House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2011, with 57% of the vote.
Government of Canada May 13th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, I say to the hon. government House leader that the crisis, like the corruption, is deeply rooted in the Liberal Party of Canada.
Canadians across the country are disgusted by the corruption in the government. The Prime Minister has a death grip on the doors of 24 Sussex.
Will the Prime Minister agree to hold a vote in this House on Monday on the future of his government?
Government of Canada May 13th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, I have a news flash for the member from Ancaster. That item just passed through the House.
The Liberal government has now lost six clearly defined votes which demonstrates that it has lost the confidence and control of the House. The late Liberal senator and constitutional expert Eugene Forsey said that a government consistently subject to defeat on its legislation or control in the House will be unable to carry through the Queen's business or will be compromised in its honour and should either resign or ask for dissolution, and that the matter should be promptly tested by a vote of confidence.
The Prime Minister refuses to do the honourable thing. Will he at least agree to put a clear vote of confidence before the House on Monday?
Holocaust Memorial Day May 5th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin with thanks to the Minister of Justice for his profound words and comments on the horror of the Holocaust and the lessons that mankind must learn from such atrocities.
I want to join with him and all members of the House in embracing his passion and commitment to end hatred, racism and all forms of intolerance.
Today is Holocaust Memorial Day, Yom Hashoah, a day which remembers that six million Jews were murdered simply because they were Jewish. Yom Hashoah occurs on the 27th of Nissan, the Jewish calendar, and this year it occurs as we remember the liberation of Europe. The end of this horrible chapter in world history coincided.
Today, however, we remember the horror of the Holocaust, the concentration camps where Jewish families were decimated, parents lost to children, children lost to parents. Today we remember the pain the survivors of the Holocaust live with every day and we salute their courage to go on and their determination to ensure that we never forget the atrocities that happened to them.
This triumph over tragedy is simply the very best of human spirit and a shining example to all.
We must not forget that these atrocities were the fruits of the hate and racism condoned by nations.
As a society, we must put aside indifference to racism. We must put aside any hint or hesitation of confrontation, of prejudice and hatred. We must continue to disavow anti-Semitism and we must speak out loudly and clearly that these attitudes are simply unacceptable. As a country, we must be ready to stand up in the global community and condemn actions that are unacceptable.
Today, Canadians and the world remember the horror of the Holocaust. We must recommit to never forgetting these atrocities so that these atrocities can never again be committed.
We must offer our prayers to those who have perished and we must offer our compassion and support to those who survived yet live with these memories.
It is only by teaching our children to abhor the attitudes that enabled the Holocaust to occur that we can ensure that this is never repeated. “Never again” must be as real to us and those who follow as it is to those brave survivors of this darkest period of world history.
Sponsorship Program May 4th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, it is sworn testimony, and the Prime Minister has never once taken the opportunity to deny that this happened.
The Prime Minister chose deliberately not to give Justice Gomery the mandate to say who was guilty for the sponsorship scandal. The Minister of Public Works parrots that, of course, and says Justice Gomery's mandate is clear: he is fact finding.
If facts revealed by Justice Gomery or anyone else find that public money made its way through government departments through ad agencies in Quebec to the Prime Minister's leadership campaign, I want to hear from the Prime Minister not whether he will call an election, but whether he will tender his resignation immediately.
Sponsorship Program May 4th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, last winter the Prime Minister spoke glowingly about Mr. Chrétien's ball-juggling routine before Justice Gomery. Spring came, the Prime Minister saw his shadow and denied he had ever applauded Mr. Chrétien's vaudeville act. But wait: the Prime Minister popped up again, juggled his opinion once again, and said yes, maybe he had led a round of applause for his mentor.
The Prime Minister says Canadians must wait for Justice Gomery to reveal the facts. Having been a cheerleader for Mr. Chrétien, having already indicated he does not think that Mr. Chrétien is responsible for this, how does he know that? How do Canadians know his position will not change again when Mr. Justice Gomery and an election heat up?
Sponsorship Program May 3rd, 2005
Mr. Speaker, the terms of reference for the Gomery commission specifically prevent recommendations on criminal culpability or civil responsibility for the millions of taxpayer dollars lost or stolen in ad scam.
In fact, Justice Gomery has said himself on this limitation that “there will be no legal consequences arising from the commission's findings”. The Prime Minister himself said there was political direction in the scandal and yet he does not allow Justice Gomery to make that determination.
Why is he and his dupe now trying to dupe Canadians into thinking that this report will provide answers when he knows it will not? Will he just admit that it is Canadians who will judge who is morally and politically responsible--
Sponsorship Program May 3rd, 2005
I sense a lover's spat, Mr. Speaker.
On April 11, the Prime Minister told a reporter that all those involved in such dealings would be punished. We do know, however, that under the Gomery inquiry's terms of reference, the judge cannot name the responsible parties.
How does the Prime Minister intend to punish the guilty parties when he has not given Justice Gomery the mandate to identify them?
Civil Marriage Act May 2nd, 2005
Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague and all members on their remarks, for I think the tone of this debate has been one of respect and tolerance, which is extremely important. This is a debate that has generated and continues to generate deeply held feelings on both sides of the issue. It is a debate that needs to be approached first and foremost with that tolerance and respect I spoke of, for there is an incredible diversity of opinion on the matter.
I want to begin my remarks by stating categorically that I am not in favour of changing the definition of marriage. I have been clear and consistent in my statements in the past, and the record will reflect that position. I believe that marriage should remain the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, and that word should reflect that definition. Marriage is of course and never has been exclusively a form of relationship, or the critical ingredient, I should say, in describing what is a family relationship. Yet I also note that this is my view and it is a view that is not held by all people close to me. Colleagues, friends and loved ones may disagree, yet this debate has been reasoned and, I would suggest, at times dispassionate and on point.
In my view, we in the Conservative Party have done an admirable job in keeping that approach. We will be the only national party having a free vote. I celebrate the fact that our party has been so inclusive, tolerant and respectful. I believe that this is a symbol of professionalism, diversity, discipline and maturity within our caucus.
The key word in this debate, as I have said, is tolerance. While we accept that many may disagree when it comes to the definition of marriage, we must also be cognizant of the fact that we are talking about the lives of families, friends, neighbours and people in our communities. We must express respect for everyone's perspective even if that is a differently held view and one that we may adamantly oppose. Relationships are personal, complex and sacred and the basis upon which we interact. Naturally there will be diversity of opinion on the subject.
I can see both sides of the debate, one side that is based on equality in particular, with legal rights, privileges, responsibilities, benefits and obligations. We believe that they must be extended to all couples. Same sex couples of course must be included. On the other side, there is a deeply held belief that marriage is a fundamental social institution, not only recognized by law but sanctified by religious faith, and that any compromise in allowing same sex couples equal rights and benefits is in some way taking from that. I do not accept that argument, but I do certainly acknowledge that some feel that way.
I also very strongly believe that the real issue, and the issue that I believe we should focus on, is one of practical and meaningful equality under the law, not the semantics or the rhetoric or the inflammatory accusations that come to pass, but treating people the same under the law, with rights, responsibilities, privileges and protection, a level playing field under the law. I believe that most Canadians are looking for that position. They looking for a compromise and looking to Parliament to reflect that in its view.
This is not the first time that we have had this debate in the House of Commons. In fact, I remind members of a supply day motion brought forward by the official opposition on Tuesday, June 8, 1999. That motion read:
That, in the opinion of this House, it is necessary, in light of public debate around recent court decisions, to state that marriage is and should remain the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, and that Parliament will take all necessary steps to preserve this definition of marriage in Canada.
I would also simply like to reflect some of the comments made by a previous speaker at that time and in that debate, a current member of the House. I believe they are relevant today, just as they were some few years ago. The comments are as follows:
We on this side [of the House] 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 institution of marriage is of great importance to large numbers of Canadians, and the definition of marriage as found in the hon. member's motion is clear in law.
As stated in the motion, the definition of marriage is already clear in law. It is not found in a statute, but then not all law exists in statutes, and the law is no less binding and no less the law because it is found in the common law instead of in a statute.
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.
The Ontario court, general division, recently upheld in Layland and Beaulne the definition of marriage. In that decision a majority of the court stated the following:
--unions of persons of the same sex are not “marriages”, because of the definition of marriage. The applicants are, in effect, seeking to use section 15 of the Charter to bring about a change in the definition of marriage. I do not think the Charter has that effect.
One may then ask why are we here today and why we are using the already limited time of the House to debate a motion, on which, I suspect, there will be no fundamental disagreement inside or outside the House.
I am aware, as are other ministers, that recent court decisions and resulting media coverage have raised concern around the issue of same sex partners. It appears that the hon. member believes that the motion is both necessary and effective as a means to keep the Government of Canada from suddenly legislating the legalization of same sex marriages. That kind of misunderstanding of the intention of the government should be corrected.
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. No jurisdiction worldwide defines a legal marriage as existing between same sex partners. Even those few European countries such as Denmark, Norway and Holland, which have recently passed legislation giving recognition to same sex relationships and extending some of the same benefits and responsibilities as available to married spouses, maintain a clear distinction in the law between marriage and same sex registered partnerships.
Norway's ministry published a statement in 1994 that makes this distinction clear. Although a same sex relationship may have many of the same needs, the Norwegian government clarified that it, the same sex partnership, can --never be the same as marriage, neither socially nor from a religious point of view. (Registered partnership) does not replace or compete with heterosexual marriage--(and the) opportunity for homosexuals to register their partnerships will not lead to more people opting for homosexual relationships rather than marriage.
I fundamentally do not believe that it is necessary to change the definition of marriage in order to accommodate the equality issues around same sex partners which now face us as Canadians. The courts have ruled that some recognition must be given to the realities of unmarried cohabitation in terms of both opposite sex and same sex partners.
I strongly believe that the message to the government and to all Canadian governments from the Canadian public is a message of tolerance, fairness and respect for others.
For those who remain concerned, I would point out that recent surveys of young people indicate that marriage has not gone out of style inn Canada. The majority of young people still expect to marry. The marriage rate is still similar to that of the 1920s, although a rising number are re-marriages, and that Canadian marriages still on average last longer than those in the United States.
The motion speaks of taking all necessary steps to preserve the definition of marriage in Canada. While I and the government support the motion, I feel strongly that marriage is already very clear in Canadian minds and in Canadian law, and that there is little that the House must do as a necessary step to in any way add to the clarity of the law.
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.
As I noted, this particular speech given on Tuesday, June 8, 1999, was given to the House by a person none other than the Deputy Prime Minister of Canada, the hon. member for Edmonton Centre.
I want to note that in my constituency of Central Nova there are many who have strong and reasoned attachment to the institution of marriage. Communities like Antigonish, Pictou, Sheet Harbour and throughout the region and province feel very strongly and have expressed that to me. I must admit that I have received on occasion another opinion. I would state that up until now the courts have been interpreting a common law definition of marriage, not a definition based on statutes reflecting the democratic will of Parliament.
Once again, the question of parliamentary supremacy comes to the forefront. This dry and sanitized forum does not always reflect the true feelings of a nation. No public opinion poll or press release can capture those deeply held sentiments.
The Supreme Court refused to answer directly the constitutionality of the common law definition as posed by the Prime Minister in question four. That has been left for Parliament, and by extension the people of Canada, to decide.
Recently Canadians have become concerned about the appearance that courts encroach on the supremacy of Parliament and read into the law.
It is our belief that if Parliament brings forth a statute defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of others, which extends equal rights and benefits to couples living in other forms of union and which also protects the freedom of religion, that the Supreme Court would honour and respect Parliament's determination.
In conclusion, I am sure that those rights will be challenged, as they always are before our courts, but I take comfort knowing that there has been a general tone of respect from all parliamentarians and I am at ease with my decision. Parliament is a better place when we conduct ourselves in that vein.
Points of Order April 22nd, 2005
Mr. Speaker, I rise in response to an issue arising in question period. On behalf of the Conservative Party of Canada and in particular a highly respected communication officer for our party, Mr. Geoff Norquay, I would like to offer a retraction with regret and an apology for the inaccurate comparison made between the current Prime Minister and international terrorist Osama bin Laden.
In keeping with his vaunted and sometimes besieged leader's contrition last evening, I would offer a similar opportunity to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services to restore some semblance of lost lustre, a face-saving exercise, so to speak. I invite him to similarly withdraw and apologize for the identical comparison that was made, and in fact in far more scathing detail, against a man who rewarded him with a cabinet post, a staggering and ungracious slight on his part.
Sponsorship Program April 22nd, 2005
Mr. Speaker, those are more desperate attempts at distraction from the Liberal Party.
Claude Boulay says he worked on the Prime Minister's 1990 leadership fund. He was at the 1993 election campaign. In fact in the 1993 campaign Mr. Boulay claims he met with the Prime Minister a couple of times a week, and his wife met with him daily at times during that campaign. They dined together at the Boulay home, yet the Prime Minister says it was a casual acquaintance.
Is it not the real truth that the only casual acquaintance the Prime Minister is having is with the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?