Andrew Scheer

[Civil Marriage Act, June 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question. Does anyone here remember what Richard Rich accomplished as Attorney-General for Wales? Probably not. Father Raymond de Souza asked that question in his most recent article.

Many people remember Richard Rich not for what he did as attorney general, but rather as a stark contrast to the life of St. Thomas More. St. Thomas More stood by his principles, acted according to his conscience and paid the ultimate price for choosing his conscience before his political master. For choosing his political master before his conscience, Richard Rich was rewarded with the 16th century equivalent of a cabinet position.

Father Raymond de Souza relates a story about the film on the life of St. Thomas More. As St. Thomas is led up to the gallows, he turns to Rich and, seeing the insignia for Wales on his neck, says the following, “It does not profit a man if he gain the entire world but loses his soul. But for Wales, Richard?”

Today we can ask ourselves, “But for a cabinet spot in the Liberal government?”

We cannot discuss Bill C-38 without discussing the Liberals' aversion to democracy. We are sitting here today, a week after the House was supposed to rise, debating this issue due to the heavy-handedness on the part of the Liberal government. The Liberals trampled over parliamentary democracy last week by extending the sittings of this House to ram through their radical position on marriage. They had to ram it through, because they know that the vast majority of Canadians do not want to see the definition of marriage changed.

I sat in on a committee hearing for Bill C-38. I saw at first hand how the Prime Minister's idea of a fair and open committee operates.

We heard dozens of groups opposed to homosexual marriage complain that they were given little to no notice. They were even unable to get their documents translated in time and therefore were often prevented from tabling their evidence in time for the hearing. I also saw government members badgering witnesses and berating them, in the words of a former Liberal MP, for being opposed to the legislation.

The nature of the committee itself was also manipulated to ensure speedy passage. The committee was struck only to look at the technical aspects of the bill. Its members were not even allowed to hear evidence regarding the substance of the bill or how the bill might impact society.

There were also many reports that those groups opposed to Bill C-38 were not given funding for their travel expenses and other expenses incurred in coming to testify before the committee, but many groups who were in favour of the government's position were provided that funding. There is a clear imbalance there.

Upwards of 30 Liberal MPs are currently stating their opposition to this legislation. Logic would dictate that the Liberal whip would allow even just one pro-traditional marriage member to sit on that committee, but again, we know that there was not.

Another example of how the Liberals hate democracy is the fact that the entire Liberal cabinet is being whipped on this issue. Cabinet ministers have wrestled with their consciences and their consciences have lost. The lure of the cabinet car and the fierce stick of the Prime Minister's Office pounded their consciences into submission. I hope they put up a good fight.

Canadians have already seen the rights of religious groups and others being infringed. Religious institutions are already under attack. Individual Canadians have already been attacked for their own views on this subject. I can give members a few examples.

First, there is the case of a British Columbia teacher. Exercising his freedom of speech, he wrote several letters to the editor about this subject. In return, his teaching licence was suspended. This is an example of freedom of speech being infringed. Bill C-38 does nothing to protect individuals like this one in the example I cite.

Second, there is a move in Ontario to remove the biological information of parents from birth certifications. Can members imagine children not knowing who their biological parents are?

I would like to quote Dr. Margaret Somerville, because the central question we are talking about here is whether marriage is still connected to the potential to have and raise children and to provide a stable environment for those children, or whether it is simply connected with the personal needs of two adults in a close relationship.

Dr. Somerville states:

The crucial question is: should marriage be primarily a child-centred institution or an adult-centred one? The answer will decide who takes priority when there is an irreconcilable conflict between the interests of a child and the claims of adults. Those who believe that children need and have a right to both a mother and a father, preferably their own biological parents, oppose same-sex marriage because...it would mean that marriage could not continue to institutionalize and symbolize the inherently procreative capacity between the partners; that is, it could not be primarily child-centred.

In short, accepting same-sex marriage necessarily means...abolishing the norm that children...have a prima facie right to know and be raised within their own biological family by their mother and father. Carefully restricted, governed and justified exceptions to this norm, such as adoption, are essential. But abolishing the norm would have far-reaching impact.

We also know of the case of the Knights of Columbus also in British Columbia. It is being harassed because it refuses to compromise its own conscience and rent a hall out to a homosexual couple. Its religious beliefs do not allow them to rent it out and it is being persecuted for following their faith.

There is also the case of Bishop Fred Henry. He dared to speak out against homosexual marriage and was rewarded by having the charitable status of his church threatened. Here is Bishop Henry's assessment of the so-called protection of religious institutions portion of the bill:

The recent Supreme Court decision bows in the direction of religious freedom. However, it adds a disturbing qualifier to its decision, namely, the statement that, “Absent unique circumstances with respect to which the Court will not speculate, the guarantee of religious freedom in s. 2(a) of the Charter is broad enough to protect religious officials...

When you read this carefully, you don't have to be a lawyer to recognize an open door. Particular circumstances might lead to some future court legitimately trying to force religious officials to perform these ceremonies against their conscience, though the justice system declined to speculate on what those circumstances might be. It's disquieting that the court would even raise the possibility.

Bill C-38 not only does not close the door; as a matter of fact, it fails in a number of particular ways to support religious freedom.

He lists them:

One, it fails to recognize, protect, and reaffirm marriage as the union of a man and a woman, which the Supreme Court of Canada did not suggest was contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, nor did it suggest that a redefinition of marriage was necessary to conform to the charter.

Two, it fails to affirm cooperation with the provincial and territorial governments to enact the necessary legislation and regulations to ensure full protection for freedom of conscience and religion so Canadians are not compelled to act contrary to their conscience and religion.

Three, it fails to affirm cooperation with the provincial and territorial governments to ensure all leaders and members of faith groups are free everywhere in Canada to teach and preach on marriage and also on homosexuality, as is consistent with their conscience and religion.

Four, it fails to affirm cooperation with provincial and territorial governments to ensure that in addition to sacred places, all facilities owned or rented by an organization that is identified with a particular faith group are protected from compulsory use and preparations for or celebrations related to marriage ceremonies contrary to that faith.

Five, it fails to affirm cooperation with provincial and territorial governments to ensure all civil as well as religious officials who witness marriages in Canada in every province and territory are protected from being compelled to assist when these are contrary to their conscience and religion.

Six, it fails to safeguard faith groups that do not accept the proposed redefinition of marriage from being penalized with respect to their charitable status.

Bishop Henry put it quite well. Those are major problems with the bill.

Now let us talk about the issue of human rights and the courts. Many people in the Liberal Party contend that this is a matter of human rights. Let us read what Justices McLachlin and Iaccobucci in the Supreme Court decision in 1996 mentioned about the idea that it was a human rights issue and that Parliament could not legislate statute law in violation of what the court said. The justices said:

It does not follow from the fact that a law passed by Parliament differs from a regime envisaged by the Court in the absence of a statutory scheme, that Parliament’s law is unconstitutional. Parliament may build on the Court’s decision, and develop a different scheme as long as it remains constitutional. Just as Parliament must respect the Court’s rulings, so the Court must respect Parliament’s determination that the judicial scheme can be improved. To insist on slavish conformity would belie the mutual respect that underpins the relationship between the courts and legislature that is so essential to our constitutional democracy.

That is what the justices said, that Parliament does not have an obligation to do whatever the courts say in the absence of statute law. Parliament can in fact enact that statute law. Yet we have still seen a growing number of Canadians being attacked for their religious beliefs.

In my home province of Saskatchewan marriage commissioners are being fired for their personal beliefs. The anti-democratic behaviour of the government, along with the failure to protect religious officials and ordinary Canadians from persecution from expressing their own personal beliefs is appalling.

I want voters to know that if they had elected an NDP member of Parliament, their MP would not vote according to his own conscience or according to the wishes of his constituents. He would vote the way his leader told him to. Anything the Liberals can do to be undemocratic, the NDP can do better. The leader of the NDP is forcing his MPs to toe the party line and endorse homosexual marriage.

Thankfully, the voters in my riding rejected that kind of heavy-handedness. I will vote according to the wishes of my constituents and according to my own conscience.

[Civil Marriage Act, June 27th, 2005]

You are making my point.

[Civil Marriage Act, June 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague that there are far too many consequences for Canadians and for families.

I want to ask him a question, because I know his constituents who are as concerned about the legislation as I am will ask him the same question. A hundred years from now, does he think Canadians would be more concerned or society would be more impacted by the changing of a definition that he rightly called a fundamental part of society, or would they be more upset if we had an election, if the hon. member had voted against Bill C-48, cancelled the NDP-Liberal coalition, ceased to be a member of Parliament, but did the right thing?

Maybe he would not have ceased to be a member of Parliament. Maybe his constituents would have rewarded him for standing on principle, for doing something that he believed in. Does he think that 100 years from now, 50 years from now or even 20 years from now there would be more repercussions from changing a fundamental aspect of society than there would have been over a federal election or the cancelling of a deal with the NDP?

[Civil Marriage Act, June 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have two quick questions for my colleague. I had the opportunity to sit on one of the legislative committees. He touched on it briefly in his speech.

First, does he think this legislative committee process was a valid way to study the impact and issues surrounding Bill C-38?

We have heard from a former Liberal MP, now an independent MP, who was so disgusted by the way the rules were set up. With the heavy-handedness of the government, it was going to ram this committee along, lump all the witnesses together, preventing people to speak against the idea of homosexual marriage or from having a reasoned and timely way to express their opposition to it.

Second, does he think the Liberal MPs, who pretend to be in opposition to homosexual marriage, are being truthful with their own constituents? Time and time again when they have the opportunity to put the nail in the coffin for Bill C-38, to stand up for what their constituents want them to do and to vote on their behalf, they have voted with the government. They have obeyed their political masters in the Prime Minister's office rather than the voters in their ridings.

[Civil Marriage Act, June 27th, 2005]

Referring to all 30 of them.

[Age of Consent, June 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pass on my thanks to the member for Fleetwood—Port Kells for bringing the motion forward. It is a timely motion, given the government's failure to adequately address this most serious problem. Many advocacy groups across the country, certainly in my riding, have been asking the government to take serious measures on the issue. As usual, we have seen a dithering government and justice department fail to actually do anything concrete.

The hon. member for Mississauga South talked about the government's own bill, Bill C-2. Bill C-2 fails in many respects. Most notably, it fails to protect a vulnerable category of children, those aged 14 to 16, from the grasp of sexual predators. Children at these ages can easily become the target of people on the Internet and of neighbourhood offenders who seek out vulnerable children to do them harm. Every day parents are horrified to learn that Canadian law fails to provide them with a legal recourse.

In most democracies, including the United Kingdom, Australia and most American states, adults are prohibited from having sexual relationships with children less than 16 and sometimes even 17 years of age. In Canada, a child may legally consent to sex with an adult at age 14.

The member for Mississauga South talked about how the current legislation deals with exploitative measures such as prostitution, pornography and other things. I would suggest to that member that this definition of exploitation is too narrow. We all know that children at 14 and 15 years of age are susceptible to types of exploitation that are not listed in the bill.

We can image a 35 or 45 year old adult who preys on young persons, manipulating their minds and certain circumstances. We can think of many examples where young women in poor households in poor neighbourhoods are being groomed, a term used among child care workers, where adults buy gifts for children, take them to the movies and show them a side of life that maybe they do not see in their neighbourhoods in an attempt to lure them back to their homes to do them evil.

Under the current definition for legal consent for sexual relationships, a young boy or girl of perhaps 14 or 15 years of age can legally give that consent. In other words, the adult would be off the hook. However, is that young person really giving consent or is he or she just falling victim to the circumstances that the adult predator is basically manipulating?

Many child advocacy groups, provincial attorneys general, premiers, the RCMP and countless other organizations are calling on the government to immediately raise the age of consent. In fact, the former attorney general for the province of British Columbia and the current member for Vancouver South got together with the justice ministers from the other provinces and territories, and unanimously agreed that the age of consent should be raised to 16. Now that this hon. member is a federal politician and serves the Crown, his resolve on this issue appears to have waned.

The Liberals' reasoning for not raising the age of sexual consent is the worry that changing the law may criminalize sexual activity between young people, but that is a red herring. It is another excuse for not addressing fundamental problems in society. There are many other jurisdictions that have close in age provisions where young teenagers who are sexually active, classmates who have sex, for example, would not be subject to the same criminal prosecution.

Some hon. members opposite do not think this is a serious debate and would rather discuss perhaps corporate advertising. On April 23, 2002, the Canadian Alliance put forward a motion calling on the government to raise the age of consent for sexual activity from 14 to 16. Members of the NDP and the Liberal Party voted against and ultimately defeated the motion. The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona said in the House:

When the day comes that we have that kind of debate in here and we go after the corporations for the way in which they are constantly, every day, in every house, on every TV set exploiting sexuality, then we will have a real debate on our hands.

This is a real debate. This is not something we should ignore and talk about something else straight away. This is an important issue for hundreds of thousands of Canadians, and for thousands of parents and families who want their children to have protection.

The security and safety of our children is a serious debate. All Canadian children should be protected from sexual exploitation by an adult before they are even old enough to drive a car. However, it would appear that this is not the case according to the Liberal-NDP coalition.

Canada's Criminal Code already permits children younger than 14 year of age to consent to sexual acts as long as their partners are less than two years older than they are. This close in age provision is already in the Criminal Code.

Rather than a straightforward, effective position on raising the age of consent to 16 years of age, Bill C-2 would create a situation where a judge would be obliged to consider a complicated test in evaluating the sexual relationship between a child as young as 14. This test would involve the consideration of criteria including the age difference between the accused and the young person, the evolution of the relationship, and the degree of control or influence the adult had over the young person.

Neither the existing Canadian law nor the proposals in Bill C-2 effectively address the sexual exploitation of children under the age of 16 by adults. Only by raising the age of consent can the law truly protect children.

I applaud groups such as Beyond Borders and Child Find that are bringing concerns such as these into the public domain. They have been fighting for the rights of children across Canada and should be commended for their fight on this issue. They realize that childhood is too precious to be taken away. It is my hope that with the help of advocacy groups across Canada and with the will of the House the age of consent will be raised.

Concerned parents have come into my office and talked about situations they have heard about either firsthand or secondhand involving young teenagers 14 and 15 years old who have been taken advantage of by an adult. I have to explain to them that under Canada's existing laws the justice system is incapable of addressing that problem. Sexual predators, 45, 50 or 60 years old, are within their legal rights to engage in sexual activity with a 14 or 15 year old. Many examples of adult exploitation of young children have already been mentioned.

The Liberal definition of sexual exploitation is too narrow. I would contend that a 14 or 15 year old child cannot legally give consent in many circumstances because of the different ways adults can entice them to engage in this activity. For instance, adults can groom young people, entice them, and spend a lot of time luring them away from their families and into their homes. A lot of documentation has been provided which shows people use the Internet to prowl and find young children who are susceptible to this.

I have spoken with police officers in my riding who have told me that they do not have the tools to fight this sort of thing. That has always been a problem with the Liberal government. It does not give our police officers the tools they need to make our neighbourhoods safe, to protect our young children from a serious blight in our society, adults who prey on young and vulnerable children.

I would like to thank my colleague for putting the motion forward. It is something that this party has been advocating for a long time because we listen to families. We listen to parents who are concerned about the safety of their children. We listen to police organizations that fight the front line fights, who go through the justice system and find flaws in our legislation. They talk to us and we listen to them. We listen to the advocacy groups that are concerned about the quality of life in our neighbourhoods and the safety of our children.

We listen to all those groups, but the Liberals do not. I do not know who they are listening to. I do not know who is setting the policy directives in the justice department who would argue against protecting 14 and 15 year old children from this class of predator. Anyone who preys on young children is the lowest form of criminal.

I do not know who the Liberals are listening to, but the Conservative Party is listening to ordinary Canadians, to families and police organizations. We will continue to listen to them. We will continue to propose legislation that will make our neighbourhoods safer.

[Extension of Sitting Period, June 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the hon. member that even though he sits quite far away from the Chair, his microphone is still working and we can all hear him fine.

His colleague, the current longest continuous serving member in the House of Commons, went through this debate before about extending sittings. I want to ask him if he agrees with the comments of the member for Elmwood—Transcona? The last time a similar motion was debated he said:

I feel obliged to get on my feet on behalf of the members of those two reform committees that I belonged to, on behalf of Members now, and on behalf of future Members of Parliament, to say that if we sacrifice this parliamentary calendar to the Government's political agenda--and that is all it is--it is not as if there is any great emergency;

The member stood in 1988 and he foresaw situations such as this. He spoke against the practice of changing Standing Orders just to suit the government's political agenda. We have heard a great deal about that. This can be a dictatorship by a majority. We can overrule any Standing Order we want to if the government feels that way.

Imagine if the Liberals became sick and tired of the daily scandals of its own corruption and criminality and said that question period was too embarrassing for them, so they decided to get rid of question period and they brought in a motion to that effect. The opposition would not have an opportunity to question the ministers. That could happen if we allow things such as this to happen.

The parliamentary calendar is just as important a Standing Order as is question period, as is members' statements, as is all our routine proceedings and Standing Orders that we abide by. Changing those orders, like changing the rules in the middle of a hockey game, is undemocratic. It is unparliamentary. Imagine in a hockey game if one team was down and decided to play a couple of extra periods until it scored a few more goals. Once it was ahead, then it would end the game. That is exactly what we are talking about today. It is unparliamentary and undemocratic. His own member spoke against these types of tactics.

Does he agree with his colleague from Elmwood—Transcona that these kinds of parliamentary tactics are unparliamentary and undemocratic?

[Extension of Sitting Period, June 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am not sure if we have enough members in the House right now to listen to the fine speech the hon. member is about to give. I would like to know if you see quorum.

And the count having been taken:

[Extension of Sitting Period, June 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think the member is confused. My question was not about invoking closure because that has already been dealt with. I was talking about extending the sitting of the calendar.

[Extension of Sitting Period, June 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, what the member is voting to do is to overturn the Standing Orders. He is basically invoking a notwithstanding clause on the Standing Orders of the House.

I have only been here a short time and I know my colleague has only been here a short time, but there is a tremendous amount of precedence about the Standing Orders and the rules of the House. Both members' statements and question period fall under the Standing Orders.

What the member is proposing would be exactly the same as if the government said that it was too embarrassed by all the scandals. Every day there is another scandal of Liberal waste, corruption and mismanagement. If the Liberals said that since this was too damaging for their own party they would introduce a motion to cancel question period, they could have a very similarly worded motion saying that notwithstanding any Standing Order there will not be any question period until next fall, or something like that, to get rid of their own embarrassment.

What the member is proposing would establish a tremendous precedent and one that his party spoke vehemently against. Earlier today, my colleague from Sarnia—Lambton reminded the member of the right hon. Herb Gray speaking vociferously against such an attempt when a previous administration tried to extend the sitting of the House.

It is a bit like a hockey game. We play against the other team but we also play against the clock. Part of the legislative process is that we have a certain amount of time. Proposing to ignore the clock, in this case the parliamentary calendar, would be very similar to a hockey game where one side realizes that it is not winning so it makes a proposal to play an extra period because it wants a chance to win. I think that is very damaging.

Why does the hon. member think it is okay to bring in this type of notwithstanding clause that would roll over the tradition of democracy and the precedents of the House when his government spent months filibustering its own legislation? If this was such a priority, why did the Liberals not bring it up for debate back in May when they were bringing in all their own motions and then adjourning debate on their own motions? Why were they filibustering this very piece of legislation if now there is such a panic that we have to extend the sitting of the House?