Rob Moore

[Criminal Code, October 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak to Bill C-65 on behalf of my constituents of Fundy Royal.

Unfortunately the bill is held out to be an adoption of Mr. Chuck Cadman's previous private member's bills, Bill C-338 and Bill C-230, which he had been trying for years to get through the House. They were common sense legislation that would protect Canadians and innocent bystanders and make our streets safer for everyone.

However, in typical Liberal fashion, the government dragged its heels for too long, and now, insultingly, once again it is offering too little too late.

From the outset, I would like to state that this bill is flawed and inadequate. Countless people have suffered from street racing while the government did nothing. Now the government is responding, but it is responding with a typical Liberal half-baked measure.

It reminds me of a couple of other issues related to the administration of justice, which I will touch on very quickly. One is the sex offender registry. As my colleagues know, victims' groups, the police and the provinces have been calling for a national sex offender registry for years. Unfortunately, the party opposite was ideologically opposed to such a move.

When public pressure became overwhelming in regard to the fact that the protection of children outweighed any privacy rights that sex offenders might have, the government did come up with proposed legislation for a sex offender registry. It was unfortunate and ironic what the bill did in regard to the registry. People were shocked to find out that the registry was not retroactive, which meant that all of the convicted sex offenders and people who had victimized children in the past would not be included in the registry.

It left countless Canadians wondering what was the point of having a registry if it was empty, if it was a blank sheet of paper, if we had to start from scratch when we already had all this information and could protect Canadians. There was a model in Ontario that we could have followed. Ontario had a retroactive registry.

Once again, in a wishy-washy method that was designed to pander to their own ideological bent, the Liberals could not stomach having an effective registry, but because of public pressure they had to come up with something.

The other example is Bill C-2, the child protection legislation. We see this same pattern. They call something “child protection legislation” so that it sounds like a bread and butter issue. It sounds good. We are all interested in protecting children, but what we are left with in Bill C-2 is a hollow shell. We are left with loopholes that people who victimize children could drive a truck through, loopholes that the defence and the bar associations across the country will have a field day with. It is not effective. It is not precise. It does not protect children. It does not go beyond where we are today with our current legislation.

The party opposite suggests that just by throwing a name out there and saying that something is a sex offender registry or child protection legislation or, in this case, a street racing bill, somehow Canadians will be fooled into thinking the government is taking some substantive actions.

Originally Mr. Cadman's bills were tabled to address the rise in street racing. The police tell us that the practice of street racing is becoming increasingly dangerous across the country. It begs the question, then, why now? Why is the government finally wanting to take on the appearance of action? Why was something not done in the past when Mr. Cadman was introducing private member's bills that would have addressed this very issue?

It is important to note the government's earlier response to Mr. Cadman. What was it saying in the past? The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice said:

Unless there is some compelling reason to specify that certain circumstances are aggravating it is better not to multiply the instances where the Criminal Code spells out that a particular way of committing the offence will be an aggravating factor. In my view, we are not seeing any such reason emerging from decisions of the trial courts and the appeal courts with regard to the four offences when street racing is a part of the circumstances of these offences.

There was a reluctance to adopt Mr. Cadman's bill. There was an effort to downplay it, to make it sound like it was not going to be effective. The Minister of Justice said, “Your proposed bill would result in a mandatory driving prohibition”.

That is what the bill called for: a mandatory driving prohibition.

The minister went on to say:

As you are aware, the Canadian criminal justice system is premised on the notion that sentences should be individualized for each offender...Research indicates that mandatory minimum penalties do not work from the point of general deterrence and recidivism.

This is the same line that we hear from the current Minister of Justice. We heard it as recently as yesterday in a response to a question. The Minister of Justice stated that mandatory minimum sentences do not work, yet we see that in other jurisdictions they are effective for serious offences. The Minister of Justice and the government are for some reason ideologically opposed to providing concrete protections for law-abiding citizens and to protecting the innocent in society.

It has been three years since Mr. Cadman first tabled his bills. All along, the government refused to support the legislation because it called for mandatory minimum driving prohibitions and increased the punishment for repeat offenders.

We could ask any Canadian if it makes sense that if someone is a repeat offender there should be an increase in the punishment. If someone is showing signs of recidivism, of being a repeat offender, should there be an increase in the punishment? The average thinking Canadian would say, “Absolutely. That makes sense”. When someone is a more serious offender, there should be a more serious consequence to the offence, yet in the past the government refused to support this legislation. I am pleased to say that the Conservatives have consistently supported these measures.

Bill C-65 proposes to amend the Criminal Code by defining street racing and by specifically identifying involvement in street racing as an aggravating factor during sentencing. That makes sense. The following offences are listed: dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm; dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death; criminal negligence causing bodily harm; and criminal negligence causing death.

Bill C-65 also provides for mandatory driving prohibition orders if street racing is found to be involved in one of those offences.

There we go. On the one hand, yesterday the minister stated that mandatory sentences do not work, yet in an effort to appease Canadians when there is public pressure for something, the party on the other side will do whatever it takes to appease people. So what do we see included in this bill? We see a measure that I support. There is the mandatory driving prohibition, but again it is a half measure because there is no increase for repeat offenders.

There is an irony in debating this bill today, which has the mandatory provision, when we remember that the Minister of Justice stood up yesterday and said in a blustery way that he was opposed to mandatory minimum sentences because they do not work. It just does not make sense.

Despite the positives, and there are some positives in this proposed bill, it is important to note, as I mentioned, that without serious penalties for serious crimes those crimes are going to continue. There will be no effect.

It is important to remind Canadians that in this legislation the severity of the punishment does not increase for repeat offenders. That was an essential aspect of the proposals in Mr. Cadman's original private member's bills. His bills proposed that for subsequent serious offenders there would be more serious consequences.

Bill C-65 is a half measure. After years of the government dragging its feet and speaking out against Mr. Cadman's private member's bills, it has introduced a half measure. It is a half measure that I cannot support.

We should honour the original intent of these bills, which would have been effective and would have provided serious consequences for those people who are serious offenders. We need to have some common sense amendments to this bill.

[Home Heating Prices, October 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the government was quick to provide relief for politicians and Ottawa bureaucrats, but it continues to ignore the rest of Canada. The government is experiencing a revenue windfall on the backs of hard working Canadians. Will it do the right thing for once and provide GST relief on the high cost of fuel?

[Home Heating Prices, October 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, this week the Liberal government came up with yet another pre-election gimmick. The last time the Liberals tried something like this, criminals in prison and deceased individuals received cheques.

This time the Liberal scheme leaves out 90% of Canadians. All Canadians need relief from the high cost of fuel. Why does this scheme leave most Canadians out in the cold?

[Civil Marriage Act, June 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the committee heard 60 some witnesses though we were not going to hear that many.

I heard the parliamentary secretary say we heard 400 and some witnesses. That was in another Parliament. As the hon. member knows, that committee was basically hijacked as it was hearing general testimony from coast to coast on whether the Canadian government should appeal the Ontario Court of Appeal ruling regarding the definition of marriage.

As we know, members who supported marriage were pulled off that committee and other Liberal members were inserted who opposed traditional marriage. We know the committee did not even render a report. That is of no benefit. We are in a new Parliament. This bill put before us changes what the word marriage means and we are not given ample time to study it.

The member has raised an important question. There are only two other countries in the world that have changed in law what the word marriage means, so we do not know yet the long term effects. We can hypothesize what the impact could be on changing an institution that predates Canada.

The committee heard testimony from many witnesses. On the protection of religious freedom, for example, I will read an excerpt:

The advance of social liberalism necessarily stirs anxieties about cultural and religious freedom. Bill C-38 promises that it won't break into the religious sanctuaries to coerce religious officials to solemnize marriages against their consciences. The fact that this legislation raises the spectre of such draconian action is telling.

I agree with that 100%. We do not know where this is going to lead when it comes to freedoms. We know, in the original B.C. decision on this issue, that Justice Pitfield ruled that marriage predates Canada. It predates Confederation. Not only is it not for a judge to change what the word “marriage” means, it is not for Parliament to change what the word “marriage” means.

It is interesting how this has been framed as an issue of fundamental human rights. A few years ago members on that side overwhelmingly voted to support the traditional definition of marriage and yet those same members come here and have the gall to suggest this is about fundamental human rights. If this is about fundamental human rights, why are those members not championing this cause? They are not because it is not a fundamental human right. It is a social policy decision and there has not been one court from any national or international body or tribunal that has suggested otherwise.

We do not know where this is going to lead, but it is virtually unprecedented. We know that Sweden, Norway, France and Australia are taking a reasonable approach. They recognize that there are equality rights and access issues raised by the issue of same sex couples, but they have not attempted to change what the word “marriage” means in their countries, nor should we.

[Civil Marriage Act, June 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise on behalf of my constituents to speak to Bill C-38 at report stage.

It is interesting that over the course of presenting petitions there were a number of petitions where constituents were calling on Parliament to recognize and to affirm marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. To put it another way they were calling on Parliament to affirm marriage in the traditional sense or in the sense that it is universally applied across countries, across cultures, across religions. When I attended various events in my riding, people asked, “Why are you going back next week? What is going on? Why the virtually unprecedented extension of the sitting of the House?” There is only one government bill on the projected order, Bill C-38, which in effect will change the legal definition of the word “marriage” in Canada”.

If Canadians are so concerned, so divided and so upset about changing a fundamental basic institution in our country, why is the Liberal government embarking on this approach? Why did it not look for alternatives that could have accomplished some of the concerns that were being raised?

This has not been the approach that other jurisdictions have taken. In France and Australia, for example, there has been a recognition of the rights of other couples but preservation of what the word “marriage” means.

It has been interesting to see over the last couple of years how the language has changed. This takes to me one of the amendments. In 1999 members across the way, including the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, and many members on that side and many members in this House, overwhelmingly assured Canadians that Parliament would not only affirm the traditional definition of marriage but would take all steps necessary to protect that definition of marriage in Canada. It was some time later, in 2000, when in the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act, a clause was inserted which stated:

For greater certainty, the amendments made by this Act do not affect the meaning of the word "marriage", that is, the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

The then justice minister and current Deputy Prime Minister spoke at length about the uniqueness of the institution of marriage and that how, as she said, Parliament and the Liberal government had no intention of changing what the word “marriage” meant in Canada.

The reason it is interesting to note that particular clause in the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act that was passed by this House 2000 is that in Bill C-38, clause 15 states:

Section 1.1 of the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act and the heading before it are repealed.

It is just that simple. Is it any wonder that there is cynicism out there? Those on the other side give assurances that religious freedoms are going to be protected, that freedom of expression is going to be protected, that changing what the word “marriage” means in our country is not going to have any impact on our country, is not going to have any impact on those that come after us. With a bit of revisionist history however, the Liberals in the year 2005, reach back to the year 2000 and pretend that Parliament at that time did not insert that declaratory clause on what the word “marriage” means. This brings me to one of the amendments. Remember, it states that for greater certainty the bill does not impact on the definition of marriage and then sets out what that definition is.

I sat on the legislative committee studying Bill C-38. I have heard the parliamentary secretary say a few things today that I would take issue with. One is that this issue has had a good hearing among Canadians. As members know, we on this side had to fight tooth and nail to get the number of witnesses we did. Theses were witnesses that the parliamentary secretary quoted, witnesses that he now acknowledges were good witnesses. The Liberals fought against including them on the witness list.

It is interesting that, through that committee, one of the amendments to Bill C-38, and this bill can only be described as smoke and mirrors, other than changing what the word “marriage” means in law in Canada, nothing else in the bill is of any legal effect. It does not offer any protection or is of any consequence to Canadians, other than the fact that it changes the definition of marriage.

I would like members to listen to the familiar words and see if this sounds familiar. Clause 3.1 says “For greater certainty”. Again, another assurance using the exact same language. The expression “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me” comes to mind. Once again we have members on that side saying “Don't worry about it; this won't impact on you”.

It is just like a couple of years ago when the Liberals said to Canadians not to worry. They indicated that this would not impact on what the word “marriage” meant and that it would not have that effect. Anyone with any common sense would know that was the ultimate conclusion that they were leading to. Now with the same conviction, those on that side are saying “For greater certainty”. I would like to read this provision. It says:

For greater certainty, no person or organization shall be deprived of any benefit, or be subject to any obligation or sanction, under any law of the Parliament of Canada solely by reason of their exercise, in respect of marriage between persons of the same sex, of the freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the expression of their beliefs in respect of marriage as the union of a man and woman to the exclusion of all others based on that guaranteed freedom.

That sounds pretty good to me. To someone who is perhaps not a lawyer or to the average Canadian who might read this bill would say that sounds good. That sounds like the government has it covered. Canadians should know as well, as I do, that in law this is a declaratory provision that is not only unconstitutional but it does nothing to protect Canadians. That was the evidence we heard in committee.

We heard a justice department lawyer explain to us, and it is obvious if a person takes a close look at the provision, that this is simply restating that we have certain rights under the Canadian charter of rights. We heard where those rights can lead us. I heard witness after witness give testimony that their rights had been impacted because of the definition of marriage.

We heard at length about Bishop Fred Henry. We heard about marriage commissioners whose livelihood is being affected. We heard about the Knights of Columbus. Here is a real life example. The Knights of Columbus are a religious order of the Catholic church. They are being brought before a human rights tribunal in British Columbia because they will not sanction a same sex ceremony because it violates their religious beliefs. This is not some hypothetical down the road. This is happening right now. Bill C-38 does absolutely nothing to protect religious beliefs.

If we look at Bill C-38, the first clause says it is called the civil marriage act. I want to speak and support the amendment put forward by my colleague from Calgary Southeast that this clause be amended. The reason it should be amended is that there is no civil marriage in Canada. There is no distinction between civil marriage and marriage. There is only one definition of marriage. By even raising that concept that there is somehow two kinds of marriage in Canada is misleading to Canadians. It is creating more smoke and mirrors and clouding the issue. I support taking that out.

Motion No. 2 states that clause 2 be deleted. It says:

Marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others.

I have heard sufficient testimony that leads me to the conclusion that if we change the definition of marriage, it will have an impact on other rights. I am also confident that there are ways to address equality concerns without changing the definition of marriage. That is the Canadian way. That is what Canadians support. They support equality, but they also support this basic institution.

Motion No. 3 would delete clause 3 which says:

It is recognized that officials of religious groups are free to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs.

We know that the Supreme Court of Canada considered this bill and came to two very ironic conclusions. First, it said it would not say the traditional definition of marriage was unconstitutional and did not rule it unconstitutional. Yet the Liberals will lead us to believe it did. Second, it said a provision like that is ultra vires, outside the jurisdiction of Parliament, and it cannot act to protect religious freedoms. I will be opposing this bill. I urge my colleagues to do so and look for a Canadian compromise.

[National Defence, June 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in the 1950s and 1960s the Department of National Defence sprayed agent orange, agent purple and other highly toxic chemical herbicides at Base Gagetown in New Brunswick. The health and well-being of many were put at risk because of the use of this poison. Civilian and military personnel, their dependants and the public in general who were living near the base were told there was no danger. It was obvious they were misled.

The Government of Canada has known the consequences of this spraying for many years now and since then has continued to dither, hide evidence and deny any responsibility for its actions. The Minister of Veterans Affairs has suggested in the House that she is eager to help. However, with 20 files on her desk seeking compensation without any resolution, I suggest her definition of eager is somewhat similar to the actions the government displayed on the issue of hepatitis C.

The government was quick to come up with a $4.5 billion ad hoc budget scribbled on the back of a napkin in a hotel room in Toronto to serve its own political agenda, but when it comes to helping ordinary Canadians, it has failed to act.

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to make Certain Payments, June 16th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, it is rather simple. The members opposite voted with the Bloc twice as many times as we have. We on this side of the House oppose corruption and that was illustrated by our vote.

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to make Certain Payments, June 16th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, it is funny that the member mentions day care. This national institutionalized day care program that the Liberals and the NDP are proposing is one that the Liberals have promised in every election.

Our party believes that parents are best equipped to raise their own children. Our party would provide funding to parents. They can make the important choices when it comes to child care, not some grand new bureaucracy that is only going to grow and grow, so we could produce little cookie-cutter kids as the Liberals would have us do.

We believe in individuality. We believe in supporting parents. We believe in supporting children. We would give directly to those parents so that they can make their choices. We would not tax them so much, so that at the end of the month there is nothing left. We would allow them to keep more of their hard earned money which is fair and equitable for all Canadians. We would not buy into the Liberal scheme.

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to make Certain Payments, June 16th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here tonight with my colleagues to debate this important measure that we have seen.

I think this goes to the root of what separates the Liberals and the Liberals' way of thinking from the Conservatives. What we have seen over the last several months is nothing short, in my opinion, of disgusting. We have seen a Prime Minister who is willing to sink to any depth to hold on to power, and this bill, I guess, is the most expensive example of what he is willing to do.

We all know that the Prime Minister has been referred to as Mr. Dithers. We all know that a Liberal promise made as of late has been a Liberal promise broken. We see a Prime Minister who, for one vote, is willing to send our troops into danger. We see a Prime Minister who is willing to go to any depth to bribe members to become a part of his caucus to sustain his party.

Having been here for a year now and having worked with my colleagues on this side of the House, my colleagues and I are here to make Canada a better place. We are here to represent our constituents. I believe there are probably some members on the other side who feel the same way. However what we have seen is that the Prime Minister is willing to do anything he can to hold on to power.

The one thing the Liberals have been unable to do over their entire term is to manage Canadians' money and to give an accurate accounting of taxpayer dollars. As I was saying, that goes to the root.

Conservatives believe that taxpayer money should be treated with respect. Liberals treat taxpayer money as if it were their own to do with as they like, such as spend it on their friends or further their own personal gains. However we believe, to the contrary, that taxpayer money should be treated with respect.

I want to speak a bit about the taxpayers in my riding of Fundy Royal. In my riding of Fundy Royal, individuals and families work very hard for their money. I mentioned the difference in philosophy between Liberals and Conservatives. We believe that Canadians know best how to spend their money.

I deal with people every day in my constituency who are struggling with student loans, who are struggling with health concerns and people who are perhaps working two jobs and struggling to make ends meet. We have farming families and families where maybe both parents are working or one parent is working two jobs or working night shifts to provide for their families. What did the Liberal budget offer them?

I want to remind members here of a couple of facts. First, when the Liberal budget, Bill C-43, was first proposed, the finance minister suggested that it was a tight budget, that there was no wiggle room, that it could not be amended and that to do so would be endangering the country's finances.

What did the Liberals offer in that budget? What did they offer by way of relief to some of the individuals I am talking about? I remind members that I believe and members on this side of the House believe that Canadians know better how to spend their own money than the Liberal government does. It has been proven time and time again.

We have heard references today to the millions of dollars worth of waste. We voted the other night on the gun registry. It is typical Liberal accounting and forecasting when Liberals try to sell a program to Canadians and declare it will cost $2 million. We find out a few years later that it is only 1,000 times over budget.

The budget talked about the proposal from that side for institutionalized day care where all of our children would be raised by the minister and in his image, so that we have little cookie cutter kids with Liberal philosophies rather than parents being able to raise their children the way they see fit. The Liberals have a one size fits all, Big Brother knows best mentality, and the idea that Canadians can be bribed with some grand scheme. An illustration of a grand scheme is the $5 billion which all the forecasters and experts in the field will tell us is a drop in the bucket and will not accomplish what the Liberals say it will. Nonetheless, that is what has been offered.

We were told there was no room for error in the budget, no room to amend. What did we offer hardworking Canadian families and individuals? We offered them a tax cut of $16 a year. What type of impact is that going to have on the average Canadian's life? How is that going to benefit an individual Canadian?

It may perhaps pay for one cup of medium double-double coffee a month. That would be the only benefit to be gained by the Liberal tax cut. The government's method of helping Canadians is to, on one hand, start this grand program and, on the other, offer nothing by way of real relief to Canadian families.

What did the Liberals offer Canadian seniors? After five years those on old age security, individuals on a modest, fixed income were offered $32 a month. A senior has to live another five years to get the full benefit of that. Of course, that was also indexed. Basically, Canadians, seniors, young people, students and farmers were offered nothing in the Liberal budget.

Then, as we know, the Liberals fell on hard times and they had to get into bed, so to speak, with their NDP counterparts. On one piece of paper they concocted this agreement, whereby we would spend an extra $4.6 billion of Canadians' money.

We have to put that into perspective because that side loves to throw out these billion dollar figures as if they are nothing. They talk about $1 billion the way some Canadians might talk about buying a package of gum. The amount of $4.6 billion is approximately the entire annual budget of the province where I am from, the province of New Brunswick. That is what New Brunswick pays for all of its roads, health care, and everything that the provincial government provides. My provincial government and provincial governments across the country are strapped for cash. We know there is a fiscal imbalance. We know that municipalities are struggling to make ends meet.

We must remember the history of the finance minister. On one hand, he says there is no room to move and on the other hand, unbeknownst to him, this deal is signed for $4.6 billion.

We must also remember that in the last election my party had an accurate fiscal forecast and told Canadians what we felt the surplus would be. The government, on the other hand, has had a record of always underestimating, deliberately I suggest, telling Canadians that there would be no surplus, so that there is a little money left at the end of the year to spread around to their friends and to buy their votes. Bill C-48 is doing exactly that. It is targeting the disadvantaged and Canadians coast to coast who are in need. They are waving this in front of them when they know there is a great possibility those people will see none of this money. The finance minister said $1.9 billion would be the surplus. The actual surplus turned out to be $9.1 billion.

Therefore, I think it is certainly time that we restore fiscal accountability. I will not be supporting this budget and I cannot see why anyone else would. It is irresponsible and misleading. The ones who have been misled the most are those who sit in that corner of the House. They are not going to see this money.

[Turnaround Achievement Awards, June 16th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to congratulate students from Quispamsis, Kingston Peninsula, Hampton, Belleisle and Sussex, who are the recipients of the Turnaround Achievement Awards.

The Turnaround Achievement Award program recognizes students in grades 6 through 12 who have demonstrated exceptional commitment and perseverance in turning around their lives. This program is founded on the principle that rewarding students for their hard work and celebrating their success is an essential part of building self-esteem.

Last month I was honoured to join these remarkable students, their parents and teachers from school district 6 in celebration of these achievements at the official awards ceremony.

This is the time of year when we recognize the accomplishments of high school, college and university graduates at graduation ceremonies across Canada.

I would like to take this opportunity to extend my congratulations to all secondary and post-secondary students graduating this spring in my riding of Fundy Royal. I thank them for the contributions they have made to their communities and the contributions they will make in the future.