House of Commons photoLost her last election, in 2011, with 14% of the vote.
Petitions May 10th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to present a petition to this House with close to 200 names on it from the riding of Simcoe--Grey. The petitioners call upon the government to maintain the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
Civil Marriage Act May 3rd, 2005
Mr. Speaker, it is with great honour that I rise in the House today to speak on this very important subject. I rise at this point in time not just as a politician but as a representative of the people in my riding of Simcoe--Grey. Those people have chosen me to be their voice in Ottawa and that is a job I take very seriously.
As such, I would like to say straight away that I have already voted, and will continue to vote, in this House to preserve the traditional definition of marriage as being the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. That is as it stands today and as it has stood for decades in this great country.
In my short time here in Ottawa, I have risen in this House on many occasions, much of the time asking the government to explain itself on the numerous scandals that I am sure the public is getting just as furious about as I am.
Today, however, I would like to bring some important comments to the attention of all hon. members in this House.
There is no doubt that this subject brings up strong feelings in most who talk about it. Indeed, it divides the members opposite. I believe that the majority of Canadians are looking for a middle ground, a compromise which would recognize the valid concerns of the partisans on both sides. I believe that the proposed amendments suggested by the Leader of the Opposition provided the best ground to find a constructive compromise that the vast majority of Canadians would feel comfortable with.
There are differences of opinion within the Canadian public on this issue. At one end of the spectrum, there is a group which believes that the equality rights of gays and lesbians trump all other considerations and that any restriction on the right to same sex marriage is unjustifiable discrimination and a denial of human rights.
At the other end, there is another large body that thinks that marriage is a fundamental social institution not only recognized by law but sanctified by religious faith, that any compromise in terms of allowing same sex couples equal rights and benefits is unacceptable.
However, the vast majority of Canadians are somewhere in the middle. They believe that marriage is a basically heterosexual institution, but that same sex couples also have rights to equality within society that should be recognized and protected. We believe the Conservative amendments speak to the majority of Canadians who are in the middle on this issue.
Our proposal was that the law should continue to recognize the traditional definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, but at the same time, we 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 as marriage.
Many of these types of unions are subject to provincial jurisdiction under civil law. However, there are also federal issues related to rights and benefits. Our party moved amendments to ensure that all couples in provincially recognized unions are recognized as having equal rights and benefits to married couples under federal law.
We would ensure that same sex couples have the same rights and benefits as married couples when it comes to matters like pensions, tax obligations or immigration matters.
We would ensure that there is no federal law that treats same sex couples any differently from married couples.
We believe that this approach would meet the needs of both those Canadians who believe that marriage is and should remain as an institution which, as Justice La Forest said, in the Egan decision, “is by nature heterosexual” and also those who are concerned to recognize the equal status of gays and lesbians under the law.
Around the world, there are only two countries which have legislated same sex marriage at the national level: Belgium and the Netherlands. In both of these countries, there are some areas related to adoption or marriage of non-nationals of those countries which still make them slightly different from opposite sex marriages.
By far, the vast majority of jurisdictions have gone the route of recognizing civil unions, domestic partnerships or reciprocal beneficiaries rather than abolishing the opposite sex nature of marriage. Among the countries which have brought in these laws are France, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Finland, Germany, Portugal and New Zealand. I do not think that any of these countries, considered among the most progressive in the world, could be considered violators of human rights.
It strikes me as a perfectly reasonable compromise for Canadian society to accept exactly the same position as these countries and states. The Conservative compromise option may not satisfy those who believe that equality rights for same sex 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. However, it will satisfy the vast majority of Canadians who are seeking common ground on this issue.
This may not make Canada the most radical country in the world, but it will keep Canada in the same relatively liberal company as the governments of Tony Blair's Britain, Lionel Jospin's France and Howard Dean's Vermont. I do not believe that most Canadians are looking to be more radical than the British Labour Party, the French Socialist Party or the most liberal democrats in the United States. They are looking for a reasonable, moderate compromise that respects the rights of same sex couples while preserving the time honoured institution of marriage.
This compromise is the Canadian way and it is the option that only the Conservative Party is prepared to offer. Conservatives believe that if the government squarely and honestly put this option of preserving marriage while recognizing equal rights of same sex couples for civil unions or other means, this is the option that Canadians would choose.
Mr. Eugene Meehan, a former national president of the Canadian Bar Association and former executive legal officer for the highest court in Canada, stated:
Canada's highest court has not required Parliament to amend the traditional definition, nor has gay marriage received protection under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Mr. Meehan goes on to state that the federal government does not have the power to protect religious officials from human rights complaints if they do not want to perform services that go against their views. This does not fall under federal jurisdiction. It is the jurisdiction of the provinces. The justice minister has misled Canadians and this Liberal government has misled Canadians yet again.
The Conservative Party is not proposing a reactionary solution that would violate human rights, as the government alleges. We are proposing a moderate compromise position that would put Canada in the company of some of the most Liberal and progressive countries in the western world. That is why I am proud to be a member of this moderate, mainstream Conservative government in waiting.
Petitions May 3rd, 2005
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to present to the House a petition of over 300 names of people in my riding of Simcoe—Grey. They call upon the government to maintain the definition of marriage as the union between one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others.
Sponsorship Program April 14th, 2005
They can say what they will, Mr. Speaker, but the Prime Minister's riding assistant intervened in Mr. Savard's sponsorship application which was initially rejected and, through her efforts, Savard later received $250,000 in sponsorship dollars.
Did the Prime Minister direct his assistant, Ms. Castelli, to intervene or did she act on her own, and if so, will the Prime Minister take responsibility for his staff's actions?
Sponsorship Program April 14th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, when the sponsorship scandal was in full swing, Lucie Castelli was doing much more than working in the Prime Minister's riding office.
In June 1999 Castelli telephoned Joanne Bouvier, an aide to Alfonso Gagliano, to ask why Serge Savard, the Prime Minister's supporter, golf buddy and key fundraiser, had not had a response to his application for $600,000.
Why did the Prime Minister's constituency assistant intervene in this application when Mr. Savard was not even a constituent?
Petitions April 13th, 2005
Madam Speaker, the second petition has close to 200 names and calls on the government to maintain the traditional definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
Petitions April 13th, 2005
Madam Speaker, today I have the honour of presenting two petitions, the first with over 250 names from my riding of Simcoe--Grey. The petitioners are calling on the government to raise the age of consent from 14 to 16 years of age.
Elmvale Maple Syrup Festival April 12th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, Saturday, April 23 marks the 39th annual Elmvale Maple Syrup Festival in my riding of Simcoe—Grey.
Each year the Town of Elmvale explodes in a celebration of nature's rites of spring. Close to 30,000 visitors line the streets to enjoy sugar bush tours, fresh maple syrup, shopping, the all day pancake breakfast and the midway, of course.
I would like to thank the organizers, Tony Hope, Dave Stewart, Ted Hore, Peter Cowcola and Heather Sewell for their hard work and dedication in making the festival such a success.
Through the efforts of hundreds of volunteers, $20,000 is raised each year for local organizations: the library, minor baseball, Girl Guides, Community Living, the Dare program, the Legion, the fall fair youth program and the Elmvale co-op nursery.
On Saturday I will have the opportunity to challenge Mayor John Brown in a log sawing contest. I invite all members to join me in what promises to be a fun filled weekend for the entire family.
Sponsorship Program April 11th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, the minister continues to insult Canadians with his non-answers.
The Liberal government demanded that Groupaction pay a $50,000 fake invoice to Groupe Everest. Groupe Everest then handed the $50,000 over to the Liberal Party. Groupaction was then again rewarded with more government contracts.
When will the Liberal Party return the dirty money to taxpayers?
Sponsorship Program April 11th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, in 1998 Alain Renaud received over $65,000 for fake contracts: money for no work. He then turned around and made a $65,000 donation to the Liberal Party of Canada.
When asked about this money, Brault said, “I knew that the money was supposed to be funnelled to the Liberal Party”. Will the Liberals return this dirty money to the taxpayers?