Rob Moore

[Supply, June 14th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, the member raises a great point when he says that this is an idea with maybe more of an urban twist to it than a rural twist. Let us recognize, for instance, that half of the population in New Brunswick is in rural areas.

The member is right. There are vast numbers of Canadians with different ways of doing things, which the minister refuses to acknowledge. The member has raised a legitimate example. We have to give all parents that choice by empowering them with the resources to make their own child care decisions. This is certainly a good example of one way in which our system would be much more helpful than what the minister is offering, which is a one size fits all system.

[Supply, June 14th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, this is the kind of thinking that concerns people. This is promoting another boondoggle.

As for “sophisticated quality”, what is that supposed to mean? We are talking about preschool children. Does that mean that if two year olds are cared for by their grandparents it does not pass the member's litmus test of sophisticated quality? Does it suggest that if a parent decides that “for a couple of years I choose to stay with my child” it is not sophisticated? Is that perhaps not sophisticated enough for the minister? The minister clearly feels he knows best and that all children have to be raised, through the minister, by these bureaucrats throughout the country.

I agree that parents need more resources. That is why my party would give all parents more resources and not leave them with some conclusion predetermined by the minister. We would give them the choice. We would give them the resources to make their own choices in child care. That is fair and equitable.

[Supply, June 14th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to rise today on behalf of my constituents from Fundy Royal to speak to a very important issue. At this time I would like to commend the member for Edmonton—Spruce Grove. She has shown tremendous leadership on this file in offering what is a great, inclusive and encompassing alternative to what is a pretty draconian and invasive approach offered up by the Liberals and which will set us back quite a bit.

The Liberals have approached this issue with a big brother knows best kind of thinking. It is an idea that is fundamentally unfair to Canadians from coast to coast. It ignores parents who should be free, irrespective of any government interference, to make their own choices on how they raise their children. That would be pretty self-evident. Nowhere is more evident what parents would prefer, which is to be treated equally and for the government not to pick winners and losers in child care, than in my home province of New Brunswick right now.

As members know, negotiations have taken place and deals have been struck on child care, province by province. My province had some ideas. One was to treat all parents equally. That is an idea I support.

Many parents in my riding of Fundy Royal live in the rural parts of the riding. Parents leave for work in the morning or maybe in the evening on a night shift. They do not work nine to five necessarily. Some of them take their children to day care. Others take them to a trusted friend, someone who cares for children in their own home. Others perhaps take them to a private day care centre or perhaps one parent will stay at home with their children.

All those are legitimate choices that parents make. All those decisions are made. In New Brunswick, 33% of the parents stay at home with their children in the early years. About 35% place their children in someone else's home, a non-relative or a relative. Just over 20% of parents have their children in day care. There is a diversity of approaches that is consistent with our country. We live in a diverse country and I live in a diverse province. There are diverse approaches to how parents deal with child care.

However, the Minister of Social Development is proposing a system that only certain parents get to take advantage of, a system that penalizes those who choose to stay at home with their children, or who choose to have a grandparent or a friend care for their pre-school children. That is fundamentally unfair on many levels.

For one, imagine a scenario in my riding where one of the parents works an evening shift and does not have child care available, so they have a sitter. Maybe they make a meagre income. They are paying high taxes like the rest of us and they also are paying for someone to watch their children. Now we are asking them to pay to watch other people's children. That is the minister's system. Instead of benefiting all Canadians equally, we are picking winners and we are picking losers.

Last month the Prime Minister jumped ahead of the gun a bit. He was planning to fly into Saint John for a photo op. Officials in New Brunswick said simply that they wanted the ability to steer some of this money toward families who chose other ways of dealing with child care.

The minister's response to this was completely arrogant and completely out of touch. It illustrates big brother knows best. It illustrates all the reasons why people do not want this kind of program, the idea of some bureaucrat in Ottawa deciding how we in New Brunswick will raise our children. He said, “New Brunswick would never see any of its funding until it backed off its demands”. What were its demands? That all parents would be treated equally.

It varies from province to province, but in my province it means ignoring the child care choices of 80% of the parents. Is this any way to deal with federal-provincial relations? I do not think so. To bait provinces and then strong-arm them into conforming with the Minister of Social Development's utopian idea of what child care should be in our country will not work.

I guess in his way of thinking we need a child care program of ever expanding size. He will not contemplate what it will ever cost. It is one size fits all and it is a giant nanny state approach to child care.

The minister of family and community services for my home province of New Brunswick stated this. I think it is pretty telling in this debate. He said:

What works for daycare in downtown Toronto is not necessarily what will work in rural New Brunswick. That is why we need to ensure that agreement is flexible enough to meet the needs of New Brunswickers.

I agree with him 100%. Why would we not seek that flexibility?

As I mentioned, it results in a doubling of the burden on parents who choose other alternatives for child care. They have to pay twice and that is unfair. Middle class and poor working Canadians may be subsidizing families that have a much higher income. I fail to see how that is fair or equitable or desirable in our country.

Quebec has made its choice. New Brunswick has a choice. Every province has its own choice. Right now we know there is the potential in Quebec of a strike by child care workers. The minister today in question period said that the Quebec model was his inspiration. There are inherent dangers in a model where there is the potential, because of labour unrest, that families do not receive child care.

These ideas sometimes sound good. The minister says that it is $5 billion, and the government will provide child care without looking at the details. It reminds me of something we are going to be voting on tonight.

Tonight we will vote on funding on the firearms registry. Ten years ago another minister, eager to implement his utopian vision on the country, said “This program will cost $2 million”. We know tonight that we will vote on $64 million just to augment this fiscal year. They are 1,000 times over budget on that program.

If Canadians are a little concerned or I am a little skeptical about the Liberal math that says this will somehow to be achieved with $5 billion, we can see why history would tell us that we may want to take a second look at what the minister is saying.

I have every reason to believe that this Liberal plan will unduly and unfairly tax Canadians and certainly parents. It will result in a blow to bureaucracy that does not serve the interest of Canadian families.

This is in stark contrast to the approach advocated by the Conservative Party. We would treat families equally. We would respect the jurisdiction of provinces. We would respect that different families and parents make different choices on how they will care for their children. In a recent survey, we know parents indicated that institutionalized day care was their last choice.

I ask members to consider the situation in New Brunswick, to consider all families and not just some of them. I ask them to respect Canadians' choices for child care and respect the rights of parents to raise their children as they see fit.

[Civil Marriage Act, June 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court clearly stated that Parliament could not protect religious freedoms if the definition of marriage is changed.

The minister's response is cold comfort to those who have already been impacted: Bishop Fred Henry in Calgary; the Knights of Columbus in British Columbia; and provincial human rights commissioners from coast to coast who have been told to resign because of their basic personal believes.

Will the minister do the right thing and at least wait until all provinces provide legal protection for these individuals before imposing a new definition of marriage on Canadians?

[Civil Marriage Act, June 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the committee studying Bill C-38 continues to hear from witness after witness that the Liberals' plan to change the definition of marriage will have an impact on basic freedoms in our country.

The minister has finally admitted what the Supreme Court told us months ago, which is that the federal government has no power to fully protect individuals from being attacked because of their beliefs.

Bill C-38 does not protect freedom of religion or freedom of conscience in any way, and the minister knows that.

Why is the minister rushing this bill through the House in spite of clear evidence and his own admission that it will have a negative impact on Canadian rights?

[Natural Resources, May 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the transparent attempt by the Liberals to buy votes around the country is spinning out of control. This week the Prime Minister confirmed that he gave the political minister for New Brunswick instructions to deliver a one-off deal for the province of New Brunswick to offset the Atlantic accord.

Now we find that the minister is backtracking and that he had not even consulted the finance minister on what political operatives were saying was another billion dollar deal. No details were given on the plan to spend money that the finance minister claims we do not have.

Will the minister admit that this has nothing to do with New Brunswick's needs and everything to do with an upcoming election?

[Civil Marriage Act, May 2nd, 2005]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to rise today and speak on behalf of my constituents of Fundy Royal and speak to this very important issue.

I have listened with interest to members' speeches on both sides of this issue over the course of the debate on Bill C-38. One thing that has become increasingly clear is that we would not even be having this debate if the majority of those on the other side had kept their word to Canadians, the word that they gave just a few years ago to take all steps necessary to preserve the traditional definition of marriage in Canada.

I believe that oftentimes we have a short memory. I know I do sometimes, but when they are matters of great importance, it is constructive to remind Canadians what their elected representatives have said, what they have done, and how they have voted. We elect members of Parliament based on what they have said and what they have done in the past, and we would be remiss to forget what they have done when we head into debate on this issue.

We know that a few years ago the majority on that side, the current Prime Minister, the current Deputy Prime Minister, many cabinet ministers and the list goes on, because of the importance of marriage in all societies, in all religions, across the country, and across the globe, voted and told Canadians they would take all necessary steps to preserve the traditional definition of marriage. What we have seen now, as is so often the case, is a promise made and a promise broken. It is a shame that Canadians have been led down this path because Canadians of good will voted for their members based on those statements that were made.

One thing has become increasingly clear. Canadians are divided on this issue. The last speaker went through the scenario of religious freedom and we have heard from respected constitutional experts that religious freedom can be under attack when we change the definition of marriage. We have seen it already. Bishop Fred Henry in Calgary has already been brought before a Human Rights Commission. He has had two complaints lodged against him for speaking out on an issue that is so important to his faith, the issue of marriage. That is just the beginning. The ink has not even dried on this particular bill and we have seen attacks on freedom of religion.

One thing that has become increasingly clear, when we look at Canada in the world context, is that the Liberals have taken an intolerant and divisive approach to an issue that Canadians feel very strongly about. As we have seen with this recent sponsorship scandal, the hardline approach taken by the Liberals, rather than unite Canadians, has divided Canadians.

It is the job of members of Parliament in a country such as ours, when we are debating these issues, to take an approach that can unite Canadians, an approach that can bring Canadians together in an inclusive manner. As parliamentarians we should be looking for win-win solutions to issues facing Canadians rather than focusing on an approach that splits Canadians. If we look at the polls, and I know those on the other side do, Canadians overwhelmingly support the current definition of marriage.

Canadians are telling us increasingly and overwhelmingly that they support equal rights, benefits and obligations under the law for all Canadians. That is clear. We are a fair people. We support equality for all Canadians. They also tell us that they support marriage continuing to mean the union of one man and one woman, as it does incidentally on the rest of planet Earth. This is why I believe that Canadians overwhelmingly support the approach taken by my leader to continue to recognize the traditional definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

His proposal also provides that those in same sex relationships would have equal rights benefits and obligations under federal law. This is an approach that is fair. It is a Canadian approach to this issue.

We believe this approach will meet the needs of Canadians who believe that marriage is and should remain an institution. Justice La Forest, a Supreme Court of Canada justice, in the Egan decision said that it is a heterosexual institution. This also satisfies those who seek recognition and equality under the federal law of Canada.

This approach is not only consistent with the beliefs of the vast majority of Canadians, it is also instructive to learn, as we research this, it is consistent, as we heard in the recent opinion, with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is certainly consistent with the emerging practice of countries across the globe. In the entire industrialized world, this is the approach that modern countries are taking.

Around the world there are only two countries that have legislated same sex marriage. They are Belgium and the Netherlands. Those are the only two. By far, the vast majority of jurisdictions have gone the route that Canadians prefer, endorse and are calling on members of Parliament to take, and that is recognizing civil unions and domestic partnerships, benefits and obligations but not abolishing in law what the word “marriage” means.

Countries such as France, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Finland, Germany, Portugal and New Zealand have all maintained the traditional definition of marriage. Recently, Australia also specifically acted to preserve the traditional definition of marriage.

As well, it is important to know that no national or international court, including for that matter our own Supreme Court of Canada, has ruled that changing the definition of marriage is required to accommodate equality rights. As we know, the only thing our Supreme Court of Canada, the highest court in the land, ruled was unconstitutional in Bill C-38 was for the Liberals to state that they could protect religious freedoms. That in fact is what is unconstitutional. That is the great irony.

The court did not say the traditional definition of marriage was unconstitutional. It did not say the federal government had to change the definition of marriage. It said that if that definition is changed, it is beyond the jurisdiction of the House to protect religious freedoms. We have seen that already. We have seen those freedoms encroached by this win-lose approach that the Liberals have taken, rather than a win-win solution favoured by Canadians.

It strikes me as being a perfectly reasonable compromise for Canadian society to accept exactly the same position as the countries I just enumerated. This will satisfy the vast majority of Canadians who are seeking common ground on this issue and a Canadian solution. I do not believe that most Canadians are looking to be more radical than some of the most left leaning governments in the world. They are looking for a reasonable, moderate compromise that respects the rights of those who are in a same sex relationship while preserving the time honoured institution of marriage that is so fundamental to our society and all societies in the world.

This approach is the Canadian way. It is the only option being offered as an alternative and it is being offered by my party. The polls tell us that if the government squarely and honestly put the option forward of preserving marriage while recognizing the rights of those in other relationships, this is the option that Canadians would overwhelmingly choose.

Marriage and the family based on marriage are the basic institutions of society. We should not change these kinds of foundational institutions lightly or easily and I do not believe the government has demonstrated that there is any compelling reason to alter this central, social institution.

A few years ago the Deputy Prime Minister spoke to this. Canadians relied on what she said to support that side. She said:

We on this side agree that the institution of marriage is...central and important...[and it] has been consistently applied in Canada....

What the minister said next is important:

Let me state again for the record that the government has no intention of changing the definition of marriage....

Those are the words of the Deputy Prime Minister, who was speaking for the government. Canadians made the mistake of trusting the Liberals once. I hope they will not do it again.

[Canadian Guernsey Association, April 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to congratulate three very talented dairy farmers in my riding of Fundy Royal.

For more than 50 years, brothers Ted and Bill Wanamaker have been producing milk for New Brunswickers. Their nephew Blair continues this family tradition from their Cedar Rock farm in the Kennebecasis Valley.

The Wanamaker family is renowned for its top quality guernseys. Their breeding program has produced all-Canadian champions and has won numerous awards from the Royal Winter Fair.

Just recently the Wanamakers have been nominated for an honorary lifetime membership with the Canadian Guernsey Association in recognition of their outstanding farming knowledge and experience. This prestigious award is given to individuals who have been of extreme value to the Canadian Guernsey Association over the years. In fact, there are only 20 living honorary members across the country.

Again, congratulations to the Wanamaker family of Nauwigewauk, New Brunswick on this exceptional nomination.

[World Trade Organization, April 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the motion. As a new member of Parliament, I have had the opportunity to travel around my riding and meet with farmers from different agricultural sectors. One thing they have in common right now is that agriculture has been hard hit.

We know what we have seen as a focus of late. We have seen how taxpayer money in the past has been squandered in such an irresponsible fashion, and perhaps illegal fashion, when hard-working families and farmers, those in the agricultural sectors, have seen very little support for an industry currently in crisis.

Farmers need our support now more than ever. Strong leadership is needed on the agricultural files. I would suggest that is exactly what has been lacking from the government.

I met informally with a group of farmers in my riding, representing the different agricultural sectors. They shared with me how Liberal inaction and lack of leadership had hurt them and their families. We spoke about the grand announcement of programs and billions of dollars announced, or perhaps re-announced. We spoke about the millions of dollars thrown about here and there and how often times they were perplexed because none of that money reached them on their farms. Perhaps it is because the forms they need to access those funds have been so terrifically complicated that one must hire a lawyer or an accountant to find out what exactly they have to do to qualify. In many cases the programs that are out there are not enough and farmers do not qualify. In the end, they are left in a desperate situation.

I spoke to many farmers who have lost their farms as of late and many who have considered getting out of the family farm, Many have children, who wanted to follow in the footsteps of their parents, are now questioning whether that is a viable reality.

We talked about plunging beef prices. We talked about a lack of slaughter capacity. We talked about the new budget and in particular the news for Atlantic Canada about the closure of research centres in Atlantic Canada. That is terrible news. We are a vast country and every region has unique needs. These Atlantic centres were providing research that was applicable in that area. To announce something like that in a budget is just another kick when so many are down.

I am please to say that the Conservative Party has been listening to farmers and we are working hard to ensure that they have a better future.

I was pleased to attend and participate in our Conservative Party of Canada's first policy convention this past March. This was an opportunity for Conservatives from coast to coast to put forward policies for our party as we headed into the future. Due to the great importance of agriculture to our country, agricultural issues were at the forefront of our meetings.

Under the leadership from our agricultural critic, the member for Haldimand—Norfolk, our party passed strong resolutions to support Canadian farmers.

Agriculture plays a very important role in my riding of Fundy Royal. In fact over 50% of New Brunswick's dairy production comes from my riding alone. Therefore, I was pleased particularly with our party's strong support for industries under the protection of supply management.

As a matter of fact, at our policy convention we passed a resolution specifically on supply/management which I would like to read. It states:

The Conservative Party of Canada believes it is in the best interest of Canada and Canadian agriculture that the industries under the protection of supply management remain viable. A Conservative government will support the goal of supply management to deliver a high quality product to consumers for a fair price with a reasonable return to the producer.

Further to that, we also passed a resolution that forms our party's guiding principles when dealing with agricultural issues, forms the foundation for how we deal with agriculture in the future. I will read from that also:

The Conservative Party views the agriculture industry to be a key strategic economic sector of Canada. We recognize that various regions of Canada and sectors of the industry hold competitive advantages in agricultural production. National agricultural policy will reflect our belief that one size does not fit all.

Agriculture policy must be developed only in consultation with the agricultural producers. Our farmers today are business operators and to dictate policy which might have an adverse effect on this business community would have negative consequences and go against Conservative Party principles. Balancing financial responsibility with support programs that actually work is a major priority of this party.

As can be seen, one fundamental difference between our party and others is the high value we place on Canadian agriculture. We put farmers first when we deal on the international stage and when we deal with domestic support for agricultural communities. It is for that reason that the principles I read form part of our policy of going into the future.

Canada's agricultural sectors are as diverse as Canada itself. I believe our policy reflects that. It is in light of that diversity that we proposed to the Bloc, who moved this motion we are debating today, a friendly amendment to the motion we are now debating. Our friendly amendment read:

That in the opinion of this House, in the current World Trade Organization negotiations, the government should seek an agreement that strengthens the international marketing position of Canada's agricultural exporters while at the same time does not weaken the supply management system and collective marketing strategies.

Unfortunately, the Bloc have chosen not to support our amendment.

For the record, the Conservative Party of Canada and myself fully support supply management. Our policy reflects this support. In fact, both our leader and our agricultural critic are on the record as supporting the three pillars of supply management. Our party supports as well the 90% of Canadian and the 66%, I might add, of Quebec producers who are not under supply management.

Therefore, our amendment seeks protection for supply management and also seeks the enhancement of agricultural exports that is so needed by many sectors in our country.

We know that no one agricultural sector wants to profit at the expense of another and our friendly amendment to this motion reflects that reality.

I am pleased to speak to this motion brought forward by the Bloc and I also wish to call on the government to honour the commitments it has made to Canadian producers and to negotiate in good faith at the World Trade Organization.

Too often our farmers are let down by a Liberal government that will not negotiate in their best interest on the international stage and on agricultural issues. We need to look no further than the current BSE crisis which is also having a tremendous impact on many sectors of agriculture across the country in every region, including sectors under supply management.

The Liberals have failed time and time again to negotiate an open border with our largest trading partner and we know that Canada's farmers have suffered greatly for that failure. We have also seen Liberals pit one agricultural sector against another in international negotiations.

All sectors of agriculture in the country deserve our support. I am pleased to be part of a caucus that is determined and committed to supporting and defending all Canadian farmers.

The Conservative Party will continue to support Canada's farmers. We will continue to stand by dairy, poultry and egg producers. Unlike our current government, a Conservative government will protect Canada's farmers in international negotiations.

All Canadians deserve nothing less than a government that will always act in their best interest. I look forward to working with all members of this House to see that interests of our farmers are defended in international negotiations.

[Marriage, April 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, despite a Supreme Court of Canada decision that clearly said otherwise, the Liberal government continues to falsely claim that it can change the definition of marriage and also protect freedom of religion and freedom of expression.

Now Bishop Henry of Calgary is facing complaints before a human rights commission for speaking out on marriage.

The government and the Prime Minister have been a total failure at protecting Canadian freedoms. Will the Prime Minister simply admit that he will not and cannot protect Canadian freedoms?