Dave Batters

[Petitions, May 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have the honour of presenting a petition on behalf of a number of citizens who reside in my riding of Palliser, most of whom are from the city of Moose Jaw. These petitioners wish to call to the attention of Parliament the following: that Canadians deserve freedom of choice in health care products; that herbs, dietary supplements and other traditional natural health products should be properly classified as food and not arbitrarily restricted as drugs; and that the weight of modern scientific evidence confirms the mitigation and prevention of many diseases and disorders through the judicious use of natural health products.

These petitioners call upon Parliament to provide Canadians with greater access to natural health products and restore freedom of choice in personal health care by enacting Bill C-420, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act.

[Petitions, April 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour of presenting three petitions this evening.

The first is on behalf of a number of citizens of Regina, many of whom are in my riding of Palliser. These petitioners wish to call to the attention of Parliament that this honourable House passed a motion in June of 1999 that called for marriage to continue to be recognized as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, and that the definition of marriage is the exclusive jurisdiction of Parliament.

These constituents petition that Parliament pass legislation to recognize the institution in federal law as being a lifelong union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

The second petition is very similar to the first. These constituents petition Parliament to define marriage in federal law as being the lifelong union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

The third petition, also pursuant to Standing Order 36, is on behalf of a large number of citizens from Moose Jaw in my riding of Palliser. The petitioners wish to call to the attention of Parliament that they recognize the importance of the special role of traditional marriage and family in our society.

These petitioners call upon the justice minister and Parliament to do everything within their power to preserve the definition of marriage as being the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

[Corner Gas, April 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the House with much pride to salute the cast and crew of Canada's hottest television show Corner Gas .

Filmed in the town of Rouleau, located in the heart of the great constituency of Palliser and at the Regina sound stage, Corner Gas is the only prime time network series to be shot entirely in Saskatchewan. The tremendous success of the show will be well-known to my colleagues who I am sure are among the nearly two million viewers who tune in each week to CTV to see Brent Butt and his co-stars in the town of Dog River.

Nominated for an international Emmy and five Gemini awards last year, the success of Corner Gas is further proof that Saskatchewan is home to some of the most creative and talented people in the world. I am proud to say that many of the talented people who work on Corner Gas are my constituents.

As the MP for Dog River, I ask everyone to join me in passing on our best wishes for continuing success to the cast and crew of Corner Gas .

[Civil Marriage Act, April 5th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, before statements by members and oral questions, we were discussing and debating this important question, the definition of marriage.

I was discussing the need to find a compromise position, a position that rejects the heavy-handed manner in which the Liberal Party has approached this issue and a position that rejects the dogmatic anti-democratic manner of the leader of the NDP, who will not even allow his own members to vote their conscience or to vote according to the will of their constituents on this issue.

It is incumbent on us in Parliament to find a compromise position and balance the interests of Canadians.

The courts have been ruling on this issue for a number of years. Following several provincial rulings on the definition of marriage, the Liberal government drafted legislation that would allow same sex marriages. However, instead of allowing the House of Commons to vote on the legislation, the Liberals referred it to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Fortunately for us and for Canadians, the Supreme Court indicated that it was up to Parliament to define what marriage means.

Without a doubt, marriage must be defined in the future as it has always been defined, as the union between a man and a woman, but that does not preclude the protection of equal rights for same sex couples and the recognition of same sex relationships.

In December, the Leader of the Opposition articulated a position which achieves the balance that Canadians and the people of Palliser have been looking for. The Conservative Party position, first, retains the traditional definition of marriage, second, ensures that same sex couples are afforded equal rights and benefits, and third, includes substantive provisions to protect religious organizations and religious freedoms.

This is a position that expresses the will of Canadians and is consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Conservative Party's position also balances the needs of same sex couples with the rights of religious organizations who hold a traditional view of marriage.

Not only is this moderate and thoughtful position on such an important issue consistent with the will of the majority of Canadians, it is consistent with the solution favoured by most countries that have engaged in similar debate on this issue.

Registered domestic partnerships are available in Sweden, Spain, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Iceland and parts of Italy. Civil pacts are available in France. Other countries are considering introducing legislation to provide protections, rights and benefits to individuals in committed same sex relationships.

This is an important point. Canadians are not the only ones who are hesitant about altering the definition of marriage. This is a position held by millions around the world who agree not only on the definition of marriage but on the importance of traditional marriage to society.

There is also a consensus in the countries I mentioned earlier that we need to recognize the status and legal rights of same sex couples.

As speakers before me have noted, the question is not about rights or equality. It is about marriage and whether Canadians want to change the definition of marriage. It is about how Canadians want to recognize committed same sex relationships. That is the choice before Parliament.

The position of the Conservative Party is that we should recognize same sex committed relationships as civil unions while continuing to retain the traditional definition of marriage. As I have stated before, this is also the position of the vast majority of my constituents in Palliser.

In closing, I would urge the members here today to listen to the will of their constituents. Not only are Canadians looking for clear thinking and a middle ground on this contentious issue, they are looking for leadership. Most of all, they want their voices to be heard.

I am proud to say that I have listened to the people in my riding of Palliser and represented their wishes on this important issue. I am proud to be a member of a political party that is willing to allow its members to vote freely on this issue so that the voices of their constituents can be heard.

[Civil Marriage Act, April 5th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my debate, I would like to take a moment to mention that many members of the Canadian Professional Police Association, the national voice for 54,000 police officers, are in Ottawa today for a lobby day to visit with members of Parliament.

The member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle and myself were thrilled to meet this morning with some great Canadians from the Regina Police Association, Darren Wilcox and Christine Tell; the Saskatchewan Police Association, Bernie Eiswirth; and from Estevan, Saskatchewan, an old friend of mine, Jay Pierson. These individuals are examples of excellence in policing and great Canadians.

They are here discussing issues of concern to the nation's police officers. I am sure all members of the House of Commons and all Canadians are proud of our police and appreciate the difficult work they do to keep us all safe. I am wearing their pin today as a symbol of my appreciation.

The issue of marriage is of great public importance to the people of Canada and of Palliser. Over the past number of weeks we have heard a great deal of debate on this subject. I appreciate the opportunity to contribute both my own thoughts and the input I have received from the people of Palliser on the question of marriage that is before us today.

I am also proud to stand here today as a member of the Conservative Party. Our party along with the majority of Canadians believe we must find a middle ground when it comes to the question of marriage, taking into account the demands by same sex couples for fair treatment under the law.

Thus, the position held by the Conservative Party is the position of the people of Palliser and it is the position of Canadians. I am fortunate to be a member of a political party that respects the rights and traditions of Canadians. I thank my Conservative colleagues, especially the leader of the official opposition, who have put forward compelling arguments in the House of Commons for us to consider.

Before getting into the substance of the bill before us, I would also like to thank the thousands of my constituents in Palliser who have contacted me with their thoughts on this issue. The will of voters in Moose Jaw, Regina, Pense, Mossbank, Caronport, Avonlea and countless communities throughout Palliser, has certainly informed my thoughts on this matter and I am grateful for the input that they have provided. It is their views and wishes that I represent here today in the House of Commons.

Let me be clear that I stand alongside the leader of the official opposition, the leader of the Conservative Party, in stating that I support the traditional definition of marriage as that of a union between a man and a woman and that I will vote against the Liberal government when this matter comes before the House. However let me also state clearly that I strongly support the Conservative Party's position on this question because, along with our support for traditional marriage, the Conservative Party supports civil unions for same sex couples.

The question before us today is how to find a balance. How do we balance competing interests? How do we balance the need to safeguard the rights of religious institutions with the request by same sex couples for equal recognition? How do we say to gays and lesbians that they are equal as Canadians and yet reassure the majority of Canadians that we respect their belief in the sanctity of marriage. These are difficult questions but they are not without answers.

As the people of Palliser have told me again and again, we need to preserve the definition of marriage that is traditionally accepted by Canadians and balance it against the legitimate desire of same sex couples to be recognized as equals and have their unions officially recognized. To do that we need to find a compromise position, a position that rejects the heavy-handed manner in which the Liberal Party has approached the issue and a position that rejects the dogmatic anti-democratic manner of the leader of the NDP who will not even allow his own members to vote their conscience or to vote according to the will of their constituents on this issue.

It is incumbent upon us in Parliament to find a compromise position and balance the interests of Canadians. The courts have been ruling on this issue for a number of years. Following several provincial rulings on the definition of marriage, the Liberal government drafted--

[Committees of the House, April 4th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the minister's comments regarding the fact that the Snowbirds represent the excellence of our military. I too would like to again take this opportunity to express my deep condolences and those of my wife to Captain Selby's family.

The request that I put forward though is fairly simple. I have asked the minister to commit his government to reviewing whether or not a rescue helicopter is needed at CFB Moose Jaw. Will the government at least give those best equipped to make this decision the ability to make the decision?

Our men and women in uniform know all too well that there are finite resources available. I think all members would agree that they do a remarkable job for this country with the resources that they have been given. However, we cannot try to save money when it comes to issues of basic safety.

Given the vast expanse of land and some water over which planes from CFB Moose Jaw fly, and the circumstances which could be encountered in a search and rescue scenario, one could certainly make the argument that a helicopter is warranted. That was the conclusion reached at one time, a decision that was reversed with Liberal funding cuts to our military in the mid-1990s.

Now that the government has started to move toward restoring much needed funding, is it willing to revisit the decision to withdraw military helicopters from CFB Moose Jaw?

[Committees of the House, April 4th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to revisit an important topic that concerns the safety of the brave men and women in the Canadian armed forces who put their lives on the line to defend our security and our safety in this country.

I have the honour of having CFB Moose Jaw located in the great constituency of Palliser. It is a base which not only houses the NATO training facility but it is home to Canada's own Snowbirds.

I would like to take this opportunity once again to say how honoured I am to represent the men and women of CFB Moose Jaw in the House of Commons, and how fortunate both I and the residents of Palliser are to have this symbol of Canadian excellence located in our own backyard.

As the members of this House are well aware, Canada's Snowbirds and everyone at CFB Moose Jaw experienced a great tragedy last December, when the planes piloted by Captain Miles Selby and Captain Chuck Mallet crashed mid-air. That crash resulted in the death of Captain Selby and injury to Captain Mallet. The loss of Captain Selby was truly a national tragedy, as was evident by the outpouring of emotion and sympathy from Canadians across the country.

While we know that the military continues to take every precaution to ensure that such a tragedy will not happen again, we also have in place a 15 member emergency ground search and rescue team, or GSAR, whose job it is to rescue downed pilots in cases of emergencies.

The GSAR team on that fateful day last December responded quickly and professionally. They reached the crash site 72 kilometres away in 47 minutes, which is an incredible response time by truck. As the investigation into the crash confirmed, there was nothing that the members of the GSAR team could have done that day to save Captain Selby. Thankfully, Captain Mallet's injuries were not life threatening.

The question I have raised is: What can the government do in the future to ensure that we have the best possible emergency rescue system to support the pilots at 15-Wing Moose Jaw?

Cuts to the military authored by the Liberal government in the mid-1990s were responsible for the loss of three military helicopters at CFB Moose Jaw, three helicopters which used to be on standby for emergency rescue duties and ready to rescue downed pilots. It is imperative that in the event of an accident in the air that a rescue team have the capability to reach downed airmen as soon as humanly possible.

This government has a responsibility to reconsider its decision of a decade ago to eliminate the military helicopters at CFB Moose Jaw. Those helicopters were there for a reason and bases in Cold Lake and Bagotville have rescue helicopters.

The Minister of National Defence has told this House about the network of grid roads in Saskatchewan that rescuers can use. These same gravel roads existed in the mid-1990s. Many of these roads are virtually impassable in the snow and ice of our winter and the mud of spring. What if a downed airman parachutes into a coulee or into Old Wives Lake, as has happened?

The Minister of National Defence has indicated to me privately outside this chamber that he would take another look at this issue. I ask for a commitment in this House. Will the minister or his designate commit today to doing the right thing and take another look at providing funding for a helicopter at CFB Moose Jaw that would support the efforts of the ground search and rescue team?

[Airline Industry, March 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, this week El Al, the Israeli airline, and dozens of other carriers, warned that skyrocketing airport rents threaten their abilities to serve Canada.

Foreign carriers like El Al bring tourists and business to Canada and they act as a vital link back to their home countries for expatriates. El Al warns that Canada risks becoming an island onto itself if rent is not addressed.

The Liberal government continues to gouge Pearson Airport, and ultimately passengers, to the tune of $145 million this year. Why does the government continue to increase airport rent when it threatens to kill our gateways to the world?

[Justice, March 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, crystal meth is a highly addictive, destructive menace that is ruining lives and communities across the country.

The Minister of Justice has said that he is waiting until June for a task force to tell him that he needs to reclassify crystal meth as a schedule I drug. How many more Canadians will be hooked by then?

Once again the government has failed to take immediate and decisive action to protect the well-being of Canadians.

Will the justice minister act immediately to get tough on crystal meth traffickers by allowing judges to impose stiffer penalties?

[Canadian Livestock Industry, March 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I will ask the minister a very simple question and treat this debate with the seriousness it deserves. When will the minister be going back to Washington? He indicates that he has been there. When will he be going back?

When will the Prime Minister be going to Washington to sit across the table and look eyeball to eyeball with the U.S. administration and President Bush and have this discussion?

My producers in Palliser are devastated. The negative impact of this crisis has been very far reaching. It has decimated an entire industry. People are looking for help from this government. Can anyone from this government tell us when this border is going to open?

The Prime Minister's dithering and deception regarding missile defence has left this government with precious little credibility. The U.S. president was not even returning the Prime Minister's phone calls. If the Liberals do not think there is a link between trade disputes and missile defence, they can ask Frank McKenna and he will draw it for them.

When will the globe-trotting Prime Minister be going to Washington to--