Bev Shipley

[Business of Supply, February 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, in the time I have I will reiterate what the Conservative government did in the last budget, which the NDP did not support and which really surprised me. We had tax cuts for the most vulnerable, those with the lowest incomes, and that took 650,000 people off the tax roll. Those are not the people at the top end. Those are the folks at the lower end who have low incomes.

We did more in one budget to help the poor in the country than the last government did over the last four or five years.

[Business of Supply, February 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member's concern and his passion about people living in poverty.

I want to talk to him a little bit about the universal child care program that is for everyone. It is $100 a month for every child under six. That reaches out to every family, regardless of their status in Canada, regardless of their financial situation. It allows, what we believe in this country, the fundamental basic values of families where they make the choice of child care, not those in institutions hired by bureaucracies to run them. We believe in families.

I also want to help out a little in terms of the last budget. In our last budget there were $20 billion in tax cuts over the next four or five years and 650,000 people off the tax roles. That is amazing. That is what we are doing as the Conservative government to help out those on low incomes.

[Business of Supply, February 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on this motion. Poverty is a complex issue for governments to deal with. It is much simpler for individuals who have to deal with it in their daily lives. For them it often comes down to survival. We as Conservatives in the new government recognize that life in today's Canada has to be much better than this.

The new government understands the need to take action on poverty. While we have a remarkable economy and 30 year highs in employment levels, we like all members of the House, want to ensure that all Canadians share in the benefits of this strong economy.

Canadians believe in people. Believing in people means helping our neighbours. Lending a hand is of tremendous importance to Canadians. This is especially so in my riding of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex and in rural Canada in general.

One of the things I have noted in following the debate is how little attention is being paid to rural Canada in the discussion of this motion. Rural Canada counts for a significant amount of the nation's wealth yet we still face our challenges. Perhaps it is because rural Canadians bear their burden with a quiet dignity and are often overlooked.

This motion touches on issues which affect rural Canadians also. Thank goodness the new government did not wait for motions like this to be debated before it began to take action.

It is important to acknowledge the work of Senator Segal just down the hall. He has observed that it is necessary for all levels of government to work together to address this issue. He calls for strategic investment, regulatory modernization, and labour force development to provide rural Canadians, especially those in the agriculture sector, with opportunities to take part in Canada's long term prosperity.

Rural poverty is something that needs attention. Poverty in rural Canada and indeed rural Canadians generally were ignored over the past 13 years of Liberal government. Liberals sat by and did nothing as BSE forced farmers into bankruptcy. They watched as CAIS was failing farmers.

Perhaps the most memorable thing the Liberals did in rural Canada was not for farmers but to farmers, where they jailed those who were simply looking to make a living by selling their grain. That is not a plan to combat poverty.

Conservatives and the new government understand that addressing the challenges of rural poverty requires thinking that goes beyond the mandate of a single ministry. This is a challenge that calls for a collaborative effort.

The Prime Minister and the new government are taking steps to get out of the silos that are sometimes built around programs and institutions. For instance, we have a rural secretariat which is situated in the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food but which works alongside other federal departments and with our provincial partners. The secretariat is helping to develop a more comprehensive understanding of issues concerning rural Canadians including poverty.

It is easy to allow walls to be built around departments. It takes real leadership to recognize those walls and break them down. That is what we have in this Prime Minister. The government is breaking down the walls between programs and policies that affect rural Canadians be they economic, social, environmental or cultural.

We want a government that recognizes the needs of rural Canadians. More importantly, we want a government that takes action when it is required. I would like to take a moment to look at what Canada's new government has been doing to address rural issues and poverty.

The government brought an end to the decade old softwood lumber dispute. Rural communities rely on industries and natural resources. In fact, one-third of Canadians are employed in industries that are directly or indirectly related to resources. Under the new government rural Canadians are seeing over $4 billion in tariffs returned to Canada.

Budget 2006, which the Liberals and the NDP did not support, included measures for the government to help Canadians through international pressures and disruptions of their livelihood.

We have worked with the United States to loosen trade restrictions on Canadian cattle after the BSE crisis. We have removed the tax liability faced by fishers when they transfer their fishing property. We have committed an additional $2.2 billion over five years to the municipal rural infrastructure fund.

Canada's new government also took action against poverty by reducing taxes and by other budget measures that leave more money in the pockets of Canadians, especially low income Canadians and rural families.

We cut the GST by 1%. We reduced personal income tax, improved credits for low income Canadians and look forward to more tax relief in a few weeks when our budget comes down on March 19.

We are delivering choice in child care through the universal child care benefit which provides families with $100 per month for each child under six so that parents can make the decision on how they want to look after their children.

We have invested in skills and education by providing a tax credit to employers who hire apprentices and through grants to first and second year apprentices. The Liberals opposed each of those, as did the NDP.

The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food made changes to the CAIS program and these changes are welcomed by rural Canadians. As a result, over $950 million are being returned to the pockets of producers. We implemented a crop protection program to help farmers affected by the flooding in 2005 and 2006.

The minister introduced a two year pilot project for low income farms and farm families that will help rural families in need with the tools to earn a better living on and off the farm; 1,400 producers and over $130 million has gone out.

Rural Canadian agriculture producers are able to face down poverty as a result of this government. Over $5 billion in government support will find its way to producers before the end of this fiscal year.

The importance of rural Canada to all Canadians is clear. Canadians are pleased to see a government that shares their views on what is important. Canada's new government is working hard to fight against poverty in Canada.

We are taking action for those on our farms, those in our small resource communities, those living on reserves and those in our cities. I am proud to part of a government that is doing so much to fight poverty in rural Canada.

One level of government cannot do it alone. Indeed, governments cannot act alone. We need provinces and local governments. We need those living within our communities to take part in the solutions.

Together we can make a tremendous difference. Together we can work to ensure all citizens, rural, urban, aboriginal and new Canadians, build Canada's prosperity and take part in that prosperity.

[Business of Supply, February 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member. I respect and appreciate the amount of compassion that she has. In fact, in earlier days when she was an MPP, she was my representative in Middlesex county.

I really wonder, though, in terms of the hard work she did back then as a member of the provincial government, and in leaving the province of Ontario basically broke at the end of her party's tenure, what did the member's party actually do in terms of poverty issues in Ontario at that time?

[Marriage, December 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the motion we will vote on tomorrow is fairly straightforward. It is the motion is in front of us and it is the motion I will support.

[Marriage, December 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, tonight is the basis of his request. The whole debate is about a definition of marriage and the motion to reinstate the traditional definition of marriage of that between a man and a woman.

I hope he supports the motion. If he believes that to be the true definition of marriage, I hope he will stand tomorrow when we vote and support that.

[Marriage, December 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, this is such a great country that we live in. We have the opportunity to make choices, the opportunity to stand up and debate as we are doing tonight, and to have freedom of expression on issues that are so important to the future of this country because of the basis of what it was founded upon.

The UN talks about, in a declaration on human rights, that what must take priority over the rights of adults, referring to those more vulnerable and requiring the support of the state, are children and they are entitled to the best possible circumstances to be raised.

That is what this whole debate is about. It is about the fundamentals of what this country was based on. It is about the definition of marriage and it is about the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of others.

[Marriage, December 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, indeed it is an honour for me to rise tonight in the House to support the motion to re-open the traditional definition of marriage. I also rise today for my constituents who have overwhelmingly communicated to me that they support our government's efforts in re-opening this debate. I must say that I also have the pleasure of personally sharing the same view as the majority of my constituents.

I cannot stress enough how passionate the constituents of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex feel about this issue. Of the thousands of letters, calls and emails that I have received from my constituents on this issue, they have voiced their displeasure in the changing of the definition of marriage. I have also received numerous petitions from my constituents calling on our government to revisit this debate and restore the traditional definition of marriage. Every day more of my constituents come forward to express their disapproval of the changes in the definition of marriage, changes that were made without the free will of Parliament.

Marriage has been an honoured institution that has stood the test of time and is one of the key foundations on which our society has been built. For thousands of years marriage has been recognized as the union of one man and one woman. Since Confederation and until recently marriage in Canadian law has been defined as the voluntary union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

I along with the majority of my constituents believe that the traditional Canadian marriage debate needs to be revisited and eventually agreed upon by a free and democratic vote in this House.

I must also mention that I hold the view that same sex couples deserve the same rights as those involved in traditional union. I believe that same sex couples should have the same financial, property and other forms of rights as traditional couples, and that the meaning of the term marriage be preserved as the union between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

I do not believe in denying certain groups their rights while enhancing the rights of others. I would find it difficult to support any legislation that would impose on the freedoms that Canadians enjoy. I feel that religious institutions have been denied a full say in this debate and in turn have seen their religious freedoms put at risk. I find it worrisome that priests and ministers can be disciplined in refusing to marry same sex couples.

Earlier this year France rejected the marriage of same sex couples because of the effect that same sex marriages have on children. The French published a report that raised many important questions. In the report the commission said that the child represents the future of society. The commission also asked French legislators to ensure that children confronted with alterations in family models be taken into account and not suffer from situations imposed upon them by adults. It added that the interest of the child must take precedence over the lifestyle choices of adults.

This is a stern reminder that children have rights, rights that need to be taken into account. It is a reminder that our personal lifestyle preferences should never take precedence over those of our children.

The last time this issue was before the House our Prime Minister, then Leader of the Opposition, was the only national leader in the House who allowed a free vote. We also saw members of our caucus and then members of our shadow cabinet who voted differently than their leader. I am proud to be a member of a party that believes in the right to uphold one's beliefs.

In this party we support a member's democratic right to vote with his or her conscience. Unfortunately, this right was not supported by the previous leadership of the Liberal Party. Hopefully, the new Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition, along with the leaders of the New Democratic Party and the Bloc Québécois will right this wrong and allow their caucuses to practise their democratic right and allow a free vote on this issue.

A traditional marriage debate is very important to many Canadians. It is an emotional debate that has critics on both sides of the issue. By having a free vote in the House, it is my hope that Canadians will be provided with a sober judgment, a judgment that this Parliament has failed to deliver.

Canadians have put their trust in this House via their elected representatives with the understanding that their democratic voices would be heard. I feel that we should grant them that opportunity on this very important issue. I am proud to stand in this House tonight to defend tradition and to defend my constituents on the very basis of accountable democracy which sees all members of this House as servants of the people and not the masters. We are the ones who take the word of the people and bring it to this House, the highest democratic chamber in the land.

During the last campaign, our party made it very clear to Canadians that we would bring the traditional marriage debate to the House and encourage other parties to have a free vote. Once again our Prime Minister has shown leadership and integrity in his commitment to Canadians. He has shown leadership and set an example of how democracy can and should work in this country.

On January 23 of this year, Canadians gave our party a mandate, a mandate which I talked about and which our Prime Minister is fulfilling. Democracy has not had such an opportunity to live and to grow in this country for quite some time. The last 11 months have been refreshing for Canadians who have witnessed honesty, integrity and accountability in its government. Giving the Parliament of Canada a free vote on the traditional marriage issue is just one of the many examples of the Prime Minister's commitment to democracy in this country.

I am blessed and fortunate that I can stand in this great chamber tonight, in this great chamber of Parliament, and know that I will have the freedom to vote my conscience and the wishes of my constituents on this very important motion. This decision is fundamental to the basis of what this country was founded upon, that marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. I ask that all members support this motion.

[Interparliamentary Delegations, December 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the delegation of the OSCE Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association on the 15th annual session of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly held in Brussels, Belgium, from July 3 to 7.

Pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I also have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the delegation of the OSCE Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association on the expanded bureau meeting of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly held in Copenhagen, Denmark on April 24.

Also pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the delegation of the OSCE Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association on the International Referendum Observation Mission for the Referendum on the State-Status of Montenegro.

[Auditor General's Report, November 29th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, yet again we have the Auditor General's report that highlights the years of Liberal waste and mismanagement.

We learned that former football star and correctional investigator, Ron Stewart, wracked up at least $325,000 of improper payments. What was the Liberals' response? The member for Malpeque congratulated him for doing such a good job, calling him “committed, engaged and accessible”. I guess that is what passes for Liberal accountability.

This is unacceptable behaviour and that is why we have asked the RCMP to launch a criminal investigation into the missing money. We will not ignore the Auditor General's report. We will tackle the Auditor General's concerns and make real and lasting changes with a plan of action.

Thank goodness for a new government in town that is committed to bringing true accountability to Ottawa. It is time for the Liberal MPs to take a stand against corruption and tell the unelected Liberal senators to pass the accountability act today.