Rob Moore

[Definition of Marriage Act, February 18th, 2005]

moved that Bill C-268, an act to confirm the definition of marriage and to preserve ceremonial rights, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker,I rise today to speak to my private member's bill, Bill C-268, an act to confirm the definition of marriage.

I was first elected to this House in June 2004. As a new member of Parliament, I was pleased when I was drawn fourth overall in the lottery on private members' business. Under the rules for private members' business this meant that I would be able to introduce a bill and have it considered, debated and voted on by members of Parliament.

I must say, however, that my work on this bill has been a reality check and illustrates to me that the democratic deficit our current Prime Minister had promised to slay is indeed alive and well.

My bill is unique in that it is relevant to the debate we are having in this House today on the Liberals' plan to change the definition of marriage. It is also unique because it is the only private member's bill in this session that has been deemed non-votable.

This private member's bill, like the government's Bill C-38, provides a legislated definition of marriage. However, unlike Bill C-38, my bill defines marriage as it always has been known: as the union of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others.

However, my bill will not be voted on, as the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs ruled that my bill would be non-votable. The Liberals prevented my bill from bill being voted on so that this issue would only come forward to this House in their timing.

This constitutes, in my opinion, a gross interference by the Liberal government in private members' business. Private members' business is limited to only a few hours per week and there is already too little opportunity for members of Parliament to represent their constituents in this House.

To say the least, I also found the rationale for the committee's rejection of votable status for my bill to be without merit. I find that the process that led them to the decision was certainly flawed.

First, the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business met in private and in camera, without any representation from me, and acted as judge, jury and executioner of my bill by declaring it non-votable.

I of course appealed this decision to the full membership of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, where the membership also prevented my bill from being made votable. Their flawed argument was that my bill was clearly unconstitutional.

To suggest that my private members' bill is clearly in violation of the Constitution is to take on the role of justices of the court, not parliamentarians. It is the constitutionality of the traditional definition of marriage that was the very issue in the reference the Attorney General of Canada put forward to the Supreme Court on January 28 of last year. The reference question states:

Is the opposite-sex requirement for marriage for civil purposes, as established by the common law and set out for Quebec in section 5 of the Federal Law-Civil Law Harmonization Act, No. 1, consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? If not, in what particular or particulars and to what extent?

The committee prejudged the outcome of this important reference to the highest court of the land and therefore acted contemptuous to both the Supreme Court of Canada and to the Attorney General of Canada.

I argued at committee that if the constitutionality of even the common law definition of marriage, let alone a legislated definition of marriage, were clear, then there would be no need to ask the Supreme Court of Canada the question.

The Attorney General had put a bona fide question to the court. Why would the Attorney General waste taxpayers' money and the high court's time to answer a question that clearly had already been answered?

Under our judicial system, a decision of a provincial court only has application within the province in which that decision was rendered. The only court decision that applies to every province is that of the Supreme Court of Canada. In fact, this is the definition most recently upheld by Parliament as part of the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act.

In this respect, the ruling of the committee was in breach of the law passed by Parliament four years ago.

The definition of marriage contained in the bill is the same one that is the law in four provinces and two territories in this country. Further, British Columbia and Ontario courts of appeals went to great lengths to emphasize that they were changing the common law definition of marriage and that there was no legislated definition of marriage for them to deal with.

Bill C-268 contains a legislated definition of marriage with which the courts have not yet dealt.

Oftentimes a provincial court of appeal decision is overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada in favour of the reasoning of the original court. In both B.C. and Ontario there are lower court decisions that found the traditional definition of marriage was in fact constitutional. Further, the Supreme Court of Canada has never indicated in any ruling that the traditional definition of marriage was unconstitutional. To the contrary, when the Supreme Court ruled in the Egan case, Justice La Forest stated:

Marriage has from time immemorial been firmly grounded in our legal tradition, one that is itself a reflection of long-standing, philosophical and religious traditions.

He went on to say, “In this sense marriage is by nature heterosexual”.

In spite of all this, the committee found that my bill was clearly unconstitutional.

The Standing Orders do not say that a bill is non-votable because it may, could, likely, or possibly violates the Constitution. The threshold is much higher. A bill must clearly violate the Constitution to be deemed non-votable. I submit that in light of the facts that I have already set out, my bill fell far short of that threshold.

In the meantime, since the committee ruled my bill non-votable, the Supreme Court has finally rendered its decision in the reference case. In the case it did not in fact find that the traditional definition of marriage was unconstitutional. As a matter of fact, it did not answer the very question that was put to it by the attorney general and therefore it put the issue back into the hands of Parliament. This is exactly what my bill would have done.

The great irony of my bill and the government's bill is that the Supreme Court ruling did not in any way whatsoever indicate that the traditional definition of marriage contained in my bill was unconstitutional. However, the court did rule that the government's bill, specifically the clause that purports to protect religious freedoms, was in fact ultra vires and unconstitutional.

I think it is important for members to remember, and for Canadians to understand, that allowing my bill to proceed through our democratic process in no way indicates support for the substance of the bill, but failure to do so clearly indicates suppression of democracy. By denying parliamentarians the opportunity to vote on my bill, we are subverting the limited democratic gains that we have made in the House.

We must remember that it is the role of Parliament to legislate, not to determine the validity of legislation. That role in our system is filled by the courts. It is the responsibility of Parliament to deal with matters of important social policy.

At every turn the Liberal government has sought to avoid meaningful public consultation and debate on the very important and foundational issue of marriage. When the House of Commons considered the issue of same sex marriage in 1999, not that long ago, the then justice minister and current Deputy Prime Minister clearly stated to Canadians, “The government has no intention of changing the definition of marriage or of legislating same sex marriages”.

At that time the government supported a motion which promised to use all necessary means to defend the traditional definition of marriage. In a true free vote the motion passed the House of Commons by a margin of 215 to 55, with the current Prime Minister and most of the then cabinet voting in favour of the traditional definition of marriage.

We fast forward a few years and today the position of the government stands exactly opposite to the position it promised to uphold in 1999. Instead of using all necessary means to uphold the traditional definition of marriage, the government is relying on a whipped vote to force cabinet ministers and some parliamentary secretaries to support legislation that would change the definition of marriage. Simultaneously we know that intense pressure is being applied on the government's own backbenches to ensure a favourable outcome for the government's controversial legislation.

What occurred between 1999 and 2005? How can something that is not considered a fundamental right in 1999 suddenly be so promoted in 2005?

The simple answer is that over the past five years the government has slowly, methodically and deliberately circumvented the democratic process. It has used litigation at lower court levels to try to create a fait accompli on the issue of same sex marriage.

Over the past several years, individual judges in lower courts of several provinces have struck down the traditional definition of marriage. However, the federal government refused to appeal lower court rulings, suddenly adopting the position that same sex marriage constitutes a fundamental right.

The federal government went so far as to stack the justice committee for an important vote on whether to appeal the Halpern Ontario Court of Appeal decision in this matter. It has further argued that Parliament itself has no right to respond to these rulings with legislation to protect the traditional definition of marriage.

In essence, the government attempted to shut down all meaningful debate on a vital question that has far-reaching policy implications. It was especially urgent for the Liberals that this issue not be front and centre in the last election, so they did all in their power to stifle debate and public input.

Last year this hidden Liberal agenda hit its first major snag. The government had referred the issue of same sex marriage to the Supreme Court asking four questions, one of which was whether the traditional definition of marriage was constitutional. Although federal lawyers tried to argue before the court that the traditional definition of marriage was not constitutional, the Supreme Court refused to be drawn into the political debate and declined to answer the question.

As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court, when we read its decision, contemplated answering the question either way. This has returned the matter to Parliament, which is exactly where it should be, for the consequences of what the government is attempting to do are serious.

Same sex marriage could have a profound implication on freedom of religion and freedom of conscience in Canada. For example, we have seen already where marriage commissioners in several provinces have already lost their jobs for refusing to agree to same sex marriage because it goes against their conscience. In an interview on CPAC on December 12, 2004, the deputy House leader for the Liberals stated that public servants, such as marriage commissioners, who refused to accept same sex marriage should be sanctioned or fired. That is shameful.

There is now a great concern in Canada that if same sex marriage is legalized, it will have a profound and long-lasting implication for freedom of religion and freedom of conscience, and it will become increasingly difficult for people who do not agree with same sex marriage to participate in public life.

While the government has claimed that it will protect religious freedoms, the evidence does not support this assertion. After all, past promises to use all necessary means to protect the traditional definition of marriage were violated in less than five years.

Moreover, a clear signal has already been sent by virtue of the fact that even cabinet ministers will not be permitted a free vote on this question. If even the rights of cabinet ministers to express their views on an issue of personal conscience cannot be protected, one can hardly place much confidence in promises to protect the freedom of other Canadians.

Further, the justice committee heard evidence that warned of the social impact on changing the definition of marriage. Experts testified that we were embarking on a policy experiment that would have a profound impact on the way we view relationships and value marriage in our society.

It was for these reasons that I introduced my bill, so that Canadians could be engaged in a debate that the Liberals tried to prevent from taking place. I am pleased that we were able to spark an interest in this issue. I am grateful to the thousands of Canadians who expressed support for our effort to preserve our most basic social institution.

In light of the fact that the committee members did not have the benefit of seeing the Supreme Court's decision before they made their own decision, and in light of the fact that the court has not ruled that the traditional definition of marriage is unconstitutional, I would now ask for unanimous consent that my bill be made votable.

[Equalization Program, February 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday the Minister of National Revenue referred to a province receiving equalization payments as being “mired in the world of have not clamouring for subsidies”.

As Minister of National Revenue, his remarks were totally inappropriate and degrading. Canadians in so-called have not provinces work just as hard as anyone and positive attitudes can be found in any part of Canada. The minister's remarks were insulting and divisive and I call on him to apologize in the House.

[Firefighters, February 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honour the many career and volunteer firefighters in my constituency of Fundy Royal.

On Monday, June 14 of last year Albert County suffered one of the worst fires southeast New Brunswick had seen in the past two decades. This fire consumed 125 acres of forest and resulted in 100 homes being evacuated.

If it was not for the heroic efforts of the firefighters and other emergency service providers in our community, the results of that fire could have been much more devastating. These brave men and women willingly put their lives on the line to protect others and they deserve our appreciation.

At this time I would like to extend my congratulations to the community of Riverview which is preparing the official opening of its new fire station in May of this year. Riverview Fire & Rescue provides fire and emergency services to 20,000 citizens in the town of Riverview and neighbouring areas in Albert County and responds to over 1,000 emergency incidents per year.

Again, congratulations to Riverview Fire & Rescue.

[Marriage, December 14th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is simply outrageous for members on that side to state that people should be fired or disciplined for their religious beliefs. This is a direct attack on Canadians' freedom of both conscience and religion.

Why is the government's position that individuals who do not agree with changing the definition of marriage should be excluded from public life?

[Marriage, December 10th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the veil is off the Liberals' plan to change the definition of marriage. The Liberals misled Canadians when they told us that their legislation would protect religious freedom. The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that this provision of their act was not even within federal jurisdiction. In fact, across the country marriage commissioners are being told to resign if they will not perform ceremonies that conflict with their religious beliefs.

The Liberals told Canadians that they would defend the traditional definition of marriage and they did not. They told Canadians that they would protect religious freedoms and they have not. Why should we believe that they will protect--

[Justice, December 6th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, that did not answer the question. All Canadians deserve to be treated equally before the law. Yet this outrageous interference for special treatment is all too typical of Liberal governments, past and present. To this day, who a person knows in the PMO remains more important than the merits of their case.

Once again, does the Prime Minister condemn or condone those actions?

[Supply, December 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, to touch on some of those issues, it is eye opening to travel in the rural parts of my riding. The member mentioned Calgary. I have some suburban parts of my riding where one would not think that farming is such a big issue, but Canadians are smart enough to realize that we need to have a farming community and a community that supports farmers and supports the supply of our food. That is in danger right now.

The number one issue is to get that border open. The government and the leadership must do all it can to ensure that our farmers have a demand for their product. It is only by opening the border that we are going to achieve that.

[Supply, December 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, as has been stated here today, the number one measure that has to be taken is to open the border. That is the only way that we are going to have a long term solution to the crisis that is affecting Canadian farmers.

In talking with farmers throughout my riding, if we are to have a program, it must be accessible. I mentioned the CAIS program where farmers had to go to their accountant or their lawyer to fill out the forms. I do not think that is right. I do not think that farmers who are in a dire financial position and obviously very busy trying to keep things afloat, trying to provide for their family, and trying to provide fuel for their equipment and feed for their animals, should then pay $100 or $50 an hour for an accountant to help them fill out a form to access aid under this program.

That is a specific measure. We must streamline these measures. We must make programs such as this accessible. Obviously, all of these are stopgap measures until the border is opened. It has been my opinion that we have not done enough to get that border open and open up that market that our producers rely on.

[Supply, December 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to speak today in the House to an issue that is of great importance to my constituents in Fundy Royal, New Brunswick, as well as to many other Atlantic Canadians and Canadians from coast to coast. I also am pleased to speak to this motion because it shows solidarity with and support for farmers across Canada who are going through a difficult time.

I would like to take this opportunity to commend the work of our agriculture critic with the Conservative Party and other members of the opposition who have done great work on behalf of the agricultural industry in this regard.

Our agriculture critic sought input from members across the country, which is important because this is an issue that affects Canadians from coast to coast. I was pleased when I was asked for my input from a New Brunswick perspective on how this crisis was affecting farmers in New Brunswick.

I want to speak specifically to that impact on New Brunswick farmers as the BSE crisis has developed. I will give a couple of facts. New Brunswick has approximately 1,000 beef farmers who were contributing $27 million to the provincial economy prior to the crisis. This has dropped to $19 million since the finding of BSE in 2003.

Over the last several months I have had the opportunity to meet with producers in and around my riding and around the province to hear how the BSE crisis has affected them. What I heard was that if no action is taken on this, there is a good possibility that they will not recover from this crisis. Many of the farmers with whom I spoke were facing the very real prospect of bankruptcy, including the loss of their farms.

The federal aid programs, although well intended, are, unfortunately, not reaching the people who need it most, our farmers. When we are debating and talking about various programs, it is important that these programs reach the farmers at the farm gate in order to be effective.

Our farmers are some of the hardest working people in Canada and when a crisis like this hits, they deserve our help. As I mentioned, the feedback that I have been receiving from some of the farmers in my riding is that the programs so far have been of little assistance.

When we deal with an issue that has a national impact and we talk about facts and figures, I think it is important from time to time to deal with some of the real life situations and the humanity of how a crisis like this can impact on individual Canadians. I want to give a couple of examples.

One of the farmers with whom I spoke said that this fall was 10 times worse than the previous year. He is selling feeder cattle for $300. Last year he sold heifers at $82 and this year they were selling at only $50. Last year steers were $92 and this year he was only getting $60. He told me that he had lost money last year at those higher prices and that he was due to lose much more this year.

I spoke with another young farming couple who run a dairy and beef farm with about 100 head of beef. They used to sell their cull cows for $600 and now they are only receiving $66. We have to remember that this is when, for producers in New Brunswick, it costs $70 to send a cull cow to Quebec for slaughter.

I spoke with another farmer who last year only received in aid an amount equal to what he normally would have received by selling two heifers. Clearly for him the aid package that he has received so far has not done enough.

I have also spoken to many producers who have had to take on not only a second but possibly a third job just to cover their cost of living and to support their families. It has created a tremendous personal burden on these individuals.

The other thing I have heard overwhelmingly is how confusing it is to apply for funding and even confusing to determine whether or not a person is eligible. I have been told by many farmers that they have had to talk to departmental officials or even have their own accountant or lawyer look at these forms in order to see that they are properly processed.

There has to be a better way of doing this so that we make these programs more accessible and farmers are not required to spend $100 or more an hour to have a lawyer or accountant look at the forms. Clearly, as we are debating today, farmers do require assistance, but what I find they do not need more of are more delays, red tape and hoops to jump through. They need help and, as I mentioned, they need it at the farm gate. That is where it is going to be most effective.

I also want to speak today about the impact that BSE has had on dairy farmers. There is a lot of talk about beef producers when we talk about the BSE crisis, but I do want to speak a bit about the impact that BSE has had on dairy farmers.

Dairy is a very important part of my riding of Fundy—Royal where, I am told, about 70% of the dairy production for New Brunswick comes from that riding. Some of the solutions we have seen come forward from the government clearly do not do enough to help dairy.

Specifically on the CAIS program, most of the dairy farmers I spoke to do not meet the requirements as set out. They are ineligible for funding. This has been somewhat typical of some of the programs we have seen. There is an announcement on aid, but as for the actual delivery, when we actually look at how this is going to work and how it is going to be delivered to farmers, it falls far short. I use as an example the fact farmers need a deposit to participate in the CAIS program. Many of the farmers in my riding are unable to borrow money for the deposit.

In Atlantic Canada our farmers are also in a particularly tough spot because there is not the infrastructure in place for them on the farms for other farming endeavours. That creates some difficulty when their primary source of income is completely cut out from under them.

I am encouraged that we are working to increase processing capacity in Atlantic Canada and that stakeholders have been working hard to find solutions, but as we know, debate and hard work can get us so far and then at some point we have to implement these things. I want to emphasize that when we do implement policies, the number one priority as I see it is that the money we are allocating gets to the people most in need and that is at the farm gate.

Of course we all know that this crisis will not be resolved until the border is fully open. We did have a recent visit from the President of the United States. We have seen in the past where having a negative relationship with our largest trading partner has affected our ability to resolve trade disputes and border issues. I believe it is time for politicians from all sides of the House to put some of the pettiness and bickering aside and to work together for solutions on behalf of our farmers and producers across the country.

I am very pleased that this motion was brought forward. I am pleased to have had the opportunity to speak to it. I hope that farmers across Canada who have the opportunity to find out what we spoke about today are encouraged that members of Parliament are taking their concerns seriously.

[Definition of Marriage Act, November 5th, 2004]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-268, an act to confirm the definition of marriage and to preserve ceremonial rights.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to introduce this private member's bill, to be known as the definition of marriage act.

As we all know in the House, marriage is a vital and important institution in our society. I am introducing this bill so that the definition of marriage can be determined, as it should be, by allowing duly elected parliamentarians representing their constituents to vote on the matter.

There are strong feelings on both sides of the issue but now is not the time to shirk our responsibilities as parliamentarians. We were elected to make tough choices for the country and Canadians expect that their parliamentarians will face these decisions in a responsible and direct manner.

I look forward to hearing from my fellow members of Parliament and to hearing the genuine views of their constituents on this issue.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)