Debates of Dec. 6th, 2006

Marriage

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate and respect very much the comments made by the member. However, I am sure I echo the sentiments of many when I say I wish the characterization of those who see problems with respect to same sex marriages is not that of being homophobic.

One area I think the member could make a clarification is with respect to the right of churches to make the decision to perform or not perform marriages of members of the same sex. If a civic action or a statutory initiative by a provinces or the House were presented, what would the member's personal position be with respect to churches being protected in taking the decision not to perform marriages between those of the same sex?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again the fact that someone is opposed to the right to marry of gays and lesbians is not a sign of homophobia. However, when a government or an official opposition votes nine times against the rights of a sexual minority, then I think there are grounds for speaking of homophobia.

I have made a list of the nine times when the Conservatives, and before them the Alliance members, voted against the rights of gays and lesbians. If at some point the Bloc Québécois decided to vote nine times against the rights of native peoples, I believe that it would be said that the Bloc Québécois is against native peoples. If at some point we were to vote nine times against women's rights, I think it would be said that the Bloc Québécois was against women's rights.

Having said that, I repeat that the Supreme Court was clear on the fact that churches and religious denominations are not required to officiate or to celebrate marriages if this runs counter to their dogma or the teachings of their church. That was included in Bill C-38. The freedom of religion provision in the Charter does not require it.

The Supreme Court was clear. Bill C-38 is clear. In any event, what we are discussing today and what we discussed in 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005 is civil marriage celebrated in courthouses before notaries, prothonotaries or laypersons hired by the government. That is what we are talking about.

Yes, I respect the right of a person committed to a specific religion not to celebrate religious marriages.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Hochelaga is always very articulate, strong and clear in his expressions in the House, particularly on this issue. He has been a leader in the House, in Quebec and in Canada on the issues of gay and lesbian rights. I like to think of him as one of the heroes of the transformation in the situation of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people in Canada both in this place and in the community.

I know he has been part of the debates. He went through the long history in a very careful way. I think he made a very strong case for the actions of the current government in the past being very much in opposition to the full participation of gay and lesbian people in our society. The record is pathetic, to put it mildly. I know he was part of many of those discussions.

One of the arguments being made now is that somehow in the last Parliament the effort spent on dealing with Bill C-38 was somehow deficient, that we did not give it due diligence. I know in his remarks he touched on the time and effort that went into Bill C-38. He was a part of cross-country hearings that heard from 467 witnesses. However, could he expand on the criticism that due diligence was not done when this issue was before the last Parliament?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have been talking about this since 2002.

Former minister Martin Cauchon published a book that offered a number of options. As soon as this former minister submitted this book, there were consultations in parliamentary committee. There were some in Ottawa and in major cities: 467 witnesses came to talk about this.

This debate has monopolized a lot of energy and taken a lot of time. It is important for us to spend time and energy on this because the concept of marriage reflects religious conviction, ethical conviction, personal conviction and public conviction. It is important to take our time in addressing these factors.

However, if the matter has been closed by the Supreme Court, eight courts, parliamentarians and a debate that has been going on since 2002, it is safe to close the debate once and for all in the name of equality. The ideal of equality should be our primary motivator when we are standing in any parliament.

I do not understand the government's stubborn determination to cause division. In fact, I do understand it. The Conservatives are doing this for their electoral base, for ideological reasons, but fortunately, our constituents, our fellow citizens, will not go down this path with them. Their past behaviour is a discredit to them if they are thinking of forming a majority government one day.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his remarks. He mentioned the fact that people sometimes marry for reasons other than just procreation. He gave several examples.

I am thinking of older people, who often no longer have the ability to procreate but who marry for love and for companionship. We consider those marriages equal to any other.

I would like to ask the member a question. He knows the law, he studies it and he continues to learn more about the law. The government has a responsibility, if it sees that the laws of the country need changing, to present bills to Parliament. We debate those bills, as we did in the case of civil marriage. We hear from witnesses in committee, we come to a decision and, finally, we enact the law.

I find it hard to understand why a government would propose a motion setting out what we would possibly find in a bill that it might table, if that were the wish of the House, unless it was because it knows that it can not introduce that bill without using the notwithstanding clause, or that it has no intention of introducing that bill or that it is trying to create division in the House of Commons and in the public.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is correct.

The government’s motives are motives of division and dissent. Legally, it is clearly to respond to an electoral base. It is clear that there is an element of public opinion that is not in favour of giving gays and lesbians the right to marry. Nevertheless, we do not expect that a government will feed such prejudices. The first duty of a government is to uphold the dignity and equality of its citizens.

I agree with our colleague. This government is cruelly shirking its responsibilities, especially since it is the duty of a government to ensure that any legislative measure introduced is compatible with the Charter.

We know very well that if, some day there was a bill calling for the exclusion of gays and lesbians from access to civil marriage, the person introducing the bill would have to invoke the notwithstanding clause. When that clause is invoked, it is used to suspend rights and it is certainly not to the government’s credit.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

The church and religion have been mentioned a number of times during the debate. I would like to know what my colleague thinks.

Does he think that perhaps the fundamentalist Christian church, an extreme right-wing religion, is influencing the government's policy, as in the United States, where the church affected the results of the presidential election? Is the Christian fundamentalist church really trying to direct this government's policy from behind the scenes?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, religious belief is a wonderful thing. It is the conviction that there is life after death. I think that in the Catholic faith, in the Christian faith, there is an ideal of charity that is certainly hidden behind a more official stance.

When we held hearings in 2002, and more recently on Bill C-38, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops came out against same-sex marriage. It did so very respectfully, explaining that, because Catholicism is a revealed religion that has holy scriptures, it had to interpret those scriptures fairly literally, and it did not recognize same-sex marriage. I repeat, that is not our concern. As parliamentarians, we respect freedom of religion.

But Canada has no state religion. The world view offered by the Catholic faith or any other form of religion can certainly influence individuals' personal convictions, but it can never serve as a basis for public policy.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government has put the following motion before the House:

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.

I am honoured to speak for the New Democratic Party in this debate. On a Saturday afternoon in September of this year, Chelsea United Church, just across the Ottawa River and up the road from Parliament Hill, was full. It was standing room only. Many people from this corner of the House from the NDP caucus were present. That afternoon we witnessed Scott Daly say to Éric Hébert:

Éric,

You and I have travelled to so many places, seen so many things, experienced so many milestones together that is difficult to describe exactly what our journey together has come to mean to me. In all of our successes and failures, gains and losses, adventures and mishaps, all I know for certain is that wherever you are I belong beside you.

When I left Kamloops so many years ago I was alone in every sense of the word. You not only helped me find a place in which to be myself, you also expanded my horizon to include a different language, and different perspective, and a new family in which to find acceptance.

I promise you, in front of family, friends and God that I will rejoice with you in your successes, mourn with you in your failures, and persevere with you in your struggles. For your journey is my journey. I promise you that I will share my own dreams, my own fears and my own challenges with you. For my travels are your travels. You and I, we share this odyssey together.

I promise to respect who you are and to honour what you stand for, to be your strongest ally and your fairest critic, to embrace your foibles as well as your strengths, to remember each and every day that what we share is something very unique and special.

I cannot promise to love you more than I already do. I can only say this: if I am a good teacher, if I am a talented writer, if I have found any success in this life we share, it is because you have helped me find the best part of who I am.

I have always loved you. And I always will.

Éric then spoke to Scott in front of all those who had gathered:

Scott,

When I think of our 17 years together and the promises that we made to each other, I know that we have, indeed, lived our love.

I know that God has blessed me with your presence. Our lives together have meaning and our hopes for the future are always brighter when we journey side by side.

What can I promise you now that you don't already know? What can I offer you now that isn't already yours?

Scott, I will do all I can to inspire you, the way you inspire me. I will surprise you from time to time, the way you do for me. I will comfort you when you need it most, as you always have with me. I will be joyful, the way you are, even when the circumstances make it difficult for us both. I will strive to see the world through your eyes, to laugh with your light heartedness, to savour your love and offer you mine every day. Since you bring out the best in me, I will continue to be a better person for you.

And while I may never be a perfect partner, I will always be happiest when I'm travelling with you on the road trip of our lives. The beauty of this road trip is that it doesn't have an end or a destination--it's just an incredible journey with each passing mile more beautiful than the last--and an unending fuel supply!

I stand before you, committed as ever, before God, our community, our family and friends, to tell you that I love you and promise to continue living that love in every way, every day, for as long as we walk this earth together.

In exactly the same way, on August 25, 2006, Laura Chapman and Anne Drummond and their family, friends and colleagues gathered in the rose garden at the arboretum at Queen Elizabeth Park on Little Mountain in Vancouver. At that time Anne said to Laura:

I take you, sweet Laura, to be my partner in life, love and adventure.

I will be at your side for all the risings and settings of the sun, for the days of fullness and through the barren times.

I will support your endeavours, listen to you, forgive you and laugh with you, and above all, I promise to be true and faithful to you and this wonderful love that we share.

Laura then spoke these words:

Dearest Anne, love is a miracle, love is a mystery. I take you to be my life partner in this dance of wonder. I will love you and delight in you. I will whisper to you each morning, dream with you each evening, celebrate your joys, kiss your tears and nurture our love with all my strength and passion.

Back in the summer of 2005 in a restaurant in Stanley Park, also in Vancouver, a lesbian couple from Baltimore, Maryland in the United States stood with a marriage commissioner and made promises to each other. This couple knew no one in Vancouver but had gone there to be married because that possibility did not exist for them back home. They asked two women who happened to be having lunch in the restaurant, also as it turns out visitors from the United States, to be their witnesses. The women agreed. The brief civil service took place in the garden. When the marriage commissioner pronounced them married and they kissed for the first time as married spouses, everyone in the restaurant stood and applauded. Total strangers, randomly selected, stood and applauded this couple's making solemn, joyous promises to each other. A line formed of restaurant patrons to congratulate these strangers, this newly married couple.

A table of folks from rural Alberta had taken photos and offered an email address so they could be delivered. An elderly woman, moving slowly with a cane, waited and gave them huge warm hugs and a blessing. The American witnesses were deeply moved. That such a scene was possible in a public place made them believe that Canada was in a very real sense the promised land.

I feel lucky to have been present when Scott and Éric were married. I am very moved by the eloquence and poetry of Anne and Laura's vows. I am also so deeply moved by the story of the marriage of the women from Baltimore in the restaurant garden and so proud of my citizens for their spontaneous outpouring of support.

For me, these promises, these stories are what this debate is all about. It is about gay and lesbian couples making promises to each other, promises on the one hand that are not unusual because they are the same as couples have made to each other in marriage for years and years. But they are promises that are also very special because gay and lesbian couples have had to fight for the exact same right to make them in public that our heterosexual brothers and sisters have.

They are promises that provide a firm foundation for life-affirming relationships. They provide a firm foundation for families. These promises make our communities stronger by expanding the circle of intimate, justice seeking, loving relationships. These promises give security, security to couples, security to the children of these partnerships, security to our families and our communities. These promises lead to serious legal obligations and responsibilities that are willingly and enthusiastically engaged.

Building relationships, founding families, expanding intimacy in the pursuit of justice and love, providing security, assuming responsibility: all these are foundations of a strong society, all values that contribute to a strong society, all defining aspects of the institution of marriage in our society.

Twelve thousand five hundred couples, 25,000 individuals, have made the same kind of commitment in Canada since marriage became possible for gay and lesbian couples. These marriages were performed by clergypersons and by secular marriage commissioners, all of whom were licensed to solemnize marriages by their provincial governments and given the civil authority to legally marry couples as defined now by the federal Civil Marriage Act.

These couples who chose to be married are not people who want to change the institution of marriage, but instead are people who only seek to be included in this institution, because they believe in the values that it represents and that it supports. They are people who have been raised in families and communities that hold marriage in high regard.

Thousands more in Canada have stood with these couples as members of wedding parties, best men and maids of honour, as members of congregations, as family members and as witnesses. In doing so, we have pledged our support for these couples. We have witnessed their love and commitment and pledged to honour and respect those relationships. We have agreed to be part of their families.

Marriage is stronger in Canada for these thousands of commitments by gay and lesbian couples and by their witnesses. Often we have left these marriage ceremonies inspired with new respect for this institution. In so many ways, gay and lesbian couples are true marriage evangelicals in Canada. They are the people fervently advocating for this institution, an institution that has faced many challenges in recent decades. I believe that gay and lesbian couples who marry have breathed new life into this venerable institution.

At a very fundamental level, the marriage law was about equality for gay and lesbian Canadians. It was about our basic human rights, whether we choose to be married or not. This fact was clearly recognized in the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender communities, even in quarters that have questions about the institution. It was about full citizenship, about clearly stating that all Canadian institutions were open to all Canadian citizens, including civil marriage.

As gay and lesbian Canadians, we recognized, whether or not we sought to be married ourselves, that it was not acceptable to be told that we could not walk through the front door of a key institution of our society. We also recognized that a lesser recognition of our relationships, such as civil union, cheapened our citizenship and made us less than full citizens. Entering a key institution of our society by a side or back door or creating a separate institution to recognize our relationships is not equality and not full citizenship.

The government also knows that it has no jurisdiction to create a civil union possibility, so that suggestion in its motion is misleading at best. The jurisdiction for such a step lies with the provinces, and the provinces have shown no interest in such a possibility since the passage of the Civil Marriage Act and since the court decisions that preceded it and which established the right for gay and lesbian couples to marry in almost every province in Canada.

There was great care paid to ensuring freedom of religion in the law that was passed. No priest, rabbi or minister will be forced to marry a couple against their will. No religious institution will be forced to perform a marriage that is against its beliefs, theology or practice. Indeed, since the law was changed, none have, and none will be. This is not new, in the same way that no divorced couple could sue or has tried and least of all succeeded to sue a church for a marriage if that was against the theology, belief or practice of that church.

Furthermore, to change the law now to remove the ability of gay and lesbian couples to marry will also remove the right of those churches, synagogues and temples which, on the basis of deeply held religious convictions, have decided to marry gay and lesbian couples. In many ways, the religious freedom shoe is now on the other foot. To truly protect religious freedom in Canada, we must protect the provisions of the Civil Marriage Act.

It has also been said that somehow the debate on the Civil Marriage Act was deficient. As someone who was part of that debate in the last Parliament, I want to take serious issue with that position. No issue was more fully debated in the last Parliament. Hours and days of debate were held at every stage of the bill. A special legislative committee held extensive hearings and heard from dozens of witnesses.

That was in addition to the numerous court challenges in the provinces and territories, Ontario, British Columbia, Quebec, Nova Scotia, Yukon, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and Labrador, and in the former government's reference to the Supreme Court and that court's decisions. As well, in the 37th Parliament, the Standing Committee on Justice held cross-country hearings on the matter, hearing from 467 witnesses. There have been multiple court decisions and multiple votes in the House. Hundreds of witnesses have testified and there have been hundreds of hours of debate. Due diligence was done.

This issue has been thoroughly debated in political parties. The NDP, for its part, has been very clear on its unconditional support for the right of gay and lesbian Canadians to marry. Other parties have had significant debates. The matter has been debated in churches, temples and synagogues, in families, classrooms and bars, and on the shop floor, and it is clear that a majority of Canadians do not now want to see a change in the current law.

Thirty-two years ago as a young gay man, I marvelled at the bravery of Richard North and Chris Vogel, a gay couple in Winnipeg, as they attempted to obtain a marriage licence. They did not succeed, but their relationship, their marriage, was subsequently celebrated by a Unitarian church congregation.

At that time, I could not imagine doing what they had done. I could not imagine living in a society where my relationships would be respected and honoured, where I could pursue a lifelong commitment to another man whom I loved and who loved me. I thought my relationships would always face imposed limitations and therefore be less than those of my parents and grandparents.

Thanks to brave couples like Richard and Chris, thanks to their example, their role modelling and their risk taking, new possibilities were opened up for me and for thousands of gay and lesbian Canadians like me. More recently, many other brave gay and lesbian couples put their relationships on the line, pursuing and ultimately securing justice in the courts and here in Parliament.

Éric and Scott, Laura and Anne, the women from Baltimore, and thousands of others have shown us that there is something of great value in the institution of marriage. They have shown us that inclusion in the institution of marriage is worth fighting for. They have demonstrated love, commitment and responsibility. These are the true traditions of marriage in Canada. These are values that truly define marriage in Canada.

Given all that, there is no reason to again debate marriage, no need to change the law, no need for a separate institution for gay and lesbian couples, and no need to limit access to marriage for gay and lesbian couples in the future. Instead, there is real reason to celebrate, to celebrate love, right relationships, commitment, the pursuit of justice, responsibility, and the building of relationships, families and communities, and to celebrate equality.

The witness of gay and lesbian married couples, the family, friends and co-workers who support them, and the Civil Marriage Act make that celebration possible. That is why New Democrats in the House will be voting against the Conservative government motion.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his intervention and also explaining to the House a little bit about the issue of a civil union.

This motion that now is before the House seems to be a little different than the apparent promise during the election campaign, which was simply to open the debate. I do not know who decided that was going to be the promise and what in fact it entailed. Even today in the speech of the House leader of the government, he relayed to the House and to the public that the motion before us was simply to open the debate. That is clearly not the case.

The issue really has to do with whether or not this motion is calling on Parliament to ask the government to introduce legislation in a legislative process that in fact is unconstitutional.

The question I have for the member is whether he could affirm to the House his understanding of the Supreme Court decision on the reference to the Supreme Court. My understanding is that the Ontario Court of Appeal said that denying same sex marriage was against the charter, that it was a violation of the equality provisions of the charter. That decision was followed by a number of provincial decisions. The Supreme Court itself ruled that it would not overturn those decisions, i.e. it effectively made it a violation of the charter and in fact unconstitutional.

It appears that no legislation could be introduced and not be unconstitutional. I wonder if that is the member's position.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do agree with the member. I believe that there is no way to legislatively overturn gay and lesbian people's access to marriage in Canada now. I believe that it would take the application of the notwithstanding clause of the Constitution and I do not believe that even this government is prepared to use that kind of sledgehammer to attack human rights in Canada.

I agree with him as well that this is a flawed motion. The reference about civil marriage in this motion is completely out of place, I believe, because it is very clear that civil unions are in the jurisdiction of the provinces. It is very clear that the federal government has no ability to legislate or introduce any kind of civil union regime that would have any bearing on this debate before us or any bearing on our jurisdiction as federal members of Parliament.

I agree with him on both issues.

[Catherine Bell, NDP, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Burnaby—Douglas both for his comments and for all the work that he has done for so many years on this issue in standing up and speaking of equality rights for gays and lesbians. The speech he made was very moving, as were the beautiful vows that he talked about between such loving couples that he has the pleasure to know.

I myself have had the pleasure of knowing many gay and lesbian couples over the years. I have seen at first hand their love for one another and their pride in being able to share that love in a way that is equal in society, in being able to take part in marriage vows and to feel like they belong in society as equals with the rest of us.

I want to ask my hon. colleague one question. It has been over a year now since the passing of Bill C-38. Has he has seen anything that would give him any indication, as some people have said, that the state of marriage in Canada is in jeopardy, that there is a crisis in marriage? I want to ask him if he has seen anything to give him pause there.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

No, Mr. Speaker, I have not seen anything that would lead me to believe there is any kind of crisis in marriage in Canada.

In fact, the only thing we have seen since the passage of the Civil Marriage Act and since the court decisions is that more couples who strongly believe in the institution of marriage, who believe in the values and traditions of marriage, who believe in the commitment that marriage involves, have been able to take on those responsibilities and those commitments. They have been able to stand before their friends, families, colleagues and communities and make commitments and promises to each other. I think that should fill us all with joy and happiness. I think it is something to celebrate. I think it has been celebrated across the country.

If 12,500 gay and lesbian couples have made that kind of commitment and those kinds of promises since the laws began to change in Canada, and if they invited people to those ceremonies--and we all invite people to weddings--then thousands if not millions of other Canadians have participated in witnessing those commitments, in standing up to support those couples, and in saying that they are going to respect their relationships and nurture those relationships. Those witnesses stand in pride with them to say that this contributes to building families and contributes to our communities. I think that is a very positive thing.

The only observations we can make in light of the change in the law and in light of the court decisions are positive ones that will benefit our society, that will benefit our families and that will benefit the institution of marriage in the long run.

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate, protracted as it is with 10 minutes each, on a subject which, when we think about its historical context, is the most significant sociocultural change that our society has faced in terms of a definition of a word and how it is going to be taken up legally in hundreds if not a couple of thousand years. It is very significant that we are talking about this and engaging in this debate.

I do not often look to someone in the media for support of a particular position I may have had, but there was an article this morning, an editorial piece in the National Post by Andrew Coyne, a person with whom I do not agree on any number of occasions. However, in terms of context and in terms of how this debate should proceed he framed it in a rational and civilized way.

That is one of the first things I want to address. The basis for my position I have articulated in the House on a number of occasions. The last time was in March 2005. I proposed to my colleagues the religious framework for the position which I embrace, the Judeo-Christian construct which frames that discussion and it is there for people to read, March 23 or 25 of 2005.

Therefore, I am not going to get into all of that tonight in the very short period of time that we have. I want to talk about the nature of the debate itself. I should add that the reference that I made to the National Post and the op-ed piece, is by somebody who says that they support a change in the definition of marriage. This is not someone with whom I agree on the position itself, but it is worth taking a look at in terms of framing the debate itself.

It was disappointing, I must say in all honesty, to hear not that long ago, and not from the previous speaker but I believe from the member for Hochelaga who took a very combative approach to this issue. Terminologies get thrown up, terms get tossed into this debate which really do not allow people to get into the real crux of the matter.

When somebody who supports the traditional definition of marriage as defined as the union between a man and a woman is called--and I have never plumbed the depths of the meaning of this word--homophobic or a “homophobe”, that does nothing to enhance the debate or encourage people to come forward or discuss it. Does that mean that somebody who wants to see the definition of marriage changed is a heterophobe? Of course not. That would be ridiculous.

I would hope that we can talk about the nature of the debate and the basic elements of the debate without it disintegrating into that kind of atmosphere. I think in most cases we have heard that so far and I hope we can keep it at that higher level.

Whatever our opinion is of whether this is an issue of basic rights or a violation of rights, and obviously we are allowed our opinions on this, there is a fact that is clear. The Supreme Court has not declared that the definition of marriage, defined as the union between a man and a woman, is unconstitutional. It has not declared that.

It might be someone's opinion that it has, and I reference the article in the National Post again this morning, not that the National Post is the be all and end all, but that has not been decided by the Supreme Court. It is certainly one's right to say that this is a violation of a human right, but it has not been decided by the Supreme Court.

As a matter of fact, on this question, the Supreme Court said that if there is going to be a change in the definition, Parliament should make that change. I applaud it for recognizing the purview and the jurisdiction of Parliament on that issue.

There is another aspect of this debate that is still somewhat troubling. Tonight, as we stand here and debate this very important item, our wish, and I congratulate the Prime Minister for understanding the very basics and the roots of democracy itself, is that the individuals and especially the delegated elected individuals who are here should be able to stand up and freely articulate our differences of point of view. There should be no man or women who could tell us that we would not be able to stand and speak freely on this.

I am pleased to see that the new Liberal leader has changed his mind on this and apparently is allowing a free vote. It is very disturbing to know that there are two parties in the House, and I am not trying to make this a partisan issue but I am pointing something out, that tonight, despite the encouragement of our Prime Minister, two parties in the House that call themselves democratic, and one even uses the word in its title, are not allowing their members to vote freely on this because in the opinion of the leader, unsubstantiated by a Supreme Court ruling, there shall be no freedom to vote on something as crucially important as this particular opinion.

It was not that long ago that the leader of the NDP actually kicked a women out of his caucus because she wanted to vote with her conscience. That type of thing--

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member just indicated something that is not indeed a statement of fact. No one was expelled from the caucus of the NDP in the course of the debate on same sex marriage in the last Parliament. I hope that he will clarify--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. It sounds a bit like debate to me. The hon. Minister of Public Safety.

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

It does sound like debate and not a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hope that does not detract from my time.

That particular member was stripped of all of her committee responsibilities. I participated on a live radio show with the leader of the NDP at about that time. He said, and we can get this out of Toronto, that he had ordered her to be quiet and he was pleased with her silence. If the hon. member does not think that is effectively de facto eliminating a member from what should be a democratic debate, he needs to take a good close look in the mirror. I am pleased that we are able to have the debate, at least with some parties, and to vote freely on it.

The issue of religious freedom is also one that should be of importance to everybody, whether they claim to be people of faith or not. When we look at history in terms of the development of certain democratic freedoms, we will know that certain religious freedoms give rise to broader freedoms. The freedom to express oneself religiously is so basic to so many other freedoms that when I met with the Dalai Lama about two years ago, I asked that in his world tour promoting world peace, for which I congratulated him, that he encourage every world leader to allow freedom of religion within their jurisdiction.

As we know, over half the world right now does not have freedom of religion because freedom of religion leads to freedom of speech, leads to freedom of association, leads to the freedom of expression, and the freedom to acquire property, to build mosques, temples or churches. It is basic to the freedoms we have. Anything that goes against that is very dangerous and has to be guarded jealously, again, whether a person claims to be a person of faith or not.

I raised questions on this issue in 2005, questions which have not yet been answered, but I would take issue with some of the things that my colleague spoke on. He has greater faith, I would say, in the fact that religious institutions and religious discretion will not be diminished if there is a change, as there is, in the definition of marriage. I appreciate his faith, but I would say to myself, “O ye of little faith,” because that is not what is happening.

In fact, we do know that there have been some cases where commissioners of marriage have been told they will be relieved of their duties if in fact they do not perform a marriage which is contrary to their faith, that being heterosexual marriage. That has already happened, so religious faith is being diminished there.

We have seen cases where religious institutions have faced rulings by the Human Rights Commission and incredible fines because they would not allow their property to be used for certain types of marriages. We have seen cases where individuals have expressed in newspapers, even letters to editors, their religious point of view on this issue and they have suffered severe penalties. Religious freedom is at risk here by those who do not truly understand the importance of allowing that to continue.

I will say in closing that I honour my parents. We have heard members speak about their parents. I honour my mother and my father, who recently passed away, for their demonstration of the importance of marriage, the importance of heterosexual marriage, and the realization that marriages are not perfect. Certainly, mine is not. My wife is, but I, personally, am not, However, the importance to maintain this institution as defined between a man and a woman is crucial.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I see several members rising. If we can keep questions and comments as brief as possible, we can accommodate more members.

The hon. member for Mississauga South.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I assume the member presumes that this motion before the House will satisfy the promise made by his party during the election and that he also accepts that it has been well established in the debate so far that it would not be constitutional simply to put forward a piece of legislation that would summarily just revert the definition back to the traditional definition of marriage.

Having said that, three members of the Conservative Party have come to me and told me that the Prime Minister's Office does not want this motion to pass. Could the member explain to the House why the Prime Minister's Office wants this motion to fail today. Is it because the government cannot come forward with a bill?

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend across the way has been around long enough to know that it would be foolhardy to speculate on hearsay. Three people said to him something they heard that came out of the Prime Minister's Office. I am not even going to speculate on that.

The Prime Minister was the only national leader in the last election campaign, before that campaign, and now, who is standing and saying this must be a free vote.

I know enough about the Prime Minister, and I hope my hon. friend would also know, that he would not make a comment like that and in fact stake out an electoral position, which some would suggest may not have been electorally positive, but one that is based on principle, in the hopes that in fact it would fail. I think that is a foolhardy notion and I think I have addressed that.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. The Minister of Public Safety will have approximately three and a half minutes left for questions and comments.

It being 5:30 the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Criminal Code

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

moved that Bill S-211, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (lottery schemes), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege for me to sponsor a bill originating in the Senate.

I would like to pay tribute to Senator Jean Lapointe who has worked all his life to improve people’s quality of life. Bill S-211 will in fact improve people’s quality of life. Senator Lapointe has fought all his life to combat injustice. He had problems with alcohol himself and he overcame those difficulties. He has been particularly active in combating the appalling ravages of gambling. Bill S-211 is in fact a way to contain one of the most horrible plagues on our youth and on all our fellow Canadians. I am talking about video lottery terminals.

There are video lottery terminals in bars and in restaurants. We all have a family member, a friend or someone with a serious problem because of video lottery terminals. I was a minister in the past and I am now a member of Parliament. The role of a legislator is not merely to make speeches and answer questions. A legislator must play a meaningful role in the quality of people’s lives.

Our role is precisely to make sure that we create an environment that makes it possible for our fellow citizens to have a decent quality of life. Every time we have an opportunity to do that, without managing their lives for them, we must give them guidance and an environment that will help them to prosper in society.

There is a serious problem at present from which too many people and young people are suffering; it is called pathological gambling. The distress we see is serious. We have even heard of suicides. Video lottery terminals affect more than 90% of people who have a gambling problem. That is why this high rate of dependency must be contained. We must find a way, together, to make it possible for these people to have a better quality of life.

This bill amends the Criminal Code. It will give us a means to contain the ravages of something that, as I said earlier, causes countless problems for our fellow Canadians. This bill will not ban video lottery terminals, however. Whenever we try to ban something, we get into the whole question of organized crime and the black market. The purpose of this bill is to confine video lottery terminals to race courses, casinos and associated places like the Hippo Club, which are all managed, and managed only by the provincial governments.

I could produce scores of statistics to show what a scourge compulsive gambling is and how it causes serious problems for Canadians.

In his presentations on video lottery terminals, Dr. Robert Ladouceur, a psychologist at Université Laval and one of the leading researchers in the field of compulsive gambling, has stated that 95% of the people he treats for problems related to pathological gambling indicate that video lottery terminals are their preferred game of chance.

According to the Maison Claude Bilodeau, which opened in the fall of 1999 and is dedicated to helping compulsive gamblers, 94% of the requests it has received since its inception are specifically related to the use of video lottery terminals.

According to the report on gambling prepared by Harold Wynne from the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, 78% of individuals with gambling problems play video lottery terminals.

Our friend, Senator Jean Lapointe, opened a treatment centre that bears his name. According to a recently study led by the Maison Jean Lapointe on the treatment of pathological gambling, 83% of participants who began treatment said that video lottery terminals were their preferred game of chance.

Furthermore, the Institut national de santé publique du Québec estimates that 9% of people who use video lottery terminals develop a dependency. The research consulted unanimously reports that video lottery terminals represent the primary source of problems for 80% to 90% of gamblers who seek help.

According to a study published in the Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, most compulsive gamblers are addicted to video lotteries that they play every day or several times a week. They can stay close to home, therefore, and use the machines in local bars.

Dr. David Hodgins of the University of Calgary said in his presentation to the advisory board of the Institute of Neurosciences, Mental Health and Addiction that in Alberta 3% were compulsive gamblers, 2% were pathological gamblers, and 86% of the people who seek help in Alberta play video lotteries.

These statistics alone show what a problem there is with the proximity and availability of VLTs. I am not as knowledgeable or experienced as Senator Lapointe in this regard. However, all of us as members of Parliament go door to door to see people. We walk around and meet people. How often when I go to a restaurant where there is video poker do I see people and youths putting their money into these machines? How did they get their money? Are they going to empty their wallets? Are they going to cash their social assistance cheque and put it all into this? How many times have ladies, mothers of families, come to see me because their husbands play video poker? How many fathers of families do not know which way to turn because their children also play on VLTs?

This is a major problem and our role as members of Parliament, legislators, fellow citizens and responsible people who are supposed to improve the quality of life is to ask ourselves how we could legislate and do our work as members of Parliament to help those people. There is an adage that opportunity makes the thief. How can I ensure that these people do not have too much opportunity because VLTs are so near?

There are some people who love to talk numbers. They say that lotteries donate billions of dollars and generate revenue and that this is about the balance of convenience. I mention the balance of convenience because every time we face this kind of scourge, every time we have a pathetic situation like this one, there is a social price to pay.

Dr. Neil Tudiver of the University of Manitoba found that a compulsive gambler costs society $56,000 per year.

Take, for example, the numbers in Quebec. We did not make these numbers up. They were provided by the people at Loto-Québec, who are lottery experts. They say that Quebeckers account for 2% of compulsive gamblers. So, if we do a little math, we find that 140,000 Quebeckers are compulsive gamblers. Of those 140,000, an estimated 89% are addicted to video poker. That means that 124,000 Quebeckers have a video lottery problem.

If we multiply that number, 124,000, by $56,000 in costs to society, that means the state is spending $6.9 billion per year. Those 124,000 Quebeckers who are problem gamblers with a VLT habit cost us $6.9 billion.

Do you know how much revenue video lotteries generate for the Government of Quebec? Approximately $1 billion. If we do a little more simple math, we find that $1 billion in profits costs $6.9 billion in losses for the province because of compulsive gambling. I think that is a pretty convincing argument.

Yes, people will ask us why we are getting involved because this is under provincial jurisdiction and agreements about gambling were made between 1977 and 1985. Personally, I think we have a responsibility here.

This is about amending the Criminal Code, in a provincial jurisdiction. In 1985, I think, the Montreal casino did not exist, nor did video lotteries.

This is my call to everyone today: let us make sure that, following the second reading, this bill will be studied by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in order to make some clarifications, if necessary.

I see my colleague from Hochelaga nodding his head, because he understands. In fact such a situation also exists in the Centre-Sud neighbourhood. This is not an issue affecting the poor as opposed to the rich. But we know that more people are affected in some places than in others.

After second reading, in committee, we can then ask questions having to do with the federal-provincial aspect.

Still we should make sure that we can play our role fully as responsible citizens. We are legislators, we are the representatives of democracy, and this is the cradle of democracy. Together we adopted a motion bearing on the recognition of the Quebec nation. What about this nation, how is it supposed to operate?

Every time I have had the opportunity, as a legislator and responsible person—which I have had as the Minister of Sport, the Minister responsible for La Francophonie and the Minister of Immigration—I have tried to find ways of ensuring a better quality of life for people.

Here we are working on accessibility. We saw the consequences of prohibition in the 1920s. The prohibition of alcohol had a direct impact, namely, organized crime. Some people got rich that way. People got around the system and still got their drinks. And if, in a way, we regulate the way how things are done and the video lotteries are relegated to specific places, it will not be any better.

The bill is clever in this regard. Senator Lapointe did an excellent job. We will take three years. There will be consultations; the governments will consult one another, and we will find a decent way of ensuring that there can be a transition period— for example, in Quebec, involving Loto-Québec, the bars, the Government of Quebec, and the rest. We give ourselves three years so that we can achieve our ends.

One person is already too many. I could talk today about statistics, but one person is too many. We have heard about suicides, people who are depressed, people who were not players. But when they began to play these video lotteries, they were caught up in an untenable and horrific situation, a situation that is now worrying.

This is not only an adult problem, it is a youth problem as well.

There was a situation involving a 17 year old kid who committed suicide because of this problem. The kid started at 15 years old. He was going to that restaurant and playing many times. It became compulsive. He thought he would make some money because he played it so often, but it became a disease. One has to wonder if he stole to get the money. Did he have a Shylock or some individual involved in organized crime who passed him the money? If he did not win money, he would still have to reimburse that individual, at an interest rate of 30% or 40%. He was 17 years old. He did not see the light at the end of the tunnel. What was he going to do? He killed himself.

We have a duty in this place to do our job. We need to get the tools to the people who can make things happen.

I have been in politics for 25 years. Next June, I will have been a member of Parliament for 10 years. This is important legislation because it is concrete. We will make a better life for people if we pass the legislation.

I invite my dear friends to strongly support this bill on second reading. I understand that my colleagues from other parties are also going to give their point of view at this stage.

In my opinion, the first stage consists of accepting the basic principle of this bill so that we can then study it in committee.

Obviously we will be open to clarifications but we should continue Senator Lapointe's work and carry on building a better world.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very much in support of the principles behind this bill. The one concern I have is that we may be infringing on the territoriality of the provinces by way of agreements that we have had with them starting back in maybe the late 1980s and the decision for the provinces to determine whether this type of gambling equipment would be usable in each of the provinces. I understand we have a series of agreements with the provinces and authority for that.

I am wondering if the member who sponsored the bill could express some opinion as to the legality of us passing this bill if it breaches those contracts, or if he has some other agenda as to how we might be able to deal with that particular problem.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the example that comes to mind is the agreement between the provinces, the territories and the Government of Canada in 1985 with the share of profits based on the lottery. That was before the time of casinos and video poker at that level. We might have something there.

The Senate went through the three readings and had its share of discussion on it, which is why it should be sent to the justice committee where it can have that kind of discussion.

There is a balance between the legality and the legitimacy of it. We know we will need to amend the Criminal Code. We can frame the issue by addressing the fact that it is under the Criminal Code, which is federal jurisdiction. On the other hand, the fact is that there is a period of transition of three years where we need to consult with the provinces.

My understanding is that those who do not have the problem in some provinces or territories are fully in agreement. The other provinces do have some doubts and questions because of the constitutionality. However, I would say that it is like the environment. It is a shared issue that we must address among ourselves.

By having that kind of profound, in-depth debate within the justice committee we should have all the legal framework attached to it. Frankly, with the role we play as legislators and since it is under the Criminal Code, I am not sure it would jeopardize the actual agreement that already exists but we will need to discuss those kinds of things, which is why we are hoping to make those kinds of clarifications during the debate. Since we agree in principle, I truly believe that it is a must to have that kind of debate.

[Ken Boshcoff, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the issue of the addictive properties seem to be well-documented in numerous jurisdictions. When we talk about the use in certain restricted areas, why do we think we could actually tolerate even that level of the addictive properties of VLTs?