|
Speaking Notes for the Honourable Rob Nicholson
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform
Debate on a Motion Respecting the Definition of Marriage
December 2006
Check Against Delivery
Mr. Speaker,
- It is an honour for me to begin debate on today’s motion, which reads:
"That this House call on the government to introduce legislation to
restore the traditional definition of marriage without affecting civil unions
and while respecting existing same-sex marriages. ."
- As the sponsor of the motion, I would like to take a few moments to
explain to the House why the government is moving forward with today’s
motion and the government’s position with respect to the motion.
Fulfilling a Commitment
- Some Members may question why it is necessary to engage this House on this
matter.
- After all, it was less than two years ago that this House debated and
voted on this question in the form of Bill C-38, the Civil Marriage Act.
- At that time, a majority of Members decided to approve a law to define
marriage, for civil purposes, as the lawful union of two persons to the
exclusion of all others.
- That decision by the House had the effect of replacing the traditional
definition of marriage as being the lawful union of one man and one woman to
the exclusion of all others.
- In short, Parliament decided that the definition of marriage should
include same-sex marriages.
- That said, the debate surrounding Bill C-38 generated a significant amount
of controversy. It was a divisive debate – both in this House and among
Canadians as a whole – and the debate on this issue continues in Canadian
society.
- Since marriage is an essential foundation of our society, it is important
that a fully democratic decision be taken by the House of Commons on whether
the institution of marriage should be changed.
- Given the importance of marriage to our society and its importance to
Canadians, we made a commitment in the last election to ask parliamentarians
whether they wished to revisit this issue.
- Given the importance of marriage to our society and its importance to
Canadians, we made a commitment in the last election to ask parliamentarians
whether they wished to revisit this issue.
- Given the importance of marriage to our society and its importance to
Canadians, we made a commitment in the last election to ask parliamentarians
whether they wished to revisit this issue.
- Our commitment stated, and I quote:
"A Conservative government will hold a truly free vote on the
definition of marriage in the next session of Parliament. If the resolution is
passed, the government will introduce legislation to restore the traditional
definition of marriage while respecting existing same-sex marriages."
- By presenting today’s motion for a debate and a vote in this House, the
government is fulfilling the commitment we made to Canadians in the last
election.
Meaning of the Motion
- Let me turn now to the meaning of today’s motion and its implications.
- The motion itself will not change the definition of marriage. Rather, the
motion asks Members whether they want to reopen the debate on the definition
of marriage.
- If the House decides to adopt this motion, the government will introduce
legislation to restore the traditional definition of marriage for civil
purposes.
- In other words, the government will present to the House a bill defining
marriage as the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of
all others.
- It would then be up to the House to debate such a bill and to vote on
whether the bill should be enacted into law.
- Therefore, those who argue that the traditional definition of marriage was
an essential social institution that ought to be restored and protected
should vote in favour of the motion.
- Similarly, Members who believe that there are other ways to recognize
same-sex unions without altering the principal tenets of one’s beliefs
should also vote in favour of the motion.
Minister’s Position
- Speaking personally, I support the institution of marriage as it has
been comprised for centuries in our society. It is one of the basic
institutions of our society and is the foundation upon which we have built
our culture.
- This is the position I took in the previous Parliament during the debate
on Bill C-38 and it is the position that I continue to hold.
- While I support protecting the rights of minorities, that does not mean
that we should alter the institution of marriage which has worked well and
has been a part of our society for so many years.
- I will therefore be voting in favour of this motion as a means to restore
the traditional definition of marriage.
Government’s Position
- Although we are debating a government motion, I would like to point out
that the government has indicated that members can vote according to their
conscience.
- Given the deeply held views that Members have on both sides of the debate,
the government believes that it should be up to the House to decide, in a
truly free vote, on whether we should initiate legislation to restore the
traditional definition of marriage.
- The vote on today’s motion will be a truly free vote for all members of
the government’s caucus – including for Ministers.
Unlike the previous government, our Cabinet will not be whipped into
voting one way or another.
- Speaking as the Minister for Democratic Reform, I am proud to be a member
of a government which believes that issues which touch on deeply felt
personal beliefs should be decided by a true free vote.
- Given that Members on both sides of the debate hold deeply-felt personal
views on this subject, we are asking Members to reflect on their own views
and those of their constituents before deciding how to vote.
- This is ultimately a decision of the Members of the House to decide on
their own.
Conclusion
- To conclude, the government looks forward to hearing the views of Members
on this issue and we hope that this will be a respectful debate.
- Although there are strongly held views on both sides of the debate, each
Member’s point of view is valid and ought to be heard.
- I therefore encourage all Members to participate in the debate in this
spirit.
- And the government looks forward to receiving the House’s decision on
this matter.
Thank you
|
