Brian Fitzpatrick

[Supply, November 15th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, on June 6, Bishop Henry, in a pastoral letter, stated:

In much of the secular media [the] Prime Minister... is frequently described as a 'devout Catholic'. However, his recently clarified position regarding... same sex [marriage] is a source of scandal in the Catholic community and reflects a fundamental moral incoherence.

Bishop Henry states that in response to that letter he received a call from a federal tax collector in Ottawa and was advised that the Catholic church could lose its charitable status if he continued to challenge the Prime Minister on such issues.

In August, representatives of the Catholic church and the evangelical movement met with officials of the Canadian Revenue Agency to discuss their charitable status. To some representatives the message was very clear: shut up during elections or lose their charitable status. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of the press are the most essential elements of a free and democratic society. These are freedoms that are so important that the designers of the charter itself, Pierre Trudeau and 10 premiers, called them fundamental freedoms. Those are the most important points of the charter.

There will always be individuals who disagree with other people's points of view. Unless these people are advocating criminal actions by somebody else or encouraging people to commit criminal actions, my view is that they have a perfect right to express their views in a free and democratic society.

It is however very disturbing when government uses the machinery of government, the powers of the state, to muzzle and shut down our most fundamental freedoms.

In recent times the Liberals shut down a radio station in Quebec because I think they thought it was too right of centre. The Liberal government has decided in its wisdom that the Fox news network cannot be in Canada because it is too conservative. We have even heard members on the opposite side say that Don Cherry should be fired from CBC, or at least censored, because they do not like his points of view. If freedom of speech and freedom of religion mean anything we have to accept other points of view even if we disagree with them.

We will be talking a lot about this on privilege. As members of Parliament, we like to say that we have the widest latitude of freedom of speech that anyone can have. When the issue comes up with Mr. Guité and other people, we will all slap ourselves on the back and say that freedom of speech is really an important issue and something we all have to stand in the House and defend. However the Liberal government, through its agencies, goes around intimidating and harassing Canadian citizens for doing something that they have a right to do, which is to express their religious beliefs and their beliefs on issues of the day.

I take this issue very seriously. Freedom of religion and freedom of speech are very fragile concepts. If members do not believe me they should start reading some history books or start looking around at some of the other countries in the world. When the state gets directly involved in intimidating, threatening and challenging people's right to express their points of view, that is dangerous.

[An Act to establish the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, November 15th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I would like to raise an issue with the member from the Bloc where the federal government did cooperate fully with the provincial PQ government a few years back to create jobs in an area of high unemployment, the Gaspé area. Together, I think they pumped about $300 million to $400 million into a paper mill called Gaspésia, which is now in creditor protection, $700 million in total cost. A whole bunch of contractors and workers were left holding the bag in that province because the federal Liberals and the PQ government got together in a high unemployment area where the government would solve the unemployment problem.

The only people who will have any long term employment out of this project will be the lawyers who will be suing both levels of government to collect damages for contractors and other people.

I would like the member to comment on this disastrous alliance between the PQ government that was in power and the federal Liberals with their intervention to solve an unemployment problem which they have not solved. There will not be any employment out of that plant. The plant is not even close to being opened. All we have is taxpayers in Quebec and outside of Quebec holding the bag for a whole lot of money that has been flushed down the toilet, so to speak.

[An Act to establish the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, November 15th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I want to make a comment with respect to the answer I heard from the member.

There is a clear difference between members on this side and members on that side. Members on this side believe in property rights. Members on that side do not believe in property rights. Members on this side understand what free enterprise is and its ability to create wealth and drive the economy. Members on that side of the House do not understand that. They believe in centralized state planning, that the hands of government should be involved in everything.

Quite frankly, we drive a lot of people out of this country into other countries who have very good ideas and are entrepreneurs. Right down the line we send them to other countries because of very bad tax policy and so on.

If this country had the proper business environment, we would not need the Liberal government. Businesses would create all sorts of opportunities in this society without the government trying to fill the gap.

I am glad the member raised that point. There are some clear differences between the party on this side and the party on that side of the House. I think we are a lot closer to Canadian values than that group is.

[Economic Development, November 15th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, in 2001 the federal government committed $80 million to a paper mill at Chandler, Quebec. In making this commitment, the government was in receipt of a consultant's report that painted a dismal picture for this type of plant. This project is now into creditor protection and is the subject matter of a major public inquiry in Quebec.

Why did this Liberal federal government decide to sink millions of dollars into a project that was doomed from the very beginning?

[Taxation, November 5th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make something perfectly clear to the minister. The only junior A teams in Canada that for the last two years have been targeted by the tax collectors are Saskatchewan teams. The tax collectors are literally sending Saskatchewan junior hockey teams into bankruptcy.

The Liberal government should be ashamed of itself. Again I ask the Minister of Finance, the only government member from Saskatchewan, why he has been--

[Taxation, November 5th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, for the past two years federal tax collectors have been trying to kill junior hockey in Saskatchewan. The Minister of Finance has not lifted a single finger to bring relief to this disgraceful condition. I would ask the self-proclaimed champion of Saskatchewan, the Minister of Finance, why he has not done a single thing to rectify this appalling situation.

[Fraser Institute, November 3rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, in the fall of 1974 a public policy think tank set up shop in Vancouver. It advocated ideas such as free trade, more freedom through less government, balanced budgets and lower levels of taxation. Socialists and Liberals treated this organization with scorn and hostility.

How times have changed. Today, Liberals and even some NDP members admit that free trade is good for Canada. Even the creators of massive fiscal imbalances, the Trudeau Liberals, now embrace the concept of balanced budgets. Socialists and Liberals now agree that government must measure surgical wait lists and find ways to shorten those lists.

Yes, the Fraser Institute has contributed much to this country and in so doing it has improved the lives of Canadians.

I know all members, including the NDP and the Liberals, will all want to congratulate the Fraser Institute for 30 years of excellence.

[Contraventions Act, November 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I oppose the decriminalization of marijuana, and I will approach this matter from a different angle.

I will start from the angle of the problem we have with impaired driving, which is huge. On average four Canadians are killed every day in automobile accidents caused by impairment. When I saw our disabled Olympians the other day, I wondered how many of them were disabled as a result of an automobile accident caused by an impaired driver.

The figures are immense. It is a serious tragedy and a major evil. Liberal governments do not want to deal with the problem. They would rather tinker with the law rather than take serious steps to deal with the evil on our highways.

Last spring the member for Vegreville--Wainwright introduced a private member's bill in the House that would have closed some loopholes that allowed people to escape accountability and liability for their actions with regard to impaired driving. Liberals voted against that bill. I think their major reason for opposing that bill, in all honesty, was because it would have offended some defence lawyers, who make a good living at getting people in court off on minor technicalities. I do not have a lot of enthusiasm for that crowd, but people on the other side of the House do. I guess they have to ensure that their business is taken care of as well. Their game is making laws that leave loopholes and technicalities for people to escape liability.

This brings me to the issue of marijuana and impaired driving and the issues that flow from that. We are far from dealing with the problems of impaired driving caused by alcohol. Yet the government wants to open up another area by decriminalizing marijuana. It seems to me it is trying to create more mayhem and tragedies on our highways by proceeding in that way.

The research on this issue is frightening. The level of impairment of somebody who has had a small amount of marijuana is more severe than the level of impairment of somebody who has had a small amount of alcohol. Many studies have been done on that. Studies have indicated that when people have one joint, wait 10 minutes and have another joint and then take a normal sobriety test like touching their nose with their finger, or standing on one leg for 30 seconds or walking a straight line, they cannot do it. They have lost their coordination and their reflex time as a result of smoking a small amount of marijuana. If a bit of beer, or whiskey, or rum or something is added into that equation, it is disastrous.

We have an opportunity to emphasize prevention. It is too late when people are put in body bags and dragged off to the mortuary. It is too late when people are charged. The best thing we could do, as policy-makers, would be to prevent these tragedies at the beginning. The government's initiative seems to be going totally against getting impaired drivers off our highways, saving lives and preventing unnecessary injury and harm to people.

Let me examine a couple of other areas pertaining to the matter of impairment. We have devices that measure alcohol levels accurately. It is well established in the court system as to what these levels are and how these matters are processed. This is not the case with marijuana. We have no efficient device that can measure the level of impairment from marijuana.

Most cases dealing with impairment caused by marijuana, which are contested in the court system, are a defence lawyer's holiday. It is far easier to get an acquittal in that situation than it is for alcohol.

What we do by decriminalizing marijuana is invite a whole round of new legislation and more laws. That is the Liberal way. Liberals believe that passing laws is like waving a magic wand and something will happen at the other end. In real life it takes a lot more than commands and orders from the government through the form of legislation. It will take a lot of new technology to deal with that level of impairment.

The government in a way is telling young people and other people that it is okay, that it is not serious. It may not even be as bad as drinking alcohol, so maybe the drug of choice for people should be marijuana. The fine will not be very severe, so perhaps people can switch over to it. Is that what the government is inviting our society to do with this kind of law? What kind of message is this to parents and young people on the problem of impaired driving?

The cases dealing with impaired driving from marijuana are a disaster for the police and for the prosecution. They are a difficult problem for the courts. There is no simple answer. If we look at these cases, we are not getting convictions and we are tying up the court system. This is a very poor signal in this area.

I would invite anybody in the House to meet with families who have lost young people through automobile accidents caused by impaired drivers. I challenge any one of the members on that side of the House to tell those people that decriminalizing marijuana is a good idea.

I want to raise a side issue on this. As Canadians, we quite often say that Americans do not understand our concerns and interests. Sometimes I think Canadians are not so good at understanding American concerns and interests. I find it amazing in this day and age, with some of the rhetoric that comes from the other side of the House, that some Canadians do not really understand what happened on September 11, 2001.

Everyday we have a big trade surplus with the United States. Of our exports, 87% go to the United States. Exports help pay for our health care. They help pay for our social programs. They provide an awful lot of jobs in the country. Having that border secure and open is very important to our well-being.

The United States of America is concerned about our drug policies, our grow ops and our huge export of drugs through the border system into their country, and we do not seem to understand that. We are oblivious to that fact. We are sending the wrong signal, just as people call the President of the United States a moron, or a bastard or some other unflattering name. We do not understand what impact our policies are having on how Americans perceive us and our well-being as a nation.

Quite honestly, in a lot of areas we have a lot to be shameful for, especially on that side of the House.

[Taxation, October 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Canada Revenue Agency has threatened both Roman Catholic and evangelical churches with legal sanctions. Their mortal sin was freely and publicly expressing their positions on key moral issues. I find the government's actions outrageous. Our Constitution guarantees every citizen freedom of expression and freedom of religion.

I ask the minister, why is the government attacking our most cherished freedoms?

[Curling, October 26th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the mandate of the CBC is to promote and enhance Canadian culture. The sport of curling is very much a part of Canada's cultural heritage.

CBC, with the help of government subsidies, has managed to displace TSN from covering national curling events, namely the men's Brier and the Scott Tournament of Hearts. Curling fans across Canada will be most disappointed when they discover that CBC will be reducing the coverage of these events by 66%. Most Canadians will no longer be able to enjoy watching the evening or morning curling draws.

Let us review what has been accomplished here. Through Liberal government subsidies, the CBC has managed to squeeze out a quality private sector broadcaster. CBC, with the help of the Liberal government, is betraying its mandate while Canadians are being shortchanged on their access to a major Canadian cultural event.

The Liberal government and the CBC should be ashamed of themselves.