Cliff Breitkreuz

[Petitions, June 14th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present petitions bearing thousands upon thousands of signatures from petitioners right across the country. The petitioners pray that parliament take all measures necessary to ensure that possession of child pornography remains a serious criminal offence and that police forces be directed to give priority to enforcing this law for the protection of our children.

[Referendum Act, June 14th, 2000]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-490, an act to amend the Referendum Act (to permit a referendum and a general election to be conducted at the same time and on the same polling day).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce my private members' bill which proposes to amend the current Referendum Act to permit a referendum and a general election to be conducted at the same time on the same day and, of course, at the same poll.

Few people would disagree that a majority of Canadians would welcome the opportunity to have a direct vote at virtually no extra cost on one or two issues that are uppermost in many Canadians' minds. This amendment adds a whole new dimension to the concept of participatory democracy that ostensibly is a hallmark of our democratic process.

I ask all members from all sides of the House to support this bill.

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

[National Parks, June 13th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals claim they are the epitome of democracy and of the consultative process. In reality, autocracy rules supreme, at least in the heritage department and specifically in Bill C-27, the Canada national parks act.

No one in Jasper was consulted while drafting Bill C-27, and this bill will have a serious impact on Jasper and its residents. Jasper Commerce and Tourism was not consulted, nor was the Jasper townsite committee.

Roy Everest and Richard Ireland presented briefs to the committee, but the bill was already in its final form and their recommendations fell on deaf ears.

The 5,000 residents of Jasper will never be able to make decisions regarding fire halls, fire trucks or even stop signs. The minister here in Ottawa will keep a tight-fisted grip on these and other local issues.

Jasper is the only community in the entire country singled out in this fashion. Who was consulted? Why, the Sierra Legal Defence Club. It was not only consulted, but hired by the cops at heritage. Shame on the dictatorial practices of this Liberal government.

[Petitions, May 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the last three petitions pray that the government repeal Bill C-23 for a variety of reasons.

[Petitions, May 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to present four petitions in the House. These petitioners represent the communities of Barrhead, Wildwood, Sangudo, and all points in between, including Neerlandia.

The first petition deals with the issue of pornography and that the government is doing nothing about the possession of child pornography.

[Gun Registration, April 12th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal plan to register firearms is shot full of holes.

In 1995 the Prime Minister vowed registration would cost taxpayers $85 million. Now documents reveal that the justice minister overshot that target, spending a cool $81 million in the last four months and the finance minister recently tried to plug another hole by pouring in $46 million. To date, gun registration has cost a staggering $330 million.

Only 13% of law-abiding owners have licensed their firearms. To meet the deadline, the CFC must process 2,630,000 applications and that does not include all the criminals the minister is convinced will line up to register.

Go figure. Liberal math at its finest. Why does the minister not put a gun to their useless legislation and just blow it away?

[Member For Brant, March 24th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, in the Liberal Party members earn rewards for blowing billions of dollars while they receive applause at conventions, standing ovations in the House and even protection from an angry public.

In the real world managers would be fired with cause, but in Liberaldom they are congratulated and handed a bigger portfolio. When is the member for Brant getting the finance job?

[National Park Wardens, March 24th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the lives of our national park wardens are in danger and the heritage minister refuses to protect them.

Federal park wardens have been forced to work without the proper equipment needed to protect themselves. Wardens constantly encounter poachers, drug dealers and others who are potentially violent and armed. Poachers face up to five years in jail and become desperate when apprehended by a park warden.

Knowing these facts, why does the heritage minister ignore her committee's recommendation that wardens should carry service revolvers? The government allows Brink's security guards to carry sidearms to protect money, but refuses the same right to wardens who protect wildlife, tourists and their own lives.

I proudly represent the people who live in Jasper National Park and I strongly urge the heritage minister to provide park wardens with the basic tools needed for their protection and the protection of the public. Why put our officers at risk when on the line of duty simply because they were denied basic protection?

[Canada Elections Act, February 22nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak against this legislation. Unless otherwise amended by members from all parties and approved by members from all parties, it will turn out to be a bad piece of legislation. This legislation is being pushed through the House in order to suppress debate and yet again, time allocation has been invoked. Shame on the government for cutting off debate.

There have been over 60 time allocations in six years. That is the Liberal record, which is about double the Mulroney record. Shame on the Liberals for shutting down debate on legislation with provisions that would stifle Canadian citizens their freedom of speech during federal elections. It stifles freedoms and liberties that go back to the Magna Carta of 1215. Rather than keeping the powers of government in check, Bill C-2 is expanding the powers of the federal government.

Bill C-2 is a gag law. It gags the freedom of Canadian citizens the right to speak up and be heard, hence it is dangerous legislation. The Liberal government dubs Bill C-2 as legislation that will limit the influence of money in politics. That is for everyone except of course the Liberals themselves. That is what it is doing.

Under the legislation the Liberal governing party will be allowed to spend almost $20 million in the country's various ridings, but it does not stop there. It can top that off with another $12 million nationally which it can spend in any riding it wishes. It is all taxpayers' dollars. Some limit. The sky is virtually the limit for Liberal spending.

What about private citizens groups or other organizations? The following just shows the kind of bastion of hypocrisy the Liberal government really is. Bill C-2 would limit the spending of a private citizen, or an organization no matter how large, to an average of $500 per constituency across the country with no more spending than $3,000 targeted at any one riding.

Here is the stark contrast and hypocrisy of it all. Liberal candidates can spend millions of taxpayers' dollars to get themselves elected to office. However private citizens can spend at the most a few paltry thousand dollars and they are not even trying to get elected to office.

That is why Bill C-2 is so dangerous. Where do the millions that the Liberals can spend come from? Under Bill C-2 the majority of the $30 million plus will come from taxpayers. How can this happen? How in heaven's name is this done? It is done, as all political bagmen know, through a generous system of tax credits and rebates. It is interesting that under this bill a limit really would never be reached.

It is the private citizens that the Liberals are trying to muzzle, even if the citizens are spending their own money. Bill C-2 really is not about how much money is being spent, but about who is spending it.

Here is what it boils down to. It is entirely okay for Liberals to spend the voters' money to spread Liberal opinions, but not for voters to spend it on their own opinions. That is even if they are not asking for a dime in tax breaks and slush funds.

Speaking of slush funds, Bill C-2 leaves contributions to Liberal associations and party campaigns a private matter, just like the deliberations of caucus and cabinet. In other words, it remains perfectly legal for wealthy contributors to meet privately with government decision makers and arrange to make money available to a Liberal association in exchange for a favour. The public of course would never really know about it unless there is an internal audit, like the billion dollar boondoggle at HRDC.

On the other hand, if private citizens and organizations use their money to communicate their views directly and publicly to voters, this would constitute buying influence in government and they could go to jail. George Orwell would be proud and heck, so would Joseph Stalin.

Here is the biggest scam of it all. Under Bill C-2 most of the money the Liberals will spend in the next election will not even count as spending and thus faces no limits at all. I am talking about all the money the Liberal government can spend on self-promoting advertising.

The federal government is the biggest advertiser in the country. Here is a small example. Liberal backbenchers can send mailers to their constituencies attacking private organizations. It may cost more than $3,000, but it will not count as election spending as long as it is mailed a few seconds before the writ is dropped. This is a standard practice of government MPs.

A bigger example is in the Prime Minister's own riding. Through various agencies and programs, $12 million in grants and loans found their way to Shawinigan in time for the last election. The amount is even larger than the spending limit for the Liberal Party at the national level.

Under Bill C-2 that is the kind of pork barrelling that private citizens could not expose and attack in the next election. Private people would have to remain quiet, but will they? Will they?

Do we really think that a group that believes in individual freedom will comply with a law that threatens prison terms for citizens using their own money to communicate their own ideas to other citizens? Do we really think a group that believes in democracy will support a law that gives governments virtually unlimited use of public dollars to finance their re-elections? Do we really think a group that believes in free elections will adhere to a law that makes it a crime for citizens to publicly advertise in a free press, but gives uncontrolled avenues of private influence to friends and cronies? Of course not.

There is no doubt that Bill C-2 will pass in the House unamended, but the gag law will be defeated. This oppressive law will be overturned as others have been overturned. That will be a good thing for the freedoms and liberties of all Canadians.

[Human Resources Development, February 22nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, HRDC spent millions of tax dollars on TJF and CJF grants to companies based on projected job creation and not on actual jobs created. The 10,000 documents released yesterday said nothing about actual jobs.

In fact the minister's department said it had no way to prove that jobs had been created. Yet the minister stated in the House that 30,000 jobs have been created as a result of these programs. Could the minister prove that 30,000 jobs have been created as a result of these programs?