Werner Schmidt

[Budget Implementation Act, 2004, April 20th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased that at least one member on the opposite side of the House was alert and understood what happened a moment ago.

The Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister have taken spending and the use of taxpayer dollars to a high point that we have not seen in Canadian history for some time.

As my hon. colleague from the NDP suggested, waiting lists are as long as they ever have been, our troops are still overstretched, university students are still carrying the highest debt burdens they have ever carried, cattle farmers are going broke every day, despite some developments that might help them a bit now, and our softwood lumber workers face problems. B.C. forest fire victims have not received a dime of the aid that they were promised, but I must admit that has changed slightly since the budget but not enough. There are some very serious problems with the budget.

The Liberals argue that they can make better use of the $190 billion they tax away every year and that they are better stewards than homemakers, than students, than farmers, than lumber workers and so on. I think, Madam Speaker, you and I could probably manage our money better than the government could on our behalf, and that is what is happening with the budget.

Every year the Liberals spend billions of dollars on the firearms registry, corporate welfare, grants to special interest groups, making television sitcoms, and expanding the federal bureaucracy. Is that the way we want our money spent?

These are the same Liberals who bought the $100 million ad scam, the $1 billion firearms registry, the $160 million in fraud at DND, the billion dollar boondoggle at HRDC, and the globe-trotting expenses of the Governor General. They spent money for what?

I do not want to go into any further detail about the budget because I will only get even more disturbed than I already am.

I want to now address the equalization program. This implementation bill would actually change the equalization program to quite a degree, and I will go into some of the details of that. It is a good thing that the equalization program is being reviewed because it requires some major adjustments. I would like to read into the record the Conservative Party's position on this.

A Conservative government will support changes to the equalization formula to encourage the development of natural resources and economic growth. We will remove natural resources from the equalization program and change the formula from a five-province standard to a ten-province standard over a five-year phase in period.

That is a very substantial change to the equalization program.

The implementation bill suggests some other changes to the equalization program, and some of them are quite commendable.

One of the major changes is the shift with regard to the property tax base. The changes address structural deficiencies that have been a longstanding issue between provinces and move to an approach that reflects the use of real market value in the residential property sector.

I am sure my colleagues from British Columbia are aware that British Columbia has used the real market value of properties for quite some time as a base on which they have been assessed. Special consideration has been given to take into account the unique nature of British Columbia's high property values.

More specifically, what is changing? Property taxes are the second most important revenue source in equalization. Given their importance, it is essential that property taxes be equalized equitably across Canada. The current multi-concept base was put in place over 20 years ago at a time when property taxation was quite diverse across Canada. Most of the provinces have now moved to real market value.

Academic experts were asked to comment on the current base and several alternatives. A number of them supported the current base being replaced with one incorporating the market value of property adjusted to take into account pure price differences related to scarcity. The property tax base is being changed to reflect the use of real market value in the residential property sector.

Then the obvious question is this. If that is what is happening across Canada, then why would we do a special adjustment to British Columbia? A specific and special provision will be applied to British Columbia where property values are significantly higher than in other provinces. These high prices reflect more than just differences in the quantity and quality of properties. Here is the key sentence. “Such price differences should not be included in the Equalization”. That is a beautiful statement made by the bureaucrats in the department. Hopefully, the Minister of Finance is completely in support of this position and that they will not be in the equalization. If that is the case, then true change in the equalization formula can be supported.

So much for the equalization program and the specific changes in the reference to British Columbia.

I would now like to refer to the hon. member for Medicine Hat. He wrote an article not too long ago that was published in the National Post . I would like to read certain parts of that document into the record because I think it is probably one of the most insightful statements that we have seen in quite some time. He also happens to be the finance critic for our party, and that is just fine. He is talking about the secret reserve fund. He wrote:

In the shady world of secret slush funds... If reports are correct, $50-million a year will buy lots of political favours--all of which can be called in with the drop of the election writ. But the National Unity Reserve and its bigger slushier cousin, the Sponsorship Program, are just pikers compared to the $5-billion+ secret reserve that the Liberals deliberately build into every year's spending.

Could it really be that there is a secret reserve that nobody knows anything about and it is $5 billion? It could not possibly be. He goes on:

In the fiscal year 2002-03, the government budgeted $138.6 billion for program spending, but its actual spending plans were for $133.3 billion--a full $5.3 billion less. Why would it budget $5.3 billion more than it expected to spend?

Because fooling the public has turned out to be very politically profitable for them...

In deliberately padding the public books with billions of dollars every year, whacks of unknown and often unsupported expenses are allowed to slip through the cracks without the involvement of Parliament.

That is where the issue lies. It is a secret reserve that exists in which Parliament has no say.

By the way, it was this secret reserve that made it possible to spend money that really was not authorized by the Parliament of Canada. It allowed the Prime Minister to buy $100 million worth of executive jets so he could fly around the country. He did not really need to replace the jets because the ones that were in service were perfectly serviceable, yet that is what happened. With a $5 billion secret reserve, the Liberals could do anything they wanted.

We should not implement this budget as it is written.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2004, April 20th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to address you, sitting so finely in the chair, and to congratulate you on your elevation to that post in this august House.

I want to address three parts of Bill C-30, the budget implementation act that was presented some time ago, and I hope to get through all three parts. The first part concerns the budget generally. The second part concerns the equalization formula. The third part concerns the secret reserve.

First, with regard to the budget generally. Paul Martin and Ralph Goodale have taken government spending and taxing--

[Westbank First Nation Self-Government Act, April 20th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to enter the discussion on Bill C-11 and the amendment currently before the House. I certainly support the amendment proposed by the hon. member.

With regard to Bill C-11 and the implementation of the Westbank self-government agreement, I would like to make it clear that I have the utmost respect for the current band council and its chief. They have done an exemplary job of developing and managing the band. I have had many occasions to talk with the chief and work with him. He is doing an admirable job. He is the current chief, but there has been a succession of good management in the Indian band.

That however does not mean I am in complete agreement with the provisions of the Westbank self-government agreement and Bill C-11, which gives effect to the implementation of that agreement.

The major concern I have is with the representation of those governed by those who are governing. Away back a president of the United States defined democracy as by the people, of the people and for the people. There is a provision within the Westbank self-government agreement that differentiates between those who can vote and those who cannot vote. The government structure is such that a group of people will govern the people on the Westbank lands who have not elected by all the people being governed.

Therefore, there is an element of disparity and inconsistency between what we have commonly accepted as the democratic principle; that those who are governed ought to have a voice in determining who will be charged with the governing of that group. My hon. colleague just pointed out that there is a provision for the advisory council. I will get into that in a little more detail later on.

Before I do that, I want to indicate clearly that those who are allowed to vote in this provision of the self-government agreement are those who are on the membership roll. To get on to the membership roll, it is absolutely important that we recognize that these people are “registered” as Indians under the Indian Act. Thus any and all residents on Westbank lands who are not on the membership roll are disenfranchised. They cannot vote. This means there are about 8,000 residents on the Westbank lands, about 500 of whom are Indians and 7500 who are not. Therefore, essentially 500 people will elect those who will govern the 7,500 as well as their own 500.

The practical impact of this is that any law, regulation, administrative action or band council decision is determined without electoral representation on that council of about 93% of the residents. In the day to day operation of the Westbank self-government agreement any law regarding property taxes, licensing fees, user fees, development cost charges, development permit fees, community infrastructure and local services are all without representation on the council. Yet that council determines all the issues with regard to these.

While there is a provision for that advisory council to provide consultation, and that is the word that is used, on behalf of the non-members of the Westbank Nation, it has no authority or power to make any decisions regarding the Westbank Nation governance affecting them. Yes, it can give advice and yes it can study the issues, and I think it is a wonderful provision, but it has no authority to do anything.

It is very interesting that yesterday I was given a copy of a document entitled, “Westbank First Nation Advisory Council, March 2004”, and there are a number of subsections in it. It was given to me with the understanding that it was the law that would cover the advisory council. There is a lot of very useful work in it, and I do not want to disparage it in any way, shape or form. However, my only concern is that it is incomplete.

I think we are moving in the right direction, but it is incomplete so I would like to perhaps get into some of the details as to what is in the document.

The creation of the advisory council is not part of Bill C-11 nor is it part of the Westbank self-government agreement. The constitution pertaining to that agreement really is all part of Bill C-11. The advisory council would be created after that agreement and subject to whatever the council at that time felt it wanted to do.

I have complete faith, but I have a dilemma. We have an excellent band council and chief, and I believe he will do this. However, I also know that Bill C-11 does not cover it. This is a result of actions taken by the council itself subsequent to the agreements if Bill C-11 is passed.

There is no description for example of the composition of the advisory council, how its members will be determined, what resources will be provided to them or what the advisory council relationship will be with the band. Yes, the general statements are there and there is provision that certain things will happen, but there is no guarantee that will be the case.

Some of these things are addressed in the document, however, the document is incomplete and its official status is unclear. Even if the advisory council were to function exactly as outlined in the document before me today, the advisory council would not meet the requirement of a democratic form of government. It is advisory only and really does not represent the electorate as such. It really does not have any legislative power. In my view, that is sufficient reason for the Government of Canada to recognize the excellent work that has been done in establishing the agreement thus far and recognize that we are moving in the right direction. However, at the same time, it must recognize that the work is not finished.

We need to go further. We need to explore some of the issues. The amendment with regard to the concerns expressed by the mayor of Kelowna is only one example. I have given another example of why we probably should take the bill off the agenda and look at it again. Probably a lot more work needs to be done so we can come to grips with and recognize the democratic principle to which we all adhere.

I have a lot of material and I obviously do not have time to cover it all. Therefore, I will move to the last part of my speech which has to with the prohibition.

It is very interesting that section 220(a) of the Westbank self-government agreement provides for the prohibition of the sale, barter, supply, manufacture or possession of intoxicants. However, section 220(b) allows the Westbank natives to make exemptions with regard to any of the above. On the one hand, we have prohibition of intoxicants and on the other hand, we have exemptions. In practical contemporary terms that means that marijuana could be exempted. Persons on Westbank lands would be able to grow, possess and supply marijuana in direct conflict with the current laws of Canada.

In the light of the forgoing, however, it goes even further. Section 221 states:

--in the event of a conflict between Westbank Law in relation to prohibition of intoxicants and federal law, the Westbank Law shall prevail to the extent of the conflict.

This agreement will create, if it is allowed to proceed as it is currently before us, a third level of government which gives to the Westbank nation the right to legislate in areas that are really under the authority of and the power of the federal or provincial government.

Our Constitution does not see any other powers. We are governed by the Constitution of Canada which clearly differentiates between federal and provincial law, and there is no other power. How can it now give power to another group--power which has already been given either to the federal or provincial governments?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2004, April 1st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to address the debate on Bill C-30, the budget implementation act.

I would like to draw a couple of contrasts to what we find happening here in the House and to what is happening in the community of Kelowna in my constituency.

Kelowna is a jewel that lies in the middle of the Okanagan Valley, that place where people have experienced the joys of many friends coming to visit them from all parts of Canada and many different countries of the world. People have chosen this place because they have recognized its beauty, its tranquility and as a place where they would like to be at home. It will be a privilege, and I am humbled, to be able to contest the next federal election on behalf of the Conservative Party in this beloved constituency called Kelowna.

Into this constituency last summer came a voracious fire where 238 homes were lost. That fire respected neither time, place nor person. The fire brought us together as nothing else I have ever experienced. Even the Governor General of Canada came to visit Kelowna and recognized the spirit of compassion, consideration, kindness and friendship that was developed as a result of the coming together at that fire.

There were 238 homes lost and there were so many things that happened in terms of the individuals and the kind of help they gave to one another. They came together and they helped one another. Into this context we had the launching of the United Way appeal by Mel Kotler, who is the chairman. I have to give special credit to him. He said “our goal this year is to be $1 million and $1 for the United Way campaign. That was an unheard of goal for our community and a lot of us were cynical and said “This cannot be, after the devastation of the fire and all the other things that had come about. You cannot now expect us to raise that”. What happened? Not only was the goal met, it was exceeded by almost $10,000.

In contrast to that kind of benevolence and compassion that we find in our community, we had a Speech from the Throne followed by the budget, the implementation of that budget we are now debating. That Speech from the Throne, that budget said that we shall have an address to the democratic deficit and that there will be “more free votes”. A real test was presented to the House very shortly after the new Prime Minister came into office. It was to allow MPs to exercise the free vote in establishing and supporting more money for the long gun registry.

A little digression is absolutely essential here. One billion dollars had already been spent on this and it looks like it will be closer to $2 billion. I must put this into context for the people in British Columbia. If that $2 billion had not been spent on the gun registry, it could have been used to help people. It could have paid the tuition for every university student in British Columbia to the tune of a bursary of about $37,000. What is more important, helping our our young people to get an education or registering a hunter's rifles? In that kind of contrast, it is a waste of government money.

It looked like MPs would not support the gun registry. They recognized the foolishness of that particular registry and that we should not put another bunch of money behind it. The government had already wasted a lot of money on it. However, because of a fear that members would not support it, what did the Prime Minister do? Instead of saying that it should be a free vote, he whipped them into shape and told them to vote in favour of the allocation of additional money. Is that a free vote? No. That was a broken promise one week after Parliament came into session under the new Prime Minister.

This morning the Prime Minister was in Vancouver appointing persons to run under the Liberal banner in the next federal election. The constituents who make up the local Liberal association do not have the right to choose their own candidates. The Prime Minister is the one who will appoint the candidate. Is that democracy? That sounds an awful lot more like dictatorship than democracy.

When the Prime Minister was running for the leadership of his party he indicated clearly that there would be some kind of suitable system to vet the candidates for appointment to the Supreme Court, which now has two vacancies. What was one of the first things the newly appointed Minister of Justice said in response to the question: What will the vetting process be? He said that he did not know and that he was not quite sure whether it would be done at all. Yesterday it appeared as if there might be a process of vetting the appointment of those judges.

What are we supposed to make of these obvious missteps at the very beginning of the “new government” under the “new Prime Minister”? Thankfully, there will be an election soon and Canadians will be able to speak and say that it is time for a change.

We need a new government, a true new government, a government that believes that free votes are necessary, that democratic reform can be accomplished, and not in the way the current Prime Minister is doing it.

We need to move on from there. We need to recognize that as one reflects upon the contents of the Speech from the Throne and the budget, one is struck by the glaring omission of certain things.

First, there was no mention of the rights of victims of crime. Does the new Prime Minister not realize that the current justice system often protects the rights of criminals to a greater degree than the rights of victims? Has he forgotten or chosen to ignore the fact that victims of crimes also have rights? Does the criminal justice system exist to protect innocent Canadians from those who would perpetrate suffering, pain and loss of property, and sometimes death? Does the Prime Minister not realize that our justice system is much more of a legal system than a system of justice for the victim as well as the criminal?

The other omission is that no serious consideration was given to a plan to pay down Canada's debt. Each year something like $35 billion or $36 billion is paid out in interest to service that debt. Based on the 2002-03 budget of the British Columbia government, that is enough money to pay for the public health system in British Columbia for three years. If that debt were half of that, then the interest required to be paid would be half of that. It is obvious that if we maintain that debt and have no plan to pay it down, we will continue to have that burden and that burden will be carried forward to our children and grandchildren.

Another conspicuous absence in the Speech from the Throne and in the budget was the definition of marriage. That matter was referred to the Supreme Court of Canada by the previous minister of justice. Rather than deal with the matter, the new Prime Minister has submitted a further question and that matter will not become an issue in the immediate future.

What will the new Prime Minister do? Why does he do this? Is he afraid? Does he not have any courage of conviction based on a strong set of values? Is he so devoid of value commitment that he would relegate effective legislation for this country to the courts? If that is so, will he admit that under his watch Parliament is but a shadow of government and that the real governing is placed in the hands of those whom he has appointed to the bench of the Supreme Court of Canada?

What about his personal ethics? Could he really not have put into gear a flow of information that would have immediately corrected the error of some $160 million that CSL received from the Government of Canada?

The time has come for us to recognize that we cannot wait to see what the Prime Minister will do. He has an opportunity to become a new Prime Minister. Will he do it? The opportunity is his but he must do much more than what he has done thus far. As with all people, we must recognize that doing the right thing exults a nation but doing the wrong thing is a disgrace to any people.

[Reinstatement of Government Bills, February 10th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I wish I could say that I rise with pleasure to debate this motion but I cannot. It is true that I rise with anticipation, but I would far rather not be in this debate because I think it is the wrong subject to debate.

I noticed that the hon. member for Scarborough--Rouge River called this a procedural debate. He referred to some of the remarks that have been made in opposition to the motion as crocodile tears. He suggested that there were a lot of those in the House. I wonder sometimes whether there is an authenticity of belief on the other side of the House that would in fact commit those members to true democracy in the House. Crocodile tears are usually feigned sorrow about something, being sort of despondent about something sad that has happened but not really feeling that way.

The new Prime Minister, and I put the word “new” into quotation marks, has botched the very thing that he set out to do. I was thrilled when he said that he wanted to take care of the democratic deficit. The illusion was that the previous government had not been as democratic as it ought to have been in the House. The new Prime Minister was going to change all that. I thought, “Good for him”. I also thought that maybe a new wind was blowing. There was a wind blowing all right, but that wind was that he did not really believe in changing the democratic deficit.

One of the first things that happened very shortly after he took the reins as Prime Minister was the whipping into order of the voting pattern of all the members in his government. They had to vote the way he wanted them to vote on the gun registry to get more money into that fund.

There are two insults in that particular behaviour pattern. First, he denied the very thing that he said he was going to make a primary issue and, second, it was already known that an excessive amount of money had been poured into this registry, which really does not work.

We have to be very clear about something else. The motion we are debating today states that bills may be brought forward on the condition that a minister rises and says to the Speaker that they are in exactly the same form as they were at the time of prorogation. The minister has absolute and complete authority to decide which bills are brought forward. So what we have here is absolute power on the part of those people. The government is asking the House of Commons to bring all of those bills back, but the Prime Minister decides, through the minister, what bills will actually be brought forward. If there was ever a concentration of power in the Prime Minister's Office, that has to be it.

What we have here is a denial of the very thing that the new Prime Minister was talking about when he was vying for the leadership of the Liberal Party. He said there was too much concentration of power in the Prime Minister's Office. He said he would take some of that power and give it to some of the backbenchers. Lo and behold, one of the first acts in which he is involved is to take that power back into his office and make sure that everybody abides by the wishes that he is going to perpetrate on his members. That is some position to be in.

The new Prime Minister had the opportunity to create for the world and for Canadians an example of how democracy could really be made to work, how he could change the old tradition, and how he could make sure that backbenchers had a real voice. What did he do instead? He appointed a new leader of the House and one of the first things he did was to say that the government has three categories of votes: one-line, two-line and three-line votes. It does not matter whether it is called a one-line vote, a two-line vote, or a three-line vote if in the final analysis the issue becomes one of “the way I want you to vote is the way you shall vote”. That is an empty shell that he has perpetrated on us and on the people on that side of the House.

What I cannot figure out is how intelligent people who have earned the respect of some of their constituents in fact will go for this kind of stuff. They would not do it in their own households, but they will do it here. Why?

The Prime Minister said there was going to be a brand new government, with new bills and new ways of doing things, and guess what? Here we are, not yet at 10 days of sitting in the House, and the motion we are debating is to bring back not new legislation but legislation of the previous government.

What is new about the old? Old is old. I do not want to use the quote that Mr. Mulroney used some time ago about a particular ambassador. We will leave that to another day. Those reading Quorum today will find that it reveals only too accurately what I am referring to. Old is old. I think the House needs to recognize that.

Then we go to the Speech from the Throne. Here was an opportunity to really create something new. What did we find? Did we find a complete statement of how to reform the Senate? We had a complete statement of what we were going to do to make sure that that place would indeed become the place of elected people, that it would be equal and would represent the regions of this country. Did we see a word on reform of the Senate? No.

Did we find anything about the rights of victims of crimes perpetrated upon themselves or their families, victims who are suffering pain and the deprivation of the use of their property, victims who have had their property damaged? Was there any talk in the Speech from the Throne about recognizing their rights and giving them some rights at least equal to those of the criminals? No.

There was a golden opportunity to create a whole new vision for Canada. It did not happen.

One of the bills that is probably going to be brought forward--we do not know but we know that it could be--is the bill on the possibility of the decriminalization of marijuana. I know that there are a lot of people who have smoked marijuana, indeed, who have inhaled marijuana, and who say to this day that it was a wonderful thing to have been involved with. Does that make it true that it is a good thing to decriminalize marijuana?

The debate will rage for a long time, but ultimately we have to make a decision about what is right and what is wrong and we also need to decide how we want our society to live. What kinds of values do we want our young people to have? What kinds of habits should they form? Is marijuana an addictive kind of a drug? I think members will discover that indeed it is, but there are other drugs that are also addictive and that perhaps are even worse and more debilitating, drugs that destroy the body and the brain more effectively than does marijuana. To suggest that these things are totally and completely unrelated is false.

However, one thing that is true in this whole gamut of the consumption of drugs is this business that Canada does not have a national drug strategy. Was there any kind of statement in the Speech from the Throne to give some direction to the people of Canada, to our educators, to our parents, to our young people, as to what constitutes a good life and what constitutes the use of those kinds of medicines and things of entertainment that are useful, rather than the imbibing of drugs?

Virtually every member of the House knows, and if they do not know they ought to, that one of the greatest beneficiaries of the drug trade is organized crime. Do we really want this Parliament to be known as the one that created laws which made it easier for organized crime to have a stronger foothold in our society? I do not think so.

We come to another area, and that is the definition of marriage. Instead of coming to grips with this highly controversial issue, what did the Minister of Justice do? Another question has been referred to the Supreme Court of Canada.

That raises another question. I talked earlier about the democratic deficit, but there is something else going on here. We have a Prime Minister who would give backbenchers more authority, more power and more activity to do the things that matter. By implication, I suppose, although we have not heard him say it, I would draw the conclusion that the Prime Minister actually would like to think that Parliament is making the laws of this land and is indeed determining the direction that legislation should take in this country.

What is the one thing the Prime Minister does in terms of the definition of marriage? We have three reference questions, which were referred to the court by the previous minister of justice, and now a fourth question has been referred to that particular court. It kind of begs the question: Does the Prime Minister really want Parliament to make the laws of this land or is he giving increasing power to the Supreme Court and other judges by telling them that they will be the ones to tell us how the law should go, and that when they have vetted it properly then we will pass the legislation.

The question becomes: Who is really in charge here? Is it Parliament that decides what will happen or is it the courts that will decide what happens?

That raises the immediate next question. During the run up to the leadership of the Prime Minister, he gave clear indication that he would create some kind of mechanism to permit the vetting of possible candidates who should be considered for appointment to the judiciary. What did he do? Shortly after he became the leader and appointed his new cabinet, the Minister of Justice made it very clear that they were not quite ready to do that. They were not quite sure whether a mechanism would ever be put together so that the vetting of candidates for appointment to the judiciary would take place. Where is the sincerity in all of this?

He goes on. The appointment of a new ethics commissioner will take place. Yes, a new ethics commissioner. Indeed, we are going to have an independent ethics commissioner. The one word that has changed here is commissioner. It used to be an ethics counsellor. It probably means the person will be paid more money.

How would the new commissioner actually work? We know that particular commissioner will be appointed by the Prime Minister and report to Parliament. However, who decides what will really happen? I think that becomes the issue here. That may be different ethics but what is new about it? Nothing is new about this at all. We want to be sure that we recognize not only the new ethics in terms of that appointment, but also the new Challenger jets; $100 million.

Mr. Speaker, you are giving me the signal that I should stop talking but we should talk for a long time about this. This is not a new government.

[Kelowna, February 5th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the devastating fires in Kelowna last summer confirmed that people even in distress and loss think of each other.

The Volunteer Firefighter T-shirt campaign sold 46,000 T-shirts, raising $405,671. Yesterday, the Kelowna Volunteer Fire Department presented the cheque to the Kelowna and Area Okanagan Fire Recovery Society.

This year's efforts by the United Way raised a record breaking $1,010,000 in local fundraising. Our thanks to outgoing chairman Mel Kotler and his team for all their efforts on behalf of the community.

It is a great source of pride that we were able to come through the fires a stronger, more caring and generous community. Many thanks to all, but especially to those who have given though they too have suffered loss.

[Petitions, February 4th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour to present about 1,000 signatures to a petition that asks Parliament to consider very carefully and, if necessary, to introduce legislation that will define marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

[Address in Reply, February 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who just spoke is rather eloquent and I know some of the things she stands for are absolutely the same things that I stand for, but how does she explain the absence in the Speech from the Throne of dealing with justice, of bringing about safer streets and of developing a national drug strategy to ensure our children are protected?

It is all very well to talk in very general terms but where are the specifics on what we will do in the justice system to make sure our parole system does the kinds of things we want it to do and that in fact our families are protected from the predators of their children?

[Marriage Act, October 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to enter this debate because we are probably debating one of the most significant bills the House has seen for a long time, Bill C-447 on the definition of marriage.

I am opposed to changing the definition of marriage. The definition of marriage, as it stands today, is one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. I support that. Not only do I support it but the majority of my constituents support it.

I am here as a representative of my constituents. They elected me to be here and I am proud to say to the House that they elected me to represent them. They want the definition of marriage to be one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others and that is what I will portray in the House.

The role of a member of Parliament to ensure that the institution of democracy is protected. This is an issue of democracy in the first instance. The government needs to recognize that its primary responsibility is to represent what the people want. It is a decision of how we want to govern ourselves. There is no doubt that we want to govern ourselves according to fundamental and basic democratic principles.

In this regard I want to refer to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. It was in the process of debating this issue and drafting a report on same sex marriage issues. However, what happened on June 17? While the House was recessed, the Prime Minister stated that, despite the findings and recommendations of the justice committee, the government intended to make same sex marriages legal in this country. In the process the Prime Minister officially stripped Parliament of its exclusive prerogative to make the laws of this country.

Since when does a Prime Minister have that kind of audacity? It seems this one does. Prior to this, however, just before the House recessed, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights was deliberately stacked with members of the government who favoured same sex marriage. That ensured the passage of a motion presented to the committee by the member for Burnaby—Douglas, a motion to approve the Ontario Court of Appeal ruling allowing same sex marriages.

In the greater context of this issue, the Liberal government's refusal to appeal the Ontario court ruling regarding same sex marriages meant that not only did it accept but it supported the courts making social policy decisions for Canada and for Canadians.

On June 10, when the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's decision determining that same sex marriages should be legal under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Canadian Alliance immediately called upon the justice minister to appeal that ruling. He refused and instead brought in legislation that complied with the court's ruling.

Effectively, the Liberal government sanctioned the court's ruling on social policy matters, rendered the work of the justice committee irrelevant, ignored the majority vote of Parliament to protect the tradition of marriage, and stifled the voices of Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure you were here on the day that 216 of us voted in favour of defining marriage as one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, and 55 said no. Those opposed said that they would change that definition. Therefore, 216 voted in favour of keeping it and 55 said no.

Four years later, what has changed? All of a sudden marriage is no longer to be defined that way? Parliament did not say so. The Supreme Court said so and Parliament said it would let the Supreme Court rule. That is an absolute travesty. Parliament should be writing the law of this land not the courts.

The Canadian Alliance emphasized that point last night during our supply day motion. We called upon the government to bring in measures to protect and reassert the will of Parliament. That motion was defeated by the Liberal government indicating that it supported the courts in enacting social policy.

The courts have become a convenient refuge for the Liberal government, a convenient way for the Liberals to avoid making difficult decisions on divisive issues so they can insulate themselves from criticism. If there were ever a reason to criticize the government, it would be because it has abrogated the responsibility the people gave it.

Although many people have been quick to blame the judiciary, it is our federal government that deserves to be hammered because it has reneged. The Prime Minister and his cabinet have not had the courage and the vision to do the job they were elected to do. This is not just the opinion of this side of the House. It is an opinion that has been expressed time and time again in newspapers over the last number of months.

Many people in my constituency have come to me. The ratio of people who tell me that I am their representative and that they want me to support the traditional definition of marriage outnumbers the people who oppose that definition. It is just horrendous. It is about one hundred to one. That is the way the e-mails have gone.

We need to recognize that this bill reflects the honest and accurate opinion of most of the constituents who I represent. I am proud to support my colleagues who have the courage to present again this definition of marriage: one man, one woman, to the exclusion of all others, and I support it with everything I have.

[Supply, October 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I was quite impressed with the speech of my colleague. I was particularly impressed with the graphic description and stories that some people tell about their lives.

I cannot help but recall the provision in Bill C-20 that amends the Criminal Code to actually agree that there shall be a defence of the possession of child pornography if it is in the public good.

I ask every colleague in the House, having listened to the kind of stories that my hon. colleague has expressed to us, how could anyone in their right mind ever consider anything like that to be in the public good? How could that somehow lift the moral feelings of people? How could that somehow encourage ethical behaviour? How could it somehow create greater commitment to family life, greater love and appreciation for members of the family? How could anything like that ever be in the public good?

Would my colleague speak to that? It seems to me there is something extremely warped in making that kind of a comment.