Ted Menzies

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, May 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the member's question certainly raises the larger question that everyone on this side of the House is asking. We have seen promises, promises and promises that have not been kept. Therefore, why would we expect the promises in this legislation to be kept either?

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, May 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely correct. These piecemeal agreements that we have seen not only are ineffective, they are antagonistic. They have done nothing but pit one province against another.

It adds to what we have seen in the sponsorship scandal. In so many of the claims that we have seen, the money has gone to people in Quebec. That is the way it appears but that is not the fact. It may have gone to people in Quebec, but it had nothing to do with Quebec. It was the Liberal government trying to buy off Quebec, trying to buy the allegiance of one province.

This exemplifies what the Liberals have done. It magnifies it and brings it out to everyone that the Liberal government does not show equal respect to all provinces.

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, May 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to possibly change the subject a little to that bill which we would like to discuss and to which I would like to speak in opposition, that being Bill C-48.

In reading the introduction, “An Act to authorize the Minister of Finance to make certain payments”, I think the House would want to be much more precise than that. That certainly concerns me, as I am sent here to represent my constituents and I am sure that they would be very concerned about that also.

The past few weeks have seen anger and recrimination in the House, and so in fact have the last few minutes. Frustration with legislative paralysis and personal and professional insults hurled across the floor like a bunch of kids in a sandbox is not productive.

I speak today in an effort to remind the members of the Liberal minority government that Canadians deserve a government which inspires the nation with its vision and which brings Canadians together with its leadership. Rather than use my 10 minutes to turn up the heat or chase partisan quarrels, I want to talk directly to my constituents and to Canadians across the country to explain why the Conservative Party cannot support this Liberal-NDP budget amendment.

As I mentioned, I am opposed to this for a number of reasons. The first one I would like to raise is the fact that this is an NDP budget. I might remind those people here, as I would remind my constituents, that we did not elect an NDP government, and I would suggest intentionally so. In that case, why are we dealing with an NDP budget?

I would also suggest that if the minority Liberal government had consulted with Canadians and with the other parties in the House, we might have actually had a budget that could have passed back in March and we would not have had to go through all of this.

The Conservative Party of Canada at that time voted to continue this Parliament, to make things work and to make it better for all Canadians, as opposed to the NDP, which voted on March 9 to defeat the government. It is an interesting twist of fate that we find the NDP members suggesting they will vote with the Liberals on this NDP budget. That day, the NDP and the Bloc both attempted to defeat the government. The Conservatives have been working hard trying to make this work, but when we see a bill like this before us, we are having a difficult time supporting it.

I know my constituents. I have heard from many of them. They are frightened by this sort of bill being put forward with these unspecified spending qualifications, with $4.5 billion from a surplus. We are not sure what that surplus is now that the government has spent the billions of dollars it has in the last 30 or so days, with the Liberals flying back and forth across this country handing out money with no plan. It is money that should have gone to debt relief. That is a fundamental concern of my constituents, as it is of mine.

We have committed hundreds of millions of dollars with no plan whatsoever. It is a last minute plan, I suppose. Getting the Liberal government re-elected is the only reason I can see for the Liberals putting this kind of money out there in that form.

Conservatives want Canada to become more competitive. What we have seen in the last few days does not make this country more competitive. We have heard comments from this side of the House on the reality of how the economy works and what stimulates the economy. This budget is not good for the corporations in this country, so it will therefore not be good for Canadians. We need to recognize that. We need to be more relevant in trade. Trade is our future and we see nothing in here that stimulates trade.

We see nothing to get to the goals that we all recognize are very important in foreign aid. There is $500 million talked about here, again with no plan. We do not see any plan for any of the spending. We would like to see the foreign aid money be more targeted and more effective. The spending needs to be targeted, not just scattered wherever it may fall.

On this side of the House we would like to see a budget put forward that creates more jobs and does not overtax the employers. We all know and have heard how that will affect the taxpayers, our constituents. We need to provide good, accessible health care. We do not see that effect coming out of this NDP budget.

We need something very important in my riding, and that is some effective help for the agriculture industry. In the first budget that was tabled, I believe agriculture was mentioned once or possibly twice. There is a serious disaster going on in the agriculture industry, specifically with respect to BSE. Not only is there a disaster in the cattle industry, in the ruminant industry, but also in the grains and oilseeds industry.

All of the debate in the House has done nothing to help my constituents who are still suffering from the effects of the BSE situation. In fact processing plants have been applying for the money that will backstop processing facilities. The government announced a loan loss provision, but from my understanding, not one penny of it has gotten through to be poured in concrete. That is the sign of a very ineffective plan, but we have not seen anything to replace it.

The Conservative Party launched a process where we would be intervenors in the court case going on in Montana and moving on to San Francisco. The Liberal government attempted it, was rejected on the first claim and walked away. How is that going to help our producers? By ignoring them, ignoring the issue, it has not gone away; it has just gotten that much worse, in fact to the point where we may see the beef that is going across the border, as it flows now, being stopped in the next few weeks. That is a very real possibility with the new challenge coming up in Montana.

The NDP had a chance to deal with this. It had an opportunity to at least address the issues that affect farmers. Again I see nothing in here that will improve agriculture. That is one of the many reasons I have a difficult time accepting that this is a good budget because I do not see that it is at all.

There is a plan for CFIA to help expand markets. My understanding is that has not moved ahead. The agriculture minister stood in this House back in March and told us that the CFIA was going to work diligently to open markets. I do not believe that has happened. Once again our ruminant industry has been let down.

I have spoken about the CAIS program several times in the House. That program is not effective. It does not help the grains and oilseeds sector at a time when commodity prices, the grains and oilseeds prices in this country are probably the lowest in real dollars that we have ever seen. We have a program that our agriculture minister tells us will help farmers out, will buy them some time until we can see those commodity prices come back. In my own personal situation, I had applied for some of that money when I was an active farmer, before I came to this House. I owe half of that money back because that is how ineffective the system is. It does not put dollars into the pockets of farmers where it is needed.

My time is almost over and I respect that. I am enjoying what I am saying but I realize that we do have a time limit on debate.

We realize the corruptness that has gone on in the government and that is fundamental to my opposition to this bill. I cannot with any conscience support a piece of legislation like this bill, which in effect props up the government that we have watched demoralize the country and drive a wedge between the provinces.

I would like to close by reminding everyone that the type of behaviour we have seen is probably an indication of the demoralizing issues that have plagued the House. I certainly hope we see an end to it, which might even be as soon as this evening.

[Civil Marriage Act, May 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to have the opportunity to enter into the debate on Bill C-38 on behalf of the constituents of Macleod. In this time of political uncertainty I am proud to be a member of a political party that respects rights and traditions and encourages honest, public policy debates.

Over the past weeks I have listened to the initial debate on Bill C-38 but, most important, I have listened to my constituents in Claresholm, Okotoks, Vulcan, Granum, Nanton, Turner Valley, Fort Macleod, the Crowsnest Pass and other communities throughout the riding. I am impressed by the honesty, candour and passion which Canadians are approaching the debate. Canadians have been thoughtful on this issue and most have come to believe that Bill C-38 is not the right approach to address the issue of marriage.

Opposing Bill C-38 is not about denying rights. It is not about jeopardizing the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as the Prime Minister would like us to believe. It is a complex public policy issue and one that would have an impact on every Canadian.

I, like most of my colleagues on this side of the House, and many on the other side as well, believe in the traditional definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

However, in the course of this debate, those of us who support marriage have been told that to amend the bill to reflect the traditional definition of marriage would be a violation of human rights and an unconstitutional violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I believe that this is an attempt by the Liberals to turn the channel and call those who do not agree with them to be un-Canadian. The Prime Minister does not want to debate the question of traditional marriage versus same sex marriage so he would rather focus on attacking their opponents as opposing human rights and the charter.

The Bill C-38 debate is about rights and recognition and about how to best balance the rights of homosexual couples within our society while at the same time upholding and respecting institutions that have great social importance to Canada, such as the traditional definition of marriage. In short, it is about responding and respecting the competing interests in this debate in a reasonable and compassionate way.

Much of the concern about the legislation comes from the Supreme Court decision released on December 9, 2004. The Supreme Court said that the federal government has the jurisdiction to redefine marriage to include same sex couples. It also said that churches are protected under the Charter of Rights in maintaining the traditional definition of marriage but that legislation would specifically protect religious organizations beyond the constitutional power of the federal government.

What this means is that the federal government determines the definition of marriage but the provinces determine how to marry a couple.

The court did not answer the question of whether the traditional definition of marriage in the common law violates the Charter of Rights. Instead of declaring the traditional definition of marriage unconstitutional, the court has made it clear that it is Parliament that must define the word marriage.

It is Parliament's job to find a consensus that defends rights and, specifically in this debate, offers recognition to homosexual couples and takes into account the views of Canadians.

This is where we are today. We have received direction from the Supreme Court of Canada that if Parliament wants to change the definition of marriage it would be within our purview to do so. We are free to define it as a union between a man and a woman or as between any two persons. Either definition has been deemed constitutional by the Supreme Court.

The rights issues has been settled and the equality provisions continue to be settled. Simply put, the law already sees heterosexual relationships and same sex relationships as equally significant and equally able to access spousal rights and privileges. The Conservative Party supports this view. Same sex marriage, in a nutshell, is a recognition issue.

As stated earlier, the rights component of this debate has largely been resolved and few Canadians are of the mind to reverse those decisions. Their opinion reflects their belief of equality for all Canadians under the law. They merely want the definition of marriage to remain as the union between a man and a woman.

Because of the difficulty of this issue, I am proud to be a member of a party that has allowed a free vote on this issue. It is an issue of accountability to my constituents and it is important that members are granted the ability to vote in as free a manner as possible, without the threat of recrimination by party leaders. Nobody in the Conservative Party finds themselves in an uncomfortable position due to this legislation. Members are accountable, not to their party, but to their own consciences and their constituents. It is the position that I wish all members of this House could share.

Importantly, the majority of people who oppose this legislation favour the insurance and the protection of equal rights for homosexual couples. At some point we have to ask ourselves, why is the government not following the lead of most Canadians and searching for a middle ground that would recognize marriage as the union between a man and a woman while recognizing homosexual unions? The Liberal government, after all, likes to talk about Canada's ability to broker resolutions and likes to talk about Canadians as being the sort of people who search for balance and fairness.

In December the Leader of the Opposition announced three proposals for effectively considering the marriage question. These are as follows: the first proposal would retain the traditional definition of marriage; the second proposal would ensure that same sex couples are afforded equal spousal benefits; and the third proposal would include substantive provisions in the legislation to protect not only religious organizations but also to protect public officials who have objections due to reasons of religion or conscience.

With regard to the first proposal, I am proud to be voting the wishes of my constituents, one of which is to support and maintain the traditional definition of marriage.

My constituents reflect the majority of Canadians who believe we do not need to change the definition of marriage and a balanced approach can assure equal benefits and status to same sex couples in a recognized union.

With regard to the third proposal, by protecting the rights of religious institutions, Parliament could support the rights of churches, mosques, synagogues and temples to recognize, perform and solemnize marriages on their own terms.

Parliament must ensure that churches have the right to privately and publicly preach their beliefs related to marriage.

Parliament must ensure that justices of the peace and civil marriage commissioners are not forced to solemnize marriages against their own consciences.

Parliament must also preserve the charitable and economic benefits that churches enjoy as public institutions and recognize the right of public officials to act in accordance with their own beliefs.

During this debate, the Liberals have attempted to hide their politics by invoking the language of rights and accusing our party of not believing in rights. This could not be further from the truth. The Conservative Party has approached this issue as one where a reasonable compromise can be found. We have spoken honestly with Canadians, and it is my hope that the House follows our lead.

I am proud to work with my constituents on such an important issue. I am proud that I can vote freely on their behalf against Bill C-38.

[Points of Order, May 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in answer to a question that I posed to the Minister of Health during question period, the minister suggested that I knew nothing about the Mackenzie Olsen issue. It is rather presumptuous, I would say, to assume what I do not know and what I do know. It has been in the media. It has been well publicized. I have spoken to the chief of the band.

I would like you to rule on this, if you would, Mr. Speaker.

[Health, May 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, while the health minister was playing political games over the weekend, 10-year-old Mackenzie Olsen, a first nations child from my riding, grew weaker by the day. The health minister refuses to pay for treatment for this child. He would rather see the family pay.

The hypocrisy of the minister who tries to sell himself as the grand defender of health care is appalling. Could he explain why he expects this family to pay the cost for their son's treatment?

[Committees of the House, April 21st, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague from Souris--Moose Mountain on his understanding of and compassion for the issue. He speaks very well for his constituents, the many farmers who have been impacted not so much by this issue perhaps but by the many other crises in agriculture.

I would like to bring up an issue which maybe the committee did not look at. Did the committee look at the fact that there were a lot of opportunities for getting away from the recurrence of an outbreak like this in Canada by looking at the opportunities in the province of Saskatchewan? That is where feed is raised.

Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta produce most of the feed, yet the concentration of the poultry industry and many other livestock industries is intensified where the population is. Maybe we should be looking at producing more poultry in Saskatchewan. That would make sense to me. Spreading out the distance between livestock operations would be a simple way of getting away from the opportunity for diseases to spread.

I would like to know if the hon. member thinks that makes sense. Have his constituents been asking for that sort of consideration in this study?

[Petitions, April 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to present a petition on behalf of my constituents of Macleod. The petition requests that Parliament define marriage in federal law as being a lifelong union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

[Canada Grain Act, April 18th, 2005]

I would suggest that both need to be revamped. When this party on this side of the House becomes government, I think that the revamping of the Canadian Wheat Board should be a priority.

[Canada Grain Act, April 18th, 2005]

Yes, it has cost farmers an awful lot of money. In fact, it has not only cost farmers money.

Some people in the House might be surprised to hear that it has actually cost people time in jail. I have friends who have spent time in jail. It is hard to believe that we have farmers that want to do nothing more than market their own grain and end up spending time in jail because they have done that across the border. It is an archaic law. It is about as archaic as the Canadian Grain Commission.