Roseanne Skoke

[Petitions, June 12th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the fourth petition is requesting that Parliament delete entirely proposed section 718.2 from Bill C-41.

[Petitions, June 12th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, another petition is praying that Parliament act immediately to extend protection to the unborn child by amending the Criminal Code to extend the same protection enjoyed by born human beings to unborn human beings.

[Petitions, June 12th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have four petitions to table before this House. Two are concerning Bill C-68, calling on Parliament not to enact any new firearm registry, registration fees, costs, or any further restrictions on the ownership, sale, use, transportation, or storage of firearms.

[Legal Recognition Of Same Sex Spouses, June 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, from the outset I wish to advise the House that I do not support this motion.

This motion is specifically asking Parliament to encroach on a jurisdiction that is not within the domain of Parliament. This motion is asking Parliament to take the necessary measures for the legal recognition of same sex spouses.

In effect, Parliament is being asked to provide special legal status to homosexuals, thereby allowing them to redefine the family, to redefine marriage, to enter into the realm of sanctity of marriage, to allow homosexuals to adopt children, to enter into schools, education and infiltrate the curriculum within our school system and to impose an alternative lifestyle on our youth. This is unacceptable.

All these demands are encroaching on and undermining the inherent and inviolable rights of families. Families have existed before the church. Families have existed before the state. Parliament has absolutely no legal or constitutional authority to redefine family, or to enter into the realm of the sanctity of marriage.

It is important for the House to understand why this line of thinking is present here today and why such a motion would even be entertained on the floor of the House.

The first theme that we have to come to understand is that of freedom. At the collective level, people are saying that they want freedom to govern themselves, develop their own economies, to enhance their overall quality of life, and the freedom of choice.

Closely tied to this theme of freedom is our second theme, that is, the individual. At the personal level, people are saying that they want to be free to express themselves, free to work, free to worship, free to travel, free to be what they aspire to be and once again, individual freedom of choice.

Closely tied to our themes of freedom and individualism in our country is our third emphasis and that is pluralism. As a policy, pluralism contributes to collective and personal freedom by legitimizing diversity. It appears on the surface to resolve the issue of how different individuals who want to be free can live in community and harmony.

Our three themes of freedom, individualism and pluralism are now joined with our fourth theme in our country, relativism. The free expression of the individual and groups is made possible only by suspending value judgments about how people live or what choices people have made.

Truth has been replaced by relativism, which is the legitimization of diverse choice. Under the guise of equality and fairness, pluralism coupled with relativism has come to pervade Canadian minds and Canadian institutions.

Canadians have become conditioned to be tolerant, to respect, to appreciate diversity. The insistence that individuals must be free to think and free to behave without interference according to their conscience has been reinforced in our pluralistic secular society today.

The introduction of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the promotion of multiculturalism has once again reaffirmed Canada's goal of harmonious co-existence whereby the ideas, lifestyles and free thinking of all individuals must be accepted and respected to ensure equality and fairness.

To accept and to endorse the theory of pluralism coupled with relativism is to accept that truth is nothing more than personal opinion. Relativism in our pluralistic society has stripped us as Canadians of our ethical and moral guidelines. Justice, law and morality are inseparable. In Canada we cannot have laws unless our laws are just and moral.

The preamble to our Canadian Constitution set forth in the Constitution Act recognizes the supremacy of God in the rule of law. The recognition of the supremacy of God entrenches into the Constitution natural law, and therefore the laws of our country must not contravene natural law, for to do so the laws would be ultra vires or unconstitutional.

I refer to recent Supreme Court of Canada decision Nesbit and Egan. This decision was rendered on May 25, 1995 and the decision makers refer to the relevancy and the functional values underlining the law and that the Canadian charter of rights is not enacted in a vacuum but must be placed in its proper linguistic, philosophic and historical context.

Also Chief Justice Lamer and the majority of the Supreme Court judiciary stated quite eloquently: "Marriage has from time immemorial been firmly grounded in our legal tradition, one that is itself a reflection of longstanding philosophical and religious traditions, but its ultimate raison d'étre transcends all of these and is firmly anchored in the biological and social realities that heterosexual couples have the unique ability to procreate, that most children are the product of these relationships and that they are generally cared for and nurtured by those who live in that relationship. In this sense marriage is by nature heterosexual".

The rights of family are being seriously undermined and eroded in Canada today. The conventional terms of debate in matters of political, economic and legal issues tend to focus on individual rights and the rights of state, not the rights of the family. This is unfortunate and must change, for the family is the most important reality in our lives. To redefine the family to include homosexual and lesbian relationships is immoral and unjust and a violation of the rights of the family which are well founded in both our Canadian and natural law.

The family unit is the basic institution of life and the solid foundation in which our forefathers have built this great nation. The protection of families, family life and family values must be a priority with the government. Families have inherent and inviolable rights. Families have existed before the church, families have existed before the state. The rights of family must be preserved, safeguarded and protected by Parliament.

To recognize same sex marriages would give credence to a faction in our society undermining and destroying our values, principles and morality. Such a special recognition of same sex marriage by Parliament is an overt acceptance and condonation of homosexuality being imposed on Canadians. It has the effect

of legislating a morality that is not supported by our Canadian principles, morals and values.

Canadians do not have to accept homosexuality as being natural and moral. Homosexuality is not natural. It is immoral and it is undermining the inherent rights and values of Canadian families and it must not and should not be condoned.

To endorse same sex marriages or to include the words sexual orientation in any federal legislation would allow homosexuals to obtain special legal status. It would allow them to redefine the family, to redefine marriage and enter into the realm of the sanctity of marriage, to adopt children, to enter into our schools and infiltrate the curriculum of our schools and to impose an alternative lifestyle on our youth. All these demands are encroaching on and undermining the inherent and inviolable rights of family.

Families have existed before the church and families have existed before the state. Parliament has absolutely no legal or constitutional authority to redefine family or to enter into the realm of sanctity of marriage. For Parliament to do so would encroach on the rights and responsibilities of family. It would also encroach on the rights of the church. I use the word church all inclusively.

Parliament must be reminded that separation of church and state has been respected for centuries. The state must not interfere in matters of church. However, the church has the right and responsibility to enter into and be concerned with matters of state. The power of church, and I use the word all inclusively, must not be underestimated. Over the last 25 years Parliament has gradually encroached on the rights of the church, the rights of family and the rights of life.

Over the last 25 years morality, an essential element in justice and legislation, has been gradually removed from our laws. Such examples are decriminalization of homosexuality, no fault divorce, facilitating and funding abortion and our Young Offenders Act. Now this motion before the House is requesting special legal status for homosexuals to allow them to redefine family, to undermine and erode and destroy the rights of family and to destroy the sanctity of marriage.

It is important for Parliament to be reminded that family is the basic institution of life. Life begins from the moment of conception and continues until natural death. In the words of the Supreme Court of Canada in Egan and Nesbit, marriage is heterosexual by nature.

[Petitions, May 11th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I also have two petitions with respect to the issue of amending human rights legislation to include the words sexual orientation. This petition contains 155 signatures.

[Petitions, May 11th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I also have four petitions containing 322 signatures requesting Parliament to delete entirely section 718.2 from the Criminal Code of Canada pursuant to Bill C-41.

[Petitions, May 11th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have six petitions respecting the issue of gun control.

The petitioners pray that Parliament not enact any new firearm registration fees, costs or any further restrictions on the ownership, sale, use, transportation or storage of firearms.

[Petitions, April 26th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I present six petitions containing 1,848 signatures. It calls upon Parliament to reconsider the passing of legislation on the new gun control measures as tabled in the House. They are hopefully requesting amendments.

[The Budget, March 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raised a number of issues.

Let me set the record straight. I am not biased and I am certainly not confused. I have read the budget, I have scrutinized it and I am very proud to support the budget.

With respect to jobs and job creation we should not overlook the numerous job creation strategy programs the Liberals have implemented and are continuing with the budget. We have our youth service corps initiative and all our human resources development programs the people in my riding of Central Nova rely on on a very regular basis. They are creating jobs. I am proud to say we are now underway in implementing our youth service initiative program.

With respect to ACOA and its new role in terms of economic development in our area, we are very proud and pleased to have ACOA involved in economic and regional development and we are looking forward to working very closely with that agency.

We have our infrastructure program. Although there has been some reduction in the funding my riding has benefited significantly and created a number of jobs pursuant to this program and we are looking forward to future initiatives.

We also rely on small business in our area, which creates up to 85 per cent of the jobs in the country. The Liberals are being very active in terms of ensuring small businesses get the venture capital they need, ACOA will be taking a roll there, and also the measures they have taken in terms of ensuring banks recognize small business initiatives.

With respect to dairy subsidies, which affect my riding, there is only a 30 per cent reduction. There is equity in the budget. Every sector, every individual, every business, everyone has been affected by the budget. In terms of dairy subsidies for Nova Scotia there is only a 30 per cent reduction. It is time it became more competitive and cut its costs in terms of management and organization. It is not necessary for the 30 per cent reduction to be passed on to consumers. I trust it will not be in Central Nova.

[The Budget, March 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today in support of the budget tabled by the Minister of Finance.

The fundamental objective of the 1995 budget is sustained growth and job creation. The budget takes far reaching actions to reduce spending and to reshape the role of the federal government in building a stronger, more dynamic Canadian economy.

The budget is aimed at restoring fiscal health and refocusing government on key priorities and needs. It is about getting government right so that Canadians can get the economy right.

It is the biggest Canadian budget since post-war demobilization. It delivers on the commitment to meet our fiscal targets using prudent economic assumptions. It cuts the deficit largely through expenditure reductions. It restructures spending to keep the deficit on a downward track. It puts the government's own house in order to make it smaller, more frugal, better managed and innovative.

It defines a new role for government in the economy. It reforms federal transfers to provinces. It points the way to reform of unemployment insurance and the public pension system. It distributes the burden of restraint fairly among Canadians and the regions of Canada.

The deficit and debt are national problems. The budget distributes the burden of restraint fairly across all regions. Canadians in every region have strongly urged us to bring spending under control. Some individual measures obviously affect certain regions more than others, but looked at as a whole no region is being hit disproportionately.

The budget shows that federalism is flexible and dynamic. Although we are cutting the level of transfer payments, we have given the provinces ample notice as promised and the cuts are less than those we are imposing upon ourselves. The government remains committed to the equalization program, a pillar of Canadian federalism.

The new Canada social transfer will give all provinces greater flexibility in designing social programs while the principles of the Canada Health Act are maintained. The introduction of the Canada social transfer in 1996-97 will deliver funding to the provinces, cash and tax points of $26.9 billion. That is a drop of about $2.5 billion from what provinces could expect under the current system.

That is tough action but let us put it in context. It means that the total of all major transfers, including equalization which is not affected by the budget, will be 4.4 per cent lower than today. By comparison, the cuts in federal spending everywhere else will be 7.3 per cent, a much deeper reduction.

The Canada social transfer will represent a new approach to federal-provincial fiscal relations marked by greater flexibility and accountability for provincial governments and more sustainable financial arrangements for the federal government. By doing so it continues our national evolution toward more mature fiscal relations.

The government is meeting its fiscal target. In the 1994 budget we pledged that the deficit would be reduced to 3 per cent of GDP or $24.3 billion for 1996-97. In the budget we are taking strong measures to ensure that those targets are met even with higher than expected interest rates.

The budget also looks beyond the two-year target because our fiscal reforms will continue to pay off in the years after sustaining our progress toward the government's ultimate goal, a balanced budget.

Our cautious fiscal and economic assumptions make clear the need for tough measures. To hit our targets we are implementing cumulative savings over the next three years of $29 billion. These actions mean changing the size and shape of government. By 1996-97 program spending will fall from $120 billion last year to just under $108 billion. The structural changes we are making will ensure that significant deficit reduction continues in 1997-98 and beyond. The bottom line benefit will be dramatic.

The budget concerns itself with increasing tax fairness. The 1995 budget takes far reaching action to restore the fiscal health that supports a strong and growing economy. The plan also reflects the government's determination to puts its own financial house in order instead of placing the burden on taxpayers.

Over the next three years spending reductions will total $25.3 billion against $3.7 billion in revenue action. That is almost $7 in spending cuts for each $1 in new tax revenue.

Most important, there is no increase in personal income tax rates in the budget. Where tax action is taken it centres on improving the fairness of the tax system. As the finance minister said, the issue of taxes is more than a matter of rates; it is a question of equity.

The budget reflects the results of the program review that was launched a year ago. The budget agenda is not just a plan for smaller government. It is a plan for smarter government and for reforming the structure of the government and how it spends. The size of government will be reduced substantially over the next three years. Departmental spending will be cut by almost 19 per cent from 1994-95 levels. For some departments spending will be halved and in total these actions will deliver a three-year savings of almost $17 billion.

As a result of the sweeping reform of federal programs, the public service will be reduced by 20,000 people this year and by some 45,000 positions over the next three years. For the first time departments will have to prepare three-year business plans and submit the plans to the scrutiny of Parliament and the public.

The impact of the program review budgetary measures has been fairly distributed across all provinces. Some programs have been eliminated or significantly reduced. Other programs have been redesigned or consolidated. There are some particular measures that tend to be concentrated in specific regions.

Of concern to the Atlantic region, and more particular to my riding of Central Nova, is the Atlantic freight subsidy that is being eliminated. However to offset this a five-year, $326 million transition program is being provided. Dairy subsidies will be reduced by 30 per cent over the next two years. Forest resource development agreements with the province will be discontinued. The public utilities income tax transfer payment of $30.4 million to Nova Scotia will be terminated. Regional agency funding will decline by $562 million over the next three fiscal years. ACOA's share of the reduction is $173.5 million or a 31 per cent reduction.

The government remains committed to supporting economic incentives in Atlantic Canada. ACOA has proven to be the most efficient and effective vehicle for delivering on the commitment. In terms of the government's commitment to job creation as promised in the red book, ACOA has shown itself to be part of the solution, having helped to create some 42,000 jobs in Atlantic Canada. ACOA will continue to fulfil a vital role as a source of capital for the region for growing small and medium size business and as a leader for economic development in the region.

In conclusion, the budget marks the beginning of a new era. It underlines the need for an evolving, dynamic, co-operative federalism to meet the challenges facing Canada's economy and its people in a tough, competitive world. It is a challenging budget but also an equitable budget that deserves the support of all members of the House.