Gord Brown

[Civil Marriage Act, June 28th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, first, let us talk about democracy. In 2003 the justice committee was shut down without the opportunity to report to Parliament. Liberal members were hiding in the hall and not allowing quorum.

I sat on the legislative committee that dealt with Bill C-38. Witnesses were bunched four and five at a time. I sit on another committee and that is not the way we do things. Witnesses were given 24 hours or less notice to appear. They were given no opportunity to have their presentations translated. In my view that was not a proper process. I know members from the other side will talk about the lengthy process with 400 witnesses but the justice committee was not dealing with this legislation.

[Civil Marriage Act, June 28th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the whole issue revolves around the rights of children. If we make marriage an adult-centred institution then we do so to the detriment of it being a children-centred institution. That is one of the many concerns I have about this legislation.

I talked about the process and I would like to go back to that for a second because it is another thing that I am greatly concerned about. In 2003, when the government had the opportunity to appeal the decision of the Ontario Supreme Court, it failed to do so. Despicable things went on in the committee. Liberal members of the committee hid in the hall, refusing to allow a quorum to address that question. It is a really sad state of affairs that our country is now in this state.

If Bill C-38 is such a great bill and such a great concept, why would we not allow proper debate, discussion and opportunity? If it were so good there would have been no need for the games and no need for this underhanded process to sneak the bill through Parliament.

[Civil Marriage Act, June 28th, 2005]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to stand in this House today and state my unequivocal opposition to Bill C-38.

I am in agreement with many of my colleagues on this issue, in that I support the traditional definition of marriage which is the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. I believe that all rights can be granted to same sex couples without the need to change this common law definition that stretches back to before Confederation and has helped define this great country for almost 138 years.

The definition of marriage which has been consistently applied in Canada comes from an 1866 British case which holds that marriage is the union of one woman and one man to the exclusion of all others. I believe what the Conservative Party of Canada offers on this issue is a reasonable compromise.

My arguments will not concentrate on these issues. I merely wish to put it into perspective, so that we can compare it to the situation in which we currently find ourselves in this debate.

My discussions will centre on the process by which the government has been attempting to ram this legislation down the throats of Canadians by cloaking its arguments in the mantra of human rights. I want to speak today about the flaws in the process and the lack of accountability to the Canadian people and the method by which we stand here today when we should have been in our ridings having dialogue with our constituents.

There has not been a proper debate on this issue involving the people of Canada and there has not been a proper process followed to allow full debate by parliamentarians.

The government introduced this bill after insufficient public debate and rushed it through the House, and sent it to a committee that I happened to have sat on that in my view did not allow proper examination of witnesses. It was not the proper process. This was a committee that the government knew would discuss the bill quickly. It was designed to get this issue out of the way with little opportunity for debate, permitting no changes. We now find ourselves in extended sittings as we fully expected we would, and we fully expected the government to invoke closure, as it has. The government is shutting down debate. We are going to pass this piece of legislation that flies in the face of the history of our country.

Late in his mandate, the former Prime Minister sent a proposed piece of legislation to the Supreme Court of Canada for a ruling on human rights issues. The current Prime Minister added a clause to that proposed piece of legislation in an effort to hog-tie the court and Parliament. Of course, and thankfully, the court saw through that feeble attempt and made no ruling.

I have several problems with the actions of these two prime ministers. First, this is not a debate about human rights. It is a debate about politics and social policy. Therefore, it should be treated in a much different way from how it has been handled by the current and previous governments.

I and my colleagues, and indeed every person in this place, have been elected by Canadians to debate and decide issues of concern to this country and its people. Whether it is the civil marriage bill, budget bills, assistance for foreign countries, missile defence, assistance for our farmers or any number of other issues, we the elected members of Parliament have been chosen by the people of Canada to debate and ultimately decide the direction of this country.

If the party opposite believed that, it would have followed the accepted process for such issues as Bill C-38. That process would have involved some sort of public dialogue and arguments for and against. The government would have brought the issue before the House and it would never have gone to the Supreme Court of Canada first.

A proper process would have taken into consideration the decisions and wishes of a previous Parliament, a Parliament that included some of our current members, which determined that the only definition of marriage that is acceptable to Canadians is the traditional definition of marriage.

A proper process would have included statements by members of Parliament that they would do everything in their power to defend the traditional definition of marriage. It would have included statements by judges on the Supreme Court that defined and defended the traditional definition of marriage.

Let me offer some examples. In 1995 Supreme Court Justice Gérard La Forest, speaking on behalf of four judges in the majority in the Egan decision, wrote:

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. In this sense, marriage is by nature heterosexual.

This statement remains the only commentary on the basic meaning of marriage in any Supreme Court decision and would have been included in any proper debate.

I will offer another example. This House, which at the time included the current Prime Minister, voted to uphold the traditional definition of marriage in 1999 and the amendments to Bill C-23 in 2000, with the Deputy Prime Minister, who was the then justice minister, leading the cause of the defence of marriage.

The following is what the Deputy Prime Minister said in 1999 in her eloquent 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.... The definition of marriage, which has been consistently applied in Canada, comes from an 1866 British case which holds that marriage is “the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others”. That case and that definition are considered clear law by ordinary Canadians, by academics and by the courts. The courts have upheld the constitutionality of that definition.

We have also heard comments from our Minister of Immigration that are consistent with that.

If the bill had followed proper process, these parliamentary statements and the court decisions would have had to be factored into the formulation of any bill that upholds the rights of same sex couples.

There may have been, and rightly so, a referendum. After this type of proper debate, the government would then have presented a bill for first reading, second reading and a proper committee hearing. The proper committee for the bill would have been the justice committee, but instead of carrying out the correct process, the Liberals formed a special committee and then loaded it in their favour. They charged through committee hearings at a blistering pace that did not allow ordinary parliamentarians the time for proper research and questioning of witnesses.

The Liberal chair of the committee ruled suggested modifications by the Conservatives to be out of order and the committee swiftly sent this piece of legislation back to the House for debate and third reading.

As we witnessed last week, the government will stop at nothing and use any trick in the book to avoid proper debate and reach its own predetermined end.

As I prepared this speech I wondered if I would in fact be granted the time to present it here in this place. I wondered that because of what we witnessed last week. I and most Canadians expected the coalition government to barricade proper debate on the bill once again, as it has, and close the doors on this sad chapter in the history of this place.

We all know that if a free vote were allowed by all parties, where MPs could represent the wishes of their ridings, the legislation would fail. It is this lack of proper process and the lack of real democracy more than anything, that I am truly concerned with today. I also have a great deal of concern about the lack of protection of religious freedom and the strengthening of that protection against discrimination for religious beliefs.

At this time I would like to move an amendment. I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following therefore:

Bill C-38, an act respecting certain aspects of legal capacity for marriage for civil purposes, be not now read a third time, but be referred back to the legislative committee for the purpose of reconsidering all of its clauses with the view to strengthen protection against discrimination for religious beliefs and that the legislative committee on Bill C-38 be reconstituted for the purpose of this reconsideration.

[Civil Marriage Act, June 28th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would seek unanimous consent to split my time with the member for Niagara West--Glanbrook.

[Civil Marriage Act, June 27th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to commend the hon. parliamentary secretary on his speech. I agree with many of his comments. In 1999 the House passed a motion to uphold the traditional definition of marriage and use all necessary means to do that. Also in 2003, when the Ontario court ruling came down, the justice committee was holding hearings across the country and at that point had the opportunity to recommend to the government that there be an appeal of that Ontario court decision. It failed to do that.

I have a question for the hon. parliamentary secretary. In all sincerity, why does he believe that the government did not use all necessary means to uphold the traditional definition of marriage and why did the justice committee in 2003 not have the opportunity to push for an appeal on that Ontario court ruling?

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, June 20th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, many of the beef farmers in my riding are having a very tough time right now. I think it is a matter of priorities. The government has not made agriculture a priority and I think that was indicated in the last election. We saw that government members who came from ridings with large agricultural populations were not re-elected and that message was sent. In these budget bills we have seen support for farmers. The $19 a cow in terms of BSE support is not adequate.

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, June 20th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I am having difficulty actually finding a question in there but let us talk about pensions for a second. Let us talk about the seniors, especially in a riding like mine which has a large senior population, who are screaming for more money. They are left with not enough support and the government is not doing anything to help them, other than a few measly dollars here and there.

The other part of the question I think had to do with fiscal responsibility. People are sick and tired of programs, such as the gun registry, where there is no accountability and spending just goes on and on. The people in my riding sent a clear message in the last election that they expected their member of Parliament to come here to speak about fiscal responsibility and I believe I have done that in my speech on the bill. The bill does not address the concerns of the people of my riding.

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, June 20th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise this evening in this place to discuss my views on and opposition to the proposed NDP budget Bill C-48. Like many of my colleagues who have already spoken to the bill and the many more who will follow me, I have deep founded, grave concerns about the bill and what it says about how we handle our finances.

Before I begin outlining my concerns, let me assure my colleagues and Canadians that I believe the financial goals of the House should be to give every Canadian the highest standard of living in the world. Our goal should be that every Canadian who wants a job should be able to find a job. Every region of our country should enjoy economic growth and prosperity, providing new and challenging opportunities for all Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

My goal is that every Canadian family should be able to look forward to a life of economic fulfillment. They should be able to dream big and achieve those dreams: education, a good job, a house, a family, a decent retirement. These are goals that all Canadians should be able to achieve, partly as a result of our stewardship of the country's finances.

However Canadians cannot achieve these goals. They cannot even dream about these goals when their federal government taxes them too much and spends too much.

The government has been on a relentless spending spree with one hand deep in the pockets of hardworking Canadians while the other throws money around with little concern for the consequences.

The Liberals always confuse spending money with finding solutions. They seem to believe that if they throw bags of taxpayer money at something and spin up a couple of good press releases everything will be made right.

In the past five years, program spending has increased by 44.3% from $109.6 billion to $158.1 billion. This growth is not sustainable based on our economic growth rate, which was only 31.6% for the same period. To put this another way, in 1996-97 real federal spending per capita was $3,466. It will have risen to $4,255 in 2005-06. Current Liberal and NDP spending plans will take it to $4,644 by 2009-10. That is a real spending increase of almost $1,200 per person.

Despite this incredible growth in spending, Canadians' issues are not resolved. Health care is not better. It is worse. Many seniors who worked hard all their lives are living in fear that the money will run out and they will be left freezing in the dark.

The most vulnerable in our society are not getting the handout that they need the most. In my riding, farmers are losing their farms. Most Canadian families require two people to work just to make ends meet and often one person is working just to pay the taxes. This is a crazy cycle that must stop.

However none of this will be stopped by Bill C-48. The bill is merely a blank cheque that allows the NDP-Liberal government to spend money as it pleases with no accountability to the people of Canada. If we look at the bill, we see that it is nothing more than a blank cheque bill to allow the government to continue to spend with no accountability and no due diligence.

Everyone in the House and Canadians in general are aware of the large disasters that have occurred as the result of the government's lack of due diligence in allocating large envelopes of cash to programs without strict guidelines and detailed plans in place.

The HRDC billion dollar boondoggle, the gun registry and the sponsorship program are the most highly visible examples of the kind of spending that is called for in Bill C-48.

However there are many other programs that have been designed by the government to help those Canadians most in need, the Canadians that Bill C-48 purports to assist, programs where the government has failed miserably in design and delivery, even with advance planning.

As a small business owner, I know that one cannot resolve an issue or a problem by throwing a large envelope of money at it. One cannot buy one's way to a solution to anything. Money may be the grease but the solution is always in the human elements, the details and the action plan.

The issue first has to be properly identified and defined. The solution has to be examined and the steps and stages to reach that solution must be worked out. As well, there must be a correct follow through process to ensure that the money that was spent, combined with the work, accomplished the tasks that it was supposed to.

Now I want to talk briefly about a program that was carried out in many communities across Canada and in a city right next door to my great riding of Leeds--Grenville. I am speaking about the supporting communities partnership initiative, also known as SCPI. This program was designed by the federal government and overseen by Human Resources Development Canada. It was designed as a program to help deal with the growing issue of homelessness across Canada.

In Kingston, Ontario, in the riding of Kingston and the Islands, over $700,000 was spent altogether on the first phase of this program. From the beginning of the program in that community some folks felt there was something amiss. Concerned citizens spent more than a year pursuing the details of this program after it was complete and being shut out by all concerned. Finally, after months of letter writing and public statements, they forced an audit.

Deloitte Touche was called in and what the firm found was shocking. In the City of Kingston, of the over $700,000 spent on the first phase of this project, only $26,733 actually found its way toward helping the homeless. That was a mere 3.8% of the money that was earmarked to help the homeless in this program.

Auditors had some other interesting things to say about the program. They claimed there were errors in the process, a lack of oversight and poor record keeping. Where have we heard all this before?

What is ironic about this entire process is that it was actually members of the NDP in Kingston and the Islands who screamed the loudest for the audit and who spent the most time explaining to the public how the government had failed to deliver what it had hoped because of poor planning.

Knowing that, I find it difficult to fathom how the NDP in the House of Commons could even support this bill, its very first finance bill. I have read the bill and it has absolutely no details except for the $4.5 billion of taxpayer money that is going to disappear into some hastily organized social programs. This has proven over and over again to be a recipe for disaster with the government.

I oppose Bill C-48. At report stage, members of my caucus attempted to improve the bill to make it almost palatable. They attempted to raise the amount of the surplus that would go toward paying down our national debt. This debt must be reduced to ensure we have the money we need for social programs in the future. They attempted to force the government to table a plan each year that would state how this money would be spent and how it would be allocated in this NDP budget bill. This seems a reasonable request.

Those people who stand to benefit from the spending would surely like to know what to expect. I join with my colleagues in demanding accountability, planning and transparency in government financing, and I join them in opposing Bill C-48.

[Petitions, June 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to submit a petition signed by citizens of my constituency of Leeds—Grenville. The petition concerns a community access program that is now in its final year. It has been a valuable program in my riding and the petitioners ask that it be continued.

[Supply Management, June 7th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, as the member for Leeds—Grenville, I have a riding that is heavily dependent on supply management. We have the largest egg producer in Canada in our riding as well as many dairy farms. A lot of our economy in Leeds—Grenville is dependent upon supply management.

I just want to get it on the record that I am a former member of the Canadian Alliance and I was a strong member of the supply management system. I find it a little disingenuous from folks on the other side who seem to talk a lot about their support for supply management, but when the rubber hits the road, when they go to the trade negotiations, they do not instruct their trade negotiators to stand up for this system.

The farmers in my riding are always on edge that the system will disappear. There are concerns right now with the butter, sugar and oil blends and the imports of caseins and caseinates. The numbers now are having a major impact on our dairy industry in Canada.

Why does the member for Timmins—James Bay, my good friend, think his coalition partners on the other side are not standing up and asking for the invocation of article XXVIII? The minister told us that he is not interested in symbolism. However, when the rubber hits the road, when the negotiations are going on at the trade negotiations, Canada's interests are not being protected.