Gary Schellenberger

[An Act to authorize the Minister of Finance to make certain payments, June 16th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think there were a lot of details in Bill C-43. I have dealt with affordable housing issues. We have heard the minister stand over there and tell us that there is $1.5 billion in Bill C-48.

If I were negotiating a deal, I would have put some teeth into it to ensure that the government spends the money. I sat and listened to stakeholders in my riding. The stakeholders in my riding heard one thing and then when the bill came out it was something different. I would have hoped that Bill C-48 would have had some teeth in it. It is $4.6 billion sitting there for the government to spend at will whenever it feels like it. That is where I stand.

[An Act to authorize the Minister of Finance to make certain payments, June 16th, 2005]

I do not need much help with big numbers because it states in clause 1, “the Minister of Finance may, in respect of fiscal year 2005-2006”, and he may not, “the Minister of Finance may, in respect of fiscal year 2006-2007” and he may not “shall not exceed”. It does not say “will” not exceed. It says “shall not exceed”. It means that there is no minimum.

My point is that Bill C-48 has nothing for Canadians. I have dealt with affordable housing issues for the longest time and $360 million have been stuck in the affordable housing market for I do not know how long. The money cannot get out because the government attaches strings to it so it cannot be spent.

When I came to the House, $1 billion was put into infrastructure. Today there is still roughly $1 billion and it has just started to be paid out in this last little while. It sat there for over a year.

Do we feel that this $4.6 billion will ever be paid out. I doubt that very much.

I want to speak to the bill today because it speaks to one of the fundamental reasons for all of us to be here. The most important reason for any member to come to the House should be out of the desire to help make families' lives better. That is my goal and I know it is shared by my colleagues in the Conservative Party of Canada.

We need to strive to bring forth legislation that helps Canadians make our country the most prosperous nation in the world. Canadians deserve the highest standard of living in the world. We want an environment in which each and every Canadian may have a job. Economic growth and opportunity should not just exist in certain pockets of the nation but should be a reality in all areas and all regions of Canada.

Canadians should not have to move from their place of birth in order to chase opportunity. Canadians should not have to abandon their traditions and local culture as well as their family ties in a region simply to chase a dollar.

The Conservatives want for Canadians what every mother and father all across Canada want: for children to get a good quality education that eventually leads to a good job in a safe and secure environment, to perhaps start their own business, to own their own home, to put away some extra money to secure their future retirement and be able to go out for the occasional pizza or afford tickets to a ball or hockey game.

If we do a good enough job maybe Canadians can have those things but it will only happen if we as parliamentarians make sure governments spend within their means and do not overspend and do not overtax.

My biggest problem with the bill is that it calls for additional money to be spent without a clear plan. My problem is not with the money for affordable housing, for the environment, for foreign aid, for post-secondary education and for aboriginal housing. Everything that is in the bill is good quality but there is no plan on how it is ever going to be spent. I cannot support the bill because it is just vague.

Mr. Speaker, please forgive me for this, but I have trouble trusting the government. We have seen from the government in the past that it cannot be trusted with blank cheques. Whenever we let the Liberal government spend taxpayer money without a plan, it is an absolute blueprint for waste and mismanagement.

The Deputy Prime Minister said, “This is not just a Liberal budget. It is a Liberal-NDP budget”. If all this increased spending is such a good idea, then why did the Liberals not have it in their initial budget.

Canadians see this budget for what it is: a bad deal by a desperate Liberal government to cling to power no matter the cost and with no consideration for the crushing burden this may place on young Canadians.

What about those who actually believe some of the Liberal government's promises and who actually believe it will follow through with them? We will just see more broken promises, more plans made that are never completed and more undelivered goods.

I have spoken before in the House about the terrible shame of false hope. Bill C-48 is another sad example of the terrible effects of false hope. The Liberal government should stop letting down those in society who most need government assistance and services.

This is very troubling because I and my colleagues in the Conservative Party recognize that the Liberal government is not currently able to offer Canadians the kind of social assistance they require. Often it is because the Liberals, as in Bill C-48, choose to write cheques with taxpayer money without first having a plan in place. This can be envisioned in the various agricultural plans that have fallen on their face in the last two years.

Why would we throw more money at a problem when the current policy is not meeting the objectives? As Conservatives, we have tried to be constructive and to assist in the budget process. At committee, however, the Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition defeated attempts by my Conservative colleagues to restore principles of prudent fiscal management and real solutions for Canadians in this budget.

This leaves us in somewhat of a difficult position. Canadians see this money being offered and they view votes on the budget as Christmas eve, but once the budget passes, they are surprised the next morning after they wake up and there are no presents waiting for them under the tree.

In my own riding, the council of the municipality of Stratford even passed a motion asking me to vote to pass the budget. I have tried to make everyone in my riding aware that the Conservatives would honour Liberal promised tax revenues being returned to the city. In fact, it was a Conservative idea to begin with.

We on this side understand that there will not be any actual presents for Canadians, just promises, and we will not play that game. The assumption that tax revenues will not be directed to Canadian municipalities with the defeat of the Liberal government is simply not true.

The Conservative Party of Canada has clearly indicated it will honour the deals that have been previously negotiated by the Liberal government, including such initiatives as gas tax transfers, the Atlantic accord and the child care agreements between the federal government and the provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba, even if those child care agreements do not cover everyone.

As a businessman and as a parliamentarian, I have always believed that the workers are the most important asset of any business. Supporting the workers of this country is one of the reasons that I support the corporate tax cuts that were announced in the original budget. It was estimated that these tax breaks could produce as many as 300,000 new jobs. I find it surprising that the New Democratic Party would oppose such a measure that would generate jobs for hardworking Canadians.

The Conservatives have presented an amendment to clause 1 that would raise the amount of surplus that would be set aside for debt paydown. It is easy to overlook the importance of this but the savings in interest would be massive and allow future governments the flexibility to increase money offered to Canadians in key areas of social spending.

Our amendment to clause 2 would force the government to table a plan by the end of each year outlining how it intends to spend the money in the bill.

My Conservative colleague's amendment to clause 3 would ensure that important accountability and transparency mechanisms were in place for corporations wholly owned by the federal government. All government programs should be accountable and transparent so that Canadians may judge them for themselves.

I take my work at committee very seriously and very much appreciate the good work of Conservatives on the committee. It is a shame that the government routinely ignores the good work done at committee.

[An Act to authorize the Minister of Finance to make certain payments, June 16th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chance to speak in the House today and address the chamber and all Canadians concerning Bill C-48, the Liberal-NDP budget deal.

I know how the government operates after having dealt with various departments trying to get money that has been promised for a long time.

[Perth—Wellington, June 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it promises to be a very exciting summer this year in my riding of Perth--Wellington.

On May 30, I was very pleased to attend the opening performance for the 53rd season at Stratford Festival of Canada. The entire group at Stratford work very hard each year to offer fans a great experience in theatre.

Later in June I will be at the Canadian Baseball Hall of Fame in St. Marys. I have come to look forward to this event that each year celebrates athletic achievement, community activism and Canadian heritage.

Beginning July 27, the Stratford Summer Music Festival will bring together musicians from across Canada and around the world as they salute the centennials of Alberta and Saskatchewan.

A short drive along the highway and visitors may be entertained by another group of skilled actors at the Drayton Festival.

If this is not enough, we also look forward to hosting the International Plowing Match at Listowel, September 20 to 24.

Perth--Wellington offers something for everyone.

[Supply, June 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, as an employer over quite a number of years, the biggest asset I had in my company were my employees. Employment insurance was a big cost to our company and it was one thing for which I never objected paying.

There were various times over my years when I would have people come to me who needed one or two more weeks so they could qualify for employment insurance. I would hire them on whether I needed them or not to ensure they got their weeks. I felt they paid in and they deserved that.

However, I have been in and out of the House today. I look across at all the government people who are so interested in this today, the people whom the NDP members aligned themselves with in this recent budget. All I have heard today coming from that corner at various times was how wrong the Conservative Party is. It has not been the Conservative Party that has been in power for the last 12 years when lot of these changes were made.

I stand wholeheartedly for a lot of the things that have been said over there, but we have to remember from where this has been coming. Sometimes when you are looking for support for something, you do not keep beating on someone who might support it. I would just leave you with that bit of advice.

[Civil Marriage Act, April 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-38. I appreciate that so many of my constituents took the time to share their concerns with me. The issue of same sex marriage is an emotionally charged one with people on each side of the issue expressing their sincere, deeply held beliefs.

After carefully considering the views of the majority of my constituents who have contacted me on this issue, as well as my personal beliefs, I am in support of the traditional definition of marriage. I voted in favour of the motion that reaffirmed that definition in September 2003 and I will continue to take this position in the future.

I, like many on this side of the House, believe in the traditional common definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. Not everyone shares this view. Because there will be a true free vote in my party on this issue, it makes me proud to be a Conservative. I very much respect my colleagues and, indeed, fellow Canadians who do not share my views on the issue and think respectful debate on the matter is genuinely good for democracy.

This House, including the current Prime Minister, voted to uphold the definition of marriage in 1999 and in the amendments to Bill C-23 in 2000. In fact, the Deputy Prime Minister, who was then justice minister, led the defence of marriage from the government side.

The following is what the Deputy Prime Minister said in 1999 in support of her defence of the traditional definition of marriage. She said:

We on this side agree that the institution of marriage is a central and important institution in the lives of many Canadians. It plays an important part in all societies worldwide, second only to the fundamental importance of family to all of us.

“—unions of persons of the same sex are not 'marriages', because of the definition of marriage”.

Let me state again for the record that the government has no intention of changing the definition of marriage or of legislating same sex marriages.

Marriage has fundamental value and importance to Canadians and we do not believe on this side of the House that importance and value is in any way threatened or undermined by others seeking to have their long term relationships recognized. I support the motion for maintaining the clear legal definition of marriage in Canada as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

This was the Deputy Prime Minister speaking less than six years ago. What she said was true then and it is true now.

The Supreme Court itself has still not addressed this issue despite a clear request to do so from the government. It is important to note that the Supreme Court of Canada ruling on December 9, 2004 did not declare the traditional definition of marriage as unconstitutional. The court made it clear that it believes the issue is for Parliament to deal with.

What is unconstitutional is any kind of discrimination against members of any minority group. We must work hard to ensure that a same sex couple entering into a loving, committed relationship via a civil or domestic union is afforded the same protections, benefits and status as married couples receive under the law.

All law-abiding Canadians must be able to conduct their lives and contribute to society without fear of discrimination. I believe that the proposed amendment suggested by the Leader of the Opposition would have provided the best ground to find a constructive compromise that the vast majority of Canadians would have felt comfortable with.

I want to congratulate the leader of the Conservative Party for advocating a very wise and reasonable position. The majority of Canadians are looking for a middle ground compromise that would recognize the valid concerns of the partisans on either side.

On the one hand, some Canadians seek to preserve the traditional definition of the term marriage, which predates the creation of the nation state. On the other hand, there is a belief that by broadening the definition of marriage to include same sex couples, Canadian society will take an important step in the direction of tolerance and respect of homosexuals. I believe we can achieve this kind of tolerant, respectful society without changing the definition of marriage.

I am entirely supportive of state recognition of same gender civil or domestic unions, bringing with them all the same protections and benefits as marriage, but for the same sex couples. A same gender couple in Canada wishing to enter into a loving lifelong committed relationship must be afforded the same protection and status as married couples under the law.

We can be tolerant and respectful to all parties in this matter without changing the definition of marriage. This is the kind of compromise that should be reached.

The rights of all minority groups must be strongly protected, and it would be wrong to marginalize homosexuals. Any type of discrimination directed against the homosexual community is completely unacceptable. I want to be clear about that.

For me, the issue is not an issue of human rights. It is about freedom of religion. Just as we must protect minority rights, we must also protect religious freedom in Canada. Finding a fair balance can be difficult.

The Conservative compromise option may not satisfy everyone. It would not satisfy those who believe that equality rights for same gender couples are an absolute, which cannot be compromised by accepting anything less than full marriage, or that the heterosexual status of marriage is an absolute, which cannot be compromised by recognizing equal rights for other kinds of unions. But it would satisfy the vast majority of Canadians who are seeking common ground on the issue.

There is no need to go to extremes in this debate. Accepting a compromise that respects the will of the majority and upholds rights is exactly what the amendments proposed by the Conservative Party represent.

Conservatives would propose that other forms of union, whether heterosexual or homosexual, whether called common law status, civil unions or registered domestic partnerships, should be entitled to the same legal rights, privileges and benefits of traditional marriage.

Conservatives believe that same gender couples should have the right to be treated the same as married couples when it comes to matters like pensions, tax obligations or immigration matters. Any federal law that would treat same gender couples any differently from married couples is completely unacceptable.

This is not a reactionary solution that would infringe on any Canadian's human rights as the government alleges. The Conservative position represents a moderate compromise position that would keep Canada in the company of some of the most tolerant and progressive countries in the western world, a Canada we can be proud of.

The overwhelming majority of my constituents believe that marriage is a basically heterosexual institution, but that same gender couples also have rights to equality within society that should be recognized and protected.

Michael Whitehouse wrote me from Stratford, “I am not opposed to people choosing their own way of life, nor am I opposed to seeing civil unions being given benefits. I am opposed to changing the definition of marriage as the union between one man and one woman”.

Marguerite and Oscar Schill of Alma said, “We believe that the definition of union would be an appropriate title for same sex couples to own and would give them honour and dignity and their own definition of being united in love. This would not interfere with those of us who own the definition of marriage”.

Mrs. Inez Haid of Listowel passed this along, “I have no bias when it comes to homosexuals. I respect them. Since they have had the courage to declare their lifestyle, why is there not a vocabulary and a ceremony which would apply to their situation? Give them the same rights and obligations as the traditional married couples but don't call it 'marriage' or a 'wedding ceremony'”.

Winnifred and Norman Dow from Mitchell added, “We are not against some kind of union for such couples but feel the traditional definition as the sacred union of a man and a woman must be respected and maintained”.

One of the problems throughout this debate has been the media's habit of interchanging the terms “same sex marriage” and “same sex union”. The media often starts out using the term “marriage” and then switches back to “union”. Let us be clear here. I am in favour of defending the traditional definition of marriage, and in favour of supporting same gender unions. People should at all times be honest and transparent. Trying to confuse voters is not the answer.

If the government honestly put forward legislation that would preserve marriage while recognizing equal rights of same gender couples through civil unions or other means, then this is the option that most Canadians would choose. This compromise is consistent with Canadian traditions, and it is the option that only the Conservative Party is prepared to offer.

I thank all of those who wrote and e-mailed me on this issue.

[Canada Grain Act, April 18th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed very much my colleague's rendition of growing up on a farm. It brought back a lot of memories for me because, although I was not born and raised on a farm, I spent a lot of years on my grandfather's farm. I can relate to a lot of what the hon. member has talked about.

This past weekend I met with a group of farmers and farm organizations. I asked the question again which I had asked a couple of weeks ago about the CAIS program. I asked if they thought that the CAIS program worked. I took a vote, the second vote in two weeks, and not one hand came up. Again it shows that the farm community is left out when policy is put together. It seems that the bureaucrats in Ottawa decide what is good for farmers.

When we look at some of the proposals that are here and because the matter has been left until the eleventh hour, I would like to ask the hon. member if he thinks that this is a way for the bureaucrats to push something on to the farm community.

I made a suggestion one day in one of the heritage committee meetings. There was a conflict among two or three witnesses and I suggested that the best way to fix the problem was to bring everybody into a room, supply them with good food and facilities, lock the doors and have all the people involved sit down and come up with a reasonable solution.

It can be done that way. I figure we should bring in the farm community, all the people who grow the grains and oilseeds, and have them sit down with government, not only the federal government but the provincial governments at the same time. Put all the various people involved in the industry in a room and lock the door until they come up with a good policy. Then we should not let the bureaucrats change it all around saying, “This will be good for you”.

Why does my colleague think this matter has been left until the eleventh hour?

[Volunteerism, April 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate National Volunteer Week which begins on April 17 and runs until April 23. This year's theme is “Volunteers Grow Community”.

Volunteers are indeed the backbone of our communities, both in my riding of Perth—Wellington and across Canada. By sharing their skills and knowledge with others, volunteers make an enormous contribution to improving our quality of life. We are all grateful that 6.5 million of our fellow Canadians choose to become active citizens in this way. It is therefore only fitting that we recognize our volunteers every year with a week dedicated to paying tribute to them.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the thousands of volunteers in my riding of Perth—Wellington who give so freely of their time and talents and make such a difference in our communities. Please join me in saluting our volunteers.

[Supply, April 14th, 2005]

Nobody wants it more than us.

[Petitions, April 13th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I am delighted today to stand in the House and present a petition from approximately 200 people from my riding on the definition of marriage. They feel the definition should not be changed by the courts and that it is the exclusive jurisdiction of Parliament to define marriage. Therefore they request Parliament to define marriage in federal law as being a lifelong union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.