Larry Bagnell

[Criminal Code, September 26th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, some of the opposition critics have suggested there was nothing to prevent this in the past but in fact the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act already has a specific offence against human trafficking. In fact there have been convictions under that act.

I would just like to ask the member why these new offences are needed when we already have provisions in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[Criminal Code, September 26th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member on his very eloquent speech in support of this government bill. I particularly appreciated his research and the references to international organizations.

I do have to disagree on the suggestion that there is a fiscal imbalance. The member well knows that his province has the same type of tax-creating abilities and expenditure controls. It can increase its income tax, sales tax, et cetera.

Her Majesty's loyal opposition has suggested that one of the weaknesses in this legislation is that there are no mandatory minimums. It was also suggested that we should in general get rid of conditional sentences. One of the reasons given was that there are suspended sentences. I am not sure what the difference is between someone on the street with a suspended sentence and someone on the street with a conditional sentence. I am not sure why that would be better.

Does the member agree with me that there are some offences in Canada where a conditional sentence may be warranted and may be useful in either protecting the public or helping with rehabilitation?

My second question is one which I asked the loyal opposition when we were talking about sentences. Does the member see any way to increase sentences or does he see any need to increase sentences on some occasions for severe sexual assaults or other assaults against women whose entire lives have perhaps been destroyed or taken away? Some sentences appear to be unreasonably light.

[Criminal Code, September 26th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I will apologize for my comments and question being slightly peripheral to the bill, but the member's entire speech was peripheral to the bill and I have to comment on what he talked about.

As for the higher-ups getting off scot-free, they do not with our proceeds of crime bill. The suggestion that anyone in Canada would like rapists to have free rein was so outrageous that I could hardly take the member's speech seriously.

With regard to mandatory sentences, which is a useful topic for discussion, there are situations where it has been proven that they neither rehabilitate nor protect. In certain situations we need to have flexibility. I will talk about stronger sentences later because I agree somewhat with the member.

The suggestion that some government policy is the reason that courts do not send someone to jail for certain serious offences is ridiculous. It is a system where the courts are independent of the government. I am sure judges do not listen to such direction, which does not exist.

The member was complaining about marijuana operations. Our bill includes stricter penalties and hopefully the opposition would support that. I agree with the point the member brought up about dangerous chemicals. I am glad we have taken steps on crystal meth. I have made the commitment to our firefighters that we will do anything we can to make sure that they are not in jeopardy with these dangerous chemicals.

I do not agree with mandatory sentences in every case, but I would like other suggestions on how we might get stronger sentencing from the courts. In crimes of violence against women or even ending a woman's life, there can be seemingly light sentences.

This afternoon, as everyone knows, from 4:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. in Room 340S there will be a reception with the families of the peace officers who were slain in Alberta. I hope all members of Parliament who are listening will be able to attend.

Are there situations in that case where stronger sentences could help? I would like the member to comment on other methods of ensuring that sentences are appropriate in cases where they deserve to be appropriate given that the courts need flexibility for different situations, the number of offences, the motivation behind the offence, et cetera.

[Civil Marriage Act, June 28th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, before I ask my question I would like to go on record as saying that I have asked a number of times if anyone's mind would be changed in this debate if we carried on with it. Not one member of Parliament has said that it would, so it is good that in 45 minutes we are going to vote.

The member talked about emails he has received from people across the country. During the last 45 minutes of this debate I would like to get into some input from youth. I will ask the member what input he may have received from youth.

I will read from an article written by a young girl who is the granddaughter of one of my constituents, Sydney Walsh, from the April edition of the Lancer Ledger, in order to put some of the opinions of youth on the record.

I will read a very short part of it: “The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees that everyone has freedom of conscience and religion, as well as thoughts, beliefs, opinions and expressions. The Charter discriminates against no one, so why should we as a society discriminate against same sex couples? Same sex couples should have the right to be married. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms was designed as a balancing act between the rights of society and the rights of the individual. Since same sex marriage does not infringe on anyone's rights, there should be no reason why it should not be allowed”.

I am curious as to what input the member may have received from youth.

[Civil Marriage Act, June 28th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member about religious freedoms. A number of people in the House have expressed a concern about religious freedoms and that this would be a reason to vote against this bill. As the member knows, one of the biggest objectives of the bill is to protect religious freedoms. In fact, the equality right is to a large degree taken care of by the courts. The bill would not change that except for those few jurisdictions where it has not been decided. The leading professors in the country and the Supreme Court already have decided that. It is inevitable.

Another major objective of the bill is to protect religious freedom which is a charter right. Could the member comment on that? This is a reason to support the bill. Some people seem to have misconstrued that as a reason to worry about the bill.

[Civil Marriage Act, June 28th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the member said that this has not occurred before. Unfortunately, he did not hear my seatmate's speech just previously where she explained this already occurred in Roman times in 1 BC.

He talked about the compromise position his party was presenting. Could give us an outline of exactly what that position is, given that same sex marriage is now legal in Canada and will be legal regardless of the results of the vote this evening? It is legal because the courts across the country have deemed it so through the interpretation of the highest law that Parliament has put forward, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the Constitution.

What is this alternative compromise position? It can be changed in two ways. One is by changing the Constitution of Canada to deny this right by prohibiting same sex marriages or by using the notwithstanding clause. Fortunately, every party in Parliament has said that it will refuse to do that, with which I am very happy. Maybe the member could outline the details of the compromise position.

[Civil Marriage Act, June 28th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, first, with regard to allowing people to speak, I agree with the member. I am a champion of democracy and I believe everyone should be allowed to speak, including minorities.

However I think the justice minister made a very good delineation this morning in his speech of how this particular bill has been dealt with more extensively than probably anything else in this Parliament. Last night the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence made a beautiful outline of all the other serious items affecting Canadians that we ought to be dealing with.

The fact is that we have debated the bill at different stages. I know more people would like to speak but I think the Conservatives have agreed that no one is going to change his or her mind no matter how long we speak. With that in mind, it is my view that we should vote on this and then carry on with other items that are also very important for Canadians.

In relation to the notwithstanding clause, in answer to the member's question this morning, the justice minister said that he did not believe the notwithstanding should be used to deny people rights, in this case the equality right. The Prime Minister's suggestion was that we use the notwithstanding clause to protect people's rights.

In relation to my thoughts about the provinces using the notwithstanding clause, one of my philosophies in governance has always been to not pronounce on what other governments do in Canada. We have four orders of government: municipal, first nation, provincial-territorial and federal. Each, in theory, has an identified jurisdiction and work they should be doing. I personally have enough work to do in my own job that I do not comment on what the other governments do or what is within their authority and legal right to do.

[Civil Marriage Act, June 28th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Scarborough—Rouge River.

It is an honour to be here on this historic day when Parliament will affirm the equality rights and religious freedoms that were first conveyed to us when the Charter of Rights and Freedoms became part of the Canadian Constitution.

Everyone in Parliament and across Canada understands the very deeply held and passionate views on this issue among Canadians. No member of Parliament would ever suggest that their constituents were not split or that people did not feel very passionate on both sides of this issue.

It is incumbent upon all of us to respect the rights of each member of Parliament and of each Canadian to have different views on this very sensitive and heartfelt issue.

I will try to give a balanced reflection of some of the comments from my constituents. I will read some excerpts from some of the emails and letters I received from my constituents with views on both sides of the issue, so they know they have been treated fairly, they have been heard, and they have passed their feelings on to Parliament.

Jennifer Williams and Paul Gort wrote:

As constituents we are writing to let you know of our support for the government's proposed same sex marriage act and to urge you and your colleagues to take action to ensure this important bill is passed before the House adjourns for the summer. The right to marry is a fundamental human right and as such is deeply connected with our Canadian identity and sense of justice. How can we as Canadians deem to judge other nations if we fail to uphold the most basic of human rights at home?

Lana Wickstrom wrote:

Courts across Canada consistently and repeatedly found excluding gays and lesbians from civil marriage to violate the charter because the exclusion is discriminatory and without reasonable justification. Some argue marriage has always excluded same sex couples. However, just because a discriminatory practice has been in place for a long time does not make it acceptable. Women were denied the right to vote for centuries. Discrimination was not fair then and it is not fair now.

Given that same sex marriages have been allowed in eight provinces and in Yukon Territory, Claude Chabot wrote:

I can't say I've noticed Yukon society falling apart after our experience with same sex marriage over the past few months.

Kevin Greenshields wrote:

The United Nations Commission on Human Rights has upheld traditional marriage on an international case from New Zealand in 2002. Even countries like the United Kingdom, France, Denmark and Sweden have upheld the traditional definition of marriage.

Don Green said, “--marriage is part of what defines a Christian”. Ruth Dueck said, “--social experiment that would intentionally deprive children of a mother or father”. Carol Horne wrote:

Furthermore, it would appear that the government is abdicating the responsibilities of Parliament, allowing an unelected and unaccountable judiciary to set the agenda and to carry out drastic social re-engineering of an essential human institution.

The Right Reverend Terrance Buckle, the Anglican Bishop of Yukon, wrote:

This proposed legislative action by the Government of Canada stands in opposition to the faith teachings of many in Canada and not only Christians, as I am certain you are aware.

Stan Marinoske wrote:

One of the major social systems which has been the cornerstone of our society is that of the family. The traditional family unit has been under attack from all sides. This will be another huge nail in the coffin which will eventually bury the family as we know it.

Harry McKenzie wrote a very deep felt letter ending with, “You have a chance here to protect our community and its members rather than push for their potential abuse and victimization”.

I received a number of form letters. A card from Don Duriez stated that marriage assures the survival of society by creating the next generation. Dianne Tate said, “Marriage is a vital social institution and is the foundation on which a strong, dynamic society is built”. Finally, Kim Runions said, “Will you also vote one day in support of marrying one man and one beast or maybe a father and his daughter?”

I want to assure my constituents that I read all their emails and letters, and I have reflected a number of them, on both sides of the issue, fairly in the House of Commons today.

I want to comment on that last one because it has come up a number of times in the House and in debate that it might lead to polygamy, incest or marrying animals. I want to assure the House that this is obviously not true. The difference is quite clear. We in Parliament are saying to all Canadians that they cannot marry beasts, have incest or polygamy. We are treating all Canadians equally by saying they cannot do that

The reason that same sex marriages are allowed now in Canada is that it is an equality right. It is treating all Canadians equally and allowing all Canadians to do that, just as we are not allowing all Canadians to participate in those other activities.

I would like to outline more of the facts related to this situation for those Canadians who may not quite clearly understand the situation related to this law, so there are no misunderstandings.

I wish to make it clear that this is just civil marriages. If anyone is worrying about their traditional religious marriages, the law will carry on exactly as it has always been. We are only speaking of civil marriage.

The case in Canada today is that the highest law in the land created by Parliament, the Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, has been interpreted to say that same sex marriages are legal. Whether or not the law passes, same sex marriages are now legal and they will continue to be legal in Canada.

Unfortunately, this has left us in a situation where there are two provinces and two territories where it has not been through the courts yet. Obviously, it will eventually get there, but in a sense we have two classes of citizens. That is why it is important to deal with this law. In fact, we will be finishing it this evening, so that we do not have different classes of citizens in Canada. I am sure all parliamentarians would agree with that.

Another fact that people should be made aware of is that this has nothing to do with benefits like pensions or other employee benefits for same sex couples. They already have these benefits through other laws which have been dealt with. It also has nothing to do with the right to adopt children. Same sex couples already have these rights as well through other laws.

The only thing that we are dealing with here is that same sex couples have equal rights to use the word “marriage” to define their civil unions.

Given that we have this situation, that same sex marriages are now legal in Canada, it is very important to note that all parties in the House of Commons have said that they will not change the Constitution to deny this equality right or to deny same sex civil unions. They will not use the notwithstanding clause. Then why do we need this bill? It is over and above, as I said earlier, to ensure that persons in the other two provinces and two territories are treated equally.

The other major objective of the bill is to reaffirm the protection of religious freedoms in the Constitution. Churches that do not want to perform same sex marriages should not have to. One of the important elements of the bill is to protect religious freedoms and two more elements have been added to the bill to enhance the religious freedoms aspect. I congratulate the committee and the House for doing that.

In summary, that is what the bill is all about. It reaffirms two rights that are in the Canadian Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, namely the equality rights and the right to religious freedom.

Canada is a nation of minorities. We are all part of some minority. If we do not protect all minorities, we cannot protect any minority. If we do not protect all minorities, we cannot protect people of colour, Anglicans, Catholics, Muslims, people of different genders, and people of different races or nationalities. We could not protect any Canadians because each and every one of us is part of some minority.

Parliamentarians in a previous Parliament have issued a great challenge for us by creating a charter with some overlapping rights, equality rights and the right of religious freedom. Balancing these is what Bill C-38 would put into law with a very good framework. Our challenge as parliamentarians is to do our level best to find that balance in these two rights for the fairness of all.

I have never had one Canadian suggest to me that all Canadians should not be treated equally. I stand by them, and the freedoms and rights of all Canadians.

[Civil Marriage Act, June 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, there is no minister of misinformation.

[Civil Marriage Act, June 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned a point that a number of his colleagues have mentioned about a number of situations in the courts where people have been attacked for religious freedoms and other such reasons. A number of members mentioned the same particular cases.

I would like to ask the member what his party's suggestions are to deal with this. Bill C-38 has not passed yet, so it is not this bill that is the problem. What are the suggestions of the Conservative Party to correct those elements of those people that have been attacked unfairly, as the Conservatives are suggesting?