Rose-Marie Ur

[Supply Management, June 7th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, I thank my hon. colleague for her good agriculture question. Being a farmer in my previous life, whether it was this government or any government, I have never seen where the Liberal government did not stand up for farmers. Being a past producer, I can strongly defend the fact that we have always been there.

Just look at the pork situation and the countervail duties. We were out there. Do not tell me we were not fighting for our pork industry, and successfully, I might add.

With a severe decline in market dollars from the marketplace, the government was there with over $4.2 billion, plus $1 billion in March. The member says we have done nothing?

Regarding the BSE, we are the first country that has had a BSE case that has had the ability to ship boxed beef to the United States, with very little difference in the shipping of under-30-month beef since the BSE situation. The member says we have done nothing?

We have been out there first and foremost. I am sure we will always find dissenting concerns from some farmers, but for the greater part, I am sure they understand that the governments are doing what they can do and are capable of doing. But I thank the hon. member for her question.

[Supply Management, June 7th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, I hate to upset my hon. colleague after he asked that question by saying that there is no big secret as to what was divulged or what the trade minister had said. I was not present at that meeting, so I cannot respond to that. In the past when I have spoken to the Minister of International Trade he indicated to me without hesitation that we are there to defend supply management.

We have to understand that we are one of 148 countries at those hearings. Just to explain to my colleagues across the way, there was a delegation here from New Zealand not too long ago. They met with the all-party agriculture committee which I must add for the most part works very non-politically. We do have a good committee.

At that meeting with the New Zealand delegation, I was really pleased that I was at one end and they were at the other end, because the subject of supply management came up. A gentleman from New Zealand indicated to us that it is a government sponsored agency and that there are government dollars in supply management.

I took the floor and said “Absolutely not”. This was a delegation that came to speak to the agriculture committee in Canada, uninformed or misinformed, I do not know which. When we have individuals coming from another country whom we are dealing with at negotiations and who do not understand the supply management system, we and our negotiators have a job to do. I have never had the opportunity to go to Geneva like some of my hon. colleagues across the way, but I think it is the duty of every one of us here to explain that the government has put in a framework, but there is not any government dollars in supply management. We have to understand that.

The process that needs to happen when we are over there is to certainly continue the fight that we have had with the negotiators and I do think they have done a good job, from what I hear. For those of us who go there, it is also our job to explain to other countries about supply management , and give them accurate information and not misinformation.

[Supply Management, June 7th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, as to the member's first question, yes I really do believe that we can make a difference.

On the member's second question regarding article XXVIII, I can assure the member that I have never been so confident as I am today standing in the House speaking to this subject matter that the Minister of Agriculture and his parliamentary secretary have worked so diligently on this, that the minister stands up for the dairy farmers of Canada at negotiations. He has never indicated that he will not use article XXVIII, but there are other avenues at his disposal which he is using and one never goes into negotiations without some tools left in one's tool box. I think that is where the Minister of Agriculture sits.

[Supply Management, June 7th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to rise tonight to speak on the subject of supply management. Perhaps I will spend a few minutes to educate those who are watching as to what supply management is all about.

Canada's supply management system matches production to Canadian demand and allows farmers to receive a fair price from the marketplace without relying on taxpayer dollars.

Supply management eliminates major fluctuations in prices at the farm processing or distribution level and ensures an efficient and secure food supply that respects Canadian safety and health standards.

The dairy, poultry and egg industries are important to Canada as together they contribute a net $12.3 billion to the GDP, generate $6.8 billion in farm cash receipts, sustain more than $39 billion of economic activity, and employ more than 215,000 Canadians throughout the country.

Supply management empowers farmers while benefiting processors, consumers, government and taxpayers. It exchanged the boom and bust cycles with a stable and orderly market, once again without costing the government or taxpayers a dime.

In Canada, pricing mechanisms are based on the farmers collectively negotiating minimum farm gate prices for milk, poultry and eggs. By acting together, farmers can negotiate a fair price for their food based on what it cost to produce that food.

In other countries without similar pricing mechanisms, an even smaller portion of the price paid by consumers is received by the farmers. For example, baskets of dairy products were surveyed in all cities in Canada versus cities in the United States by ACNielsen in June 2004. It was found that the cost on average in Canada was $89.75 versus $110.92 in the U.S. As a result, dairy products are approximately 23.6% cheaper in Canada than in the United States.

I would now like to speak specifically on issues related to Canada's dairy industry and the progress the government and the members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food have made to address serious concerns facing dairy farmers.

The government has been working hard for some time to establish a fair and equitable regulatory regime for dairy product standards and the use of dairy terms. For the dairy producers there are two key issues: the definition of dairy products contained in the regulations; and the labels used to describe dairy products and food containing dairy ingredients. Both of these issues fall under the responsibility of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, the CFIA.

Let me first discuss the need for clear regulatory definitions. There are some inconsistencies in the dairy products regulations' definition of milk product and the definition included in the food and drug regulations. The government wants to remove these inconsistencies, but we should do it in a manner that is transparent to all interested involved. That includes both dairy producers and dairy processors.

The second regulatory issue involves the labelling used to describe dairy products and non-dairy substitutes. The hon. member for Montcalm and his Bloc colleague have been working with the Dairy Farmers of Canada on product labelling. Liberal members have previously tabled amendments regarding labelling and the Conservative Party has brought forward private members' bills relating to this topic.

The issues are complex. To make informed choices, Canadians rely on the accuracy and the truthfulness of product information. The CFIA protects consumers and industry and promotes fair market practice by setting and enforcing standards related to the accuracy of product information appearing on food labels.

In fact, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency launched an extensive consultation on food labelling related to highlighted ingredients and flavours which include new rules for dairy terms. The stakeholders who participated in this consultation included producers, including the Dairy Farmers of Canada, processors, exporters, importers and consumers.

Producers and consumers were very much in favour of rules for clear food labelling. The issue has been before the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food as it studies Bill C-27, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Enforcement Act. I am sure that my hon. colleagues on both sides of the House applaud the breakthrough reached last week.

As hon. members may be aware, I brought forward an amendment that adds a clause dealing with the use of dairy terms. Under these provisions, it will no longer be possible to market an agriculture product using a dairy term on the label unless the product contains the dairy ingredient represented by the dairy term. Nor will it be possible to market an agriculture product that has a dairy term on the label if the agriculture product is intended to substitute for a dairy product.

There are exceptions allowed. One exemption applies to products that have traditionally been used under a specific name. No one wants the term “peanut butter” to be disallowed simply because it is not a real dairy produced butter. The other exemptions deal mostly with the words that now must be added to clearly inform consumers that these are not real dairy products. On product labels we will see more terms such as “artificial flavour” or “simulated flavour”. These words will tell consumers that the products do not contain actual dairy products.

It is through these measures that we have provided the solution to a problem that we have discussed and debated for some time now. I believe that this amendment and other approaches, such as making the regulatory definitions consistent, is the best way to address the issue.

It is important to note that the Dairy Farmers of Canada supports the amendment that I put forward, which was unanimously adopted by the committee. I wish to thank all hon. colleagues on the agriculture committee for their support.

In a recent letter sent to my office by the Dairy Farmers of Canada, it stated:

On behalf of the Dairy Farmers of Canada I am pleased to extend our gratitude for your contributions that resulted in the unanimous adoption of labelling amendments to Bill C-27.... These amendments are the culmination of several years of active lobbying to ensure that dairy terms are not misused or misleading. They will help to protect the integrity of dairy products.

We should be reassured by the progress that was achieved last week in the standing committee. We should continue to bring both sides together, the producers and processors, so that we can build a competitive agriculture and agri-food industry in Canada, one that maintains its worldwide reputation for quality.

To further this objective, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has offered to both processors and producers to establish a forum to discuss dairy issues and standards, to build a consensus on recommendations to him. We look forward to the results of these discussions.

Supply management is a valuable system that not only benefits Canadian farmers but also consumers throughout Canada. That is why the Government of Canada remains committed to defending the supply management framework and defending the ability of Canadian producers to choose how to market their products.

[Petitions, May 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I wish to present a petition on behalf of the constituents of Lambton--Kent--Middlesex.

The first petition is signed by many residents in the Wallaceburg and Dresden area. The second petition is signed by residents living in Strathroy, Glencoe and the Watford area.

The petitioners pray that Parliament pass legislation to recognize the institution of marriage in federal law as being the lifelong union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

[Committees of the House, May 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to be recorded as voting yes.

[Petitions, April 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present a petition on behalf of the constituents living in the riding of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex in the Strathroy and Glencoe area. They pray that Parliament define marriage in federal law as being a lifelong union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

[Skating, April 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Parkhill Blades N'Sync Precision Skating Team that ended its year on a high note Sunday, March 13, with a first place gold medal finish at the Bert Winfield Competition in St. Mary's.

The group is an adult precision team with 21 members skating out of the Gemini Sportsplex in Strathroy. The coach is Chrissy Kernaghan. They are primarily over the age of 25, most are married with families and have varied occupations and all share the love of skating. They live within the Parkhill, Strathroy and Watford area.

Local skaters are July Dortmans, Rose Oakley-Law, Joanne Sadler, Jena McLellan, Ruth Perriam, Charlene Sadler, Alison Rammeloo, Shauna Forret, Janessa O'Neil, Gail Sadler-Barclay, Nicole Nesbitt, Kari Kennedy, Leanne McCann, Betty Smith, Lisa Blackmore, Jody Lucan, Lauren Harris, Lori Mackey and Lori Henderson.

Once again, I congratulate the Parkhill Blades N'Sync Percision Skating Team on its recent achievement. I wish them all the best of luck for the next season.

[Agriculture, March 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

The question is regarding the Farm Income and Marketing Cooperatives Loans Act program which has had declining registration rates over the last decade. That being said, could the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food tell the House what plans there are for this program, and what effect it might have on loans that are currently registered?

[Civil Marriage Act, March 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in the debate surrounding Bill C-38, the civil marriage act, that proposes to legalize same sex marriages in Canada.

Like many of my colleagues on both sides of the House, I voted in support of the traditional definition of marriage in 1999 and again in 2003. I remain committed to defending this definition, not only because of my personal beliefs but as the elected representative for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex I have an obligation to vote according to the views of the majority of my constituents.

Prior to the vote that took place in 2003, I sent a survey to every household in my riding. Of the responses I received, 90% of my constituents were opposed to same sex marriage.

Since the Supreme Court of Canada provided its opinion on the reference case, approximately 2,000 constituents have contacted my office to relay their continued opposition to same sex marriage, while less than 50 constituents have contacted me in support of the proposed legislation.

In 1999 the House of Commons reaffirmed the traditional definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others by a vote of 216 in support and 55 opposed. In 2003 another vote took place and this time 137 were opposed and 132 voted in support. The motion affirming the traditional definition of marriage was upheld in 1999, but was defeated in 2003.

Although I voted to support the traditional definition of marriage both in 1999 and 2003, many others switched their vote. The question I have is, what changed between 1999 and 2003? The answer is, the courts.

Several cases were brought before different provincial courts dealing with this issues, but the most notable was in July 2002, in Halpern v. Canada, in which the Ontario Superior Court challenged the traditional definition of marriage. This controversial judgment was followed by two similar decisions in Quebec Superior Court and the British Columbia Court of Appeal.

Halpern gave the federal government two years to consider legislative options. Before the federal government had an opportunity to complete public hearings on this issue, the Ontario Court of Appeal declared on June 10, 2003, that it would not bother to wait for the government. It struck down the existing law of marriage as discriminatory, redefining marriage as a union of two persons.

When the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was being created in 1981, some opponents saw the charter as a move to reallocate authority from those who attained their position through election to those who attained their position through appointment. The concern was that the power to define law and determine rights was being given to those who were immune to review by the people, the electorate. Since being implemented, the charter has sparked a lively debate over judicial encroachment on legislative authority. The most recent developments concerning same sex marriage is a perfect example of this intrusion.

As a result of these court rulings, a majority of Canadians are now being told that their view of the traditional definition of marriage is contrary to the charter. This pits the charter, which is meant to protect freedom of religion and conscience, against their consciences and indeed their religions on this fundamental matter.

Although the proposed legislation states that “officials of religious groups are free to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs”, the Supreme Court of Canada included in its decision that religious freedoms would be protected, unless there were “unique circumstances with respect to which we will not speculate...” Where there is a collision of rights, the court has stated that it “will find a limit on religious freedom and go on to balance the interests at stake under Section 1 of the Charter”.

While the Supreme Court has stated that there is a level playing field of rights, that is, that no right is superior to another, the way the court has interpreted religious freedom and gay rights leaves gay rights in a superior position.

In the Trinity Western University case concerning religious freedoms, the court said that the freedom to believe was broader than the freedom to act on those beliefs. Respecting gay rights, however, the courts have ruled that protection for homosexual practices is part and parcel of the protection for sexual orientation. If homosexual practices have been protected by the courts without question but religious practices tend to be subject to some more rigorous standards, gay rights will always trump religious rights.

The Knights of Columbus in British Columbia recently refused to permit a gay couple to use their facility for a same sex wedding. As a result, they have been called to account for their actions by the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal. It seems that the religious beliefs may not be enough to protect them against a charge of discrimination based upon the sexual orientation of their rejected clients.

As a result of decisions in several provinces, the traditional and universal definition of marriage violates the charter right to equality of homosexual couples who want to marry. I find it interesting that other countries have not made the same claim that Canada makes, that marriage as we have known it constitutes a rights violation. The United Nations Human Rights Commission has, in practice, denied that it is a rights violation.

If the charter explicitly guarantees homosexual couples the identical rights enjoyed by heterosexual couples, those of us who think same sex marriage is a massive social experiment with unknown consequences will have no basis for criticizing these judges. The problem is that not only does sexual orientation not appear in the equality rights section of the charter, but a motion to include it was explicitly rejected by those who framed the charter. Judges have brazenly put in what the framers kept out.

Since when was homosexual marriage a human rights issue? Same sex is not listed as a human right in the U.S. Bill of Rights, the 1948 United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, the European Declaration of Human Rights and Freedoms, the Canadian Bill of Rights and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I again ask, what has changed since 1999? How has same sex marriage suddenly become a human rights issue if it is not contained in the charter? In my opinion the courts are putting in what they believe Parliament neglected. Again, who are the legislators in the country?

When the charter was being created, our former prime minister, the right hon. Jean Chrétien, defended section 33, the notwithstanding clause. He saw section 33 as a safety valve that would ensure that legislators, rather than judges, would have the final say on important matters of public policy. This would allow elected governments to correct situations without going through the difficulty of obtaining constitutional amendments. This was a very important tool given to the government.

Section 33 does not permit legislators to override rights but to override the judicial interpretation of what constitutes a reasonable balance between rights. Using the notwithstanding power is a perfectly legitimate response to the courts' usurpation of the legislative responsibilities to make laws such as the definition of marriage. This is especially true in regard to the same sex marriage debate because the courts have added new meaning to the charter that was explicitly rejected when it was being written.

In my opinion we cannot tinker with the fundamentals of an institution like marriage without expecting significant consequences. Marriage is not improved by becoming all things to all people. Changing the public meaning of an institution changes the social reality. It transforms the understandings and practices supported by that institution.

Redefining marriage to include same sex couples may appear to be a simple solution to a perceived present day inequality, but the notion of marriage as an opposite sex relationship is so deeply rooted in our society that its redefinition may have far-reaching effects on the future development of our society that cannot be predicted.

Across societies, marriage has institutionalized and symbolized the inherently procreative relationship between a man and a woman. It has established the societal norm that in entering marriage a man and a woman take a shared obligation to protect and nurture the children who are born to them. Marriage has never been so heavily associated with the wants and needs of adults as individuals. If we focus more on the benefits of adults as individuals, it will be our children and future generations who will suffer the consequences.

The government did not create the heterosexual institution of marriage but it did recognize it as such and gave it status in law. By doing this, the government did not remain neutral but instead chose to affirm that marriage was a heterosexual union. Now as a result of court rulings, we the legislators are being told that the definition is no longer valid and are being asked to support Bill C-38, the civil marriage act currently before Parliament.

As I stated in the beginning, I voted in support of the traditional definition of marriage in 1999 and in 2003. I remain committed to defending the definition not only because of my personal beliefs, but because the majority of my constituents in Lambton—Kent—Middlesex agree with me as well. I believe that redefining marriage will have far-reaching negative effects on the future development of our society. Therefore, I am unable to support Bill C-38.