Keith Martin

[Criminal Code, September 26th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I found my colleague's comments very interesting as she got to the nub of the matter which is this big challenge of trafficking.

I draw the attention of the House to a very good study that was done by the United Nations. It did a comprehensive overview of the trafficking in people, particularly looking at the Far East and West Africa. There is a very big problem of trafficking in West Africa, particularly children. A lot of them go into a form of indentured slavery, which is a profound tragedy.

Many people watching may not be aware that slavery is alive and well in parts of Africa, particularly in parts of West Africa. Niger has it as well as a number of other countries along the coast. That is why it is extremely important for us, as my colleague and friend mentioned, to work with our international partners to address this scourge.

In the commission of this, does she feel that the workings that we have internationally through the RCMP, Interpol and other agencies are sufficient at this point in time to address this scourge? Where does she see the future going with respect to addressing the profound problems and the human tragedy that encompasses the trafficking in people?

[Criminal Code, September 26th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague's comments. He knows that his province of Quebec has a very serious problem with the trafficking of not only people but of guns, drugs, alcohol and other contraband, particularly at Kanesatake and Kahnawake.

The issue at hand is a very serious one for police officers. They find it very difficult to deal with an issue that has become much more than one can find within Kanesatake and Kahnawake reserves. It is one that deals with issues across the border between Canada and the U.S., and is intimately entwined with organized crime. Our hearts have to go out to the aboriginal people who live on the reserves and the terrible problem they have with organized criminal gangs, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, that act like parasites within those communities and essentially destroy and eviscerate a lot of the social structures within those areas.

The hon. member knows the area quite well and the problems with which the aboriginal people are confronted. What advice could he give the Government of Canada and how we could help the RCMP to deal and address the serious problem on those reserves?

[Criminal Code, September 26th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague's comments. He has a great deal of experience in these areas.

We know that organized crime is parasitic on society. We also know that it is the trafficking of drugs, people, guns and alcohol which drives the economics of organized crime. One of the best ways to attack organized crime and reduce it is to attack its financial underpinning. The question then is how we do that.

We know that the United States has adopted RICO-like amendments, racketeering, influence, corruption organization amendments. We also know that the Government of Canada has adopted similar amendments.

With respect to the scourge of crystal meth that the hon. member and indeed all of us are consumed with, we have done something quite innovative. The Minister of Justice has decided to put the precursor chemicals that are used to make crystal meth on a schedule. These are things that are commonly found in cough medicines, such as ephedrine and pseudoephedrine. By putting those elements on the schedule it forces those who wish to import and export these substances to acquire import-export permits which will allow our police to address, attack, apprehend and convict those individuals.

On the issue of human trafficking, which has to do with prostitution, would the hon. member think that legalizing and regulating prostitution would be a way to actually address the issue of prostitution, particularly for those individuals who are under age and are caught up in the prostitution rings? These are people involved in prostitution because of substance abuse or psychiatric problems, bearing in mind that 50% of prostitutes in this country are actually aboriginal women, some of the most vulnerable people in our society.

If prostitution were legalized and regulated in Canada would my colleague think that would go a way to addressing the problem of the pimps and organized crime members and a way in which we could reduce and eliminate under age individuals becoming involved in the system? This would enable prostitution to hopefully be healthier so that the individuals engaging in this activity will have better health.

[Civil Marriage Act, June 28th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, we tend to come back to the issue of supposedly the lack of democracy on this bill, but it has been expressed quite widely what has taken place with respect to the Constitution. I want to get back to the root of what appears to be going on here.

When so much anger is directed against a particular bill, what is the true root of that anger? If we scratch behind the scenes, what is really driving the opposition? I completely understand the views on both sides of this. I understand why many people would oppose this, particularly when it is consistent with their religious beliefs, which they have every right to protect. We must protect, acknowledge and respect the beliefs of people.

Fear is driving much of the animus that has come from members on the other side who oppose this. There is the fear of people's marriages, of their children, of their children's future relationships and of the direction of Canadian society. That has been expressed many times by the other side. Is this fear really rational? Are the concerns as expressed by many members from the Conservative Party about where the issue of marriage is going, how this will affect heterosexual marriage, whether it will dilute or destroy the institution of marriage?

Does my hon. colleague not think the bill will have absolutely zero bearing whatsoever on heterosexual civil marriage and on religious marriage? The bill has everything to do with civil marriage and nothing to do with religious marriage? Does he not see this will not affect his marriage or damage heterosexual relationships or marriages? It will broaden the concept of marriage to include those people who are in a loving, caring relationship. They can then share in that institution as other heterosexuals do.

[Civil Marriage Act, June 28th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the hon. member's comments and there were really three parts to his speech. I will address two of those parts and ask him a question.

The first part has to do with the issue of democracy. If he had listened to the Minister of Justice he would have heard that the committee had 500 witnesses, visited 12 cities and received 300 submissions. Bill C-38 went through committee clause by clause. All of what he has asked for has already happened exhaustively.

My second point is with respect to the issue of religious beliefs. As the minister said very clearly, the right to religious beliefs and the protection of religious institutions to act out their beliefs is the first among all rights within this country.

The member mentioned the issue of children. Does he not think that Bill C-38 actually strengthens the rights of children because gay and lesbian couples actually have children? Bill C-38 would enable lesbian and gay couples to have a civil marriage, not a religious marriage because it is up to religious institutions to marry whomever they wish. Does he not think that Bill C-38 strengthens the rights of those children whose parents happen to be gay or lesbian?

[Civil Marriage Act, June 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I want to correct the member very clearly. The Government of Canada did not legalize same sex marriage in Canada. It is already legal in eight provinces and one territory, and if this bill does not pass, the next day it will still be legal in eight provinces and one territory. Those members must wake up: this is the reality.

If the members on the other side want to oppose this, they have to stand up and use the notwithstanding clause. Unless they are willing to do that, then they have to say the Government of Canada is doing the right thing by ensuring that we have some sense of homogeneity in this country and that marriage for same sex couples will be legal and--

[Civil Marriage Act, June 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, there are actually two issues that the hon. member mentioned. One is the issue of which group in our society actually makes the laws. Of course it is Parliament, the institution we are sitting in today.

However, courts do make decisions. As the member knows full well, there is a way for Parliament to actually overturn them, that is, with the use of the notwithstanding clause.

For those who oppose this bill, which basically means the Conservative Party members in this House, it is their right to do so, but if they truly want to oppose this, if they mean it, they have to stand up in the House today and say that they are going to use the notwithstanding clause if they are in government.

That, by law, is the only way in which this issue can be changed in the manner they want, but have we heard them offer this up as a solution? No, we have not. If this is a political issue on the part of the members of the Conservative Party, if they truly want to do this, I challenge them to say that they are going to use the notwithstanding clause. That is the law.

On the issue of the three line whip structure, when the current Prime Minister came into power, part of the democratization of the House he wanted was to change the way in which voting took place. For the first time in the history of the House, a three line whip structure, such as that which Prime Minister Blair has started in the United Kingdom, was adopted in this House, at least on this side. That is a far cry from what existed in previous decades, where such a three line whip structure did not occur. My colleagues from this side of the House and behind do indeed have a true free vote, because this is a two line whip structure and they can vote for or against the bill. In fact, we have seen this exercised at second reading.

The members from the other side know full well that members of the government have voted for and against the bill by virtue of their conscience and by virtue of what their constituents wanted them to do.

Again, I challenge the member from the other side. If the members of the Conservative Party want to oppose the bill, then let them stand and say that they are going to use the notwithstanding clause. If not, they should vote for it and go home.

[Civil Marriage Act, June 27th, 2005]

Thank you for your generosity, Mr. Speaker. I only have a minute left so I will encapsulate. At the end of the day, as a loving, compassionate, kind society where tolerance is the signature of Canadians, I think that on this bill, as difficult as it is for some people to embrace, perhaps they ought to embrace it as a way to spread the notion of love, commitment and caring and the expression of love, understanding and tolerance.

I think that at the end of the day the members who oppose this will find 10 years down the line that this has not been a threat to their families or their relationships. They will find that this has not been a threat to their children. They will find that in fact the bill will actually have improved our society and strengthened it in ways that they probably cannot begin to imagine.

I hope that at the end of the day they will look forward to a loving, more caring and tolerant society, one that I am sure we would all support. I think we would agree that it is the signature of our beautiful country, one that we all should be doing more to accomplish.

[Civil Marriage Act, June 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to the comments coming from the other side. I understand and I think all of us understand that this is a very sensitive issue. Emotions are inflamed on this for many reasons.

I want to share with the House a little story. As I was walking up to the House a little while ago there were a couple of people who were very big supporters of the Conservative Party and their big issue was the issue of marriage. They wanted to support the status quo or the historical status quo.

When I asked those people what would happen if Bill C-38 did not pass in the House, they said that same sex marriages would no longer be legal and that only marriages between a man and a woman would be allowed in Canada. I told them that they were wrong because marriage between same sex couples was already legal in eight provinces and one territory. That is the reality.

For those who oppose this, only one rational debate can occur, and that is on whether to use the notwithstanding clause under the charter. Under the law that is the only rational debate for those who choose to oppose this. Anything else is just hot air.

They may wish for life to be different. They may wish to remove this bill from the parliamentary calendar, they may wish that it had never existed, as was mentioned from the other side, and they may wish that marriage between same sex couples was illegal but that is not the case.

The other side may wish to simply say that with the stroke of a pen, without getting into the notwithstanding clause, that they may choose to simply bring a bill to this House to say that we want to reverse history. Would that make any difference? No, it would not. Whether or not the other side wishes something does not make it a reality.

At the end of the day, all of us have to live within the context of the law and the Constitution. The law and the Constitution state very clearly that if a party wants to change through legislation dictums that have come through from the lower courts, they have to use the notwithstanding clause.

The Conservatives are being utterly disingenuous in not offering that option. Unless they offer that option, they may as well sign on to this bill and go home to their families, go home to their constituents and say the bill has passed. However they will not do that and that is utterly disingenuous.

I want to get to some other issues that were raised today. I want to talk about the fact that in eight provinces and one territory this is the law. Indeed, in many other countries this is the law. Some of the people who are opposed to this think that the sky will fall, that somehow incest will be legalized, that some people will marry their brothers or their sisters, or that some other concoction will be legal.

The reality is that is not the case. In those countries in Europe that have adopted it or those provinces and that territory in our country that have adopted it, one would be hard-pressed for those who oppose this particular bill to point those out and say that the sky has fallen in those provinces and that territory. The reality is that is not the case.

I think what will happen is that 10 years down the road we will all look at this and say how silly we were to have evoked such venom against this particular bill. At the end of the day, the bill does not change my heterosexuality. It does not change anybody else's marriage. It does not change anything. It simply includes and extends a little bit the boundaries of civil marriage to those who love each other and who choose to enter into marriage.

What we need today is a lot more love and a little less hatred. I think we would all be a little bit better off at the end of the day. At the end of the day the bill will not hurt anyone who has a religious marriage. The bill also will not hurt or damage the rights of churches, synagogues or temples to marry or not marry whomever they choose. It will not infringe upon those rights.

The bill is about civil marriage, not religious marriage. The courts have been very clear that those, for example, who wanted to have a situation where people could have a civil union, that was struck down by the courts. Again, they may wish to have something else but that is not the case.

What I find profoundly disappointing is that we have tried very hard as a government to deal with a myriad of issues, from children to homelessness to students to education to major foreign policy challenges, and rather than the opposition finding the best within themselves and the best ideas that they have and offer those ideas to Canadians as something to put forward, they have churlishly decided to sink themselves into this debate in a highly venomous fashion without opposing it in a way that is rational and legal.

Instead of those members trying to oppose something that is essentially a faite accompli, I challenge those members to offer up better solutions than we have and we will offer up better ones than them because at the end of the day this is about the Canadian public. This is about those people who do not have homes, who cannot get health care, and it is about making companies more competitive.

We have a myriad of challenges. The G-8 summit is coming up. We have offered, as a government, a number of solutions, from forgiving the debt of highly indebted nations to providing more aid, in particular, for Africa and doubling it to 2009. We should deal with the issue of the undervalued Chinese yuan which has huge economic implications for the world and, in particular, for our country as a trading nation.

Those are the issues that matter to Canadians because it matters whether they have a job, it matters whether our exporting companies are competitive, it matters to the future of all Canadians, it matters to our tax base and it matters to our social programs. Those issues are important because it hits Canadians at a visceral level, at their dinner table, and those are issues that mean something to them.

We have offered up solutions for students and for our economy. We have balanced the budget for the eighth time eight years in a row. Do we hear any solutions from the other side? No, we do not. Have we heard a budget from the other side? No, we have not. Have we heard a rational set of solutions for the G-8 summit? No, we have not. We have not heard one solution for a major summit that is taking place, that has profound implications, not only for our country but for the international community and the world in which we live.

Do we hear solutions from them on how to mould the L-20? Do we hear solutions on how deadly conflict can be avoided that has claimed the lives of millions? Do we have any solutions on how the global fund for TB, AIDS and malaria can be improved? Do we hear any solutions on how our research and development can be improved, not only to address health care issues in Canada but also to address those internationally?

Do we hear any solutions to a major health care problem, the issue of mental illness in our country, or that depression will be the second leading cause of morbidity in our country in the future? Do we hear any innovative solutions to what we need to do for our aging population, to how we can incorporate our ever-increasing aging population, albeit healthier, into our workforce, to lower pressure on our social programs and our pension systems? Do we hear any innovative solutions to those things? No, we do not.

Do we hear any innovative workable solutions on defence? Do we hear any solutions on how we can increase our soldier? Do we hear any solutions on how we can improve the way in which our defence forces work?

We are trying. The Minister of Defence has put forth umpteen solutions to accomplish those objectives.

[Civil Marriage Act, June 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the hon. member's comments on this particular topic, which is extremely sensitive. It has evoked a lot of emotion from a lot of people in many quarters. All of us understand the sensitivity of this issue because all of us in our ridings have seen how divisive it has been in so many quarters. It is important for any government to respond in a responsible fashion.

I have a couple of questions for the hon. member. As members know full well, it costs about $20,000 an hour to keep this House open. In the course of the debate, every single hour that we are here, those hours are costing the taxpayers money. If we keep on debating and debating, we have to ask ourselves, are we actually going to change anything? Would a continuation of this debate change anybody's mind and anybody's opinion?

The reality is that all members who have dealt with this issue have made up their minds whether they are for or against. Further debate is not going to change anything. There are no more amendments. There is nothing that can be put forward that is going to change anything.

The hon. member said that marriage is a union between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, with the potential to procreate. Does that mean that women over the age of 50 who get married do not have a marriage?