Garry Breitkreuz

[Taxation, May 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the finance minister is intentionally twisting our questions.

We are asking about single income families, not low income families. In the finance minister's recent budget he increased the child care credit by $2,000. However it does not allow parents who stay at home to take care of their children to claim this credit. When is this grossly unfair system of taxation going to change?

[Dna Identification Act, May 4th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I just want to respond for a moment to the comments that were made by the government representative across the way.

He said that “a fingerprint identifies me but DNA is a part of me”. If that is the argument then in fact he should support this amendment. At the present time if this DNA data is being used for purposes anything beyond what a fingerprint is used for, we are saying there should be a punishment for that. That punishment should fit the crime. I applaud the NDP representative who brought forth the amendment. I am glad to see they did it. If in fact what he said is a valid argument then he should be supporting the amendment. He said that “DNA is a part of me”.

Let me give a little science lesson here. When you leave a fingerprint behind the technology is going to be there in the next year or so to take from that fingerprint the same information that you could get if you took a hair or a saliva sample from someone. We need to have appropriate punishments in place if someone uses that. The government should be supporting this amendment.

We will have the technology soon to do all kinds of things and we should be protecting the public from misuse of this information. The DNA data should be used in the same way as a fingerprint is used to identify the person; no more, no less. We would support that.

I agree with what the NDP has done here. It is interesting and it is almost historic that the NDP recognizes the severity of a penalty does send a signal to society on the severity of a crime. I think we need to do that. If people can devise some kind of method in the future to misuse the DNA samples and invade people's privacy, we should be looking forward and making sure there are appropriate punishments in place.

Maybe we do not see the big picture, but the question that is before us in regard to this amendment is should or does the length of a sentence send a signal to the public as to the seriousness of a crime. That is what we are debating and that is why the government should support this. There is the potential to commit some serious crimes with the misuse of these data.

The public also has a concern that the courts are not using the provisions of the law to send a signal to society on the severity of some of the crimes. I may be off on a little tangent here but in my riding we had some very serious crimes committed, murder in fact, and the courts dealt very lightly with them. Some of the penalties were less than eight years. One penalty was four years. They were out in less than two years on parole. That sends the wrong signal to society. It is abundantly clear that we need to send the kind of a signal that this can be very serious.

In conclusion I want to talk a little bit about the contradictions that this government is making by not supporting an increase in the penalty.

The government put in place legislation that if you make a mistake on the gun registration certificate, the little piece of paper you fill out when you are supposed to register your gun in a few years, you could get up to 10 years in prison for making a mistake on that. Here you could do something much more serious, misuse DNA data, and you only get two years. I find that ironic. If find it unbelievable that this government would do something like that. It is a real contradiction and that is why the government should change its mind and support the amendment that the NDP MP has put forward.

[Dna Identification Act, May 4th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I have a few brief comments to make. I raised some questions this morning in the debate which have not yet been answered by the government. I feel it is incumbent upon the government before we move on to answer these concerns.

Another thing that concerns me with regard to Bill C-3 and the privacy issue that the government has raised is simply this. We have raised a lot of concerns about Bill C-68, which is a bill that the Liberals passed in the last parliament. They infringed on citizens' rights with regard to privacy and so on. Now, in relation to this bill, they are raising the privacy issue for criminals.

When it was law-abiding citizens they were not concerned with privacy. Now that we are dealing with people who have been charged with major offences they say we have a privacy concern.

We can put in place legislation to protect the misuse of information that people would gather in this process, but for the government to be more concerned about privacy when it involves a criminal than when it involves a law-abiding gun owner I think is a real contradiction and something that should concern Canadians a great deal.

I think it is incumbent upon the government to explain to us why it cannot put safeguards in the bill so that the information that is gathered by the police is safeguarded.

I will review what this DNA databank would be. They would gather information, a hair sample, a saliva sample, a small amount of cells from the human body of the person who has been charged with a serious crime. They could use that to either prove the innocence or the guilt of the person. Because of technology these days we can look at these things and examine them closely. The molecules that are involved in this and the science behind it I will leave for another discussion, but the explanation is that the science is now available to use this to convict people or to declare them innocent.

We should use these new tools. The police are asking for them. We should put them in place.

I was reading the history of this. When fingerprinting was first brought in people raised all of these same concerns about privacy and about whether we should use this kind of thing. Nobody would question the use of fingerprints now. They have become a tool that we accept.

Just because it is new, using a DNA print from a person should not just be dismissed by this government. There are some very good things that can be done. The police have the ability now to use this. It would help a lot of people possibly in prison who say they are innocent to prove their innocence. It has been used already. But it will also help the police to solve a lot of crimes. They are saying it would and I think we should seriously listen to them. The government has put too many restrictions on that with what it has done and some of the amendments in this group and others address those. I think we should look at them closely.

[Gun Control, May 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians were told by the justice minister and her government that gun registration would help control the black market in firearms and reduce gun smuggling in Canada. Now the minister's own bureaucrats are saying that her gun registration scheme will have the opposite effect and increase black market trade in firearms.

What is the minister going to do now that she knows the legislation will have the opposite effect of its intention?

[Dna Identification Act, May 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in listening to the debate and examining this bill on the DNA legislation, three questions come to mind. I would like to discuss those three questions this morning in relation to this bill.

The first question is: Why does the government persist in registering law-abiding citizens but not criminals?

The second question that I will deal with is: Why is the government refusing to allow the police to use a tool that could help them solve a lot of crimes, reduce court costs and the cost of law enforcement?

My third question is: Why are Liberals keeping innocent people in jail who could be freed if we put in place Bill C-3, this DNA databank legislation that is totally inadequate?

Let me deal with the first question. Why does the government persist in registering law-abiding citizens and not criminals? How is the government registering law-abiding citizens? Several years ago this government put in place a bill that received nationwide attention, Bill C-68; a bill that will force law-abiding gun owners to register with the government when they have never committed a crime.

The government is spending hundreds of millions of dollars going after law-abiding citizens in a huge bureaucratic scheme that its own department now says will accomplish the very opposite of what the legislation intended. Not only that, it will make criminals out of law-abiding citizens because it put the property regulation scheme into the Criminal Code of Canada and people who do not comply with it could end up in jail for one, two, five, possibly ten years for failing to comply with the government's desire to have them register.

On the other hand, we have a government that will not register criminals. People who have been charged with a crime will not, under this legislation, be required to give a little saliva, a hair or a slight skin sample to the police. They will be able to declare their rights not to let the police DNA fingerprint them.

At the present time the police can take a fingerprint from someone who has been charged with certain crimes. The Reform Party is not advocating that everybody comply with this DNA legislation, we are saying that in serious criminal offences this should be allowed.

Why does the government require law-abiding citizens who have not committed a crime or are not a threat to society—in fact the opposite could be argued—to be kept track of but not the criminal element? I do not know. I cannot understand why the government is not doing as the police request.

The police have come before the government. They have pleaded with the government that this is a very effective tool. It could reduce the costs of law enforcement greatly. It could increase the effectiveness of our criminal justice system. It could help to declare people who have not committed a crime innocent at a much earlier stage. No, the government is not interested in that kind of thing.

Is that not deplorable, Mr. Speaker? I can see that you are listening. You are as concerned as I am with the things the government requires law-abiding citizens to do but does not require criminals to do. Why does the government give the criminal more rights than the law-abiding citizen? I cannot understand that. It just blows me away.

In the gun registration scheme the legislation that is before the House will have the effect of increasing smuggling and of increasing black market trade in firearms. It is not just me who is saying that; justice department bureaucrats who have been put in place to put in that huge regulatory scheme are saying that. Why are we doing it? It is absolutely ridiculous.

On the other hand, the police are saying that if we were able to get a DNA fingerprint, which is very easily done because we have the technology, we could solve crimes a lot sooner. We could find people guilty or innocent a lot sooner which would help the police greatly in their efforts to control crime. I do not understand why this government is on the side of the criminal element.

The second question that I want to deal with is: Why is the government refusing to allow the police to use a tool that could help them solve a lot of crimes, reduce court costs and the cost of law enforcement? The argument the government has used is that there could be a lot of misuse of this information. If in fact a criminal gave a DNA fingerprint to the police, in some way or another, down the road, that information might be used in a way that would infringe on the criminal's rights.

The solution to that concern is very simple: punish the misuse of that information if it is used in a way that the government or the police do not find appropriate in solving a crime. Restrict the unethical and unlawful use of that information. That could be easily done and this government has refused to do that.

The answer to the concern that the information may be misused is very simple. We have that protection in many other areas already, so why not extend it to this? It does not make sense.

The government also argues that the courts may not approve of this legislation if we extend it to everyone who has been charged with certain crimes and if we require all of them to take a DNA fingerprint and give that fingerprint to the police. The government said it may infringe on the constitutionally guaranteed rights of criminals.

Again the answer to that is so simple that I do not know why this government does not do it. Why not refer the matter to the courts? Ask the Supreme Court of Canada what measures would be necessary and what could be done in order to protect them. We could put that into this legislation to make sure that it complies with our charter of rights and freedoms. These answers are so simple, why do we not do it?

The third question I want to deal with is that many people have been wrongly convicted in the past 20 or 30 years. Some people have spent five, ten, fifteen, up to twenty years in prison because they were wrongfully convicted. This government allows that to continue by not adequately putting in place a DNA databank that would prevent this kind of thing from happening.

The present legislation, as it is structured, would still allow some of these people to be in prison for many years when they could be freed if we put this in place. Why does the government not put in place something that would help these innocent people be free?

In conclusion, I would appeal to the government to listen to the concerns of members of the opposition and of Canadians who want this to be put in place and, above all, to listen to the police who require this as a tool. I appeal to the government to listen and to not simply use the undemocratic means that it continues to use to ram legislation through. I ask that it consider some of the amendments that Reformers have put in place because they would strengthen the legislation and law enforcement in this country.

[Charter Of Rights And Freedoms, May 4th, 1998]

I have already asked for that.

[Charter Of Rights And Freedoms, May 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the government, the NDP and the Conservatives objected to this motion being supported. The government said it did not want to discuss it any further because the examples I gave were exceptional.

It is our job in this parliament to make laws to prohibit and discourage undesirable behaviour in Canada. Armed robbery is an exceptional act. The vast majority of people do not need a law against it, but we pass laws against it nonetheless.

There is abuse by bureaucrats and the state of their power. The argument that the government makes holds no validity because we need to be protected from them. There needs to be this balance and that is what I have been arguing.

The government also complained that this would result in a logjam in the courts, but look what is happening now. Parents have to go to great lengths to get back their children after having done absolutely nothing wrong.

This motion is designed to protect children. People are missing the point. Children need our protection and this motion would give them precisely that. Those who are objecting to this just need to look at what is happening in Canada today.

I could give many other examples. I wish that the government members, New Democrats and Conservatives who have tried to twist what I have been saying would look at these more closely.

In summary, I quote from Mrs. Silver's paper:

These cases illustrate the margin for error in Canada's child protection laws place families in a vulnerable position. This is not to say that the state has no role in protecting children. Society has a vested interest in ensuring that a child's best interests are served. There are times when the state's power to intervene in cases of genuine physical or sexual abuse or neglect is crucial. A parent's rights do not trump the rights of the child. Neither are the two necessarily opposed. The rights of the child must be paramount; however, where the parent and the state disagree is on the child's best interests. The law must begin with the presumption that the parent and not the state is right.

Beginning at this point places the onus on the state to rebut the presumption according to the principles of fundamental justice.

Kari Simpson, executive director of the Citizen's Research Institute in Surrey, B.C., sent me documentation on dozens of horror stories of kids being scooped by government officials under the authority of the child family and community services act. People would have to contact my offices. Obviously, I do not have time to go through them.

If this parental rights and responsibility motion were approved by parliament today the resolution would then be sent to the legislatures of the 10 provinces to debate and vote on. The people of this country should be allowed to debate this issue. We are sweeping it under the rug in this House at this moment and that is wrong. Having parental rights, responsibilities and liberty in the charter would ensure an appropriate balance between the fundamental freedom of parents to raise their kids and government's role to protect children when parents fail to properly discharge their responsibilities.

My motion would institute that proper balance between children's rights, parental rights and the rights of the state, and that is why I requested very respectfully that we unanimously approve that this motion be made votable.

[Charter Of Rights And Freedoms, May 4th, 1998]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should authorize a proclamation to be issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada amending Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to: (a) recognize the fundamental right of individuals to pursue family life free from undue interference by the state and (b) recognize the fundamental right, responsibility and liberty of parents to direct the upbringing of their children, and urge the legislative assemblies of the other provinces to do likewise.

Mr. Speaker, I am both pleased and disappointed this morning to be leading the debate on a topic that is so important to families all across Canada.

I wonder if it would make any difference to the members of this House and to the people of Canada if they knew that the state had more power than parents to determine what is in the best interests of children. I wonder if it would make any difference to all of us here and to parents if they realized the unlimited power of the state to take children away from parents without any real evidence whatsoever. Today I will present evidence that parents have only time consuming, expensive legal recourse if their rights are abused because of the legislation and the bureaucracy working against parents and that the government is clearly abusing their powers.

Here are some concrete examples, or should I say horror stories.

Until February 1995 Charles and Sandra Butler home schooled their children, ages 11, 8 and 5, which is permissible in Newfoundland as long as the curriculum is accredited by the district school board. The Butlers followed a home school curriculum developed by the Seventh Day Adventist Church that the local school board had refused to accredit. The family had no history of neglect or abuse.

The department of social services decided that the Butler children were in need of protection under the province's child welfare act on the grounds that the Butlers had neglected to provide adequately for the education of their children. The Butlers' three children were apprehended even though the five year old was not required by law to go to school. Social workers expanded their list of grounds for taking the children away from their parents to include concerns about the children's health and education, possible physical and/or emotional abuse and the religious zealotry of their parents.

A judge granted social services temporary custody of the children for a four month period. The Butlers were forced to hire a lawyer and appeal the judge's orders on the grounds that, first, the judge applied an improper standard of proof; second, he relied on inadmissible evidence and hearsay; third, the hearing violated the principles of fundamental justice; fourth, the parents were not properly informed of the nature of the hearing; and fifth, the parents were not given an opportunity to call evidence.

In December 1995, more than 10 months after their kids were taken from them, the court granted the Butlers' appeal and ordered the children be returned immediately to their parents.

In her conclusions the judge found that the Butlers' parental rights under section 7 of the charter of rights and freedoms had been violated.

She also concluded that the children's academic abilities seemed normal for their age. They appeared well adjusted. They were physically healthy. They were rarely sick. There was absolutely no evidence that the parents physically or mentally abused their children.

She also agreed that the bureaucrats had not handled the case in a manner in keeping with the principles of fundamental justice.

The Butler children had to spend more than six months in foster care. This government-enforced separation of children from their parents was devastating for the kids, the family and the family's relationship with the community in which it lived. All of it was totally unnecessary. A proper investigation by government bureaucrats at the outset would have arrived at exactly the same conclusions that the judge did in court.

The abuse here was by government bureaucrats, not the parents, even though the judge concluded that the Butlers had parental rights under the charter. Had parental rights been in the charter it may have actually resulted in the bureaucrats conducting a proper investigation before scooping the Butlers' kids and keeping them separated for six months.

There are many horror stories. Here is another one. In June 1995 a Nanaimo couple's three children were taken from them by social services. Terry and Lisa Neave's two-year old daughter was taken to hospital for testing and treatment of a choking disorder. One day before the transfer a paediatrician taught Mrs. Neave a jaw-thrust manoeuvre that would clear her daughter's air wave when she was choking. The manoeuvre involved raising the child's jaw with a hand at her neck.

At the children's hospital in Vancouver, Lisa Neave and her daughter were assigned a double room with another mother and sick child. Mrs. Neave performed the manoeuvre on her daughter during a choking episode. The other mother reported what she thought was abuse to the hospital authorities. Mrs. Neave was required to explain her paediatrician's instructions to a social worker and to the head of the hospital's child protection unit. The head of the child protection unit concluded that Mrs. Neave had an unusual form of child abuse in which a parent fabricates an illness for their child. Without checking with the Neave's paediatrician or family doctor, the next day social services apprehended all three of the Neave's children.

Even though no one had ever seen Mrs. Neave abuse her children, a judge ruled that Mrs. Neave was a high risk to her children. The Neave's family doctor and paediatrician tried to contact the social worker. They reported that their calls were not even returned. The children were not allowed to come home until December and Mr. Neave still had to act as supervisor over his wife.

In January the results of the court ordered psychiatric assessment of Mrs. Neave concluded that Mrs. Neave's only psychiatric problem was caused by her children being taken away from her and by the RCMP investigation. In February the court orders imposed by the department of social services were set aside. The Neave's children had lived away from home for five months. Their legal bills exceeded $10,000. All this could have been avoided if the social worker had simply called the paediatrician and confirmed the instructions Mrs. Neave had received.

Having parental rights included in the charter of rights and freedoms may have prevented this travesty of justice and this emotional nightmare.

There are many other examples like this that I could relate to members. These ought to be of grave concern to all Canadians. Unfortunately, the charter of rights and freedoms only protects an individual's rights and freedoms, it does not provide the legal framework for this balancing of parental rights, children's rights and the rights of the state.

I maintain this is why parental rights and responsibilities need to be included in our charter. Child abuse by the state is just as abhorrent as child abuse by parents. There needs to be a proper balance between the rights of parents to raise their children and the right of the state to interfere. That is why M-33 is here today.

My main point is this. Parents have a responsibility to provide their children with the necessities of life. As long as parents meet this fundamental responsibility to their children governments should respect the fundamental right of parents to raise their children free from undue interference by the state.

Cindy Silver, a Vancouver lawyer, points out that the dignity and worth of both individuals and families in a free society were prominent in the Canadian Bill of Rights, but any reference to the family was omitted from the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. She says that omitting the reference to family in the charter of rights and freedoms contributed significantly to the demise of family autonomy and the devaluing of the family in law and legislature.

My Motion No. 33 would correct this oversight and return a proper balance between parental rights and responsibilities and help reaffirm the state's proper role in family life in Canada.

Section 15 of the charter states every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal benefit of the law without discrimination. Ms. Silver correctly points out that because the charter includes age as a prohibited ground for discrimination this effectively changed the constitutional status of children, making them equal to adults under the law.

Making children equal under the law and omitting family and parents from our Constitution has put child rights groups in charge of the political agenda and left parents with little or no defence.

Here is what is happening as result. In 1991 Canada ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, a document which tried to address all the concerns raised by child rights groups around the world. Ms. Silver states: “As a result, the UN convention confers both protective rights and choice rights, thereby establishing a presumption that children should be able to act autonomously whenever possible”.

Ms. Silver then outlines the choice rights that governments now endorse for all children in Canada regardless of what parents think is good or bad for their children. Article 13 states the right to freedom of expression, including the right to seek, receive and impart information and the ideas of all kinds, whether orally or in writing, in the form of art or through any media of the child's choice.

Article 14 states the right of freedom to thought, conscience and religion. Article 15 states the right to freedom of association. Article 16 states the right to privacy. Article 19 states the right to be free from all forms of physical and mental violence. Article 19 has been interpreted by the UN convention review committee to include freedom from simple spankings by a loving parent to help correct a child's behaviour from time to time.

In June 1995 the review committee criticized Canada for failing to repeal section 43 of the Criminal Code, the section that provides a defence for parents who use corporal punishment, reasonable under the circumstances, to correct their children's behaviour.

While the UN convention and the review committee's recommendation have no legal force in Canadian law, this does not prevent the no spanking lobbyists from pushing the government to change the law. Nor has the federal government been an innocent bystander. The government has been providing funds for these anti-spanking, anti-parental rights lobby groups to do research and to launch court challenges to advance their cause. That is wrong.

Parents and families are left to defend themselves from this intrusion by the state while government provides moral and financial support to lobby groups that would diminish parental rights and family autonomy.

Ms. Silver's paper states: “Since 1992 the federal government has allocated $459 million toward conforming Canada's law and policy to the provisions of the UN convention. Part of this amount was used in 1992 to create the children's bureau of Health Canada whose mandate is to ensure consistency with the UN convention and co-ordination for all federal program and policies for children”.

All this is expenditure of human and financial resources by the government to implement a UN convention that has not even been debated or approved by members of parliament.

Dallas Miller, legal counsel for the Home School Legal Defence Association of Canada, describes the negative aspect of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child in an action paper he prepared for home schoolers.

It states: “Although several of the provisions offered generally positive, non-offensive platitudes, a substantial portion of the convention undermines parental rights. These threats to the family generally fall into three categories: first, transfer of God given parental rights and responsibilities to the state; second, the institutionalization of rebellion by vesting children with various fundamental rights which advance notions of the children's autonomy and freedom from parental guidance; third, the establishment of bureaucracies and institutions of a national and international nature designed to promote the ideas proclaimed in the charter of the United Nations and to investigate and prosecute parents who violate these children's rights”.

Mr. Miller has analysed each article in the UN convention and he highlights how the charter could be used to undermine parental rights and responsibilities. Here are just a few examples he cites. Article 3: In an article concerning children the courts, social service workers and bureaucrats are empowered to regulate families based on the bureaucrats' subjective determination of what is in the best interests of the child. That is happening in Canada.

Article 4: Signatory nations are bound to undertake all appropriate legislative, administrative and other measures for the implementation of rights articulated in the convention.

Article 13: Little children are vested with the virtual absolute freedom of expression and under this provision parents could lose the right to prevent their children from interaction with pornography, rock music with profane lyrics or violent television shows.

This is terrible that this is allowed. Children are guaranteed freedom of thought, conscience and religion. Children have the legal right to object to all religious training from their parents.

Article 15: This article declares the right of the child to freedom of association. Children could claim a fundamental right to join street gangs, cults or racist organizations over parental objections.

I have many other things I would like to present and that is why I have introduced Motion No. 33. I feel strongly about the issue, as more than 6,000 petitions support my efforts to strengthen protection for parental rights from undue interference by the nanny state.

Parents must have the freedom to do what I think is in the best interests of their children. If the government thinks they are wrong, section 1 of the charter guarantees the government can only interfere in accordance with reasonable limits prescribed by law that can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

In conclusion, my motion proposes to institute a proper balance between children's right, parental rights and the rights of the state. I would like to respectfully request at this time, with the consent of the House, to make Motion No. 33 a votable item.

[Petitions, April 29th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the next major petition which I am presenting has 91 pages with 2,275 signatures. These citizens are concerned about violent crime and they want safer streets. They are concerned that the government is now implementing stricter gun controls despite the fact that in 1995 a Canadian Facts survey showed that 90% of Canadians do not believe that will solve violent crime.

These petitioners request parliament to repeal Bill C-68, the Firearms Act, and to redirect the hundreds of millions of dollars being wasted on registering legally owned guns to other more cost effective measures to improve public safety such as putting more police on the streets, having more women's crisis centres and more suicide prevention centres.

[Petitions, April 29th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have quite a number of petitions. I am pleased to present another petition with the signatures of 25 concerned Canadians, mainly from Kitimat, B.C. The petitioners believe the removal of section 43 would strengthen the role of bureaucrats while it would weaken the role of parents in determining what is in the best interests of their children and therefore would be a major unjustified intrusion by the state into the realm of parental rights and responsibilities.

These petitioners are suspect of the government's motives as it continues to fund research and court challenges by groups that advocate the removal of section 43.

The petitioners request parliament to affirm the duty of parents to responsibly raise their children according to their own conscience and beliefs and to retain section 43 in Canada's Criminal Code as it is currently worded.