Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan. I congratulate you on occupying the chair. I saw you operate there several years ago and you did a good job then. I welcome you back to the House. It is a pleasure to be back with you.
I will divide my speech into three parts: first, the Maclean's annual poll about what Canadians value; second, leadership for Canada; and third, the foundation upon which leadership of the country should be based. Maclean's poll is conducted annually by Allan Gregg. This has been done for 25 years. This year's poll indicates a shift. It used to be that economic issues like a balanced budget, paying down the debt and lower taxes were the primary issues bothering Canadians.
However that has now shifted. Social issues have become primary: health care, reorienting our educational system, grappling with homelessness and caring for our elderly in terms of health, home care, pensions, and the ability to provide food, shelter and clothing.
Canadians say that the role of government is central to our ability to develop a fair society which will deal with these issues. However there is no consensus on what are the solutions or what the specific role of government ought to be in dealing with these issues.
That draws us to the inevitable conclusion that to develop consensus in these areas requires that government take a leadership role. That leadership falls squarely on the shoulders of the Prime Minister and upon each member of the House, simply because people believe government should have a central role in this issue.
What is the context in which these things have been brought forward? Allan Gregg, who has conducted these polls over the past 25 years, concluded that there was a pattern of change in values over time. He said:
Our minds are better, but our institutions and our hearts perhaps aren't. We don't have the same kind of ethical and moral standards or health care system—these sorts of things are on the decline.
That is pretty significant. That same poll, conducted for the year 2000-01, found that 50% of Canadians want Canada to be governed according to Christian principles. I was drawn to that finding by the last sentence in the Speech from the Throne which reads:
May Divine Providence guide you in your deliberations.
Divine Providence, according to the Concise Oxford Dictionary, is God. That sentence reminded me of the findings of the poll conducted by Mr. Gregg for Maclean's magazine.
What do Christian principles actually mean? I suggest among other things that it means there is a natural law, a single objective universal order. All laws, physical and moral, are subject to it. Physical and moral laws are seen as different because moral laws are obeyed by choice while physical laws operate independent of choice.
For example, stones fall and planets move in their orbits without choice, but men and women engage in moral behaviour by choice. While a stone cannot defy the law of gravity, man has a choice and may rebel against moral and ethical laws. That choice, however, does not do away with the reality of a single objective universal order covering both physical and moral laws.
To defy the law of gravity is to invite the consequences of such defiance. To defy the moral law of treating others as we would have them treat us is to invite the consequences of that defiance.
The inevitable consequence for people who defy the law of treating our neighbours as we would ourselves by engaging in such activities as racism, tyranny, bullying and fighting, is to destroy harmonious relationships between people as surely as walking off the roof results in physical injury to the body.
Despite the inevitable consequences of breaking moral laws, some people believe they are based on values that are subjective and relative only to the individual and therefore do not have to be obeyed in the same way as physical laws.
Why are moral laws so important? They are important because they form the basis of creating just laws, which in turn are the basis of a fair and just society. They require the pursuit of virtue.
Virtue is defined as moral excellence, uprightness and goodness. It consists of a clear understanding of right and wrong. It is personal. It comprises the full range of habits and dispositions that constitute good character among persons who are just, courageous, patient, kind, loyal, loving, persistent and devoted to duty. A virtuous society can be created only by virtuous people whose individual consciences guard their behaviour and hold them accountable.
We do not produce a virtuous society by allowing everyone to do what they want. People must adhere to a common set of values. If they do not, chaos will result, crime will increase, authority will be disrespected, and the people will become incapable of governing themselves.
At such a time conditions are ripe for tyranny. In a tyrannical regime, order is created by coercion and fear. There is no individual freedom in such a society. Neither is there any semblance of personal responsibility for acting appropriately.
I quote Charles Colson and Nancy Pearcy in their most recent book. They write as follows:
Virtue is essential for freedom. People who cannot restrain their own baser instincts, who cannot treat one another civilly, are not capable of self-government. Without virtue, a society can be ruled only by fear, a truth that tyrants understand all too well.
Michael Novak, who won the Templeton Prize for religion, agrees and observes that:
Our people are losing virtue and that is why we are losing self-government. And if we cannot govern ourselves, then we invite others to govern us.
This observation applies to Canada today. The United Nations conventions, for example, have more influence on supreme court decisions about moral and ethical issues than do the laws passed in the House of Commons because parliament has not indicated the intention of those laws.
We parliamentarians should do our duty. It is our duty to legislate responsibly, and in particular:
Questions of morality and social policy should not be the exclusive preserve of a constitutional court, but should be debated and acted upon by those who represent us in Parliament...Our political leaders deserve opprobrium for sloughing it off.
That was the National Post editorial of January 29, 2001. I would ask the Prime Minister if he agrees. If so, why would he not give some indication of this in his speech, particularly as there are several references to law and order?
I believe he does, or did the Governor General include the last sentence of the Speech from the Throne without his knowledge or permission? It states:
May Divine Providence guide you in your deliberations.
These remarks were addressed to the House of Commons, members of parliament and the Senate.
It is my hope and my prayer that the Prime Minister and all members of the House will recognize that there is Divine Providence, God, whose law must be obeyed, and that to have peace and harmony in our society we must do so.