House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2011, with 50% of the vote.
Marriage December 6th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that the member quoted scripture. Unfortunately, the part that she is referring to talks about taxation. I agree that people should pay their fair share of taxes, and I am glad to hear that the member agrees with that, hence our tax fairness plan.
Marriage December 6th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I agree that is an issue of debate, but we could always talk to the former member for Churchill and see if she feels differently.
The least democratic party which sits in the corner and which is whipping its members on this vote should allow its members to vote their conscience.
Marriage December 6th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I think there may be unanimity in that corner now and that is because they bounced the former member for Churchill out of their party.
Quite frankly, I think--
Marriage December 6th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that I chose to vote on a motion that I believe united Canadians. I hope the member voted the same way on that motion because I believe in Canada. I believe in a united Canada and I believe in this party as a party that is uniting Canadians from coast to coast.
On this issue, we know that if the majority of Canadians were polled and could vote, they would vote to redefine marriage in the traditional sense. The House may well vote differently, but that will not represent the constituents of Canada.
Marriage December 6th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise this evening to speak to this motion on behalf of the constituents of Peterborough, on behalf of my family, watching at home, and also on behalf of the thousands of supporters who have asked me to enter this debate.
The fundamental foundation of government in Canada is democracy. Ultimately, we elected officials are responsible to our constituents. In June 2005, democracy was betrayed by the former Government of Canada, in part because it did not allow a free vote in caucus and in part because it felt the need to rush the debate and move closure on the issue.
Many people in Canada were left both disillusioned by the former government's handling of the situation and angry that the government saw fit to redefine marriage as opposed to simply enshrining and extending equal rights and benefits to same sex couples.
The argument often used by those who profess to be people of faith and who voted in favour of redefining marriage is that there is a separation between church and state. I would humbly submit that, to begin with, that is an American principle. Second, the separation of church and state was set up to protect the church from the state, not the state from the church. The state has no business in the churches of the nation.
This is not a Charter of Rights and Freedoms issue. The charter reads:
Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:....
This passage in the charter specifically indicates that ultimately faith influences how this House makes law, as the supremacy of God will ultimately dictate how the laws of the land are crafted by parliamentarians.
I would like to refer to the words of Bishop Nicola De Angelis, presiding over the Peterborough diocese, a diocese that spans most of eastern and northeastern Ontario. It reads:
Dear Faithful in Christ,
Current circumstances lead me to address you on the subject of marriage. Our federal government resumes sitting in Ottawa today and in the near future the issue of marriage will be addressed in the House of Commons. A vote will be taken to determine if we, as a nation, should review this issue and restore marriage to its traditional and proper definition.
Marriage is the union of a man and a woman for their mutual support and for the conceiving of children who can brought up in the security of a family based on the stable life-long relationship of their parents. Marriage creates the setting for the domestic Church, where children will first learn about God and the blessings He has bestowed upon us. From marriage, through the family, flow love, charity and the basis of good citizenship dedicated to the common good. All great civilizations have had their beginnings and derived their strength from recognition of the key role of marriage and the family.
In June 2005, in contradiction to common sense and the experience of centuries, the Canadian government changed its definition of marriage from the union of a woman and a man to the union of two persons. The process by which this was done was flawed in a number of ways, not the least of which was the fact that our elected representatives were not allowed in all cases to vote in accordance with their consciences. This time, as Members of Parliament consider such a crucially important issue, their vote must be a free one.
The charter of rights does not speak of a right to marriage. Marriage is not an inherent right. Even churches do not marry all heterosexual couples who enter their doors. The churches can and do deny the marriage of some couples who come forward to them. There is no right to marriage, but there is a right to equality in Canada, and I would be among the first in this House to defend that right if it were ever challenged.
Other countries have looked at this issue. Indeed, the United Kingdom recently passed a civil partnership act, an act that specifically extended the rights of marriage to same sex couples. Perhaps some of the members of this House witnessed the ceremony of Sir Elton John not that long ago.
The manner in which the United Kingdom dealt with this issue was respectful to all citizens. It respected the churches. It respected tradition. It respected the rights of gay and lesbian citizens. It respected the democratic majority that opposed redefining marriage.
In France, the government is no longer involved in marriage. There, couples must first obtain a civil union from the state and then, if they wish, they may seek a religious or faith based marriage subsequent to obtaining their civil union.
Is Canada more progressive than the United Kingdom or France? Are we onto something that the overwhelming majority of nations have yet to figure out? I do not believe so.
I have received thousands and thousands of letters from my constituents asking, if not demanding, that I vote to restore traditional marriage at the soonest possible opportunity. In fact, I would venture to bet that every member in this House has been overwhelmed by the same requests. I ask members to set aside their partisanship and restore Canadians' faith in democracy, I call on all parties, their leaders and their whips to allow their members to vote freely.
Why would the New Democratic Party choose to be the least democratic party in the House? Its founding leader, the late Pastor Tommy Douglas, a Baptist minister, must be turning in his grave. His staunch beliefs would certainly not have allowed him to sit as a member of the NDP today.
This debate is about faith. It is about tradition and democracy betrayed. Parliament can enshrine equality for same sex couples and it should, but Parliament had no right to change the definition of marriage. I call on all members of the House to support the motion before them.
Marriage December 6th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I would just like to pick up a little bit on the hon. parliamentary secretary's question and ask the member a question. If this definition is cast in stone, to extend that, could it be three people who love each other? If it is just an extension of rights, could it be a relationship between people who are more closely related than currently defined? I would just like to know where we start and where we stop once we start redefining marriage.
Marriage December 6th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I think the member and I fundamentally agree. We both believe in the traditional definition of marriage. But we cannot get there without agreeing to reopen the debate in the first place. We can certainly talk about how this may create three classes of citizens, but we can do that in the debate.
If you believe in traditional marriage as you profess to do, please vote in favour of the motion.
Marriage December 6th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I serve on the finance committee with the hon. member and we do butt heads fairly routinely, but not on this issue. Does the hon. member believe that equality can be enshrined for same sex couples without changing the definition of marriage?
HIV-AIDS December 5th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, our government has stated and demonstrated that it is committed to the worldwide fight against AIDS, a dreadful, non-discriminating disease that affects millions of people around the globe.
It was widely reported that the Minister of International Cooperation participated in events on World AIDS Day on behalf of Canada's new government. Could the minister outline for this House our government's commitment to addressing the global AIDS issue?
Canada's Clean Air Act December 4th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I listened with tremendous interest to the speech just given by the hon. member from Toronto and I noticed that he did not recognize the smog problem in the area where he comes from. We know it is a problem in Peterborough.
Be that as it may, he also mentioned the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. It is funny that he referred to it. Since it was rewritten in 1999, it sat in the Liberal library collecting dust. The Liberals never used it or enforced it. They never did anything with it. From the moment they signed Kyoto, they never did anything. Their record on the environment is a record of failure.
This government has set out a vision, a vision for action that Canadians want. Whether the Liberals support it or not, Canadians do support action on the environment. I would like to know why the Liberals do not.