Werner Schmidt

[Petitions, October 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in the second petition the petitioners ask parliament to consider very carefully the removal of section 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act.

[Petitions, October 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present to the House of Commons.

The first one has some 500 signatures. The petitioners pray and petition parliament that parliament oppose any amendments to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or any other federal legislation which will provide for the exclusion of reference to the supremacy of God in our Constitution and laws.

[Speech From The Throne, October 18th, 1999]

What about taxes?

[Speech From The Throne, October 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I found the speech to be rather interesting, but I was actually somewhat disappointed by what it omitted. I would like to give the member an opportunity to address some of the issues that she might have included in her remarks rather effectively.

I would like her to respond to the whole situation of youth in Canada today. We have a number of young people who are looking somewhere for a job, hopefully at home in Canada. Many of them are finding, though, that the tax situation is such that it is preferable for them to find a job elsewhere where they will get more money because the taxes are lower than they are in Canada. There is a disadvantage for them to stay at home, assuming they have a job in the first place. I would like the hon. member to address that question.

The other question concerns the youth exchange program across Canada. If there is a shortage of funds, which there is, which would the young people rather have, an exchange trip across Canada or a job?

[Speech From The Throne, October 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member opposite rather well. He is one of the august members on the Liberal benches. In fact, he should be a Reformer with some of his philosophies and the hon. member is welcome any time.

I would like to address a point that was not in the Speech from the Throne. It has to do with traditional activism, in particular, the reference with regard to the possession of child pornography. I do not know a single issue that has been raised more by constituents across Canada as to why this is the case. Not one single solitary statement was made in the Speech from the Throne dealing with this particular issue.

It is not a matter of what is right or wrong with child pornography, it is that the judge completely ignored what the people wanted. He completely ignored what the intent of parliament was when that law was first passed. He used his own technical legal interpretation of a particular issue. When we asked the government to invoke the notwithstanding clause, there was deathly silence.

Could the hon. member say if it has come to the point where the government does not have the courage to deal with issues that are controversial and reflect the interests and the wants of the people of Canada?

[Supply, June 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, you would almost think the hon. member has had a chance to look inside my brain and my heart. I thank the hon. member for that question.

Indeed it is an honour and a privilege to be here. How important is it for what is going to happen in the rest of this land? It is fundamental and it is setting the direction. This place leads the land, but sometimes we wonder in what direction it is taking the land. When we look at the debt situation and various other things we ask ourselves that question.

As Reformers, we are here for one thing and that is to give voice to the people who elected us and to recognize the principles that they put together, not the principles that we, as elected members of the Reform Party, can ignore, which, as the members opposite said, they can do to their convention. I am proud that we cannot do that because I do not want to that.

Our job here is to honestly reflect the wishes of the people who elected us. I am proud to be able to do that.

[Supply, June 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, to me the family is the fundamental unit in society. History shows very clearly that it is the single most effective way of transmitting values from one generation to another.

It is also the place where people learn the first elements of communication. It is where they learn the first loving relationships that can be developed. It is where caring can be established and recognition of the need to have compassion for others who are less fortunate, recognition of the importance of sharing what one has with others and recognition that indeed this business of getting along with others is not automatic. When parents have a debate or an argument the children can see that. They can recognize it. They see that ways can be found to resolve that.

There is a tremendous learning experience. The family is absolutely critical for doing that. What does marriage have to do with the family? That is the initial position of the family. That creates the family in the first instance. Are there other definitions of family that can be brought into play? Of course there are. But marriage is absolutely central at the first instance. At the first level it is central. That is my belief.

[Supply, June 8th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, this is indeed one of those debates where emotions run high, feelings run deep and the understandings are also very much in a state of flux.

I commend a number of members from all parties who have said they understand what the meaning of marriage is and that they want to support and affirm that marriage is that of one woman and one man to the exclusion of all others. That is our motion.

I want to do three things. I want to deal with the need for definition. I want to deal with the business of choices. And I want to deal with the matter of leadership.

The issue is rather significant. On the one hand it seems to be absolutely clear that everybody understands what marriage is, yet the judges want a clear definition and direction. All kinds of acrimonious statements have been made as to what might the motivation be, of why the Reform Party would enter this kind of debate. Is it simply for partisan advantage? Is it strictly crass politics and things of that sort? It is nothing of the kind.

When we get into the question of leadership, and that is really what we are into here, we want to recognize that one of the most important things in leadership is to influence others. In particular parliament influences all the people of Canada. The people of Canada will either be affected positively, negatively or they may simply turn off, but influenced they are nevertheless. We influence each other here in the House.

Through the reassertion of the definition we want to influence the judges of the land. We want to make sure that the courts and the decisions they render are indeed consistent with the definition that is being proposed here. We want to make it abundantly clear as well to all members of the House that we agree together on what it is we understand by the term marriage.

Why is it that we need to have these definitions? Marriage is one of those words that needs a definition but it also has all kinds of emotional connotations. It has spiritual connotations. It has the experiential knowledge of each of us.

I admit that I am a married man. As of March of this year my good wife and I have shared our lives together for 43 years. It has been a wonderful time. We have had our ups, we have had our downs, we have had our disagreements and confrontations, but we have lived together in a very happy relationship. I am very proud of it and very thankful for the wife who is mine.

The important thing here is to recognize that we have the need to define exactly what it is. I want to go back in history as to how important definitions really are. It comes to me from the field of science. In science we have a very significant suggestion.

When Mendeleev first put together the periodic table of the elements, he defined very clearly the order of the elements by arranging them in order by atomic number. He discovered there was a systematic recurrence of those elements which had similar characteristics even though their atomic number increased. It was the definition of the periodic table and how it worked with the various elements that became very significant not only in understanding how the elements work and interact with one another, but in order to communicate with others so that they could understand what was being talked about.

We can use another example of the need for definition. I like this one even better. It comes from the field of biology and botany, medicine if you will. The botanist clearly defines each of the parts of a plant and distinguishes one plant from another. It is in this definition where it clearly indicates what a particular plant is or what a particular thing is in distinction to the exclusion of all others.

That is what we are talking about here today. We are not saying what marriage is not; we are simply saying what marriage is. By saying what marriage is means it is absolutely nothing else. That seems to be lost in this debate somewhere. We are focusing very clearly and very definitely on a particular institution which is marriage and which is said very clearly to be the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. That is what this is all about.

Within that definition we need to be absolutely clear as to exactly what we want the courts and judges of this land to interpret when they have before them cases dealing with this matter. That this is a live issue has become abundantly clear with the kind of statements that have come forward from various members on both sides of the House.

We simply want to assure and affirm to the people of Canada and to all of us here assembled that marriage shall continue to mean today and in the future the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

There was an amendment put forward this morning “within the jurisdiction of parliament”. Of course, what else would it be but within the jurisdiction of parliament? That is the most important part. This parliament creates the law. This parliament determines the wishes of the people. It bases the law on the determination of the wishes of the people. Sometimes parliament can be wrong and if the government misinterprets what the people think, then it gets thrown out as happened recently in New Brunswick. We want it to be clear and if all parties agree on what the definition of marriage is, then we can recognize that all parties in future will recognize that this is what it is. We are parliament. We create the law of the land.

What is the choice that we have here today? If that is the clear definition we are working on, the choice before us is whether we will or will not affirm that. That is the clear choice we have today. That is the motivation behind what the Reform Party is doing. We can talk about crass politics and partisan politics, but all of that is totally beside the point. The choice is very simple: do we or do we not affirm marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others?

Why is it so important that parliament make that choice and that decision? It comes from a number of judges. Here is what they have said:

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, there is the long-established principle that in a constitutional democracy it is the legislature, as the elected branch of government, which should assume the major responsibility for law reform. Considerations such as these suggest that major revisions of the law are best left to the legislature.

The affirmations also apply to the legislature. The issues here—

—are of such magnitude, consequence, and difficulty in policy terms that they exceed the proper incremental lawmaking powers of the courts. These are the sort of changes which should be left to the legislature.

The interpretation should be left to the legislature is exactly what is meant.

If anything is to be done, the legislature is in a much better position to weigh the competing interests and to arrive at a solution that is principled and minimally intrusive.

Why is it so important that we make a choice? I want to read this because it is very important to recognize why choices are so significant: “I believe every person is created as the steward of his or her own destiny with great power for a specific purpose: to share with others through service a reverence for life in a spirit of love”. No matter what our age, our experience or our position, we can dream a dream that will make a difference. We can have a mission that matters, the choices we make end up controlling the chooser.

[Petitions, June 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour and a privilege to present some 3,000-plus petitioners who have come to the House with a petition. They would request that parliament take all measures necessary to ensure that possession of child pornography remains a serious criminal offence, and that federal police forces be directed to give priority to enforcing this law for the protection of our children.

This is a wonderful petition and I endorse it 100%.

[Supply, June 3rd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I regret both the tone of voice and the content of what the hon. member has just said. There may indeed be people within the Reform Party who have contacts. I did not say that in my opening remarks.

We have freedom in this country; freedom to speak and freedom to associate. I was speaking very personally. I want it to be abundantly clear that I am not in any way associated with the FIRE movement. I have no intentions of becoming associated with that movement. I make it abundantly clear as well that we are not here as the Reform Party, either as individuals or as a party, to in any way stand in the way of an amicable settlement of the question of land claims and the self-governance which aboriginal people in Canada want. We want that as much as anyone else.

We are very concerned that Canada be a united nation and that it provide rights, privileges and equality for all of its citizens. We are deeply concerned that if we should countenance the development of issues and of decisions that might be made, which in their implications and in their future adaptation, application and interpretation may lead to the creation, as I pointed out, of three or four different classes of Canadian citizens, that will begin to create the kind of conflict that we have just witnessed in central Asia.

This is the deep concern that I have. It does not help to point fingers at individuals who may have been indiscreet in some of their remarks. I appeal to the member for Winnipeg Centre and to all members that we are here to try to build solid relationships of co-operation where we can together build a strong nation, a strong community where we can develop freedom from fear, where we can help one another and indeed get to the point where we can actually love one another. I extend that to my hon. colleague as well.