House of Commons photoWon her last election, in 2006, with 46% of the vote.
Petitions September 22nd, 2003
Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition on behalf of some of my constituents in Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar. They are asking that the Minister of National Revenue treat junior A hockey players in Saskatchewan equally to all other junior hockey players across Canada.
Agriculture September 22nd, 2003
Mr. Speaker, the agriculture minister can do a lot of extra talking but the borders are still closed to all livestock in this country.
For years Canadian cattlemen have called for year round access to American feeder cattle. Uncertainty is the last thing that the cattle industry needs right now.
The minister needs to answer the important question for our farmers. When will his government allow year round access to American feeder cattle so that for once and for all we can get this border open?
Agriculture September 22nd, 2003
Mr. Speaker, today the agriculture minister is holding meetings with his provincial counterparts. There is little expectation that the government and the minister will bring anything new and useful to the table.
What will the agriculture minister offer to the provinces other than blackmailing them into signing the agricultural policy framework?
Voyageur Colonial Pension Fund September 19th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, Canadian citizens are relevant. Here is what one longtime employee said yesterday: “I got shafted good. I don't have enough for 10 years”. That is not fair.
The Prime Minister said yesterday that the ethics counsellor signed off on this. That is not good enough. I ask again, will the Prime Minister call an independent investigation into the handling of the Voyageur pension plan?
Voyageur Colonial Pension Fund September 19th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that OSFI did not act independently from the former finance minister as it should have. His staff were directly involved in the discussions to close the books on the Voyageur pension plan and to shortchange the employees.
The government has a duty to those pensioners. Will the minister begin a full independent investigation into OSFI and the Voyageur pension plan?
Voyageur Colonial Pension Fund September 19th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, the government has failed to respond directly to questions concerning the collapse of the Voyageur pension plan. Access to information documents show that there were concerns that political pressure was being put on OSFI to have the audit amended.
Could the acting prime minister tell us what political pressure the former finance minister was applying?
Supply September 16th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, other than the label of marriage, my children can enjoy everything else.
Supply September 16th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, I am the mother of three children and the grandmother of five granddaughters. I love every one of them dearly. I believe that Parliament, and not the courts, should make the decisions for my children on social issues.
Supply September 16th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, not being a lawyer I cannot give a legal opinion, but I agree totally with the member that there is no place for Parliament at all if the courts can come forward and make these kinds of decisions.
Supply September 16th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to share my time today with the hon. member for Okanagan—Coquihalla.
The issue that has brought us here is our shared concern over the court decision that has ordered Parliament to redefine the institution of marriage to include same sex couples.
Most Canadians believe that the institution of marriage is an important part of our society. The legal definition of marriage, the voluntary union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, has existed in Canada since Confederation and the Canadian courts have consistently applied this definition until very recently. Let me say in no uncertain terms, I support the traditional definition of marriage.
Lower court rulings this summer in Ontario and Quebec ruled that same sex couples are entitled to be legally married and ordered Parliament to change the laws accordingly.
Initially the justice minister appealed the trial court decision and referred the matter to the House of Commons justice committee to get input from Canadians. Hearings were conducted across Canada for several months and thousands of Canadians submitted their views through written briefs or oral presentations.The overwhelming response that committee members received through mail and telephone calls reflected a strong desire in retaining the traditional definition of marriage.
Although the justice minister asked the justice committee to travel across the country and hear representations on same sex marriages from all walks of life, he did not wait for the committee to produce its report before making a final decision on this matter. He simply accepted the decision of unelected judges. This undemocratic process has effectively silenced the voices of thousands of Canadians who submitted briefs and made oral presentations to the committee.
Let me make one other point clear at this time. The jurisdiction to review and strike down laws that violated the Constitution that was given to the courts by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982 did not include jurisdiction for the courts to rule on the issue of sexual orientation. During the debates and numerous votes that led to the final draft of the charter, Parliament was very clear in holding that the issue of sexual orientation did not fall within the scope of the text of the charter. This issue was to remain within the scope of Parliament's jurisdiction to consider and legislate.
Notwithstanding the clear direction of Parliament, the courts have simply ignored Parliament's decision and improperly amended the Constitution themselves by reading in the term “sexual orientation” into our Constitution. It is on that erroneous basis that our courts continue to act.
In 1999 members of Parliament voted 216 to 55 in favour of a motion brought forward by the Reform Party, now the Canadian Alliance, holding that marriage should remain the union of one man and one woman and to take all necessary steps to protect that definition.
The Prime Minister, the current justice minister and the future Liberal leader all voted in favour of the motion at that time, although all three now have changed their position to agree with same sex marriage. In fact, the then justice minister, the member of Parliament for Edmonton West, speaking for the Liberal government, assured Canadians of the government's intentions when she stated:
We on this side agree that the institution of marriage is a central and important institution in the lives of many Canadians. It plays an important part in all societies worldwide, second only to the fundamental importance of family to all of us.
She went on to assure Canadians:
Let me state again for the record that the government has no intention of changing the definition of marriage or of legislating same sex marriages. I fundamentally do not believe that it is necessary to change the definition of marriage in order to accommodate the equality issues around same sex partners which now face us as Canadians.
Why did the Liberal government mislead Canadians? Why have the Liberals broken their promise from barely four years ago?
The Liberals promised to take all necessary steps to preserve the traditional definition of marriage. They have now broken that promise.
Their new promise is to protect the rights of religious organizations to refuse to marry same sex couples. This does not in any way comfort us. In recent years we have seen a Catholic school forced to allow a same sex date at a school prom, despite constitutional guarantees of religious independence. We have seen a teacher and guidance counsellor suspended without pay for expressing an opinion on teaching material. We have seen a printer fined for refusing to print in his own shop materials that conflicted with his religious views.
The Liberals have so far failed miserably in protecting religious freedom and there is no reason to believe that they will now begin to do so effectively. In an attempt to leave the impression that Parliament will in fact determine the definition of marriage, the Prime Minister has announced that there will be a free vote on the legislation that he has referred to the Supreme Court on the issue of same sex marriage. This legislation is without legislative or constitutional significance if the present charter does not protect existing religious freedoms. The proposed legislation will do nothing of the sort.
Furthermore, the free vote offered by the Prime Minister to members of Parliament on same sex marriages is meaningless. The proposed legislation will simply spell out the procedural basis by which these marriages will be implemented. Even if Parliament rejects the proposed legislation, same sex marriages are now legally valid in Canada. This so-called free vote is simply a cynical communications exercise by the Liberals to try to hide the fact that they have let unelected judges make the laws of our country.
Such a fundamental change to an important social, legal and religious institution as marriage should not even be contemplated without the input of Canadians and elected parliamentarians. Unfortunately, just the opposite has happened and this issue has been forced on Canadians by an unelected and unaccountable judiciary.
Canadians must continue to call for the Liberals to live up to their promise to Canadians to defend marriage. The Canadian Alliance has consistently maintained that we will live up to the commitments that Parliament made on this issue in 1999. The Canadian Alliance will continue to call on the Liberal government to keep its promise to Canadians. I would encourage each and every person watching to contact the Minister of Justice, the Prime Minister and the prime minister in waiting to remind them of the commitment they made on the issue in 1999.
The Canadian Alliance firmly believes that this is an issue that should be decided by Parliament after MPs have heard from all Canadians, not the courts. This issue relates not only to the institution of marriage, but deals fundamentally with the institution of Parliament and our future as a democratic nation.
Democracy was not a gift that came easily to the western world. Let us be very vigilant before we entrust its future to those who are not accountable to the people, or those who, like our Liberal government, take the voice of the people for granted.