Rick Casson

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, June 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise and speak in the House with you in the chair, Sir. I was going to say with you, Mr. Speaker, ruling the roost, but I am not sure it would be a compliment, although hopefully it will give me a couple of marks that I can use later.

We are here today debating Bill C-48. This is a budget bill that was put together for the prime purpose of keeping the present government in power. It was a $4.6 billion deal between the NDP and the Liberals to get NDP support to prop up the Liberal government.

This was at a time when not only were the Liberals buying a party, and they did buy a whole party through this process, but they were starting to try to buy individual members in the House. I think that goes a long way toward explaining why there is so much cynicism in the country. When Canadians sit back and look at some of the action the government has taken on just to stay where it is, it appalls them.

I have a couple of issues to start with and then I would like to get into what my party and I think about where the country should be and what kind of country it could be if it were properly managed.

What we have now is a $4.6 billion budget bill that is two pages long and does not have the programs or the regulations to back up spending that money. The authorization is given to cabinet to “develop and implement” the programs, as it is stated in the bill, and to pay out the funds as it sees fit.

Does that not remind us somewhat of what happened with ad scam? Money was thrown around, hundreds of millions of dollars of our money, without proper authority and without the proper regulations, checks and balances in place to make sure it was being spent properly.

Here we have $4.6 billion that will be dispensed through the authorization of the cabinet without any documentation to back it up or to bring to the House so Canadians can have a look at how it is going to be spent and if it is going to be spent wisely. That in and of itself is a huge problem.

When we look for some of the things that are not in Bill C-48, as many of my colleagues have alluded to, it is quite alarming. In the NDP priorities that were part of the deal made with the Liberals, things were left out and forgotten. We could go on about agriculture and a few other things, but we will move on.

Before I get into it too deeply, I would like to thank the members of the Conservative Party who sat on the finance committee. As we know, there were many late nights with long hours and pretty intense debate. I remember one night being here until almost midnight when the finance committee was in a parallel sitting to the House to deal with this bill.

The members for Medicine Hat, Portage—Lisgar, Peace River and others who sit on that committee did a tremendous job of trying to hold the government to account and also of bringing forward good, solid amendments. Had those amendments been accepted, we would be able to move forward. The government completed rejected most of those issues.

As it ended up, the bill that came back to the House was a title with nothing below it because we could not agree on any of it. We are very concerned, as most Canadians are, that this money is going to be spent and spent in a way that is not open to public scrutiny and could be mismanaged.

We as the Conservative Party stand and criticize the government to hold it to account, which is part of our mandate, but our other mandate is to have alternatives to what the government is doing and to have our own vision of where Canada should go.

This country is blessed with natural resources and an expanse that should allow every citizen of Canada a good life and an ability to work, to feed their families, to plan and save for the future, and to have the wherewithal to educate their children. These are the issues that most families talk about when they come to talk to me.

They would like to see some substantive tax breaks for families so they can decide. We can get into the child care situation the government is promoting, in which it is going to create many day care spaces, not worrying about people who work shift work and not worrying about people in rural areas. That will be for just certain aspects of society.

We in the Conservative Party are saying that all families should be given a tax break so they can make the decisions and have a choice as to how they raise their own children. Most parents, when it comes right down to it, would prefer to raise their own children, but most families are now are two income families. Both parents work because it takes six months out of every year just to pay their tax bill.

Parents have to work half their lives just to pay taxes. That is the reason they have to work. If we were able to restructure the tax system and leave the money in the pockets of parents, they would have choices as to how their children should be cared for and they would have a few bucks to save for their future, their retirement and their children's educations.

A lot of Canadians will never realize the hope and dream of owning a home because they do not have the funds left over at the end of the month to put toward a mortgage. We have to change that. Everybody should have the opportunity to have affordable housing. That is right in the Conservatives platform. We support Canadians having affordable homes.

As for this idea that we have to take the money away from all Canadians so we can direct it back to them, should we not leave it with them and let them make the decisions on how they are going to spend their funds? Does that not add up?

There is a regional disparity in Canada. There is this financial imbalance we talk about. This is another thing that we as a nation need to be addressing. We need to make sure that all areas of Canada have the opportunity for economic growth and stability. With that comes the opportunity for citizens to enjoy a good quality of career, to own their own home and to have peace of mind knowing that they have been able to put a few bucks away to educate their children or for their own retirement.

When people are empowered in that way, when they make those decisions for themselves, it also blends into creating a society that looks more toward itself to solve its problems than anywhere else. That is where people should be looking, but we have to give them the means to work through those problems. I think that if we levelled out the economic situation across this country and gave everybody that hand up instead of a handout, that is the way to improve things.

Part of the deal the NDP made with the Liberals is really amazing. It cost them $4.6 billion to buy an entire party on the premise that the Liberals would get support in the House. There still were not enough votes to ensure the Liberals' success, so they had to try to buy off more people in the House. They were successful in some cases and unsuccessful in others. Part of the deal was that the NDP wanted the tax cuts taken out of the budget, so the Liberals said they would do it, they would take them out of the budget and then bring them back in another way.

Therefore, not only did they spend $4.6 billion to buy some votes that were not enough to sustain them in the House, they reneged on the part of the deal regarding tax breaks, because those tax breaks are still going through and the NDP is still in the House to prop up the Liberals. It is almost as ridiculous as some of the backbench Liberals who are so opposed to Bill C-38 and are continually propping their government up long enough so they can pass Bill C-38. Some of these people will need to answer to their own constituents.

I would like to get into some of the party policy that Conservatives think needs to be implemented in this country to keep it strong and viable, to make it an even greater country than it is, to make it as great as it should be. As I say, I am from Alberta, and Albertans are blessed with resources, many of which are as yet untapped. We have oil, coal, farmland and forests. Everything is there.

I suppose that those of us living in Alberta have an advantage due to that, but because of the way this country is structured and because of the willingness to share shown by provinces that have more than others, we should be making sure it is done in a way such that the people who do not have as much are brought up to the same standard.

We believe that in order to have a strong economy and maintain good health, Canada must have strong, coordinated and achievable environmental policies. A Conservative government believes that responsible exploration and development, conservation and renewal of our environment are vital to our continued well-being as a nation and as individuals.

Being from Alberta, I say that because of the oil and gas exploration and the many things that go on there. At the same time that we explore and develop those very necessary resources, we have to be conscious of the environment. It is a proven fact that when the economy is going well, the most attention is given to the safeguarding of the environment.

In many of the classes in which I speak, like most of the members here who do the same when they go around to schools, I note that the environment is a key issue to the young people in our country. Good for them, I say. I am not so proud of what my generation has done to the environment, but the next generation is going to be prepared to fix it. We have to ensure that the tools are there to do it. Responsible development and responsible exploration, with an eye on both, and being able to facilitate that while protecting the environment, is part of what needs to be done and it is part of what we believe in.

[Agriculture, June 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in an unprecedented decision, Conservative members of Parliament and senators have been given the right to represent Canadians in a foreign court.

Conservative Party members are being granted the right to present a brief supporting the Canadian cattle industry in the U.S. district court in Billings, Montana on July 27. The official opposition will be in the courtroom fighting for Canadians but the government will not.

Why is the government so incompetent that it has been left to the official opposition to stand up and fight for our ranchers and farmers?

[Criminal Code, May 20th, 2005]

moved that Bill C-313, an act to amend the Criminal Code (prohibited sexual acts), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Edmonton—Sherwood Park for seconding this motion today. He will also be taking part in this hour of debate. I appreciate him being here on a beautiful Friday afternoon in Ottawa.

I am honoured to rise in the House today to debate my private member's bill, Bill C-313. The bill has a very worthy goal of amending Canada's Criminal Code by raising the age of sexual consent from 14 years to 16 years. The bill embodies a cause that I have inherited from the hon. members from Calgary Northeast and Wild Rose, both of whom have spent tireless hours over the past 12 years in an effort to achieve the protection of our children that this bill calls for. Mr. Speaker, you know full well that they have worked very hard in other aspects of protecting children in Canada.

As I have mentioned, this is not the first time the House has been faced with the opportunity to take meaningful action to protect our children from adults who use legal loopholes to engage in sexual activities with minors. For years the House has been presented with many private members' bills aimed at raising the age of consent and today that call continues. It continues largely because the House has yet to provide an appropriate answer to those calls for protection.

Despite claims by the government and Liberal governments that predated it, Canada's Criminal Code remains ineffective in its protection of our children when it comes to providing deterrents for adults who seek sexual relations with the most vulnerable and impressionable citizens of our society: our children. I use the words “our children” because, whether we have children of our own or not, as citizens and members of Parliament we possess a collective responsibility to provide meaningful protection for the children of Canada as if they were our own.

Although my children are now adults, they in turn have children, making me a pretty proud grandfather. The children of our neighbours, our co-workers, our colleagues and even strangers we pass on the street from all regions, ethnic backgrounds and faiths, are all Canada's children. They are Canada's children and therefore, as Canadians and legislators, they are our children to protect.

As members of Parliament, we are elected to make laws that respond to the various needs and necessities of our constituents. I would state that an essential virtue of this bill is that it affords much needed protection for children in not only my constituency of Lethbridge but every single constituency represented in the House. I look forward to the day when Canadian parents can rest assured that no adult can lawfully pursue sexual relations with their children.

The Criminal Code of Canada, as exists today, provides tacit approval for sexual relations between adults and adolescents as young as 14 as long as the sexual relations are consensual and the adult is not in a position of authority or trust over the minor. The same Criminal Code also excuses adults who have sexual relations with children as young as 12 years of age as long as the adult involved was under the impression that the minor was at least 14 years of age, the sexual relations was consensual and there was no abuse of position of authority or trust. As hard as that is to believe, that is what the law is in Canada.

In short, the laws of this land leave our children, as young as 12 years old, vulnerable to the lowest seductions and manipulations of troubled adults who would seek to rob them of their innocence. Clearly, it is time for the House to provide meaningful protection for our children.

Recent Liberal governments have taken a piecemeal approach to protecting our children from opportunistic adults seeking sexual relations with children. One example of this is the Liberal government's Bill C-15A of 2002 which outlawed the use of the Internet to communicate with a child for sexual purposes. While criminalizing Internet luring was a positive step, it really did not provide meaningful protection against very real threats.

Bill C-15A merely removed a stepping stone from the path. While removing a mere stepping stone from the illicit path is positive, it does not eliminate the destination to which the path winds, and that is sexual relations between adults and children.

The Criminal Code of Canada must be amended in order to establish truly robust and effective protection for our children and it is time for us to take real action against a real problem.

A recent event right here in Ottawa highlighted the need for this very action that my bill pursues. Just two months ago, a 38 year old man travelled from the United States to Ottawa with the express purpose of having sexual relations with a 14 year old boy. This individual's trip to Ottawa was the culmination of an Internet relationship that began in an online chat room several months before.

Because the age of consent in Canada is 14, he was not charged with sexual assault or any child sex crime. Under the current Criminal Code, the only charges that the police and parents could pursue against this individual were two charges of unlawfully taking a person under 16 away from his parents against their will and one count of using the Internet to facilitate this. Unfortunately, these charges carry no minimum penalties and have maximums of only five years.

Ironically, this individual faces heavier consequences in the United States where there are strict laws against adults crossing state and international borders in order to have sex with persons under the age of 16, even if it is consensual. It is shameful that the laws of another nation currently provide stronger protection for our children than do our own Canadian laws.

It is no coincidence that this troubled man travelled to Canada to have sexual relations with a minor. Our ineffective laws lacking deterrence and consequences leave the most vulnerable members of our society, our children, much more vulnerable and unprotected than need be.

There was a case in eastern Canada where another person came from the United States, contacted a 14 year old, was apprehended, was thrown in jail and had to be released because the young person with whom he had come to Canada to have a sexual relationship was 14 and legal. He therefore had to be released.

As long as our laws remain complacent in the face of such threats, Canada will remain vulnerable to the cold calculations of those who seek to exploit the innocence of and have sexual relations with our children. We are in real trouble when we have such troubled persons from outside our country travelling into Canada for that expressed reason: to take advantage of our lax laws and to have sexual relations with our children.

The Criminal Code as it stands today is powerless in the face of such brazen acts of illicit opportunism where a minor, who, in the Ottawa case, was suffering from depression, is seduced and manipulated prior to being drawn into actual sexual encounters with an adult.

I will speak of another event here in Ottawa where a 35 year old man was found guilty of having repeated sexual relations with a local 13 year old. He was not found guilty but he was charged. Although this individual has clearly broken the current law that supposedly protects our children, he was simply sentenced to house arrest. During the first 12 months of his sentence he is merely obliged to follow a curfew and to participate in sexual behaviour assessments and treatments if his corrections officer deems them necessary, and that is “if”. The court also required this individual to make a $1,000 donation to the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario.

That incident illustrates how, even when the laws meant to protect our children are clearly broken, no real consequences are assigned as a deterrent for the guilty individual or others who may follow suit. We have laws that together reflect our society's disapproval of adults having sexual relations with minors but there is no definitive principle or legislation supporting them.

This is the crux of my argument today. This bill is aimed at protecting, not limiting our children and their rights. I invite members to read the bill and join me in its promotion by considering a peer exemption for close in age categories so as not to criminalize teens who are sexually active with their peers. The true aim of the bill is the protection of our children from adults who intentionally pursue sexual relations with minors. With this bill Parliament will send a clear message.

It is time for Parliament to state clearly and with authority that our children are not fair game for those troubled adults and it is time for Parliament to state clearly and with authority that we will support the parents and law enforcement agencies which are the front line defenders of our children by providing them with laws clearly stating that sexual relations between adults and children are not only unacceptable but unlawful.

If the government and this House cannot support the bill, a Conservative government will.

Article 85 of the Conservative policy statement states:

A Conservative government will act to protect children by eliminating all defences that are used to justify the possession of child pornography. A Conservative government would rename the age of consent to the age of protection and raise it from 14 to 16 years of age.

Raising the age of consent from 14 to 16 years of age will empower parents and law enforcement agencies to vigorously protect some of the most vulnerable citizens from the darkest threats posed to them.

We have seen an attempt by the government to address this issue, but it falls far short of what needs to be done. The bill that the government brought forward is Bill C-2 which was tabled last fall. However, it does not address the issue of the age of sexual consent. I will read some comments from our justice critic, the member for Provencher, who stated:

Yet, despite the stated goals of the bill and the lofty promises of the Justice Minister, C-2 fails miserably in many respects. Most notable is its failure to protect a very vulnerable category of children--14 to 16 year olds--from the grasp of sexual predators. Children at these ages can easily become targets of pornographers, pedophiles and Internet sex scams while their parents are horrified to learn that Canadian law fails to provide them with legal recourse.

In most democratic jurisdictions that include the United Kingdom, Australia, most American states and European countries, adults are prohibited with having sexual relationships with children less than 16 or even 17 years of age. In Canada, a child may legally consent to sex with an adult at age 14.

As I indicated before, in some circumstances that can be as low as 12 and still be acceptable in the courts. The member further stated:

Despite persistent calls from provincial attorneys general and premiers, child advocacy groups, police, and countless other organizations, including the Conservative Party of Canada, successive Liberal ministers of justice continue to resist the proposal to raise Canada's age of sexual consent.

The most frequently cited reason provided by Liberals for not raising the age of consent is that it might criminalize sexual activity between young people.

That is why I mentioned the close in age exemption category that could be easily implemented. The member stated further:

The Criminal Code already permits children younger than 14 to consent to sexual activity as long as their partners are less than two years older than they are. The British, who have set their age of consent at 16, also have a close in age category that has not, as Liberals suggest, criminalized teenagers

There are many issues to be dealt with on this subject. Hopefully, when we hear what the other parties have to say there will be some consideration for this. I feel it is important to note that children who are between 14 and 16 years of age are still children. They still need direction and our protection. As legislators and lawmakers in this country, it is up to us to provide that protection while they are the most vulnerable in our society.

I look forward to the debate today and returning for the second hour and going to a vote. I hope that members of Parliament, when they deliberate, will find it in their hearts and thoughts to support the bill and pass it into law, so that we can say that we have taken a huge step toward helping to protect our children.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, May 19th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I was listening to my colleague speak and I agree with what he was saying, of course. One of the issues I would like him to expand on, when he talks about tax relief and leaving more money in the pockets of families, is the government's promise of money for child care. What would he do or what would he prefer to see in the budget instead of the plan that is in place now to create this huge bureaucracy?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, May 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of issues, particularly on the interest rate. I was referring to the interest rate on credit card debt. It is a fact that whether one is in the agricultural community trying to raise a family or in a business, the accumulated debt in this country has gone right through the roof since the government took over, and it knows it.

Last year the entire agriculture industry in this country lost money as a whole. That is a damning statistic that the government will have to live with because it drove that industry right into the ground. Members stand in the House everyday and say they are going to support farmers and this or that aspect of it. The truth of the matter is that as a whole the industry that feeds this country lost money last year.

The accumulated debt in the agriculture community has multiplied tenfold or twentyfold since the government took power. Every credit card that farmers have are at the maximum. Their fuel bills are at the maximum, including grain bills, fertilizer bills, chemical bills, whatever. Everything is maxed out. They cannot even service the interest on the debt, never mind the debt. It is out of control.

For a Liberal member to stand up with some smartass remark about what happened today is out of line, in my mind. The parliamentary secretary is supposed to be showing some direction on how this country is going to progress through the next five or ten years. To degrade the debate like he is doing here is absolutely unacceptable.

The finance minister and the Prime Minister made a deal with the NDP. That will cost us $4.6 billion on top of the $1 billion a day the Prime Minister has been running all over the place promising people. It is still not enough to get the job done that he bought the NDP off for. He buys a party with $4.6 billion hoping to have enough votes to pass the budget knowing that he does not. I do not understand why that was even entered into. Some of the things missed in that extra $4.6 billion are pretty glaring.

I will go back to agriculture again because that seems to be where I end up most times. I want to talk about the court case in Montana that has been brought forward by R-CALF that the government did not seek intervenor status to defend our producers against a protectionist bunch of yahoos in Montana who do not know what they are talking about and are spreading lies and smears about our Canadian industry. The government did not even apply to be an intervenor in that courtroom.

The official opposition sought intervenor status and it is in court right now. We are hoping the judge will allow us to go there to defend our industry. Somebody has to do it because the Liberal government has not done it and has no intention of doing it.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, May 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to address Bill C-43, the budget implementation bill. It is a little confusing this year when dealing with the budget. We do not know if we are talking about the Liberal budget that was presented in the House a while ago, or if we are addressing the NDP budget that came in some time after that or the billion dollars a day the Prime Minister has been promising since then. Someone once said, “a million here and a million there” and pretty soon we are talking about real money.

It seems unbelievable that the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister could bring a budget to the House that would give direction to the country, that would give an economic plan to progress the country to the next five to ten years, then within a month throw it out the window, broker deals with other parties in the House and go around and promise another $22 billion. What is the economic plan of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance to lead Canada?

We have seen some nervousness in the markets, our dollar and other issues that directly affect Canada as far as investment is concerned. People are not sure of the direction the government. That nervousness is reflected in the lack of confidence that investors have in Canada.

We need investment in industry. We need investment in the issues that Canadians need on a day to day basis. We need investment in research and development. We talk a great deal about putting money into research. Some good dollars do go in to it and some good research is done. In my riding of Lethbridge, at the university and the college, at the Lethbridge Research Station, animal disease research centre, great research is being done. However, the investment in development afterward to bring the research and those ideas to reality is not there.

Corporations, citizens, businesses, average mom and pop operations are being overtaxed and they are unable to put that money back into the development of the country. If this is allowed to happen, it spurs on more business and economic activity. The Liberal Party in all of its time in government in the last 12 years has missed the fact that the engine which drives the economy is not the government. It is businesses, small and large, that create the kind of economic development, create jobs and stability for families.

We support a couple of issues which we have pushed the government on recently and in the last number of years, particularly the Kyoto protocol. When I was first elected in 1997, I was deputy environment critic on the environment committee. One of the first questions I asked in the House had to do with the government's plan on Kyoto, when it went to sign the protocol. We are still asking.

Billions of dollars have been spent. Targets have not been reached. The targets that are there are not reachable. The smog in cities is as bad or worse than it was. There are no better water systems in the country. We are still asking the question, what is the plan? While the Kyoto protocol is not something that we will support, we will create a made in Canada solution to these issues and we will put real resources toward it. It will be a real plan to clean up the air, the water and the land. I tell the schools in my riding that I am not very proud of the record that my generation has when it comes to the environment.

It will be up to the younger generation to clean up the mess that we have helped make. However, we have to lay the groundwork now to enable them to do that. The Kyoto protocol will not do that. It will further drive our country down in its productivity and its ability to compete with other countries. Let us have a made in Canada solution and that is something we propose.

The government brought forward a $16 a year per taxpayer tax relief plan. It is hard to imagine that it could even come up with a figure that would adjust someone's take home pay by that much. It is absolutely ludicrous. We need substantive tax relief for low and middle income families.

We need a day care plan that does not give money to bureaucrats and organizations. We need a plan that puts money into the pockets of the parents so they can decide how to take care of their children. If we did that, it would be a substantive tax relief to families so they would have some choices. We do not have to look very far. We only have to look within our own families. They struggle to make ends meet at the end of every month and in many cases are unable to do it.

We talk about record credit card debt at outlandish interest rates. Many families are getting into these issues and these kinds of problem.

It is no different in my riding of Lethbridge. We have a very vibrant community. The city of Lethbridge has 75,000 people. It has a university and a college. It has a strong economic base of mom and pop operations. It has an industrial park. We have the surrounding area which is agriculture, intensive livestock, irrigation. A lot of dollars get turned over in the riding in a month or in a day. We need that type of activity in the country on a more general basis to foster economic growth.

However, the basic industry that drives the rest is agriculture. We asked questions of the agriculture minister a few minutes ago. We asked him what he would do if our border was closed to not only live cattle. R-CALF, the protectionist group in the United States, has now asked the court in Billings, Montana, the court which did not allow the border to be opened to live cattle when it was supposed to be, to expand that injunction to include boxed beef. If that happens, the price of cattle in this country will just take a nosedive like we have never seen before.

The minister sits here day after day talking about the wonderful things he has done to improve capacity. The loan loss reserve program that the government has implemented is not working. Bankers have told us that as far as they are concerned it does not exist, that it is a hindrance not a help. We need some major work done on increasing our slaughter capacity and finding other markets than traditional markets for our beef.

The judge in Billings has three options to make. He can throw out the injunction and open the border, or he can uphold the present injunction and close the border to live cattle or can expand it. We have asked the minister what his plan is if it is expanded. We have received fluff answers. We have not had any concrete answers from him. That needs to be addressed in a very serious manner.

I am getting calls from others in the agriculture community, from the grain farmers. My colleague from Wild Rose mentioned a case that has been brought to his attention. I have similar cases where people have been expecting substantive help through the CAIS program. When they actually get it, it is $140 which is not even enough to buy one tonne of fertilizer to help pay the fuel bill.

Since it was implemented, we have been after the government to do something about that program, to make it work for producers. We pushed for the government to waive the cash deposits and it did that. However, the program cannot be triggered for those who need it, and something has to be done about that.

The NDP stands in the House and pretends that it is supporting farmers. When we saw the special side deal between the Prime Minister the NDP, there was nothing in it for farmers. There was nothing in it for seniors. Why was that not addressed? The Liberals missed it in the original budget and they did not address it in the NDP budget. The Prime Minister has been crossing the country spending a billion dollars a day on average since then and he has not addressed those issues either.

We know that these are not priorities for the government. We know we will see a continuation of overtaxation and overspending. The priorities of Canadians are not being met, and we need to bring this back to reality.

Then there is the gas tax money for municipalities. It is amazing how the Liberal government has spun this. It was this party that brought motions to this House to put some of the gas tax back into infrastructure. We pushed that issue. We pushed it time and time again. Now we find that the Liberals are threatening municipalities that if the budget does not pass they are not going to get that money. We have made the recommendation that they will get that money.

We cannot continue to bring forward budgets like this with shotgun programs that do not direct and project the economic growth of the country for five or ten years down the road.

[Liberal Party of Canada, May 16th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians will be going to the polls very soon to pass judgment on the Liberal government.

Leading up to this judgment day, we are witness to the spectacle of the Prime Minister travelling across Canada making deathbed promises at the rate of a billion dollars a day; promises made without the proper programs in place to administer these funds. Now is that not exactly how the ad scam was operated?

Canadians will reject this obvious panic stricken display of Liberals trying to buy votes to cover up the fact they used dirty money to buy votes in the first place. This act of desperation clarifies the fact that the government is corrupt and is ruining the finances of our great country.

The question now becomes: Who is best equipped to clean up the mess made by these Liberals?

Having Liberals throwing buckets of hard-earned taxpayer dollars on a fire started with stolen taxpayer dollars is not the answer. Arsonists do not make great firefighters.

The clear choice to put this fire out and clean up this mess is the Conservative Party of Canada.

[Petitions, April 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of petitions I would like to present pursuant to Standing Order 36. These are from the good citizens of Lethbridge in southern Alberta.

The petitioners pray that Parliament pass legislation to recognize the institution of marriage in federal law as being a lifelong union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

[Agriculture, April 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, we in the official opposition have been calling on the government to use all the legal tools at its disposal in the fight to open the U.S. border to our live Canadian cattle. The Canadian cattle industry now is calling on the government to do the same.

The second anniversary of the border closure is fast approaching and prices paid for slaughtered cattle in Canada are once again in free fall. The adverse effects of this dramatic fall in prices is being felt in the trucking, grain and other related industries as well.

For the sake of all those affected, will the government finally initiate the NAFTA and WTO dispute mechanisms available to it.?

[Civil Marriage Act, March 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, after serving my constituents for eight years and rising in this distinguished place literally hundreds of times on many issues, I consider the issue we are dealing with today, Bill C-38, to be extremely important, if not the most important issue I have dealt with. It is also the issue, in my experience, that has created the highest number of responses from my constituents and from Canadians right across the country. I certainly appreciate the opportunity to present my comments and my thoughts.

The legislation the Prime Minister and the Liberal minority government have brought forward to change the traditional definition of marriage from the union of one man and one woman to two persons, in my mind, if passed without amendment will fundamentally change one of the basic pillars of our society, that being the traditional family.

The very act of tabling this legislation has caused problems, both within families and within communities. I want to relate a couple of incidents that I have been part of that will help expand on why I say that this proposed legislation is creating these problems, and outline what I and many others feel is a better way to proceed.

I have made it clear during my tenure as the member of Parliament for Lethbridge that I support the traditional definition of marriage as being the union of a man and a woman. However, I also believe people who choose a different path have rights as well. Problems begin to rise when interests at opposite ends of the issue become polarized and are unable to find middle ground.

The way the government is determined to proceed only exacerbates the situation because of its unwillingness to compromise. I believe the majority of Canadians prefer a moderate solution and not the hard line and inflexible position the Liberals are pushing.

The first personal experience I want to relate occurred about a year ago, shortly after I had put out a householder in my riding with comments outlining my support for traditional families and marriage. This release prompted a number of gay couples and individuals to come to my office to discuss my position and to relay concerns they had regarding some of my comments.

A number of these people were personal friends I have known for many years and have active roles in the community. Others I met for the first time. They explained to me the issues they had with some of my comments and wanted me to know they could be used in a harmful way. I assured them that causing anyone harm was not my intention.

They also wanted to inform me that they had meaningful relationships. They knew I would not change my stance on the definition of marriage, but felt obligated to give me their views. We were able to have a meaningful, frank, and at the same time respectful dialogue. Hopefully, we all went away with a better understanding of each other's views. I know I did.

The other incident I would like to refer to took place in my home at our kitchen table. In southern Alberta, as I am sure it is in most areas of Canada, many important discussions are held around the kitchen table.

A male friend of mine whom I have known most of my life, a successful businessman, a strong supporter of community activities, a husband, a father, grandfather, and devout Christian, phoned to say he would like to stop in at our home with some thoughts on how to stop the Liberals from changing the traditional definition of marriage. He came over and we discussed possible scenarios that could be used to improve the legislation or defeat it.

During his comments, he paused for a moment, a tear came to his eye, and he started to relate how his family was being tormented by this issue. One of his children had decided to support same sex marriage and he was struggling to understand why. He broke down and was unable to continue. He could not understand why the Prime Minister and the Liberal government were doing this to his family.

He, along with most Canadians, feels very strongly that the definition of marriage should be the union of one man and one woman, but he holds no animosity toward same sex couples. However, he does not understand why the Liberals are so intent on pursuing this issue when there are so many other important issues that need Parliament's attention. He could not understand why a compromise could not be reached that would satisfy the majority of Canadians.

These are just two examples of divergent beliefs that exist side by side in Canada that I, along with every member in the House I would think, have been exposed to over the past number of months.

For all the people I have heard from who are polarized on this issue, and for all those Canadians who are seeking a moderate solution, I am asking members of Parliament to please consider the amendments brought forward by the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada. If we must go down this road, then let us do it with a reasonable compromise and in a manner that places no one at a disadvantage.

Parliament is fully within its right to pass such amendments because the Supreme Court not only declined to answer on the constitutionality of traditional marriage but made it clear that it was up to Parliament to decide on this important matter.

The justice minister and Prime Minister are misleading Canadians when they promise to protect religious freedoms, knowing full well that the Supreme Court has already ruled that the provisions in the draft legislation pertaining to the right of religious officials to refuse to perform marriage is outside the jurisdiction of the federal Parliament, even so far as federal common law and federal statutes are concerned.

The federal justice minister has had several months to draft amendments to protect religious freedoms in relation to income tax and charitable status. He has chosen not to do this. There are no such protections in this bill. This is one area where the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada has indicated our plan to move such amendments if this legislation survives second reading.

Importantly as well, the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada is allowing a free vote for our entire caucus, something the so-called democratic deficit fighter, the Prime Minister, is not allowing in the Liberal Party, nor are the leaders of the Bloc or the NDP for that matter.

The Leader of the Opposition has taken a reasonable, moderate approach to this issue that is in accord with the views of the vast majority of Canadians. The option we present to retain the traditional definition of marriage as well as recognize that same sex partnerships have equivalent rights and benefits represents the middle ground the majority of Canadians occupy. As I indicated, we intend to amend the government's legislation to present this reasonable position to preserve the traditional definition while maintaining legal rights and privileges for same sex partnerships and to protect religious freedom.

The use of the notwithstanding clause, which is mentioned often in the speeches from across the way, is not an issue in this debate and is simply not necessary. The only legal opinion that is relevant here is that of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has never ruled on the traditional definition of marriage. It has handed the issue back to Parliament to legislate. The court has never ruled on legislation of the type the Conservative Party of Canada is proposing, which would ensure equal rights and privileges for same sex partnerships while affirming the traditional definition of marriage as a union of one man and one woman.

I am confident that ensuring equal rights is the way, along with legislation to define the traditional definition of marriage, something that we do not presently have, that represents a reasonable compromise, a firm expression of Parliament's will, a democratic will that the courts would respect. That is the moderate position that we represent and it is where most Canadians' beliefs are on the issue. They firmly believe in equal rights, but they also want to preserve the traditional definition of marriage.

As was pointed out by the Leader of the Opposition when he led off the debate for the Conservative Party of Canada on this bill, the definition of marriage is a question of social policy as opposed to a rights issue, and it is therefore for Parliament to decide. Respecting the traditional definition of marriage is not an infringement on anyone's rights. If we put into legislation the traditional definition along with equal rights and benefits for same sex partners, we will have the reasonable compromise that reflects the broad consensus of Canadians.

It is not up to the Prime Minister to decide if same sex marriage is a fundamental right. The Supreme Court refused to answer the question on whether the traditional definition of marriage is constitutional. In doing so, the court indicated that this was a matter for Parliament, the elected representatives of the people, to decide.

In closing, let me ask the members of the House to do what is right and to reach the reasonable compromise by accepting the amendments that will allow the retention of the definition of marriage as a union of one man and one woman, while extending to other civil unions established under the laws of a province the same rights, benefits and obligations as married persons.

Let us do the reasonable thing. Let us reach the position that the vast majority of Canadians are seeking, so families that are being torn apart can once again be whole, and those who are living in traditional marriages or civil unions can live in peace.

If I could get off topic just for a second, I would like to mention a few of the members of the House who have not been with us in the last little while: the member for Surrey North, the member for Westlock--St. Paul, the member for Okanagan-Shuswap, and of course our own Sergeant-at-Arms. These four people are struggling with issues of their own and I would just like to let them know that we are thinking of them.