Andrew Scheer

[First Nations Oil and Gas and Moneys Management Act, October 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question regarding first nations policy as it relates to the NDP position on it.

The member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River talked about the Conservative commitment to establish equality among our first nations people and parity with the rest of Canada, specifically private property rights.

As we know, individuals living on a reserve do not have the ability or the same right that every other Canadian has to own and enjoy their own property, enjoy the ownership of their own home. This creates a huge disadvantage for first nations people who cannot use the equity that they might have in their home the way every other Canadian does. They cannot take a mortgage out on their property to invest in a small business or take a mortgage out on their equity to send their children to post-secondary education. That is a right that every other Canadian has. We are able to own our own home and use that wealth for a variety of things.

Would the member agree that first nations people living on reserve should have the same right that every other Canadian has to own their own home and enjoy the benefits that come with home ownership?

[Government Aircraft, October 5th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the government said that ministers use the Challenger jets to ensure the smooth operation of government business. Nonetheless, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs used this flying limousine to the tune of $14,000 to go from Montreal to Ottawa. A deluxe chauffeured limousine would have cost $450 for the same trip.

Can the minister tell us why the smooth operation of government business requires overcharging Canadian taxpayers by more than $13,000?

[Agriculture, September 30th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, he is the only person in Canada who actually believes that.

Heavy rains have hurt much of Saskatchewan over the last few months and many farmers have seen the value of their crops destroyed. After a bad drought one year, a killer frost the next and now the excessive rainfall, many producers' CAIS margins are well below normal.

The five year Olympic average for CAIS margins means that after just a couple of bad years, a farmer is unlikely to receive a payout from CAIS, so those who need it most do not get the help they need. The minister must listen to Saskatchewan farmers on this. Will he change the averaging system or will he continue to ignore producers?

[Civil Marriage Act, June 28th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, what we are seeing today is the heavy-handedness of a Liberal government that is afraid of honest debate on this issue. The government is afraid to hear speeches like the one made by my hon. colleague because the government knows that the vast majority of Canadians are opposed to its radical position on marriage.

Because of the Liberals' fear of healthy debate on this issue, they have invoked closure, one of the most undemocratic things that has ever happened in this Parliament. The government extended the sittings of the House, tinkered with the Standing Orders and the legislative calendar, and then immediately afterward invoked closure to cut off debate on Bill C-38.

Does the hon. member think these are the actions of a Prime Minister who is going to slay the democratic deficit?

[Civil Marriage Act, June 28th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of my colleague's speech he quoted clause 3.1. I will read it again because I have a specific question for him about it.

For greater certainty, no person or organization shall be deprived of any benefit, or be subject to any obligation or sanction, under any law of the Parliament of Canada solely by reason of their exercise, in respect of marriage between persons of the same sex, of the freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the expression of their beliefs in respect of marriage as the union of a man and woman to the exclusion of all others based on that guaranteed freedom.

The important part in my mind is the part that reads “under any law of the Parliament of Canada”. He said that this was a very broad umbrella of protection for Canadians, but it is not.

We look around the country and there are several examples of people facing persecution under provincial human rights tribunals or provincial laws or trade unions. There is a case in British Columbia of someone who lost his teacher's licence because his union deemed that the letters he wrote to the editor on the subject of marriage were worthy enough to kick him out. We have seen a school in Ontario forced to have its position compromised on these issues.

I would put to him that the line under any law of the Parliament of Canada is very narrow. There are many examples out there that we can point to where people are facing persecution for their religious beliefs and the expression of those religious beliefs. They have lost their livelihoods and face many other sorts of persecution.

[Civil Marriage Act, June 28th, 2005]

You're crooks.

[Civil Marriage Act, June 28th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a very simple question of the justice minister. The only people saying that traditional marriage is unconstitutional are in fact the Liberals due to the Prime Minister's radical obsession with it.

In 1996, in a majority decision, Justices Iacobucci and McLaughlin stated that, in the absence of statute law, if Parliament enacts a statute law that differs from the court's view, it does not follow that would be unconstitutional. We have a lot of case law and common law in this country that when there is an absence of statute law, Parliament can fill that void by passing a statute and that it would not necessarily be unconstitutional if it differs from what the court may envisage in that absence.

Parliament could just as easily pass a statute law respecting the traditional definition of marriage and put forward that compromised position of civil unions without it being unconstitutional. We have lots of case law that proves that.

[Civil Marriage Act, June 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talks about common law and judge made law. The Conservative Party is talking about that whole point.

There was a common law definition in our country about the definition of marriage and one group of judges in Ontario struck it down for the entire nation. Now, in the absence of statute law, the courts made that decision. It is still entirely within the rights of Parliament to enact statute law to address that. We can keep the traditional definition of marriage by filling the vacuum and passing that statute law.

He says that if those Liberal MPs had voted against Bill C-48 to force an election, then for 36 days we would not have had a government and we would not have addressed the vacuum in the absence of a statute.

What we would do is allow Canadians to have their say on this issue, to vote for members of Parliament who represent their views. I would propose that we would have had more pro traditional definition of marriage MPs in the House. We could have enacted the statute law to preserve the traditional definition of marriage and address the very problem about which the member spoke.

[Civil Marriage Act, June 27th, 2005]

That is an interesting point, Mr. Speaker. There are all types of different people in the Liberal caucus. I am not sure why the Prime Minister would speak so vociferously against those people opposed to the same sex marriage and then allow those people to stay in his caucus.

I think maybe it is because the only thing that will cause a member to be ejected from the Liberal caucus is a personal attack on the Prime Minister. We have seen Liberal MPs make all sorts of comments, some disparaging of our closest friends and allies to south and some taking extreme positions on all sorts of moral issues. Nothing will cause them to be kicked out of caucus unless they have for some reason criticized the Prime Minister. That is the only moral sin of being a Liberal.

[Civil Marriage Act, June 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am racking my brain for one time when the Prime Minister tabled what ballistic missile defence was going to be. He dithered on that file for months. There was no vote on missile defence because the Prime Minister did not have the backbone to come into Parliament and take a position.

How can we take a vote on something that the Prime Minister dithered for months over and did not bring to this House? That is a ridiculous example. If that is the best example that member can even point to about us not voting on the wishes of our constituents, then we must be doing a great job.