Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I stand up to speak against the motion. I understand that sometimes we have to follow the laws of Canada, but then we also have to respect the laws of the aboriginal governments, the people who are negotiating their land claims right now. Canada has for too long dictated to the aboriginal people how they should run their lives. We as 19 Members have no right to tell 20,000 people in the Northwest Territories "This is what you have to do."
Some of my colleagues here that speak for the motion have set out some examples. They are very good examples. One example is we fought in our wars so that we can have rights. Yes, everybody has a right. By 19 of us making a decision on this, where are the rest of the 30,000 people in the Northwest Territories? Why have we not consulted with them? Their rights are not in front of us here. We are only respecting the rights of a few individuals. Nineteen of us have no right to make a decision on their behalf without consulting them.
I am not a lawyer. I do not know the section, but under section 15, I think that is what is called immutability, which is something you cannot change. Yes, that is true, but sexual orientation is something that can be changed. A person can change their sexual orientation or their sexual preference. That can be changed, so it does not fall under that. I would just like to make a point of that.
A good example of rights, the Friends of Democracy came out here saying they are representing 20,000 or 30,000 people. They are right, but are they representing them now when they speak for them because they have not consulted with them? Are we giving them that right? Are we giving the population that we said at one time that we represented, are we giving them that right to speak out on this? No. We have not given them a chance to speak on it. So we cannot go forward today and make a decision for 20,000 people that we say are friends of democracy. Nineteen Members cannot do that.
Then we talk about funds that are going to be spent on court cases. Why is it always the government at fault when it comes to expenditures regarding court cases? Why do the people not look at the people who are taking the government to court and say, "You are the ones who are putting the government to court. You are the ones taking money away from my child when they can have day care." Why does no one go out there and say that to them?
The Friends of Democracy were trying to take this government to court so that Members could not make a stand, could not make a decision at that time without consulting with their people. That is the same thing we are doing here. We are trying to make a decision without consulting with the people.
When it comes to same-sex child adoption, I have a problem with that. In the Child Welfare Act, we say the best interests of the child. Is this the best interests of the child that we are taking in? We are going to be exposing them to a different way of life, a different way of growing up. Is this the best interest of the child when they have to go to school and be ridiculed or be harassed or teased at the schoolyard because of who their parents are? Is this the best interest of the child? No, it is not the best interest of the child. A child has no choice who their parents can be. A child does not have a choice, but under the Child Welfare Act, it says the best interests of the child. Are we going to change that in that act?
Well, if we are going to change things, let us change everything. Let us look at that act one more time. Is it going to be for the best interests of the child?
I do not have anything wrong with same-sex benefits because they are adults. They have a choice. They make that choice. Their sexual preference is their own. I respect that, but you cannot put a child through that. For the best interest of the child, I must vote against this. Thank you.
-- Applause