Rob Anders

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

Broadbent is so upset he is quitting.

[Question No. 115, May 4th, 2005]

For each year since 2000, how much money has been spent on taxi chits, and how many were used and by which departments, agencies, and Crown corporations?

(Return tabled)

[Civil Marriage Act, May 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, like the member before me, I would like to thank those who have travelled far and who have sat in this chamber for the last several weeks watching over its debates, its deliberations. Their encouragement is appreciated.

I, like many on this side of the House, believe in the traditional common law definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. It is a central, social institution. It is a stable environment for the procreation and raising of children. It provides for the nurturing of children in the care of a mother and a father. To quote the legal ethicist, Margaret Somerville, “The crucial question is: should marriage be primarily a child-centred institution or an adult centred one?” If we believe it is a child centred institution then it should be left as is.

There is a large body that thinks marriage is such a fundamental social institution that not only should it be recognized by law but also sanctified by religious faith, and that leaves it as basically a heterosexual institution.

Justice La Forest in the Egan decision as well said, “it is by nature heterosexual”, when referring to marriage. I also believe that is something that is consistent with the belief of the vast majority of Canadians.

Around the world there are only two countries that have legislated same sex marriage at the national level, Belgium and the Netherlands. In both 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.

At this point I would like to ad lib and talk a bit about a radio show that I listened to not that long ago. The former leader of the Reform Party, Preston Manning was on the show and I thought there were some words of wisdom to be offered on this matter in this debate. He said that the term he would prefer for those who wished to see a middle ground institution, a compromise, was one that he described as being that of a dependent relationship. Some people like to call it a civil union or a domestic partnership et cetera.

I want to make very clear that I believe marriage should maintain as its definition, being of one man and one woman. For example, if this place could consider dependent relationships, dependent relationships do not have a sexual nature to them. They are in a sense neutral. If we were to enact a dependent relationship and recognize it in this place and if members here or any people in society at large had members in their families who were incapacitated, dependants, whether it be infants, or people over the age of 18 or maybe even seniors who could not look after themselves, something like a dependent relationship would be there to look after these people for tax purposes. It would ensure that they would have the means to do so. It would be the state in a sense stepping in. Like the idea in a book, we sometimes quote in this place about widows and orphans being protected and looked after. If people want a compromise position, I think the description of a dependent relationship is the best I have heard, given the scenario.

There is one state in the United States, Massachusetts, the state of Ted Kennedy, that has recognized these types of unions the Liberals are trying to pass. It is noteworthy that a majority in the Massachusetts legislature opposed it. Even the governor of the state of Massachusetts opposed what the Liberals in this country are trying to do. I guess that means the Liberals in Canada would be to the left of the Democrats of Massachusetts.

I do not believe most Canadians are looking to be more radical than the British Labour Party, or the French socialist party or the most liberal Democrats in the United States. I think most people believe in preserving the time honoured institution of marriage. We believe that if the government squarely and honestly put this option forward, that of preserving marriage with the possibility of maybe dependent relationships and it was a fair question, this option is the one that most Canadians would choose.

I for one believe this is a question worthy of a referendum. I remember when the Constitution was first patriated back in 1982. I was 10 years old, in grade five and I watched it in the classroom. I remember thinking that people like my father should have had the opportunity to vote on the Constitution. I am sure there are many in Quebec who share that sentiment and wish they would have had a chance to vote on the Constitution as well.

There is a fine Liberal tradition, going back and looking at Mackenzie King. The reason he was able to have as many consecutive governments as he did was he was a person who deferred to the people on controversial questions and put it to a vote. The conscription crisis in particular comes to mind. The Prime Minister in this case would have been well advised to take a page out of Mackenzie King's book and in a sense not go ahead and impose his hidden agenda on Canada.

It is worthy of note that not long ago in this place the Liberals across the way voted to preserve and protect the traditional definition of marriage. They have gone against the earlier votes and promises they made in this place. It does not surprise me that they went back on their word, but it probably surprises a lot of the people who gave them their votes in the last election.

When the Liberal Party talks about hidden agendas, it is very appropriate for people to remember which party said that it would not make any significant changes to marriage. Yet it is now in power. The Liberals never raised it during the election campaign. As a matter of fact, they promised the opposite. They never allowed it to go to a national vote, yet they are going ahead and imposing their will.

The government is insisting upon an absolutist approach and that puts it on the extreme. It is not a reasonable approach. It is certainly something that we on this side of the House do not believe is reflective of Canadian values. The Liberals are not respecting the will of the majority and they are not preserving one of our deepest held positions. That is why it is very important that they must accept and consider the amendments the Conservative Party has moved on the bill.

I would like as well to address the issue that one of my colleagues brought up previously, the idea of the separation of church and state. I like reading some of the founding documents of the American constitution. I believe that Thomas Jefferson, when he first advanced these principles, was in a sense avant-garde in breaking ground.

It is important to note that Thomas Jefferson was chosen as the writer of the Declaration of Independence because he was the author of the constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia. He created Virginia as an ecumenical state.

The issue that the United States was running into, and I want to ensure this is clearly laid out, was that Maryland, for example, was a Catholic state. Pennsylvania was a Protestant state. What Thomas Jefferson sought to do in a very ecumenical and multi-faith based place like Virginia was implement a state constitution that would allow for all these religious differences.

It is important to note that at the time Thomas Jefferson never would have considered the twisting of his words, as has taken place today. All people were Christians. Some of them may have been Baptist, some Catholic, et cetera, but nonetheless all shared a common book in the sense of right and wrong.

When he talked about the separation of church and state, he was merely doing so for the idea of an ecumenical Christianity in the United States. He was not advocating that church leaders abdicate the public square. That is what Liberals across the way are intending when they twist the words of Thomas Jefferson. They intend that church leaders and moral leaders abdicate the public square. This is the reason why they are probably advocating for the legalization of prostitution as well.

If they want to be true to the words of Thomas Jefferson and some of the great minds that formed those liberty documents, it had nothing to do with the abdication of moral and religious leaders from the public square, none whatsoever. I want to ensure that is clear and put on the record.

I realize I am tight on time. I thank the Christian Brethren for its presence, and I hope the bill fails.

[The Prime Minister, April 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in 1970 Prime Minister Trudeau spoke to the nation to address the FLQ crisis. In 1990 Prime Minister Mulroney spoke to the nation to announce the failure of the Meech Lake accord. In 1995 Prime Minister Chrétien spoke to the nation in advance of the Quebec referendum. Yesterday the Prime Minister spoke to the nation to save his career.

In a desperate and diversionary ruse to buy his moribund government more time, the Prime Minister promised an election, but only in 10 months. Why do we not first take a look at what he has done in the last 10 months: no meaningful tax cuts, no democratic reform, no dealing with the fiscal imbalance.

The Prime Minister has become an expert at making promises, but keeping them is a whole different matter. The Prime Minister has dithered so often that he does not ever actually get anything done. We must judge our politicians not on what they say, but on what they have done. The Prime Minister has shown that the only thing he does is break promises.

[Civil Marriage Act, April 5th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, what is ungrateful with regard to the amendment proposed by the Conservative Party on marriage is that I have been reading through a lot of what I think are seminal works on this subject.

I know that some of my colleagues in this place have quoted philosophers. I know one of them relied on John Stuart Mill and took his great treatise On Liberty to go ahead and talk about freedoms.

I want to quickly touch on this philosopher in particular because I think he is sometimes being used and abused by some of my colleagues in this place. With regard to marriage, John Stuart Mill said:

A person is bound to take all these circumstances into account, before resolving on a step which may affect such important interests of others; and if he does not allow proper weight to those interests, he is morally responsible for the wrong.

What Mill is saying is that we have to take into account the interests of children in this debate because they are third parties that are called into existence by marriage.

Mill goes on to say, “liberty is often granted where it should be withheld”, even though his treatise is called On Liberty .

He adds:

--but he ought not to be free to do as he likes in acting for another under the pretext that the affairs of another are his own affairs. The State, while it respects the liberty of each in what specially regards himself, is bound to maintain a vigilant control over his exercise of any power which it allows him to possess over others.

In other words, family relations have a direct influence on human happiness, more important than all others taken together.

Mill adds:

--forbid marriage unless the parties can show that they have the means of supporting a family, do not exceed the legitimate powers of the State...not objectionable as violations of liberty.

What he is basically saying is that we can prohibit a mischievous act if it is injurious to others and that such an act should be subject to reprobation and social stigma.

He talks about putting “restraints upon the inclinations when the consequence of their indulgence is a life or lives of wretchedness and depravity to the offspring, with manifold evils to those sufficiently within reach to be in any way affected by their actions”.

I wanted it to be clearly understood that John Stuart Mill would never have advocated for civil unions. He would have adamantly opposed them and I think I have given the reasons.

I will now switch from talking about philosophers to talking about history. Luckily, we have 60 centuries, 6,000 years of written human history to which we can refer when we talk about the issue of marriage. I think they shed great light.

H.W.F. Saggs, in his book The Babylonians , records that in the third millennium B.C. sacred marriage involved a ritual bath, love songs, magnificent ceremonial robes, gifts including outer garments of linen, and feast celebrations. It is interesting how we see some of those same things today nearly 5,000 years later.

Arnold Toynbee wrote a seminal work on history called A Study of History . Book five of that is entitled “Disintegration of Civilization“ or what he also refers to as the “Schism in the Soul”.

He recognizes that as societies begin to disintegrate we lose our sense of self-control and our sense of discipline, and that in order to be a leader in such times people must go beyond the demands of duty. They must fortify morale, secure safety and give strength. It requires them to step forward to inspire, to vindicate ideals and to enoble their civilizations.

To do that people need to respect traditions, religious beliefs and rituals. They need to stand for what is universal and eternal, to do what is good. They must be servants with conscience and ability to have their civilization realize its highest potentialities.

Edward Gibbon goes on in his work, the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire , to cite several things that made for the decline of the Roman Empire. One of those, the first that he cites, was the immorality that destroyed the integrity of family life.

It is important to note that before the Punic Wars against Carthage, polygamy was unknown among Romans, Athenians and the Jews, but in the later stages of the empire, a loose marriage contract made religious and civil rights nonessential.

In three centuries of prosperity and corruption, this principle was enlarged to frequent practice and pernicious abuse. Passion, interest or caprice suggested daily motives for the dissolution of marriage, a word, a sign, a message, a letter, even the mandate of a freed man, declared the separation of a marriage. It no longer had any bearing.

The second thing that Gibbon talks about is gender confusion and the problems that had in the Roman Empire. The third is disregard for religion. I think we can see some parallels today.

I would like to go further into the details of the Roman Empire because there were some people who understood its fragility. Had these people not come about, the Roman Empire would never have been the pax Romana of 800 years that we know today. Instead, it would merely have been a flash in the pan. It would have died a quick death.

Julius Caesar in 59 BC offered rewards to Romans who had many children. He forbade childless women to ride in litters or wear jewellery. It sounds pretty stark in today's climate but, nonetheless, he understood the importance of family.

I would also like to talk about what would be my favourite Roman emperor, Octavian, after the battle of Actium known as Augustus, and the Roman Empire, had Augustus Caesar not been around in his roughly 50 year reign. The Roman Empire had 200 years of peace and, in a sense, a continuation of its golden age as a result of Augustus Caesar.

I would like to read into the record some of the things Augustus did. He interfered as little as possible in the running of the constitution. He preferred to govern through his moral authority. He inaugurated a religious, moral and social reform of the Roman people. He rebuilt derelict temples, restored neglected ceremonies and priesthoods. He revived the old state religion with all its patriotic associations and he restored the sanctity of marriage. Once again, Augustus Caesar, to elongate the Roman Empire, restored the sanctity of marriage.

Those guilty of initiating divorce lost three-quarters of their property to their spouse. They did not get 50%. A woman would be stripped of her wealth and ornaments, and if the man introduced a new bride into his bed, his fortune would be lawfully seized by the vengeance of the exiled wife. We should think about that in terms of divorce rates. Offenders were even disabled from the repetition of nuptials. In other words, if people had a divorce they could not get remarried.

He stimulated the birth rate. He rewarded the parents of large families. As a matter of fact, if parents had as many as five children under the Emperor Augustus, they no longer paid any tax. One can imagine what not having to pay tax would do for a Canadian family with five children.

Augustus was also a patron of poets. He encouraged those poets to devote their talents to propagating ideals. Horace, therefore, preached religious and moral reform. Ovid popularized religious revival. The system that Augustus established endured with no essential change for three centuries. That is how successful it was.

Then we come to Marcus Aurelius. His writings are still available to us, his own biography and his meditations. He was somebody who believed in being faithful to the gods and the traditions of the ancestors. In his time, outwardly Rome still stood, more resplendent and apparently more unshakeable than ever. Inwardly, however, she was in a state of mental and spiritual flux. The old order was losing its hold on men's minds and the new order was yet far off.

The old pattern of Roman civilization was showing signs of disintegration. Internal corruptions were part of the problem. He was somebody who wanted to show scrupulous respect because the state religion no longer had that and mere lip service was paid on the part of the educated to religion. To the educated man who no longer believed in the official religion, another recourse was philosophy, but here, unfortunately, there were many winds of doctrine.

I would go on to talk about Diocletian, for I think I would wrap up with him, but I have only a minute left.

There are things we can learn from history. I only wish that my colleagues across the way, rather than referring to modernity and some of the modern philosophies, would instead refer to 6,000 years of written human history and observe closely what ramifications changes to law have had.

If they did that, if they read Toynbee, Durant and Gibbon, if they read some of these people who were the saviours of those civilizations, they would understand that this type of action undermines civilization and disintegrates it.

[Question No. 77, March 21st, 2005]

For each year since 1997, was any funding provided to the University of Calgary Centre for Military and Strategic Studies and, if any, from which departments, agencies and Crown corporations was the funding requested?

(Return tabled)

[Question No. 76, March 21st, 2005]

For each year since 1997, was any funding provided to the Carleton University Norman Patterson School of International Affairs and, if any, from which department, agencies and Crown corporations was the funding requested?

(Return tabled)

[Airline Industry, March 11th, 2005]

Just cut taxes. Compare taxes to the U.S.

[Foreign Affairs, March 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, on this day in 1959 the Tibetan people voiced their united protest against the invasion of their country by the People's Republic of China. The Tibetan national uprising stood up against the Chinese invaders.

In retaliation, the Chinese government massacred thousands of innocent monks, women and children in the streets of Lhasa and elsewhere. A week later, 80,000 Tibetans, including the Dalai Lama, were forced to flee their homeland for asylum in India. There are now more than 130,000 Tibetan refugees scattered around the world.

Today's 46th anniversary does not bring any joy in Tibet, as imprisonments and killings continue. The cultural genocide in Tibet cannot be ignored. The Communist Chinese legacy in Tibet includes 1.2 million Tibetans murdered, 6,000 monasteries destroyed, thousands of Tibetans imprisoned for their political beliefs, and the burning of irreplaceable Buddhist texts.

It is time for the Prime Minister to stop sitting down in Chinese boardrooms until he stands up for human rights.

[Question No. 75, March 9th, 2005]

For each year since 2000, did the government use any rented aircraft to transport Canadian Forces to Afghanistan and, if so: ( a ) what type of aircraft was rented; ( b ) who were they rented from; and ( c ) how much did each rental cost the government?

(Return tabled)