesbian people should not be allowed to marry, because that's what is being said if you vote against this amendment.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): No, I don't see it that way, Mr. Robinson. After we vote on this subamendment, we then go back to the main amendment.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Right.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): I think at that time that discussion could be made, but on your subamendment, I don't see where your position now is relevant.

Some hon. members: Call the question.

(Subamendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 4)

The Chair: Mr. Lowther.

Mr. Eric Lowther: I also have a subamendment I'd like to bring before the committee at this time.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): It's appropriate at this time. Please.

• 1050

Mr. Eric Lowther: I'll read the subamendment first of all and how it works, in conjunction with the current amendment. It would read:

For greater certainty, the amendments made by this Act do not affect the meaning of the word “marriage”, which, for all purposes of Canadian law, means the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

For the benefit of the committee, I'm adding the words there clearly “for all purposes of Canadian law”. My rationale in doing that is this particular amendment in statute does not necessarily apply to the marriage act and to other acts where marriage is referred to. We are concerned that if we are going to put marriage in statute, it be consistently applied wherever it occurs.

It's unfortunate we didn't also have the marriage act included within Bill C-23, so the definition of marriage could be included in that particular act. But in light of that unfortunate situation, we would like to see it made clear that this legislation, which defines marriage, also have included in it these words, that it applies for all purposes of Canadian law, as in the subamendment I just read, so there's no confusion going forward that other statutes might not fall under this piece of legislation.

I think it would really avoid future problems and make this a lot cleaner and neater. It just makes sense.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Thank you, Mr. Lowther.

Does everyone have a copy of the main amendment? If you don't, it's rather hard to follow the change Mr. Lowther is proposing.

Mr. McKay.

Mr. John McKay: While I support the substance of the honourable member's motion, I believe that in this particular instance this would be beyond the purview of the legislation. Appropriately, this motion or something similar would occur in the Interpretation Act, and clearly we are not dealing with the Interpretation Act, we're dealing with an omnibus bill.

As I see this motion, it is beyond the scope of the bill that is before us. While it's well-known that I support the general intention of the mover, I think this is truly out of order. It is a substantive issue appropriate to another piece of legislation, namely the Interpretation Act or possibly the marriage act, but it's not appropriate to this particular bill.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): It may not be appropriate, but I'll rule it is in order.

Mr. Lowther.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for that ruling. I think it is a good one, because this amendment just adds to the minister's own interpretation clause. If it can't be included here—if we consider Mr. McKay's intervention—it just begs the question, what real significance does this amendment really have? If there are interpretation acts, marriage acts, and other pieces of legislation that don't carry the definition, and this particular statute can't be pervasive in nature, what real weight does it carry? I'd suggest less, perhaps almost none.

If we really want to send the signal to Canadians that marriage won't be touched, which is the justice minister's own rationale in bringing this forward—that marriage will remain between a man and a woman—we should send a real signal and say that this particular statute, this particular piece of legislation, would be binding and applicable to the full suite of bills, including interpretation statutes that are out there, to include the definition. To do anything less means this isn't that powerful or effective.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Thank you.

Mr. Robinson, please.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I'd just like to get some clarification from Mr. Lowther on his amendment. Is he suggesting that, should this subamendment be defeated, the proposed amendment itself would have virtually no legal weight whatsoever?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Mr. Lowther.

• 1055

Mr. Eric Lowther: Mr. Chair, through you to Mr. Robinson, these are some of the questions I'd like to pose to the justice department. I don't know the answer to that question. I can only surmise that if it only applies to a certain suite of bills but not to the Interpretation Act, it's not as strong as it might be. I'm looking forward to having the opportunity to ask some of the ministry people what the real effectiveness of the main amendment is. I'm trying to amend the main amendment to make it stronger, but we'll see when we get a chance to ask those questions.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Mr. Maloney, could you provide us with some assistance here?

Mr. John Maloney: Yes. I suggest that this amendment is flawed. It refers to Canadian law. Canadian law includes provincial and territorial laws. It's certainly ultra vires our responsibility or our area of focus to attempt to amend our provincial and Canadian counterparts.

The second point is that it's an omnibus bill. It refers to 68 statutes by referring to Canadian law as well. We're giving this Bill C-23 quasi-constitutional status, which is also inappropriate.

Those are two sound legal arguments.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Thank you, Mr. Maloney.

Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Again, through the chair to Mr. Maloney or perhaps to the justice department officials, should this amendment by Mr. Lowther be defeated, I wonder if Mr. Maloney or his advisers could assist the committee as to the legal impact of the present wording. In determining whether or not we want to vote for an amendment, it's important that we have some sense of what the scope and impact is of the existing wording.

To Mr. Maloney, or perhaps Ms. Hitch or others, would the legal impact of this amendment, should it be adopted, in the opinion of the legal advisers to Mr. Maloney, effectively amend the definition of marriage in statutory form, for the purposes of the marriage act?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Mr. Maloney.

Mr. John Maloney: I'll consult.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): I understand. I have to do it often myself.

Ms. Lisa Hitch (Senior Counsel, Modernizing Benefits and Obligations Team, Department of Justice): The proposed amendment by the Reform Party cannot affect anything outside the parameters of Bill C-23, because the statute itself can only affect the statutes that are included in it. Therefore, any statute that is not included in it, including the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees) Act, would be unaffected by this statute.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Thank you.

Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I appreciate this clarification. I understand the witness to be saying—and I assume Mr. Maloney adopts this as his evidence as well—that as we look at this bill, it includes amendments to a range of acts, everything from the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act through to the War Veterans Allowance Act, and many other acts in between.

One of the acts that is not included in this is the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees) Act. As I understand the witness' evidence—and this is an important point—she's saying because this is an interpretive clause for this statute, this bill and the adoption of the amendment in its form, as proposed by Mr. Maloney, would not in any way affect the issue of capacity to marry. Is that correct?

Ms. Lisa Hitch: The Marriage (Prohibited Degrees) Act also does not affect capacity to marry. The Marriage (Prohibited Degrees) Act was put in for a limited purpose and has a limited impact on capacity to marry. Specifically, it states that people who are too closely related to each other may not validly marry. That is the only effect of the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees) Act. It is not a general marriages act, putting forward all of the requirements legally for a valid marriage. Most of the requirements for valid marriage are within the common law at the federal level.

Mr. Svend Robinson: If I may pursue this point, because it is a very important point, the federal government, as I understand it, has the jurisdiction to determine who is in fact eligible to marry. Is that correct, Ms. Hitch?

Ms. Lisa Hitch: That's correct. The jurisdiction over marriage is divided constitutionally between the federal government and the provinces and territories. The federal government has jurisdiction over legal capacity to marry—who may marry whom.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Right. The amendment, in its wording as proposed by Mr. Maloney, I think you would agree and I trust you would agree, cannot affect the issue of legal capacity to marry within federal jurisdiction, because the bill it purports to interpret doesn't deal with that issue. Is that not correct?

• 1100

Ms. Lisa Hitch: The bill itself does not deal with marriage, as the minister has stated repeatedly. The bill itself deals with some of the benefits and obligations that attach to married people and to other conjugal couples. This interpretation provision is limited to the same intention as is the rest of the statute, so this would simply apply to those 68 statutes that are listed in Bill C-23.

Mr. Svend Robinson: And thus, if the amendment of Mr. Lowther were not to be adopted, in fact there would be no change.... I want to understand what you're saying. There would be no change with respect to the legal issue of capacity to marry within federal jurisdiction. Is that correct?

Ms. Lisa Hitch: Yes. Let me say that what's happening in the 68 statutes does not create the legal institution of marriage. It merely reflects how that institution will be treated for the particular purposes of 68 statutes. If the word “marriage” was not listed in any of those 68 statutes, it would not affect the legal capacity to marry. The definition of marriage is outside of statute law. It's in the common law, as are the requirements for who can validly contract a marriage, except for the limited purpose of people who are too closely related, which is in the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees) Act.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, just for clarification, should there be a legal challenge in future, similar to that in Layland and Beaulne, with respect to the fundamental issue of capacity to marry within federal jurisdiction, what I understand the witness to be saying is that the adoption of the words as unamended by Mr. Lowther in fact would not be relied on by the Attorney General in any way as a bar to that issue of capacity. Is that correct?

Ms. Lisa Hitch: If there was a challenge to the legal definition of marriage, it would have to be a challenge to what created the legal definition of marriage, and that would be the common law case as consistently applied in Canada since Confederation. This particular provision could be cited, and likely would be cited—forgive me, because I really should not be giving opinions on speculation—in court by the Attorney General in support of the argument, but it is not what creates the legal capacity to marry in Canada.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Very good. Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Thank you, Mr. Robinson.

We'll call the question. This is on Mr. Lowther's subamendment to the main amendment by Mr. Maloney. I think that's the correct interpretation. It reads:

be amended by replacing the words “marriage”, that is” with “marriage”, which, for all purposes of Canadian law, means”

Mr. Eric Lowther: Recorded vote, Mr. Chairman.

(Subamendment negatived: nays 11; yeas 3)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): All right. We're at long last back to the main amendment.

I'm about to call the question. Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, you did suggest that it would be on the main motion that it would be appropriate for me to put the question with respect to the substantive issue of the basis for the government's exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of marriage.

• 1105

Mr. Maloney has said, well, we just want to reaffirm the definition. The question I'm asking is—and, Mr. Maloney, I would ask you the question as the parliamentary secretary, but others may want to answer as well—why is it that the government substantively wishes to exclude gay and lesbian people from the institution of marriage?

Mr. John Maloney: I wish to provide clarity to the existing motion. As we understand it, marriage is the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. Basically, that's my response. If you can't accept it, I appreciate that. But that's my response, Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I would then ask if there is any other member of the government side who is prepared to clarify why it is that gay and lesbian people should be excluded from the institution of marriage, which is the effect of this amendment.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): No one on the government side seems willing to answer your question.

Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): We agree with the answer.

Mr. Lynn Myers: We're not witnesses here, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Eric Lowther: I have a point of order.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): I realize that, but in the spirit of cooperation, I was trying to get as much information as I could.

I think at the moment, quite frankly, we're ready for the question.

Mr. Lowther has a point of order.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to get some clarification on behalf of the committee from the witnesses here. Along the lines of Mr. Robinson's questioning earlier, what is the effect, really, of this amendment?

If we really wanted to protect or uphold the definition of marriage in law, in statute, it would be appropriate, I think, based on the comments I heard earlier, for this to be in the Interpretation Act—prohibited degrees, I guess it's called. If it were there, that would make it clear to the provinces and everybody else that only a man and woman can marry. But because it's not there, and it's in an interpretative amendment at the front of Bill C-23, I think I heard, in response to Mr. Robinson's question, that it might be loosely referred to, but it really doesn't have any substantive or significant weight with regard to pre-empting any court ruling that may decide tomorrow that heterosexual marriage is unconstitutional.

So I'd like to get from the justice department some clarification on what significance, what legal effect, what weight this amendment really provides to Canadians who want assurance from the justice minister that the institution of marriage is not going to be changed.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Mr. Maloney, can you assist us?

Mr. John Maloney: Mr. Chair, I think it's clear that this definition sets out the will of Parliament on the issue.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): [Inaudible—Editor]

Mr. John Maloney: The definition, as we put it in here, sets out the feelings or the will of Parliament on the issue, and if this issue ever comes before the courts, they can refer to what the intention of Parliament was at the time this legislation was considered.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Thank you, Mr. Maloney.

No, Mr. Lowther, I'm afraid you're finished for the moment.

Mr. Marceau.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I have a very simple question. I am not a member of this committee, and have unfortunately not been able to follow all your deliberations carefully. I apologize for that. However, I have read the Minister's testimony, and I note that she very clearly said that bill C-23 had nothing to do with marriage.

What can have led the government to such disgraceful politicization of this bill—one of the least political bills I have had the opportunity to study since I came here in 1997—by moving an amendment like this one at the last minute? I don't see the point of it. Nor do I see why it was necessary to politicize this bill, specifically a bill that should not have been political, when all the Minister had to do was clarify some decisions that courts may take or have taken. Why has the government done this now?

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Mr. Marceau, in regard to the question you're asking, quite frankly, that ground has been pretty well plowed, harrowed, and seeded.

• 1110

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Mr. Chairman, you must be feeling as bad as the Prime Minister: it seems to me that there are just as many people who want to take your place and lead the proceedings in your stead. It is somewhat unfortunate.

[English]

Call the question, call the question.

[Translation]

It's a bit like a canary jumping on a chair. I don't see the point. As I was saying before, I do apologize to the committee for not having been able to attend previous meetings, but in spite of comments by committee members who wish to be Chair in your stead, I would still like a clear answer by the Parliamentary Secretary before the amendment is put to a vote. I do not feel that is too much to ask.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Mr. Marceau, thank you for your consideration of me, but I'm a big boy.

Mr. Maloney, for Mr. Marceau's benefit, could you give him a brief answer?

Mr. John Maloney: My answer is not going to divert much from what I've already said. This is an act to modernize benefits and obligations. We are simply affirming the long-recognized definition of marriage, and for greater certainty, we have an interpretative clause and we've placed that in there. That is a frank, short, and simple answer.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Thank you, Mr. Maloney.

Mr. Myers.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Chairman, committee members are asking quite a valid question. It seems to me they deserve an answer.

When we placed this in this bill, I think it was further to clarifying exactly what we were doing, and I refer specifically to the majority decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal of 1992, where in the case of Layland versus Beaulne—

Mr. Svend Robinson: It wasn't the court of appeal.

Mr. Lynn Myers: —there was an application for marriage. That decision was a thorough review of marriage and its application, and what we're doing is carrying on what is already stated in common law. If that's the question being asked, I believe that is part of the answer.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Thank you, Mr. Myers.

I'll entertain your point of order, Mr. Robinson, but I'd like to remind everyone here.... Take a look at me, I'd like to get something done before I die. Please, could we get on with this? I've tried to cooperate, and I think most members have cooperated, but let's see if we can hurry this along.

Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, I'll be very brief. I know Mr. Myers wouldn't want to mislead the committee and I'm sure he did it inadvertently. To set the record straight, it was the Ontario Court general division, not the Ontario Court of Appeal.

Mr. Lynn Myers: My apology.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Mr. Lowther.

Mr. Eric Lowther: I still would like to get an answer from the department officials, the legal counsel particularly. We had an answer from Mr. Maloney on the legal implications of this amendment, but I still would like to hear from legal counsel here that if a court challenge should come on the legal definition of marriage, which we know is coming down the pipe—there are some already in the process—when that comes, what substantive difference this particular amendment will have to upholding the current definition of marriage as a man and a woman, particularly when we have the minister telling us that this will give the assurances to Canadians that the definition of marriage won't change?

I've heard Mr. Maloney, but I want to hear what real difference this will make, if any.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Ms. Hitch.

Ms. Lisa Hitch: As I mentioned before, I cannot give a legal opinion on speculation into the future, with apologies. I cannot determine what the outcome would be of any court challenge.

However, what I can say is that a court challenge to the legal definition of marriage would not be against this bill or anything in this bill. It might cite the fact that there was now this wording in the bill, but it would have to be against the source of the legal capacity to marry, which comes from the common law at the federal level.

Mr. Eric Lowther: So for clarity then, this would just be cited and considered, but it would not necessarily protect it from a court ruling to change the definition of marriage?

Ms. Lisa Hitch: With apologies, nothing could protect the definition of marriage from a charter challenge, short of an amendment to the charter.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Mr. Lowther, you got your answer.

Mr. Ménard.

• 1115

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, I have just come back and you are trying to gag me already. In the past, I have never abused this committee's time, and I believe it is important that all members have a chance to express their views.

Allow me to welcome those who are making an appearance here for the first time—an appearance that among Liberals tends to be all too brief too, albeit generally unnoticed in some cases, though not this morning.

Mr. Chairman, I would also like to welcome my colleague from Charlesbourg, a lawyer who studied abroad. We are all like this in our caucus, Mr. McKay.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot vote for the amendment. In my view, the amendment will break the balance we had so patiently achieved at this committee. I am all the more disappointed because I'm forced to conclude the Minister of Justice must be added to the already overly-long list of government members who lack backbone. Allow me to explain, Mr. Chairman.

To my mind, there is nothing in this bill which threatens the institution of marriage. No one knows what the future holds, however. I know full well why the government is moving this amendment. It is moving this amendment because the Liberal Party has a stone-age faction, a Flintstone faction, which includes about 15 to 25 members who are prepared to compromise on human rights.

Mr. Chairman, you understand of course that it is only through your exceptional generosity that this amendment was deemed in order. I respect your decision, Mr. Chairman, and recognize that you indeed have the right to rule the amendment in order.

However, I hope that all members present are aware that we aren't completely at odds with the Minister's remarks. I can see her before me now, Mr. Chairman, ambling serenely into the room, in a chic Parisian grey suit, and saying in a very sweet voice that this bill has nothing to do with marriage. She said that, said it again, affirmed it, and affirmed it again. She answered all the questions that we put to her. As is my wont—I am, after all, direct—I asked her: Minister, do you believe that this bill will have any impact whatsoever on marriage and adoption? She answered that, to the best of her knowledge—and we always presume such knowledge—the bill had nothing to do with marriage.

I would have been very proud and am very proud to have this opportunity to vote on a bill that goes no further than what the court requested. Let me give you a little background on what the courts have said. It all began with John Turner. John Turner, as we all know, is a friend of the Prime Minister and the originator of the omnibus bill that made it possible both to partially decriminalize abortion and to decriminalize relations between consenting homosexual adults. Beginning in 1970, people in the gay community and people concerned with human rights started a movement. But we had to wait until the early 1990s before we saw anything concrete. I would like to dedicate my remarks to Peter MacKay. In the early 1990s, Kim Campbell was Minister of Justice. I don't know whether you remember, Mr. Chairman, but she was Prime Minister as well. Though not lacking in talent, she could be likened to a shooting star in the Canadian political firmament. What did Kim Campbell do? Kim Campbell took a stand on the Egan ruling, a ruling on a challenge under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In formulating the Charter, legislators had not included sexual orientation as one of the grounds under which discrimination was prohibited. Kim Campbell stated that this ruling would be enforceable not only in Ontario but across Canada. This was a very important milestone in human rights and in this short but ongoing quest to have the rights of homosexuals recognized.

Then came another milestone: 1995. You and I were already here when Allan Rock, someone whose name we are hearing a great deal lately, decided to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act, to include sexual orientation in the list of grounds that cannot be used to justify discrimination.

Then, as my friend Svend Robinson would remember, came the Nesbit-Egan case. This was an extremely important case that began in British Columbia. How long were those two together, Mr. Chairman? Over 40 years, if I'm not mistaken. I learned that one of them had passed away recently. This would be an excellent opportunity to remember his important contribution, Mr. Chairman, because you know that what they did took a great deal of courage. Imagine the courage that the average person subject to the jurisdiction of a court needs to do what they did. These two lived as a couple in British Columbia for 40 years. If I were a real Canadian, Mr. Chairman, if I were not a separatist, I would live in British Columbia. The weather is good, you can ski, and go to the mountains. The microclimate in British Columbia is very pleasant indeed.

• 1120

Let us remember how intimidating it is for anyone to take any action to the Supreme Court. That is quite something. These two men, who were in their late sixties, went through all the stages that led them to the Supreme Court. They were supported by EGALE.

[English]

Mr. Lynn Myers: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I know Mr. Ménard from the health committee. He is very eloquent and is given over to all kinds of hyperbole, but the point is that we are dealing specifically with an amendment. If he has things to say on the amendment, he should say them. He should not give us a history lesson. He should not give us a geography lesson. He should speak on the amendment, and I would ask that you instruct him accordingly.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Thank you, Mr. Myers. I sometimes get carried away with Monsieur Ménard's eloquence myself.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I must protest, Mr. Chairman. This man chairs the health committee, of which I am a member, and he takes every opportunity he can to prevent me from speaking out. I am not out of order, Mr. Chairman, and I believe he is contesting your leadership, a generalized trend among Liberals.

As I was saying, Mr. Chairman, we must be grateful to Egan and Nesbit, who loved each other tenderly, deeply and genuinely. In 1995, though they were only ordinary citizens, they had the courage to start at the base of the justice system pyramid and take their case as far as the Supreme Court. I would like to thank my colleagues from the EGALE coalition who were there at the Supreme Court with them.

What is their historical legacy then, Mr. Chairman? Mr. Myers, please stop reading the paper and lend an ear. What have Egan and Nesbit done for us, Mr. Chairman? First, it was established that sexual orientation could not be used as grounds for discrimination. It was not the first time this sort of thing had happened. Use of the term “in particular” made it possible to add additional grounds for non-discrimination. This was done for spouse status. It was an enormous step forward in the achievement of rights and recognition for same-sex spouses, because of course the enshrinement of sexual orientation as a ground for non-discrimination also binds lower courts.

My colleague Svend Robinson will remember the stare decisis rule: a decision rendered by a government or higher court is binding upon lower courts.

The process continued, Mr. Chairman. There is a paradox I would like everyone to remember. Can anyone believe that the government would have done what it did without judicial activism by militants? I am not at all convinced it would, and that is why two more cases—Rosenberg and M v H followed.

I will conclude my remarks, Mr. Chairman, since it appears that my colleagues wish me to, by reminding you of the conclusion reached in M v H: Justice Cory, speaking on behalf of six other justices, handed down a decision to which two other justices subscribed. He said that it was possible for women and men who were in homosexual relationships to be recognized as being in a conjugal relationship.

Mr. Chairman, that court reference is precisely the one we should keep in mind, as legislators, when talking about conjugal relations. We have brought up many different criteria. Living under the same roof, providing mutual support, having the relationship known in the community, and being economically interdependent. I am coming to my conclusion, Mr. Chairman.

• 1125

If the government had adhered to M v H and recognized common-law relationships and unions among same-sex couples, we would now be passing this bill at third reading. Though my colleagues on my right would perhaps not be as keen to pass the bill, my colleagues on this side would be quite happy to vote in favour of it.

Mr. Chairman, I will conclude with three comments. The Minister could have delivered a majority of her party members to Parliament. There would of course have been a majority in the Bloc Québécois, the NDP would have been unanimously in favour of the bill, and there would have been a strong majority in the Conservative Party. Thus, there would have been a majority in favour of the bill.

This bill—and I am concluding, Mr. Chairman—concerns the equality of people, something that is at the very heart of our values as democrats. We are all democrats, and we will not agree to having two classes of citizens. We believe that love is one of the most beautiful things in life. Love is sacred. When two people commit themselves to a relationship as a couple, they should receive equal treatment and be free of discrimination.

I will end on that, Mr. Chairman. I would of course reserve the right to speak again, if Mr. Myers wants me to.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Thank you, Monsieur Ménard. And thank you for promoting me to Speaker. I hope it's reflected in my next paycheque.

We'll call the vote, if you would, Mr. Clerk.

Mr. Svend Robinson: A recorded vote, please.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 4)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): My proposal is that we move right along and try to chew into these individual clauses and go to 12 o'clock and see what we can accomplish.

Mr. Maloney.

Mr. John Maloney: Mr. Chair, subject to unanimous consent here, I don't feel there are a tremendous number of amendments. We might consider block voting, dealing with clumps of amendments until we come to one that there's going to be some discussion on. We have one further amendment, plus an amendment to the schedule. And I'm not aware of any other amendments from anyone at this stage.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Mr. Lowther.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Mr. Chairman, we do have a couple of amendments and some concerns about particular clauses that might not really be amendments. They would be more in the case of motions to delete certain ones. I'm just wondering if it's appropriate at this time to bring forward those amendments or how the committee wants to do it, Mr. Chair.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): I think putting them forward now might be the best way to do it, would it not?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, might I suggest for the efficiency of the committee that perhaps Mr. Lowther could identify which ones he's not prepared to vote on right this minute, so that we could get through all the other ones. Then we could deal with the others afterwards and we could get through all the first ones first.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): We'll leave him a moment to give him some time to get them together.

Mr. Robinson.

• 1130

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, I don't disagree with Mr. Maloney's suggestion or Ms. Torsney's proposal, but what I'd suggest is that we proceed until we come to the first clause on which there are questions. Subject to clarification on some clauses, I don't intend to pose any amendments. Like Mr. Lowther, though, I do have a number of questions for clarification. For example, the first clause on which I see clarification is clause 45. As Mr. Maloney suggests, I also suggest that if we go to the first clause on which anybody has either an amendment or a question, that would be a good way to proceed.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Thank you.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I might ask Mr. Lowther what the first clause is on which he has a question.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Give him a moment or two to get things together.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Mr. Chair, no, I can address that.

Rather than just reference the particular clauses, I think it's prudent for us to go clause by clause on this bill, Mr. Chairman. There are a number of issues on various ones that we need to discuss as we go through.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Which number is your first one? That's my question?

Mr. Eric Lowther: Clause 2.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Clause 2? I see.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): All right, then, I'm going to call the question. Shall clause 2 carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Mr. Eric Lowther: No.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Debate?

Mr. Eric Lowther: I don't know who answers these questions, Mr. Chairman, but my concern on that particular clause is that we now have a reference there to adoption. I'd like to see that removed from this particular clause, or at least clarification from the justice department as to why adoption was included in this particular clause. Would the justice department officials be willing to address the reference in proposed subparagraph 3(2)(a)(ii.1) to “blood relationship or adoption”? The fact is that it has been added to what was there before. Why was the specific reference to adoption added?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Lisa, if you would.

Ms. Lisa Hitch: The provision in question is one of a number of similar provisions that extend an obligation based on your relationship to someone else. As you can see from the proposed section, the provision states that in the absence of proof to the contrary—in other words, you can prove that this assumption is not so—producers are presumed not to deal with each other at arm's length if they are related through marriage, in the sense that one is either married to the other, which is fairly straightforward, or that one is married to a person connected to the other by a blood relationship, in other words, if someone were married to your sister or brother. What was missing from the statute was that this would also encompass someone who is married to your adopted brother or sister. It was therefore added in order to bring it into consistency with other federal statutes.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Does that answer your question, Mr. Lowther?

Mr. Eric Lowther: That does answer my question.

I wonder if I might also bring before the committee the opportunity to provide a preamble for this bill. I'd propose a motion to the committee that we add a preamble to the bill that is verbatim from the comments of Justice La Forest of the Supreme Court, who clearly lays out the importance of the institution of marriage. It's very consistent with the motion the justice minister has brought forward, and I'd be glad to read it for the benefit of the committee and then vote on having it added to the preamble.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Mr. Robinson, could you wait just a moment?

Mr. Lowther, I'm going to rule that out of order. It's not the proper time to bring it forward. Thank you.

Mr. Robinson.

• 1135

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, according to House of Commons Procedure and Practice, if a bill that is before the committee does not already include a preamble, it is out of order to propose one by way of amendment.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Gee, it's nice to have you confirm what I decided too.

I'm going to put the question.

(Clauses 2 to 10 inclusive agreed to)

Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): We want a recorded vote on clause 11.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): We'll have a recorded vote on clause 11.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard.

Mr. Réal Ménard: I missed the section number, Mr. Chairman. Could you please remind me of it?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Section 11.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Right.

[English]

(Clause 11 agreed to: yeas 10; nays 3)

(Clause 12 agreed to: yeas 10; nays 3)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Shall clause 13 carry?

Mr. Rob Anders: I want a recorded vote.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: A have a point of order. I wonder if we could take a recorded division on this and include from clauses 13 to 45, which I believe was the next one that was requested for discussion. I think, in the spirit of cooperation, the members opposite would agree to that. The record will show the fact that from clause 13 to clause 44 inclusive, the same recorded division was taken in each and every one.

Mr. Eric Lowther: While I appreciate the spirit of cooperation, I would have appreciated it back when we moved for televising this committee. I would have appreciated it when we asked for a fair representation of witnesses before the committee. I didn't see it at that time, so I'm reluctant to move into that spirit on a one-sided approach. So I'd submit, Mr. Chair, we continue in the process the way we are.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Thank you, Mr. Lowther.

• 1140

(Clause 13 agreed to: yeas 10; nays 3)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Shall clause 14 carry?

Mr. Rob Anders: We want a recorded vote.

Mr. Jacques Saada: I have a point of order.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): We're in the middle of a vote.

(Clause 14 agreed to: yeas 10; nays 3)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Shall clause 15 carry?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Is there a committee meeting scheduled for this afternoon? The information would help us organize our work. Do you plan to schedule a meeting after Question Period?

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): It is a proposal I was going to make. We'll meet at 3:30 p.m., in reply to your question. I would agree, I'm in the hands of the committee.

Yes, your point of order is in order now.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: I do not know whether the Standing Orders allow this. But I would like to know.

[English]

See the advantage of being bilingual. That's just a joke.

[Translation]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to know whether we might take the following course: if my colleagues agree, could all upcoming votes be recorded divisions? This is something we all request unanimously.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: All Liberals.

Mr. Jacques Saada: A recorded division for every vote on every clause.

[English]

Mr. Svend Robinson: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman. As sympathetic as I am to the intent of this motion, clearly that would involve a change in the rules of the committee. The committee rules state clearly that there can be a roll call vote requested by any member. In the event a roll call vote is requested, a roll call vote must be ordered. So I understand the purpose, but you can't simply override the rules in this way without unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman. You can't do it.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Thank you, Mr. Robinson.

We obviously have problems with the translation, because all I'm getting is a high-pitched whine. It surely couldn't be someone speaking, could it?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: This is not accomplishing anything.

Mr. John McKay: Mr. Chairman, before a vote is taken, is there anything in the rules that would prohibit this committee from doing that?

Mr. Rob Anders: I have a point of privilege, Mr. Chairman. Without translation devices, if anybody speaks in French, I can't hear them.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I think Mr. Ménard will be...[Inaudible—Editor]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): My proposal is—and I'm speaking in the only language I know—that we now adjourn, because I agree with Mr. Anders that it's pointless without translation. We will reconvene at 3:30 p.m. Agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): We are adjourned.