David Anderson

[Petitions, May 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have several petitions dealing with the post office issue, where people call upon Parliament to take their side and prohibit the closure of rural post offices.

[Petitions, May 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have several petitions.

The first petition deals with the marriage issue. The petitioners call upon Parliament to define marriage in federal law as being the lifelong union of one man and one woman.

[Foreign Affairs, May 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, this directly affects Canadians because 30% of the value of the contract disappeared through shipping delays and what are referred to as transfers to other buyers, whatever they are. That sounds like even more corruption. Huge losses on corrupt contracts would be a real surprise around here.

How did the Wheat Board and its exporters manage to lose $8 million out of a $23 million illegal deal with Iraq?

[Foreign Affairs, May 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, things are never as they seem with the government. As we heard this morning, scandal permeates it.

We have heard this week that Maurice Strong, the Prime Minister's financial benefactor and mentor, has been tied to the oil for food scandal, but he is not the only one. The Canadian Wheat Board is a government agency. It illegally arranged sales to the same program through one of its accredited exporters and 30% of the value of that sale disappeared.

Why did the government allow its agencies to participate illegally in this oil for food debacle?

[Civil Marriage Act, May 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, as I did in my first speech, I first want to acknowledge the folks who have spent a lot of time trying to get support for this bill and encouraging us and standing behind us. Some folks have spent quite a bit of time in Ottawa, in particular I think of the Christian Brethren organization which has been very supportive of us and has stood strongly for the definition of traditional marriage, along with many of the other religious organizations that have been true to what they believe in.

The last time I talked a little bit about the inconsistency of this cabinet and the problems within it in terms of knowing where it is going to stand and having it change its position regularly. I talked a little bit about the Prime Minister and how he has changed his position. It did not bother him to move from one position to the other. At one time he was defending the traditional definition of marriage and now he has gone beyond simply opposing it, seeing it as a charter right, to overturn it.

I talked a little bit about the present Minister of Citizenship and Immigration who, in front of churches, made a tearful plea to them to support him because he would stand up for their beliefs and for the traditional definition of marriage, only to find out that as soon as he left that church he changed his position.

We have the present Deputy Prime Minister who in 1999 voted against changing the traditional definition of marriage. She voted to support the traditional definition of marriage. She said that the Liberals would definitely never move to change the definition of marriage. From her conversation we find out how really good, accurate and true the word of a Liberal is. She has since changed her position on that as well.

My own minister from Saskatchewan, the finance minister, also has flip-flopped on this position, as he has on so many other issues. He favoured the traditional definition of marriage at one point in 1999 but he now opposes it. Although we know the people of Saskatchewan overwhelmingly support the traditional definition of marriage, he chooses to run contrary to that. Once again he has failed to represent the people of his province, as he has on so many other issues.

The last time I spoke about agricultural issues where farmers did not get the Crow payment that had been promised to them. The finance minister was responsible for changes to the Canadian Wheat Board which ended up with farmers being put in jail. It has only been in the last few days that we find out that what he did the courts have thrown out.

The issue of equalization has been talked about in the House and about how the finance minister betrayed his own province and refused to stand up for Saskatchewan. Instead, he sent ministers out last week to promise $22 million for day care. In the meantime, the minister is taking something like $8 billion out of our economy that he refuses to put back into his province. This is the kind of consistency that we get not only on the marriage issue, but on a host of other issues as well.

We have listened to the Prime Minister dither on many issues. I mentioned earlier that the Prime Minister has once again changed his position on the definition of marriage. He now thinks that this is an issue of human rights. We think the issue of marriage is a social policy issue and not one of human rights.

If it is an issue of human rights it is interesting that the Prime Minister has chosen not to force his caucus to vote for it. How can this be a charter right when the Prime Minister has told half the caucus they can vote how they want and the other half to vote the way he wants them to vote?

We heard quite eloquently how many of the backbenchers on the other side are actually being whipped and forced to vote against their conscience. The Prime Minister does not come forward and is not straight on the issue. On the one hand he says that it is an issue of rights but on the other hand he is allowing some people to vote freely while others must vote with him.

It is interesting that he uses this issue of rights to cover the bad position in which he finds himself. Once again, he is completely out of touch with Canadians and the positions that they hold.

What is even worse than inconsistency is intolerance and deception. This spring another minister came very close to running into that position of really showing just how intolerant the Liberal side is when he declared that churches should actually stay out of this discussion. I think the words were that they should “butt out”. His quote was that “the separation of church and state is a beautiful thing”. What he meant by that was that the churches have no say in matters of social policy and social conscience.

I think almost all Canadians would understand that the reason churches exist is to have a say in social policy, social issues and to put their positions forward.

We live in a democracy that up until now has guaranteed both freedom of speech and freedom of religion. We expect that would continue. I am not so sure that the other side even thinks that is important at all.

The intolerant attitude that was shown by the Minister of Foreign Affairs is unacceptable, especially coming from a person in a position of power and who could do something to effect those freedoms. I think that is why people were concerned and worried about his comments.

Cabinet ministers do have the power to carry out what they choose. In this case the minister chose to say that it was okay to be intolerant and to force churches and people who held personal beliefs not to participate in the public realm in this country. We fundamentally disagree with that because the Conservative Party believes in the freedom of religion and speech.

The minister totally misunderstood the principle of separation of church and state. That does not mean that people involved with churches and have religious faith do not have the ability to speak out. They do. The separation of church and state is a concept whereby the church is protected from the power of the state. Once again, we insist that the government back off on its pressure on the voices of those who have faith in our country and want to express that faith.

The second issue involves deception again. I am speaking about the misinformation being spread by the government regarding the protection of religious rights in the legislation. The government has tried to leave the impression with Canadians that religious rights would be protected, but that is not so. If people look at the legislation, and look at it in light of the Supreme Court ruling, they would see the protection of religious rights is not guaranteed. The Supreme Court said that it could not do that.

The Supreme Court clearly said that although religious rights should be protected, there were areas in which it could not involve itself. It insisted that defining marriage was a federal responsibility, but that the administration, the solemnization of marriage, was provincial jurisdiction. The government has been pretending that is not the case. It has been schizophrenic on this position, saying that it will protect religious rights, yet it does not have the power.

I believe the deputy government House leader said that commissioners who did not perform same sex marriages should lose their jobs. Once again a senior member of government has taken the position that if this is against people's personal beliefs and conscience, they should be forced to step aside. They should be forced to perform these marriages. We are beginning to see the kind of coercion the government expects to exert on this issue and by extension, on other issues of social policy as well.

In my province the idea of interference in people's religious and personal beliefs has already begun. The provincial government has insisted that commissioners who do not want to perform these ceremonies have to step down. Several have been forced to do that. Other provinces are doing the same thing.

For the government to leave the impression that somehow it is protecting religious rights, is misleading Canadians at best and completely deceiving them at worst. The court ruled that the clause dealing with the protection of religious rights was basically unconstitutional. It could not ensure those rights would be protected because for a large part they were provincial jurisdiction.

The federal government has not protected the power of Parliament as it should have. It cannot be trusted to protect religious freedoms. The government has no credibility in that area at all.

The Conservative Party is proposing something different. We are proposing a middle ground. We want to make amendments to the legislation to protect the definition of marriage. We want to legally recognize other relationships such as same sex marriage. This is a major change for our society. This issue should be freely debated because it is a social policy issue rather than a right. We believe all members in the House should have a free vote on this issue.

I want to state the obvious, which is I will continue to support the traditional definition of marriage. I would like to reiterate the words of Justice La Forest who, in the last major words of the Supreme Court, recognized the importance and uniqueness of traditional marriage. He said:

Marriage has from time immemorial been firmly grounded in our legal tradition, one that is itself a reflection of long-standing philosophical and religious traditions. But its ultimate raison d'être transcends all of these and is firmly anchored in the biological and social realities that heterosexual couples have the unique ability to procreate, that most children are the product of these relationships, and that they are generally cared for and nurtured by those who live in that relationship.

We pray and ask the government to hear these words and apply them to its legislation.

[Question No. 112, May 2nd, 2005]

Specifying for each the date it was awarded, amounts payable, a description, the name of supplier and whether the contract was awarded through open competition or sole-sourced, what contracts were awarded by the Business Development Bank of Canada to the following companies: ( a ) Lafleur Communications; ( b ) Groupaction; ( c ) Groupe Everest; ( d ) Media I.D.A. Vision Inc.; ( e ) Tremblay Guittet Communications; ( f ) Gosselin, Vickers and Benson; ( g ) BCA Group Ltd.; ( h ) Groupe Polygone; ( i ) EKOS; and ( j ) Earnscliffe?

(Return tabled)

[Question No. 111, May 2nd, 2005]

What criteria did the Business Development Bank of Canada use in the awarding of contracts from 1994 to 2004 and what changes, if any, were made to the criteria over that time?

[Grain Transportation, April 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the government screws up everything it touches. It owns 13,000 hopper cars which it has decided to dispose of, but it will not hold an open procurement process. Originally, the Liberals said that they would only deal with one group. Now a second Liberal friendly organization has the opportunity to buy cars. All the other producer groups are completely frozen out.

What is going on here? What is the minister trying to hide as he disposes of a $200 million asset?

[Income Tax Act, April 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, discussions have taken place between all parties concerning the recorded division that was requested yesterday on my private member's Bill C-285, and I believe that you would find consent for the following motion. I move:

That the motion for second reading of Bill C-285 be deemed carried on division.

[Income Tax Act, April 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to be back again debating the second hour of the bill.

I want to take a little bit of time to thank some of the people who have been involved in the debate today. It was great to have the support from the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord. He did a very good job in laying out some of the implications of the bill.

I want to thank the member for Winnipeg Centre who spoke in favour of the bill as well. Some of my colleagues who have been involved in it from the beginning were the member for Prince Albert; the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt, who spoke; and the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster, who has been a big help in this as well. I want to thank the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke for her intervention.

I cannot forget Roy Bailey. He is not a member any longer, but he carried the torch on this for a long time. Other people have also taken up the cause, such as Don Cherry, and the member for Edmonton—Leduc, who sits near me, has made an effort to be here just so that he could contribute and support the bill.

I was a little concerned earlier when I heard the member for Miramichi debating the bill because the Liberals are in enough trouble now without also opposing amateur athletics in this country. One would think they would learn at some point, but they seem to continue in their imbalance.

I want to talk a little bit about the bill, and lay out once again where it came from and what is happening with it. There are approximately 130 tier two junior A hockey teams in Canada. The players have always been considered amateurs in these leagues. They receive room and board, and a small monthly stipend of $100 to $200. They play for fun. They are not playing for money, so they play hockey in the wintertime.

The allowances that they receive, both the billeting and the small expense allowance, were never taxable until 2001 when the tax department came thundering into Saskatchewan. It decided to audit some of these teams and make a determination as to whether or not these young players were employees. Unfortunately, that is exactly what the tax department ruled. It ruled that the small monthly stipend and the billeting amounts were to be considered as income.

The tax department was basically scared off the whole project because there was a real public outcry in Saskatchewan. It backed off on this and it had not really come to the forefront until just recently, when the revenue minister sent out a memo reasserting the government's intention to consider these hockey players as employees of the hockey teams.

That is actually where the bill came out of that. A number of us were very concerned about it and came forward with the bill. It is a very simple bill. I do not have a lot of time today to talk about it. It is just one paragraph that amends the Income Tax Act. It excludes income that is received by an athlete from a non profit club or association. That is all it says in the one paragraph. It excludes income for the year not exceeding $8,000 received by an athlete from a non profit club, society or association that is operated exclusively for the purpose of improving athletic performance and promoting amateur athletics.

The bill is pretty straightforward. It is not nearly as complicated as the member for Miramichi was trying to make it. He recognized that amateur athletes already receive a tax free stipend. As some of the athletes are already getting that, we are just trying to extend it a little bit further.

He also argued it is unfair because others do not get this break, but in reality others are not being crushed by the tax department. He talked about art, ballet and music. If young people in those areas were receiving a little bit of money, a stipend from some of their associations, and if the bill did not cover it, we would hope that the government would be willing to go along with an amendment that would include them. We have no problem with including them in this and they should be included.

I would like to thank the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord for doing an excellent job of breaking down the figures and pointing out that the average athlete pays about 16% income tax. This would save them all of $1,280 a year, which is significant for the athletes, but does not cost the government anything.

I would like to encourage members to support the legislation. It champions amateur athletics. We look forward to its quick passage in the House and to every member supporting it.