Larry Miller

[Supply Management, June 7th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, it is a pleasure to speak tonight to this important issue. I thank my colleague from the Bloc for her knowledge of the issue. I know I, my party and definitely my leader support, unequivocally, supply management.

I think I am one of the few in the House, and very proud of it, who, as a farmer, has been on both sides of the issue, on the supply management side and as a beef producer on the other side of it.

I kind of chuckle to myself when I hear the hon. member across from Prince Edward Island who has been heckling for the last couple of minutes. Not only is he trying to make us all believe that the Liberals invented supply management in a few minutes, he will try to have us believe that they also invented potatoes.

After reviewing the amendment to the budget by our new federal finance minister, the member for Davenport, could the member from the Bloc tell me how much money she has actually seen in the budget for agriculture? While she is at it, perhaps she could tell me how many pails the deputy finance minister from Timmins--James Bay has filled with milk over the years.

[VE Day, May 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I recently had the honour and the privilege of attending various ceremonies commemorating VE Day, the end of the second world war and the liberation of the Netherlands by our Canadian soldiers.

I participated in ceremonies in Tara, Hanover, Durham and Owen Sound in my riding of Bruce--Grey--Owen Sound. I felt an overwhelming sense of pride in our military. The sacrifices made by the men and women who left their homes to travel to an unknown place and an unknown danger are horrific and unimaginable. They deserve our utmost gratitude.

I also participated in the Remember Yom Hashoah ceremony on Parliament Hill by presenting a wreath during the Canadian Community Holocaust Remembrance Day ceremony on Parliament Hill. I was honoured to take part in the very solemn ceremony and to lay a wreath at the eternal flame alongside three Holocaust survivors. They, along with the thousands of others around the world who suffered horrendous atrocities, deserve to be remembered and recognized.

The Holocaust was a tragic event which left a black mark in our history. While I was attending the ceremony and as I watched the survivors, all I could think about was what they must have gone through. I hope we never experience anything like that again.

[Government of Canada, May 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, so far this week there have been two motions passed in this House that have been deemed to be motions of non-confidence. Both of these motions passed, yet the government refuses to recognize them as such, even going so far as to vote in favour of one of them.

This government will not honour votes passed in this House, takes away opposition days and runs all over the country spending over $1 billion per day, more than what four elections would cost every day with money that has not been approved by this Parliament.

Will the government commit to a confidence motion on Monday?

[Committees of the House, May 5th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague, the member for Prince George--Peace River, for bringing forth this motion.

I have been sitting here in humour listening to the hon. member from across the way, the member for Glengarry--Prescott--Russell, implying, like a lot that has been coming from the other side of the House, that the only reason a possible election is even being talked about is because of the results of what might come out of the Gomery inquiry. It is almost implying, almost comically, with everything that has been happening in this House in the short months that I have been here, one would think that everyone over there was wearing a halo. I am referring to our opposition days, our respective motions passed by democratic votes in the House and those types of things.

Those halos, if there were any, were certainly knocked off and trampled into the carpet by the former Liberal member from Mississauga--Erindale when she was trampling George Bush's doll into the carpet. I find that kind of humourous. The Gomery inquiry is not the only reason to call an election. There are many other reasons.

I would like the hon. member to speak on behalf of his government and tell us when the government will start respecting things in the House and bring back opposition days and those kinds of things. This House needs to be treated with the respect that it deserves.

[Civil Marriage Act, April 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak about Bill C-38 on behalf of my constituents of Bruce--Grey--Owen Sound. To say that this debate has garnered a lot of attention would be an understatement. It is contentious and divisive on both sides of the House as well as within society and even within families.

My office has processed thousands of emails, letters, faxes and phone calls from across my riding. I commend my constituents for making their voices heard. More than 95% of the people I have heard from are united in their message and in their convictions. Traditional marriage must be preserved and protected.

While I am pleased that the decision has been placed in the hands of parliamentarians, many people across my riding have displayed their displeasure at this issue even coming forth at this time. They continue to tell me there are many more important issues we should be spending our time on such as corruption in government, health care, corruption in government, the BSE crisis, corruption in government, the high taxes Canadians are forced to pay, and did I mention corruption in government.

I do not believe a decision such as this should be made by a handful of hand-picked, bias, backroom Supreme Court judges, especially when they were appointed by a corrupt government that knew these appointees leanings on this issue. We were elected by the people and we are here to represent them. It should be this House that ultimately has the final vote on this issue, after consultations with the people we represent.

As I see it, this is a debate about fundamental family and social values. In my opinion there are two issues that have to be addressed in any bill on same sex. The rights of gays as determined by the courts must be adhered to, including their right to unite in some form, and traditional marriage defined as one man and one woman must be enshrined. That can be done very simply by allowing civil unions or similar terminology.

I will not oppose same sex unions. However, I will oppose same sex marriage. There is a big difference. Traditional marriage is between one man and one woman. That is the true definition.

I have met with a number of people from the gay community in my riding, with parents who have gay children and with siblings and friends of gays to discuss the issues surrounding this legislation. Most of the people I have met with were in favour of my views and my stance. As I said, most told me that as long as their rights are protected as stated by the courts and they are able to be with their partners, they agree that calling it a civil union or something equivalent is acceptable to them.

We have been forced to address this subject. While I realize there is no perfect answer that will satisfy everyone, I believe we can offer a compromise that would win the support of the vast majority of Canadians who are looking for some middle ground.

On the one hand there are people who believe the equality of rights of gays and lesbians should rule over rights to religious free faith, religious expression or multicultural diversity. On the other hand there are people who think that marriage is a fundamental institution, but that same sex couples can have equivalent rights and benefits and should be protected.

My position is not unlike that of my colleagues and our leader in that it is based on a very solid foundation and time tested values. We believe that if the government presented the option of preserving marriage while recognizing equal rights of same sex couples through civil unions or other means, this is the option that most Canadians would choose.

Marriage and the family based on marriage are the basic institutions of our society. We should not change these kinds of foundational institutions lightly or easily. I do not believe that the government has demonstrated that there are compelling reasons to alter this central social institution.

At least one of the major purposes of marriage historically has been to provide a stable environment for the procreation and raising of children. This does not mean that other kinds of relationships are not loving and valuable. Nor does it mean that heterosexual married couples who cannot or do not have children are less married than anyone else.

What it does mean is that marriage as a social institution has as one of its goals the nurturing of children in the care of a mother and a father. If we change the definition of marriage to end the opposite sex requirement, we will be saying that this goal of marriage is no longer important.

Those of us who support traditional marriage have been told that to amend the bill to reflect the traditional definition of marriage would be a violation of human rights and an unconstitutional violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is nothing more than an attempt by the government to shift the grounds of this debate. If the rights of gays and lesbians are adhered to, as I stated earlier, this debate is not about human rights. It becomes simply a political, social policy decision and should be treated as such.

There are those who would suggest that our leader would use the notwithstanding clause. However, this is also an irrelevant distraction to the debate as our leader has made it very clear that he would not use the notwithstanding clause. There is no reason to use or discuss the use of the notwithstanding clause in the absence of a Supreme Court decision which indicates that the traditional definition of marriage is unconstitutional.

I would like to thank my leader for allowing our party, including the members of the shadow cabinet, to have a free vote on this side of the House. A free vote means everyone. Not just backbenchers can vote the way their constituents want them to.

The Prime Minister says his backbenchers can vote their conscience, but cabinet ministers have to vote with the government. Does that mean cabinet ministers do not have a conscience? Those cabinet ministers who do not vote the wishes of their constituents or who do not listen to their conscience are a disgrace to the profession of parliamentarian.

I ask the Prime Minister to make this important issue a free vote for all his MPs, including his cabinet ministers. If this is not a purely free vote, Canadians will never be truly satisfied that the democratic process has prevailed.

While I am on the topic of the Liberal government, it is funny but not surprising that the Deputy Prime Minister, then the justice minister said in 1998, “Let me state again for the record that the government has no intentions of changing the definition of marriage or of legislating same sex marriages”. What a difference six years makes. It is just another in a long line of deceptions.

I believe the legislation the government has introduced will increase intolerance in our society. Examples of this have already occurred in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia. In Manitoba 11 commissioners have been told that they are no longer welcome to work as marriage commissioners if they refuse to also marry same sex couples. Two more commissioners have refused to quit and are taking this to the human rights commission to defend their freedoms and their rights from being imposed upon by the state. They were sent a letter on September 16, 2004 telling them to either perform same sex marriages or to turn in their licences.

In Bill C-38 only clergy from religious institutions are recognized as needing religious freedom protection. While I agree that churches should have the right to that choice, I also believe that this will be challenged in court and clergy will be forced to perform same sex marriages.

There is a clear solution that would guarantee all individuals freedom of conscience and freedom of religion. The solution is for the government to continue to allow these individuals to have government licences to perform marriages that do not violate their conscience or religious faith. At the same time, the government can license more of those who are willing to perform same sex civil unions. This would be the tolerant approach.

The government has taken a very narrow view of the freedoms of conscience and religion and is allowing individual freedoms to be trampled upon.

Making my decision to stand up for traditional marriage goes back to my being raised with Christian values and to my dedication to family values. I am not ashamed to stand up for these values. I believe marriage should continue to be what it has always been, between a man and woman, and that is an institution which is by nature heterosexual and has as one of its main purposes the procreation and nurturing of children in the care of a mother and a father.

I encourage all members of Parliament to do as I plan to do, to oppose Bill C-38.

[Owen Sound, April 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to acknowledge a great honour paid to the people of Bruce--Grey--Owen Sound.

An American geographer has listed Owen Sound as one of the 60 best places in North America in which to retire. The city scored a perfect five for its landscape, cost of living and quality of life. Owen Sound also scored 44 out of a total of 60 overall.

The city was one of three Ontario cities listed among the top 10 in Canada. The geographer noted that, combining the valley, the escarpment and Georgian Bay, the area is “a very beautiful site”.

I believe this recognition is well deserved and is something in which the area as a whole can take pride. We have always known that whether one lives there or visits, Bruce--Grey--Owen Sound has qualities that make it a place for everyone to enjoy. Whether one retires in Owen Sound, Hanover, Meaford, Tobermory, Markdale, Flesherton, Wiarton, Chesley, Paisley, Durham or any other point in between, Bruce--Grey--Owen Sound is the place to be. I would encourage all members to make a point of experiencing the area themselves.

I am proud to represent Bruce--Grey--Owen Sound and even prouder to live there.

[Standing Orders and Procedure, April 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I believe I heard the parliamentary secretary say that she has two children of her own. I am not sure of their ages, but I would find it very surprising if she and her husband would voluntarily give up the right to choose how their children were raised. Further, I would be surprised if she would give up the right to equal treatment by the government regardless of what that choice was.

If the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Social Development or other Canadian parents decides that both parents want to join the workforce and hire a friend, a relative, a local day care or, heaven forbid, a government bureaucrat to raise their children, or if they choose that one of them will stay at home to raise their children, if she is honest with herself, and I have no reason to think otherwise, I am quite sure that she would agree that she would want that choice to remain.

Let us do what is fair and right for the benefit of our future generations. It is all about choice.

[Standing Orders and Procedure, April 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak today to an issue that is extremely important and close to the hearts of many Canadians, particularly those in my riding. The issue of a national day care program has become paramount, especially to me since the birth of my first grandchild just three weeks ago.

On February 15 the Liberal government voted down a motion by this party to reduce taxes for lower and modest income Canadian families and giving new funds for child care directly to parents. It read:

That the House call upon the government to address the issue of child care by fulfilling its commitment to reduce taxes for low and modest income families in the upcoming budget, and, so as to respect provincial jurisdiction, ensure additional funds for child care are provided directly to parents.

In doing so, the Liberals did the unthinkable by voting against stay at home parents. That vote was a slap in the face and an insult, in particular by the social development minister who insinuated that the only reason parents stayed at home with their kids was out of guilt.

The main point I want to make here tonight is that this is about choice and fairness. When a child is born the choice of how that child is raised should be made by the parents, not the government.

The Conservative Party of Canada recognizes that parents, not the federal government, are in the best position to determine which type of child care best suits their family. We know parents would benefit from direct assistance.

The Liberals are discriminating against these families by pouring money into child care for working parents but giving no breaks to stay at home parents. An example of this is the fact that summer camps are tax deductible for working parents but not for stay at home parents.

The Conservative Party will continue to support all existing child benefit programs and introduce broad based tax relief that would directly benefit parents and allow them to make their own choices about the care and nurturing of their young children.

In fact, at our recent national policy convention in Montreal the following detailed and comprehensive policy was ratified:

The Conservative Party of Canada recognizes that parents are in the best position to determine the care needs of their children, and that they should be able to do so in an environment that encourages as many options as possible, and in a manner that does not discriminate against those who opt to raise their children in family, social, linguistic, and religious environments. We also recognize that the delivery of education and social services are provincial responsibilities under the constitution. We believe that support should go to all parents and families raising children, especially to lower and middle income parents. All existing levels of support will be maintained and improved if necessary.

The Liberals have been promising Canadians a national child care program for over 10 years. However, after broken promise after broken promise, they have finally put forward a plan that is not workable. They have failed to provide any information about how they intend to achieve this. They are willing to spend billions of dollars without a proper plan and risk creating another huge Liberal bureaucracy.

The key details, including how flexible the system can be, how to hold provinces accountable and how many child care spaces will be created are yet to be determined. This has the potential to set records of waste and mismanagement. We can think of the gun law.

A Conservative government would ensure that parents who need the money most would receive the most assistance and that parents would be given the resources they need to make the best choices for their children. This is extremely important, especially in the rural areas where a majority of children are babysat by family, friends or a local babysitter.

A Conservative government would protect parents from being forced to send their children from the cradle to an institution at a very young age.

My wife Darlene and I made the choice that she would stay home and raise our boys. That was our choice and that is the way it should be. I would like my son and his wife to have that same choice with their daughter. I want them to be able to have the same financial benefit as any other parent, regardless of whether they choose to work away from home or stay at home to raise my granddaughter.

A family like theirs and the thousands of others across this country should not be penalized for deciding to raise their children in the early years of their development. The government should be ashamed that it is not honouring its throne speech promise to reduce taxes for lower and modest income Canadians.

[Canada Labour Code, April 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the only thing wrong in this whole thing that he mentioned is the way the announcements by the minister came out.

Just recently the Minister of Agriculture announced money for agriculture but a large part of that was pre-announced money. Another big part of it is that the money is not even the government's to give. It is farmers' money and they include that in there. It deceives the public and it deceives the farmers.

Seventy per cent of the producers in my riding are not even eligible for CAIS for the reasons that I mentioned earlier, and I am one of them. However I am not standing up here tonight for myself. I am standing up for all the other farmers in my riding who are not eligible for one red cent from CAIS.

On top of that, we have that aforementioned $623 million tied up and, basically, it is not the government's money. Talk about stealing the food out of people's hands when they are starving to death, that is what this is.

[Canada Labour Code, April 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak to something that is very instrumental and dear to my riding. It is also a great pleasure to do it with seven members of my family here tonight, including my 11-year-old niece. I welcome them.

Agriculture is one of the largest industry sectors in Canada. Unfortunately, due in large part to years of Liberal government neglect, many components of this vital industry have experienced long term revenue declines, in addition to suffering through a wide range of crises. This has created a significant problem for many producers who cannot count on a steady income from year to year.

Even when production costs remain relatively stable, producers are not always able to meet these costs due to unstable markets, trade actions and disease. We are all familiar with the BSE crisis which has impacted beef, dairy, sheep and other livestock producers. Crop farmers have also experienced a shocking decline in revenue with an unprecedented collapse in prices for grains and oilseeds in Canada.

The increasing globalization of agricultural markets presents its own challenge. Canada must deal with subsidies and tariffs in an environment where not all countries play by the same rules. In fact, many producers refer to the lack of a level playing field.

The Liberal government's response to the numerous challenges of the farming community has been the Canadian agriculture income stabilization program, very unaffectionately known as the CAIS program. This program is intended to secure a level of protection by means of a deposit paid by producers. The deposit requirement, which has been universally rejected by industry groups across this country, ties up producers' money in deposits which could otherwise be used for much needed farm equipment, operating expenses or debt repayment. Rather than helping producers in crisis, the program actually places a greater economic burden on producers.

Nearly 100,000 producers participate in the CAIS program. Their combined accounts represent $623 million, their money. Would this not be a substantial cash flow to agriculture if we simply released it to the producers now?

Furthermore, the rules of the CAIS program are so complicated that most producers cannot apply without the help of an accountant. In addition to being complicated, the program does not respond to expanding or downsizing operations and cannot properly value inventories. The end result is a dysfunctional program for producers who are already in dire straits.

Because the program combines disaster relief and income stabilization, it overvalues commodities in times of crisis. For instance, amid the BSE crisis, cattle herds have dropped significantly in value. Producers receive no compensation for the decline in the value of their herds unless they sell these herds at a loss. Unfortunately, our limited slaughter capacity in this country often makes it impossible to sell the animals even at a loss, so the drop in value cannot be claimed. As a result, producers who deserve compensation are told that they are ineligible. This is unacceptable.

My colleagues and I in the Conservative Party have called for an end to this onerous CAIS deposit requirement. The Liberal government responded by extending the deposit deadline until 2006 for the 2003, 2004 and 2005 program years. When a deadline has been extended three times, one would think that is a sign the program is not working.

It is clear that alternative programs are needed. The Conservative Party of Canada has proposed separating long term stability concerns from the short term need to respond to crises. This would ensure financial viability for producers while also responding adequately and appropriately to unforeseen circumstances, such as market access collapse, as we have seen with the BSE crisis.

In closing, our agricultural industry is fundamental to the Canadian economy. The family farm is one of the institutions upon which our country was founded. CAIS cannot respond to long term stability issues and to crises. New programs must be developed that decouple income stabilization from disaster relief. A Conservative government would do just that, because Canada's farmers deserve better.