Garry Breitkreuz

[Petitions, May 14th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present my last petition with 36 signatures of citizens from the province of Saskatchewan.

These petitioners are concerned that the Canadian Wheat Board exercises its monopoly power in a discriminatory manner by forcing only prairie producers to sell their grain to the board.

They call on parliament to either scrap Bill C-4 or support the following amendments. Change the object of the act to maximize financial returns to the producers, remove the inclusion and exclusion clause, allow producers to opt in or out for fixed periods, allow the auditor general to conduct annual audits and allow producers to get information under the Access to Information Act.

[Petitions, May 14th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to present two petitions with 56 signatures of my constituents of Yorkton, Saskatchewan.

These constituents are concerned that the public is not being protected under the current Young Offenders Act. They are concerned that young offenders who commit crimes such as murder, arson, rape and robbery do not get adequate punishment under the current act.

Therefore these petitioners call on parliament to bring in new and tougher laws for young offenders and also request better enforcement of these laws.

[Petitions, May 14th, 1998]

I am also pleased, Mr. Speaker, to present four petitions comprised of 30 pages with 710 signatures of concerned Canadians from Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta and British Columbia.

These Canadians are concerned that there is no provision in the charter of rights and freedoms that prevents government from taking anything they own without compensation and nothing in the charter which restricts the government in any way from passing laws which prohibit the ownership, use and enjoyment of their private property or reduces the value of their property.

These petitioners request parliament to support private member's Bill C-304 which would strengthen the protection of property rights in federal law.

[Petitions, May 14th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in the next group of petitions there are 24 pages with the signatures of 603 concerned Canadians from Ontario, Nova Scotia, Manitoba and British Columbia. These petitioners believe that many thousands of the more than one hundred thousand abortions a year in Canada are medically unnecessary and actually increase health risks for women undergoing this procedure.

These petitioners request parliament support my motion, M-268, which would require a binding national referendum at the time of the next election to ask voters whether they are in favour of government funding for medically unnecessary abortions.

[Petitions, May 14th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in the second group of petitions that I am pleased to present there are 48 pages with 1,134 signatures of citizens from Alberta, Ontario, Nova Scotia and British Columbia calling for the repeal of Bill C-68, the Firearms Act.

These petitioners have asked me to keep a running total of repeal Bill C-68 petitions that I have introduced. These year I have introduced 139 pages with 3,409 signatures.

These Canadians are concerned that the government is spending hundreds of millions of dollars registering more than 18 million legally owned guns while the number of police officers per capita has dropped to its lowest level since 1972.

Therefore these petitioners request parliament to repeal Bill C-68, the Firearms Act, and spend their hard earned tax dollars on more cost effective crime fighting measures such as putting more police on our streets and highways.

[Petitions, May 14th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I ask for your patience this morning. I have a large number of petitions to present.

In the first grouping there are 74 pages to this petition with the signatures of 1,819 concerned Canadians from Ontario, Alberta, Manitoba and my home province of Saskatchewan. They are concerned that by ratifying and implementing the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child that government bureaucrats and the courts will be legally entitled to determine what is in the best interests of the child, not parents.

The petitioners feel parental rights and responsibilities are being undermined by government implementation of this UN convention and they request parliament to address their concerns by adding protection of parental rights and responsibilities to the charter of rights and freedoms.

[Division No. 137, May 12th, 1998]

Maybe at a later time, but not at this time. I respect the Chair.

Grain is given a preferential treatment. We are asking for equality. In my riding alfalfa producers are really protesting this inequity. I hope the government will reconsider and allow its members at least a free vote on this. If there is going to be any reform or any freeing up of this parliament the government has to lead in reforming and democratizing the House. We are only one small voice in this regard.

One of the things that has been said is that we should not be singling out just grain. There are many other commodities that deserve equal protection. We need to protect the national economy. We have already made that point.

The grain producers and many other commodity shippers have been held hostage by the labour disputes at the west coast. Third parties that have no control are greatly harmed.

We have had a discussion in the House in the last couple of weeks on hepatitis C and the victims who have been harmed. Third parties were harmed and they had no control over the circumstances. This is not in the same category but here is a third party being harmed by a situation over which it has no control, that being strikes at our ports. It is blatantly unfair to allow that to continue. I hear the NDP, the Liberals and the Bloc defending this but it is basically most unfair.

If there is a better solution such as final offer selection arbitration why not consider that? It has worked and it has worked very effectively. It would prevent some of the great harm that is being done to the third parties that suffer because of the strikes that take place. It would be protection for the economy. There is a balance here. It is not just the strike but also the lockouts so it helps both sides.

It is in the interest of all Canadians that we have reliable access to essential services. If we do not what is going to happen? We are going to lose some of the jobs to our competitors such as the United States. We would like to keep employment within our borders. We need to establish and maintain what we now have and that is a reputable world class export system. We need to continue to maintain that.

Canada has had this transportation and communications infrastructure and many of these things will gradually have to be scaled back if we allow these strikes and lockouts to continue. The disruption in day to day operations of vital transportation sectors would inhibit the national economy from functioning.

The second group of motions that we would ask the government to support also deals with proposing an extension to include all the other commodities. I have mentioned one which I am very familiar with and that is alfalfa pellets and alfalfa products. There is no reason why that cannot be included in this.

I do not know if members realize that the port of Vancouver alone in 1960—I think that is the right date—had $30 billion in exports. Only $4 billion of that is grain. The government is dividing up and giving special treatment to a certain sector and we have no problem. We appreciate the fact that grain producers will have this protection but it should be extended to all. That is why we cannot accept what the government has done and so have proposed the amendments. Grain is only about 20% of the commodities that are shipped to the west coast.

[Division No. 137, May 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my speech I have to make a comment on some of the last things that have been said and some of the previous speeches just before me.

I cannot believe what I am hearing. The member who has just spoken, as others, talked in a very rational, calm tone, saying things that are totally false and we cannot leave those things unchallenged in this House.

He referred to us as being naive and not thinking through things. I would challenge him to think through some of these things himself.

They talk about defending workers, that this is their mandate and so on. Some of the amendments that we have put forward would in fact protect workers better. They would help protect the economy. When we are protecting the economy we are doing what is best for workers. The NDP ought to think that through.

Who suffers most when we destroy the economy in certain areas? Of course it is the worker. What the NDP does not realize is that innocent third parties are being hurt and hurt severely by what is happening at the ports.

The member who just spoke said that we do not represent farmers and have not talked to them. I have talked to farmers and I have spent a lot of time with them. They have talked to me about this legislation. That is why we have proposed some of these amendments. For example, we have an amendment here that would include other commodities that farmers produce in this legislation.

The members display their lack of knowledge of the farm economy. Farmers do not just grow seeds and grains. They produce other things that, when shipped, look almost like seeds but will not be treated the same in this bill. For example, they produce alfalfa pellets which are simply dry little pellets that are made from alfalfa grass. Why should that be treated any differently than wheat, barley or canola?

The members have not addressed this. They have read these prepared speeches from the bureaucrats without realizing that they do not address the problem that we have come to address.

We are speaking on behalf of farmers. Why should we divide the agricultural community as this legislation does? It is totally unfair.

Another thing that the government keeps saying over and over is that Reform is holding up the bill. Look at the reason we are pushing for these changes. It is the lack of democracy in this House that forces us to try to get the attention of the government as to the importance of these amendments. It just does not listen.

This bill has a good aim. There are some very good things in it. But if it can be strengthened, why not strengthen it? It makes no sense to simply pass this bill through the House and not consider some of the very reasoned and good amendments that we have put forward.

I challenge the government not to just listen to us. I challenge the NDP. I challenge the Bloc. Do not just listen to what we are saying. I believe if they talk to Canadians generally they will find that we have very strong support across the entire spectrum for these amendments. I challenge the government to find out the same thing that we have found out, which is, this is what people want. We need to return to a real balance in labour legislation.

I would like now to begin my speech. That was simply in reply to some of the things that were said previously which are totally unfair.

The whole debate today was led off by the House leader for the Liberal Party. I would like to read a quotation. “I am shocked. This is terrible. This time we are talking about a major piece of legislation. Shame on those Tories across the way”. Do you know who said that, Mr. Speaker? It was the very person who introduced the motion to invoke time allocation upon this bill. It was the government House leader.

I will read another quotation. “It displays the utter disdain with which this government treats the Canadian people”. That was said by the foreign affairs minister when he sat on this side of the House in opposition.

Here is another quotation. “This is not the way to run parliament. This is abuse of the process in this House”. I will not tell you, Mr. Speaker, who said it, but it was a highly esteemed member of the government. I do not want to embarrass anybody in this House at the present time.

[Motions For Papers, May 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to have Motion No. P-17 called.

That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all minutes of meetings of the User Group on Firearms and for copies of all correspondence between the User Group on Firearms and the Minister of Justice and officials in the Department of Justice.

[Taxation, May 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, let me try again.

The minister is in charge of this nation's finances. He is in charge and he can change it but his last budget is discriminatory and he has increased that discrimination by 35%.

Research shows that his tax policies are harmful to families. I will ask the question again. When is he going to change his mind and change the tax act to treat all families equally and fairly?