Larry Miller

[Civil Marriage Act, April 4th, 2005]

My apologies, Madam Speaker.

There is no reason to 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. The Supreme Court has not done so.

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 has said that his backbenchers can vote their conscience, but cabinet ministers have to vote with the government. Does this mean that cabinet ministers do not have a conscience? I say to those cabinet ministers who do not vote according to the wishes of their constituents or who do not listen to their own conscience that they are a disgrace to the profession of a 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 in 1999 the then justice minister said:

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.

What a difference six years makes. This is just another in a long line of Liberal deceptions.

I believe that 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 will no longer be 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 the issue 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 last year 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 requiring 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 that 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 could licence 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.

In closing, 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 owe it to my country, to my wife of almost 30 years, to my children, and to my first granddaughter who is less than two weeks old.

I believe that marriage should continue to be what it has always been, between a man and a woman, and 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 support the amendment proposed by the leader of the official opposition.

[Civil Marriage Act, April 4th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today to Bill C-38 on behalf of my constituents in 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 e-mails, 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. I will be speaking to that more specifically today.

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. I agree with my constituents when they continue to tell me that there are many more important issues we should be spending our time on such as health care and the high taxes Canadians are forced to pay.

Having said that, I do not believe a decision such as this should be made by a handful of hand-picked, biased, and backroom Supreme Court justices. We were elected by the people and we are here to represent them. This is not a debate about human rights. This is a debate about fundamental 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 and suitable terminology.

I have met with a number from the gay community and with parents who have gay children to discuss the issues surrounding the legislation. Most of the people I 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 in the courts, and they are able to be with their partners, they agree that calling it a civil union is acceptable.

We have been forced to address the subject, but 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 the vast majority of Canadians would choose and would probably garner overwhelming support in Parliament. But then again, the government does not care about the majority of Canadians.

Marriage and the family based on marriage are the basic institutions of society. We should not change these kinds of fundamental 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 any 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 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 deceivingly suggest that Stephen Harper will use the notwithstanding clause. However, this again is also an irrelevant distraction to the debate because Mr. Harper has made it very clear that he will not--

[Agriculture, March 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, reports now indicate that the U.S. border may stay closed to Canadian beef for 18 months or more. It is time to act. The CAIS program does not work. The loan loss reserve program is a farce. It is non-existent and has not contributed one iota to increase slaughter capacity.

It is past time that the government used money from the budget contingency fund to open new packing facilities now.

Will the minister commit to making the funds available for slaughter facilities and will he do it today?

[Canadian Livestock Industry, March 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the thing that really shocks me is the CAIS program, which we have talked about to no end, is not working. The CAIS program never was a disaster program. We have a disaster like the tsunami. The CAIS program was designed for an ongoing insurance program, for lack of another term.

Going back to the tsunami, like true Canadians, we came to the aid of the tsunami victims, and that is good. I have absolutely no problem with that. Where I do have a problem is when we have a disaster within our own nation that can lead to a lack of food to feed the population, we do not treat it for what it is, a true disaster.

Farmers are very proud people. They are not people who like to live out of the mailbox or have their hand out, but they have been made to live that way.

Of the richer nations in the world, Canada spends one of the lowest percentages of its disposable income on food. It is nice to know our producers can produce cheap food, but it is away beyond that. They are not getting paid for what it is worth. Then add a disaster on top of that and it compounds the matter.

[Canadian Livestock Industry, March 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think there was a question in the member's comments, but he refers to a reality. Try to tell that to the producers in my riding and across the country. The Liberals voted against the motion to get rid of it. It is as simple as that.

Therefore, I go back to the CAIS program. Will the minister go back to his staff and instruct the changes, and in what form and in what timing? We have three weeks to the deadline. We have to make some progress on the issue. I would like a little more encouragement than I heard at the agricultural committee today that we will work toward the right thing and get this resolved.

[Canadian Livestock Industry, March 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for granting this emergency debate on what is definitely an emergency situation in my riding of Bruce--Grey--Owen Sound and across Canada. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the member for Battlefords--Lloydminster for initiating the motion on this debate.

With due respect to my colleagues across the floor, I would like to express my thanks to the minister and the deputy minister for sticking around until the wee hours of the morning, so to speak.

I welcome this opportunity to share the thoughts and concerns that have been raised by my constituents. I have been hearing horror stories galore. As I have said before, my riding is a very agricultural riding. Whether it is beef, sheep, elk, bison or anything else, they are all being affected by the BSE crisis.

I have experienced something I never want to see again and that is people I know declaring bankruptcy. They are neighbours and friends, and they are fighting as hard as they can to make a living but they are getting hammered every time they turn around.

The latest nail in their coffin came just last week when a federal judge in some ranching community in Montana took it upon himself to decide that if the border were to reopen to Canadian cattle, “The threats are great. Delay is prudent and largely harmless”. We all know our beef is safe here. It is known around the world. This is politics at work again.

I would like Mr. Justice Richard Cebull to know exactly how harmful this delay is and will continue to be to Canadian cattle producers. It is the obligation of the government to deliver that message.

Producers across the country are losing millions of dollars and the government is doing little or nothing to help. The CAIS program has long been identified as flawed and deficient. There is $640 million right now sitting in an account somewhere. Producers who cannot put food on their tables borrowed that money. They put it up front and they need it back, and they need it back now.

The Liberals voted against our motion to drop the CAIS cash deposit and now they say they want it gone. As the member for Selkirk--Interlake pointed out, they have agreed to put it in the budget, and I do thank the minister for that, but it is still a long way from being gone.

Today we heard there will be a national CAIS committee to review appeals. With all due respect, we do not need another committee and we do not need any more consultations. Farmers have said loud and clear that the program does not work. The Liberals also say that they will develop alternatives to the program but no one seems to have a clue where to start with it. It is a comedy of errors that no one finds funny.

The Liberals have never been able to address the issue of older cows, but those are the animals that would not even be included even if the border were reopened. In light of this court injunction that we just heard about, producers, in my riding at least, are leaning more toward a cull program than ever before. The government must address this issue now.

More and more producers are telling me that they just want the $200, the cash that they can get out of it and they will cut their losses and ship the cows to market. The feeling that seems to be out there is that we can get rid of some of these and maybe get the market back to where it is going.

It is also imperative now, more than ever before, that the government provide tax incentives to support investment in Canadian slaughter capacity. We note that its current efforts in these areas have been grossly inadequate and ineffective thus far.

It is clear that Canada has to help itself and that we need a made in Canada solution. The 2005 budget did very little to address this. There are no tax deferrals and the loan loss reserve program got an additional $17 million, but according to the Canadian bankers who we just talked to at the agriculture committee last week, they say there is no loan loss reserve program because they cannot agree with the government on how it can and should work.

Both the National Cattlemen's Beef Association and the USDA recently submitted reports indicating that Canadian beef was safe and that our feed supply was governed by sound science.

After standing with his hands in his pockets for over 21 months while the border stayed closed, the Prime Minister, in going back to an old line of a Kenny Rogers' song “You picked a fine time to leave me, Lucille”, finally picked a fine time, opened his mouth and give the U.S. a reason to react to the border just one week before it was scheduled to open.

I am not naive enough to think that is the total reason. As some of the speakers tonight have said, there is no doubt in my mind that this influenced the senators on how they voted last week. Our relations with the Americans is at an all time low and members of the government continually say things, and I would like to think they are not with full intent, that upset our neighbours. The timing could not have been worse.

I know some gains have been made as far as the beef issue, but we have a long way to go. If it were milk, it would be barely enough to cover the bottom of a pail. We need to work together as politicians and producers, as the Deputy Prime Minister said earlier, to do what is necessary, to do it right and to do it yesterday.

I believe the minister's heart is in the right place, but ministry staff told us today at the agriculture committee that the deposit requirement was not placing any hardship on farmers. With that kind of attitude, no wonder no improvements to the CAIS program have been carried out thus far.

The message the minister could take back to his staff is that there are hardships out there. The CAIS program is not working. Let us get a good attitude and frame of mind so they can go to work and make the necessary improvements.

[The Budget, March 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out in my speech to the budget, what was offered to seniors was definitely very humiliating as well as to a number of other sectors, including the unemployed. Over the years nothing has addressed the EI overpayments, at least not significantly enough. Where did that money go? Maybe that is where the money ended up in the sponsorship scandal. In answer to the member's question, there are certainly all kinds of areas in the budget that were not addressed sufficiently enough.

[The Budget, March 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, before I answer the question directly, I must remind the member that until a former Liberal government we never had a deficit to even worry about paying off let alone what it has become. Of course, we have to put something toward it.

We all know about the inquiry that is going on right now. There was $250 million that could have been used to pay down the debt, could have been used for health care, or could have been used for agriculture. What did it get spent on? That money was funnelled into a program that ended up putting a bunch of it back into that member's party.

If money is going to be put back into that debt, then by all means, I do not have a problem with doing that. However, we all know where a lot of it has ended up in the past.

[The Budget, March 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak about the 2005 budget. This is my first speech as an MP representing my constituents of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound.

I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Battlefords—Lloydminster.

The most important issues in my riding are no different than those in the rest of Canada: seniors, health care, agriculture and funding for infrastructure. I intend to touch on all these issues and show how the Liberals have continued their tradition of failing Canadians.

Improving infrastructure in Canada's cities and towns through programs like the rural infrastructure fund and the transfer of the gas tax is vital to building strong, dynamic and livable communities. While returning some of the gas tax back to the people who pay it is a step in the right direction, the government has no real plan on how to do it in a fair and equitable manner.

Rural Canadians, simply because of their geography, pay the biggest percentage per capita of the gas tax, but have to battle large urban centres as big as 250,000 people for their share of the funding. The bottom line is that they will not get their rightful share.

The Liberal government has a history of promising a lot and delivering very little. Nowhere in this budget is that more obvious than in the area of its commitment to seniors.

In 2004 seniors made up 13% of our population and that will double by 2030. There are 1.6 million guaranteed income security recipients in this country. My riding has one of the highest populations of seniors in the country. The funding increase to this fund is at most $36 per month and that is not even available until 2007. Additional funding for seniors receiving this fund will barely cover a package of Tylenol.

We in the Conservative Party believe that the commitments to seniors in this budget do not go far enough. It is apparent that the Liberal government does not have the appropriate strategy for improving the lives of Canadian seniors. The Conservative Party would also ensure that seniors have better access to health care and the ability to stay in their homes longer. Seniors should be respected and given the dignity they have earned. We will be watching the government closely to ensure the money is used to benefit seniors and not wasted in more bureaucratic red tape.

Another area of great concern to my constituents is agriculture. My riding is the largest producer of beef and lamb in the province of Ontario. There is also elk, bison and others, just to name a few. All of these producers have suffered tremendously under the weight of the BSE crisis.

This 2005 budget makes no commitment to the agriculture sector and rural Canada to provide aid at a time when Canada's regions need it most. To say the budget failed to meet the expectations of the Canadian agriculture community would be a drastic understatement.

The Canadian agricultural community is in its worst financial position since the Great Depression. Yet, farmers will get no more cash in their pockets this year from the budget's agricultural programs. Our farmers deserve more respect.

Last week's injunction by an American judge that stopped the U.S. border from opening yesterday as planned magnifies why the government's refusal to directly put up front money into a plan to address the severe shortage of packing facilities in this country simply shows a lack of concern. Let it sort itself out, Liberals muse. This problem is not going to sort itself out. It is time to act.

In spite of the minister's acknowledgement that increased slaughter capacity is a necessity, Liberals brag about the September announcement of a $66 million loan loss reserve program that was later downgraded to $37 million. The program is a sham; it does not exist.

The finance minister has once again deceived the food producers of this country by misleading them to believe there was actually $130 million in new money for agriculture. However, when we take away the pre-announced and recycled money, it is closer to $30 million and most of that will not even be available until 2006, if even then.

What the budget should have included but did not was: desperately needed tax deferrals on 2004 income for producers hit by drought, crashing commodity prices and the BSE crisis; tax incentives to increase domestic cattle and other ruminant slaughter capacity; and a provision of direct loan underwriting for the development of increased slaughter capacity, as well as improvements for crop insurance.

The government declared yesterday in the House that it has already sent $38 million to the victims of the tsunami disaster, with which I have no problem. The problem I do have is the government's ever growing disdain for the food producers of this nation.

While spending 30% more on this terrible tragedy than it did on agriculture this year is downright sickening and humiliating to the agriculture sector. This government thinks so little of the future of where its food will come from, but then it does not receive many votes in the countryside does it.

In addition to being a farmer, I am also a father and soon to be a grandfather. When my wife and I were raising our three boys, we made the decision that she would stay home with them. I would like my family to have that same choice, but with the same financial options as those parents who choose to work. However, the government is not going to make that possible.

This 2005 budget contemplates massive spending on a bureaucratic child care program instead of delivering child care dollars directly to parents. This budget contains big, unfocused spending commitments with no plans on how the government intends to deliver funding for a national child care system, opening the way for billions of dollars to be mismanaged and lost in yet another Liberal bureaucracy.

What is worse, the government offered to buy the votes of working parents while snubbing its nose at those who prefer to raise their own children, whether by themselves, a grandparent, a relative, or a friend. It does not matter. Those very parents should be able to make that choice, not the government. They should be able to do that without being penalized financially. The government is simply saying to go get a job and to let it look after the children.

Health care is one of the most important social programs to Canadians. It is an essential contributor to quality of life and standard of living. Canadians deserve to have a family doctor. In towns in my riding and others across this country, there are thousands of people who have to go to the emergency room for care. They do not have a doctor and they cannot get a doctor.

Canadians also deserve shorter wait times. The budget only offers a one time commitment for catastrophic drugs. There is no long term commitment to this necessary measure.

Simply throwing money at health care is not enough. There must be a plan. The one chapter of the Romanow report that has not even been remotely addressed is the chapter on rural health care, which will cost approximately $6 billion. Again, rural Canada takes it on the ear.

The cost of the bureaucracy has grown 77% since 1997 and yet the Liberal tax relief will amount to just $16 next year for low and middle income Canadians. That is sickening in itself. Many of the steps taken by the government do not go far enough or occur fast enough to have a substantial impact on Canadians.

Substantial tax relief for business that would grow the economy, create jobs and enhance government revenues that fund high priority programs has been delayed into the future. This budget is big on promises, big on recycled promises, but very small on substance. Canadians expected more. They deserve better.

[Agriculture, February 25th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, this year's budget proved yet again that the government is ignoring the plight of farmers.

Farmers will get no more cash in their pockets. The cash advances are like finding a needle in a haystack and do not even kick in until next year, if at all.

Two weeks ago the Liberal Party and even the minister voted against removing the CAIS deposit requirement. Yesterday he declared that he would not apologize for it. The March 31 deadline is fast approaching.

The government admits that the program is a disaster and says that it will fix it, but, surprise, surprise, the government votes against any improvement.

Will the minister stop stalling? Will he support farmers and agree to the necessary changes needed today?