Charles Hubbard

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to make Certain Payments, June 16th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I sit on the finance committee with the hon. member. I cannot help but feel the degree of bitterness that he shows toward our Liberal Party and probably to the majority of Canadians.

We have a bill here that states that if there is a surplus exceeding $2 billion that money will be allocated for some very noteworthy and very good purposes, such as housing, post-secondary education and training, public transit and foreign aid.

It is disappointing to hear the adjectives and the nouns he used in describing the bill. Most of us come to this Parliament looking for hope and looking at a vision for this country. He seems to be looking backwards to some other attribute that he wants us to strive for.

Would the member give us an indication as to which of those four noble ventures in the bill he opposes? Is he opposed to post-secondary education, housing, public transit or foreign aid? Which ones does the member want to cut out?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, June 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker seemed to indicate that people were confused. I certainly want to ask this question because I know he was a member of the Mulroney government that was in office and looked after our country from 1984 until 1993.

Every tax has a history. We speak in terms of income tax and we go back to World War I. Probably we could ask the chief opposition whip about his relationship to that tax and the history of it as it was effected by his party.

[Supply, June 9th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly can empathize with the hon. member for Quebec, because in the New Brunswick forest sector and in fact in the forest sector across this country of ours we have tremendous problems of new technologies and older mills, with competition from countries around the world that will be supplying some of the products that Canadian industry has supplied in the past.

In New Brunswick a few years ago, when Frank McKenna was premier of our province, he had a program for older workers. It was called a 50-plus program and was for workers over 50 years of age. He instituted that program by coming to the federal government and working out a relationship by which older workers would be offered opportunities to work in various sectors, sometimes in the private sector. It was a program that worked very well for about 1,000 people in New Brunswick.

It has not been continued by our present New Brunswick government, but I can assure members that older workers certainly need opportunities. They need to feel that they are part of their communities, that they are contributing to their society, and I would suggest to the member that he should go to his own province, which might come to us, and look for an older workers program, whatever it might be.

[Agriculture, May 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, supply management has worked very well in this country for some 40 years and our party has consistently supported supply management.

Today we find that some processors are bringing in protein additives in the processing process with cheese and other products.

How is our government dealing with this issue? How can our dairy farmers benefit from this problem that is being created by outside sources?

[Committees of the House, May 5th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am amazed at some of the talk coming from the opposite side. The party opposite does not have members from two of our provinces and does not represent three of our territories. One member talked about health care, The Liberal party attempted to bring forward budgets that were balanced, that were responsible, that would work with first nations and provinces to provide a fairly good health care system.

The party opposite was the party that voted and asked for more cuts to health care. It felt we had not cut enough. However, we did balance the budget over the years and we were able to provide a program that was good for the majority of Canadians and was to bring back confidence to our people so investors would invest and Canada would have a good economy.

In 1993 we inherited the fact that we were on the verge of becoming a basket case before the other nations of this world. Today we can look at a very low unemployment, a balanced budget and a great deal of confidence from our business community. I am surprised that people with legal experience, with business experience, would attempt to make such a tremendous issue of something that is before our courts and before a commission.

We have to remember, in terms of our government and our federal organization, that the government handles more than $350 billion in any given year. Going back over the last 12 years, we have to put into perspective the amount of $250 million that was spent through the so-called sponsorship program. It is amazing that business people are looking at such a small percentage of money. I know it is a large amount of money. In terms of the total amount of money and the total number of employees the government has, it is amazing that a few employees would be so important in the minds of the opposition members in terms of what it wants, which is the desire for power.

Some 10 months ago we had an election. It cost the Canadian people about $350 million. The opposition wants another one. Opposition members should look at history, at the needs of our Canadians, such as a good economy, a good outlook in our budget and above all, a responsible position that reflects Canadian society.

[Petitions, May 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the pleasure to present this voluminous petition on behalf of the citizens of Rivière-du-Portage. They are calling on our government to ensure marriage remains the union of a man and a woman.

[Correctional Service of Canada, May 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, one of the most demanding jobs within our public service is that of correctional officer in our 50 federal penitentiaries. These people meet with some of the most challenging people within our society on a daily basis. These nearly 6,000 workers have not had a collective agreement for some three years.

Could the President of the Treasury Board please inform the House on the status of the problem in dealing with that collective agreement?

[Income Tax Act, April 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, we certainly are having a good debate tonight. The hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands has brought to the House a situation that we have heard from Saskatchewan in the past. I know Mr. Bailey, when he was from that area, encountered this and discussed it with many of us in the House.

I know all members certainly want to assist, encourage and promote amateur athletics. In Canada we not only have the very good athletes, but we also have a great number of other people who benefit from not for profit organizations that sponsor and provide the infrastructure and activities in which young people are able to participate.

The House is aware of the granting formulas, the granting activities and support that our government gives to elite athletes. I believe the money offered to them is tax free. The point before the House this evening deals with another matter. Probably before the debate is concluded, we will first attempt to determine what exactly is income, in terms of the Income Tax Act. Second, we have to look at the fact that every Canadian, regardless of activity in obtaining employment or income that is regarded as employment, has a basic level of $8,000 which is tax free.

The bill recommends an additional $8,000. We know this is a significant amount. However, those who are out there trying to develop their skills, the money they may need to travel and to participate is a tremendous cost to individuals and families.

It is true not only in athletics. Families and parents support their children in many different types of activities. It may be somewhat lacking in the bill, but we have children involved with ballet, with art, with music and families invest a lot of money in the development of these skills. From the point of view of the bill, we mainly are dealing with amateur athletes.

I am not sure how we would define an amateur athlete, but we do know these amateur athletes must be getting some remuneration from, as the bill says, a not for profit club or organization. They give them a weekly or a monthly cheque.

We know we have to question just how Revenue Canada is applying the concept of what is income. Is income money that these amateur athletes have to spend on a weekly or monthly basis or Is it the support for board and lodging that they may have as they are accommodated in different communities?

I know even in the House we have amateur athletes. Not too long ago we had our two hockey teams here. I do not think they were that professional, but somehow the Conservatives hockey team thought they were almost semi-pro. They were amateur, almost above amateur. I am not sure if their organizations are paying them an income, but they are having a lot fun. I know members from both sides of the House enjoy those competitions, as the various parties put together what I would call amateur teams.

Therefore, we should try to define what an amateur is. Does it have an age limit? Does it have a concept in what that club or organization is trying to do? I know we have to look at a very broad scope. However, my concern about the bill is this. It would need to better define income. Perhaps the member could better define that when he puts before us the concept of increasing the basic exemption from $8,000 to a total of $16,000 for amateur athletes.

I want to salute tonight all those who are sponsoring these types of activities.

Next week back home in my riding probably 500 or 600 aboriginal youth from all across Canada will come to compete in hockey at the aboriginal games. Those activities will last for nearly a week.

It is very important to us as Canadians that we encourage our young people to participate, to develop team skills, to develop skills of cooperation and above all, to develop their athletic prowess and to maintain a healthy lifestyle.

In terms of this bill, even though the idea is good, even though the concept seems very palatable to a lot of us, I would hope that we could reach a better solution than having a very broad, undefined concept. Someone said it is only page; in fact, it is only a paragraph, and better definitions of what this is are certainly needed in that paragraph.

In fairness to all Canadians, whether they be people who want to become involved in athletic activities, whether they want to become involved in various types of social activities, music, drama, ballet, whatever it might be, I believe that we cannot give special consideration to only one group of people within our society.

We have to recognize also that part of the problem with hockey is that much of the money in hockey is absorbed by too few people. In terms of our professional hockey organizations and salaries, there is a strike going on right now. Professional hockey players are demanding $2 million, $3 million, $4 million, $5 million a year. At the amateur level, people are very short of money and the clubs rely on a lot of volunteers and a lot of help from people within the community.

It is a very good idea but it is lacking somewhat in terms of what the House and the government can accept. I certainly commend the member for bringing this issue to our attention, but hopefully we can address it through other means.

[Petitions, April 13th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have another of many petitions that we get from our ridings where the petitioners are concerned about the outcome of Bill C-38. They insist that marriage should be defined as a union between a man and a woman. These are people from St. Paul's Presbyterian Church in Warwick Settlement, New Brunswick.

[Civil Marriage Act, March 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-38 creates a major change in the social and cultural values of our nation. It redefines marriage. It challenges the religious and moral beliefs of our religious organizations.

As legislators, we are attempting not only to change laws, but to rewrite dictionaries. The Collins Concise Dictionary & Thesaurus , for example, describes marriage as “the state or relationship of being husband and wife”, or “the legal union or contract made by a man and a woman to live as husband and wife, or the religious or legal ceremony formalizing the union”.

The British North America Act 1867 that structured Canadian laws, states in section 91, subsection 26, that marriage and divorce are the exclusive legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada. However, section 92, subsection 12 states that each province may exclusively make laws dealing with the solemnization of marriage.

The question is who can define marriage?

In 1982 the Canadian government adopted a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 15(1) states:

Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

The interpretation of this section has been a matter of contention both in the debates to place it in the charter and since 1982 in demanding rights and benefits. It should be pointed out that most of these terms describe very public and highly visible characteristics that could be the subject of discrimination.

Such is not the case with the new arguments based on sexual orientation. The architects of the British North America Act and the legislators in 1982 did not acknowledge this concept. In fact, for many years after 1867, same sex activities were perceived as unnatural and sometimes and often illegal.

Today we have a more understanding attitude toward those who favour or love people of the same sex. Nevertheless, one's sexual preferences are not necessarily a discernible characteristic and we have no justification or reason to intrude into one's private behaviour. Yet we have people of the same sex desiring to undertake legal contracts which they describe as marriage.

The case of Egan v. Canada was decided in 1995 by a very close vote of the Supreme Court, by a vote of 5 to 4. Through this decision the Supreme Court declared that spousal benefits under the old age security legislation should be extended to people of the same sex.

Since 1995, same sex relationships have benefited from this ruling. Pension benefits, compassionate leaves and health care arrangements have been extended to those who have same sex relationships.

At the same time, Egale and others have demanded a formal recognition of these relationships and nothing short of the term of marriage has been deemed acceptable by this group. Through its efforts, three judges from Toronto decided that two people of the same sex could be married. Ontario and six other provinces have supported the concept of same sex marriage.

As legislators, we must be disappointed that these three judges showed contempt for Parliament as they ignored the fact that this Parliament, through the work of the Standing Committee on Justice, was conducting extensive hearings and was preparing a report to this House on marriage and relationships. They also ignored a very important motion that was accepted by the House in 1999 that defined marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman. Many who voted to support this concept in 1999 are yet members of the House.

What is marriage? To many Canadians it is a sacrament. This bill transcends the understanding that our society and that from most corners of the globe has on marriage. It casts aside moral and social values that have existed for centuries.

Does this justification of this new definition infringe on our religious groups who have traditionally been responsible? Is our state infringing on the domain of our religious leaders? Many would reply in the affirmative.

From the volume of petitions, letters, cards, e-mails and telephone calls, we must recognize that many Canadians, probably a majority, are very upset with this legislation.

Each of us must answer very specific questions: What is marriage? What is its purpose? Who can or cannot become married?

Parliament reviewed the conditions of marriage in 1990. The parliamentary secretary referred to this when he offered scientific and genetic reasons that prohibited certain marriages between a man and his sister or a father and his daughter.

Bill C-38 explains that persons related lineally or as brother or sister should not and could not be married. Is this section of the bill reflecting scientific or moral judgments? It would appear to be the latter as there is little chance for persons of the same sex producing children from their own relationship.

On one hand, the drafters of this legislation had little concern for morality in planning for a new concept of marriage. However they had strong objections to other relationships that could be established for benefit purposes.

Marriage has been a time-honoured institution, with specific responsibilities, benefits, obligations and possible outcomes. Those who enter into this contract do so in a very legalized arrangement that demands a concern for the other's welfare and a responsibility to and for the children who could result from this physical union.

It is my belief that our Parliament should not alter the definition of marriage. If we are to redefine marriage, if we are to destroy this centuries old concept, we should adopt a form of civil union that would enable any two people, regardless of gender, with or without physical sex, to enter contractual arrangements to enable the signatories to rely on one another for responsibilities and benefits.

Bill C-38 would do little to enhance our society or to promote the values that strengthens its culture. I would urge all members to reject this bill and would encourage, also, those who are concerned with its outcome, to continue their efforts to see that they get their required result of this particular legislation.