Ed Fast

[Marriage, December 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the member totally misunderstood the motion. I would be surprised if she had read it with that kind of question. In fact, the motion makes it very clear that we are looking for the protection of the rights of all Canadians whether they are married or they enter into same sex relationships.

What the member does not understand is that a large majority of Canadians, when polled on the question, have responded by saying that they are totally in favour of retaining the traditional definition of marriage provided that the rights of all others are protected who may not choose that kind of relationship.

I want to assure the member that if this motion passes in the House, I am absolutely confident that we will bring forward legislation which will address the needs of those who do not want to be married in the traditional sense of the word.

[Marriage, December 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I very much value this opportunity to speak on this very important subject. Tomorrow the House will vote on whether to reconsider the issue of same sex marriage. The motion before the House affirms the traditional definition of marriage while at the same time defending the charter rights of those wishing to live in same sex relationships.

The tragedy is that had the former Liberal government properly consulted with Canadians on this issue, we would not have to have this debate tonight. The Liberal performance on this highly contentious issue has been appalling. Rather than listening carefully to Canadians and then allowing a completely free vote by members of this House, the Liberals instead rammed Bill C-38 through in order to avoid any further scrutiny.

What is even more appalling is that the prime minister of the day, the member for LaSalle—Émard, forced his cabinet and parliamentary secretaries to vote against their consciences and against the wishes of their constituents. Shame. Sadly, it appears that nothing has changed. There is a new Liberal leadership, but still the same bullying tactics.

In fact, the new leader from Saint-Laurent—Cartierville voted in favour of the traditional definition of marriage just seven years ago. In 2005, he voted against the definition of marriage. Yesterday, he implied that all Liberals would have to vote against the traditional definition of marriage. Today, he says they will not.

This is embarrassing, not only to the Liberal leader and his party but also to Canadians as a whole. Canadians demand transparency. They demand clarity. They demand freedom of conscience and they demand a democratic process, things they were not getting from the previous government.

Today, under a new Conservative government, we are delivering on a promise which we made to Canadians during the last federal election. We promised a truly free vote on the definition of marriage and today we are delivering on that promise. It is indeed sad that a number of the opposition parties have refused to allow the same thing for their members of Parliament.

To any Canadian who respects the democratic process, this vote is absolutely necessary and perhaps the crux of this is respect. That is why we are having this debate tonight. The previous government lacked respect for the strongly held convictions of millions of Canadians. There was a lack of respect for beliefs held by people of faith all across Canada. There was no need to change the definition of marriage in order for gays and lesbians to establish meaningful, long term relationships that are recognized in law.

However, the previous government decided to move ahead anyway without consulting Canadians in a meaningful way. In the process it has divided the country when it was totally unnecessary to do so. By redefining the term “marriage” we tell people of faith from all religions that their opinions, their freedom of conscience and speech, and their strong convictions are not important in the public debate.

This debate tonight is about respect. We are not asking to re-open this debate because it polarizes Canadians. We are asking to re-open this debate because the issue was not settled by Canadians, it was dictated to Canadians.

This is not an issue of protecting charter rights. This motion is very clear. It recognizes the traditional definition of marriage while at the same time respecting the rights of all Canadians to enter into legally protected same sex relationships if they so choose.

Unlike the previous vote on June 29, 2005, our government has proclaimed that this vote on marriage will be a free vote to all government members, including cabinet ministers and parliamentary secretaries, but the freedom that prevails in the Conservative Party has not unfortunately been afforded to everyone in this House. That is the tragedy of tonight's debate. Something as important as defining one of the cornerstones of our society, namely the definition of marriage, will not receive the consideration that it is entitled to.

Bill C-38, which originally changed the definition of marriage to include same sex relationships, was conceived in haste, promoted by stealth, and passed undemocratically by the previous government under a whipped vote.

I was not present in this House when this issue was last debated. I have read some of the speeches and statements made on both sides of the issue. I believe that all of the reasons against changing the definition of marriage were well articulated by many of our members while Bill C-38 was debated and I do not think I need to recapitulate all of those reasons here tonight, but I do want to say a little about my own community of Abbotsford, British Columbia.

Abbotsford is a multi-ethnic and multi-faith community, incredibly diverse and incredibly tolerant. This is a community that has temples and churches. It has communities of all faiths. I carried out a survey in my community. In the survey that I conducted, an overwhelming majority of my constituents believed that this was a very important issue, and they let me know in no uncertain terms that they believed we should return to the traditional definition of marriage.

During the last election, I made my position and my support for the traditional definition of marriage very clear to the people of Abbotsford. That is why I am completely at peace when voting in support of this motion which is to reconsider the issue of redefining marriage, to return that definition to the union of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others.

Of course, the previous government did not want to listen to people who did not share its thoughts on marriage. It showed a lack of respect and a lack of respect for people of faith. That is why we are debating this matter tonight because, for most Canadians, especially those who embrace religious convictions, this issue is not closed.

Same sex couples may enter into whatever manner of relationship, arrangement or situation that they may desire, but they should not call it marriage because that is a concept that has been clearly understood for millennia. Same sex couples, whether as a couple or as individuals, possess the same democratic and economic rights as any other Canadians in our society. In fact, given the high level of tolerance and acceptance in our society, gays and lesbians can hardly be considered disadvantaged or lacking any of the rights and freedoms that all Canadians take for granted.

I took the liberty of reviewing the same sex reference case, which was a Supreme Court of Canada decision on this very issue. My friend across the way suggested that it is now established law that we must redefine marriage as including same sex relationships. I studied that decision very carefully and the member across the floor will know that the Supreme Court was asked four questions. It answered three of those, one of them being whether it would be against the charter to actually redefine marriage as including same sex relationships. However, the third question the Supreme Court of Canada deliberately chose not to answer, and that was, if we retain the traditional definition of marriage, is that a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? The Supreme Court could have ruled on that. It had the opportunity. In fact, it chose not to, clearly referring the matter back to this House of Commons, the duly elected representatives of this country.

It is on that basis that I can fully support this motion. I believe in the traditional definition of marriage, that we can retain that without violating the charter, provided that we have legislation in place which also protects the rights of same sex couples to enter into civil unions.

[Aboriginal Affairs, December 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in the presence of a very enthusiastic group of British Columbia students, all parties in this House came together to support Bill C-34, the first nations jurisdiction over education in British Columbia act, truly a historic event.

Could the Minister of Indian Affairs please inform the House of the key elements in this bill and how it is important for aboriginal generations to come?

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, December 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, despite the member's comments on this important issue, it is very clear that the industry across Canada supports the softwood lumber agreement. He somehow made a connection between the Wheat Board and the softwood lumber agreement. What he has done is reaffirmed the fact that the NDP is a party of big monopolies and a party opposed to choice in the market.

What was more disturbing was that earlier in committee his party which takes pride in calling itself the New Democratic Party acted incredibly undemocratically by filibustering. In fact, it was the member for Burnaby—New Westminster who filibustered on the softwood lumber agreement, an agreement that Canadians are asking us to pass.

Would the member not agree with me that the actions of his colleague the member for Burnaby—New Westminster clearly were intended to frustrate the will of the House and the committee and were grossly undemocratic?

[Business of Supply, November 28th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I sense there is a credibility gap here. In fact, there is an odour wafting through the House and it is emanating from that member's desk. It is the odour of hypocrisy.

I remind the member that for 13 years it was her Liberal government that slashed over $25 billion from transfers to the provinces, much of that in the area of health care. Under the regime of her Liberal government, health care wait lists doubled. They were not reduced.

Despite all the blather we have heard from that member, would she please tell us how she can defend such an appalling Liberal record? How does she expect that kind of an appalling record to be remedied in the space of the 10 months in which this government has been in power?

[Business of Supply, November 28th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my friend's comments. Of course he was critical of the progress, or lack thereof, on wait times guarantees. However, I think the member will agree, given the fact that our government has only been in power for some 10 months, that it is somewhat ambitious for him to suggest that by now we should have solved all of Canada's health problems.

In fact, first I would remind him that we recently have implemented a pilot project to implement wait times for first nations. Then I want to remind him of his own party's record. In fact, over 13 years of Liberal government rule in this country, we saw $25 billion in cutbacks in transfers to provincial governments. Wait times doubled during those 13 years.

I have a question for the member. How is it that his government was unable to achieve wait times guarantees, unable to fund a national cancer strategy and unable to address autism in Canada during those 13 years, yet he expects our government to have solved all of the problems his government created in 13 years?

[Aboriginal Affairs, November 23rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, 10 years ago this week the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples released its report on the status of Canada's Indian, Inuit and Métis. Sadly, after more than a decade in power, the former Liberal government was given a failing grade by the Assembly of First Nations. In fact, it received eight Fs for failing to act on the educational recommendations in that report.

Can the minister tell us what Canada's new government is doing to improve opportunities for future aboriginal generations?

[Business of Supply, November 23rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the member's comments and I am little bit puzzled.

A few minutes ago I was listening to the member for Papineau, who is also a member of the Bloc. He was vigorously stating that this was not a partisan motion which the Bloc brought forward, that there was no hidden agenda, that it was just a clarification of Quebec rights.

Yet I heard the member for Trois-Rivières make comments about how she favours sovereignty. She would like to see Quebec as an independent nation. She talked about wanting to be free as a separate nation. She spoke about wanting to be able to sign contracts and agreements apart from Canada.

It certainly sounds from her comments that the motion her party has put forward is indeed partisan and does reflect a very clear sovereignist agenda. Yet her colleague in the Bloc stated the exact opposite. He simply claimed that the motion was non-partisan and there was no hidden agenda. So which is it?

[Business of Supply, November 23rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my friend's comments and one word jumped out at me. It was the word “neutral”. He referred to the Bloc motion as being a neutral motion. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, my experience in the House has been that the Bloc and its actions within the House typically have a partisan nature to them.

It has already been said many times that it was very clear from the motion that this was intended to create a mischief within the House to promote division within Canada. If in fact the member wants clarity and wants to get rid of the ambiguity, why does he not support our motion which simply clarifies that Quebeckers are a nation within a united Canada?

[Petitions, November 23rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to table in the House today a petition containing hundreds of signatures from my riding of Abbotsford and signatures from across the great province of British Columbia. They have been collected by justice advocate, Gertie Pool.

The petition informs Parliament that citizens wish to see repeat sexual offenders, like Peter Whitmore, kept away from our communities and children. It goes on to say that my private member's bill, Bill C-277, which would increase the maximum sentence for luring a child for sexual purposes over the Internet from 5 to 10 years in prison, would renew faith in the House if passed. Our children deserve no less.