Garry Breitkreuz

[Starred Questions, April 27th, 1998]

When the Deputy Prime Minister, in a statement made outside the House on or before November 15, 1997, indicated that the government's land-mines initiative could be the start of a global movement to spur the development of an instrument to ban firearms worldwide, was the Deputy Prime Minister stating the policy of the government?

[Petitions, April 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the second group of petitions I am pleased to present has five petitions with the signatures of 127 Canadians from British Columbia and New Brunswick.

These citizens of Canada support retention of section 43 of the Criminal Code which states “every school teacher, parent or person standing in the place of a parent is justified in using force by way of correction toward a pupil or child which is under his care if the force does not exceed what is reasonable under the circumstances”.

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

[Petitions, April 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have quite a large number of petitions. I have put them into two groups.

I am pleased to present 19 petitions with the signatures of 476 Canadians from eight different provinces. They are concerned that by ratifying and implementing the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, government bureaucrats and the courts will be legally entitled to determine what is “in the best interests of the child” not parents.

The petitioners go on to say that Canada is creating a bureaucracy to police parents and enforce the guidelines in a UN charter which has never been approved by parliament. Not only are parental rights being undermined by implementing this UN charter but they are concerned it will create greater incentives for families to abdicate their parental responsibilities to the state.

The petitioners request parliament to address their concerns by supporting my private member's motion M-33 which would include parental rights and responsibilities in the charter of rights and freedoms.

[Criminal Code, April 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment the hon. member for Drummond for introducing this bill to ban human cloning. It is unfortunate, is it not, that a private member has to be introducing this important and urgent initiative when in fact the government should be making it one of its highest legislative priorities?

How come the government thinks the Judges Act, raising the pay of judges, is more important than this? Give me a break, Mr. Speaker. I cannot see how that can be.

Despite the qualified support and several requests for amendments made by various members during the first hour of debate, I will be voting in favour of this bill.

If an omnibus bill like Bill C-47 which was introduced in the last Parliament is not introduced soon then it will be up to individual members of this House to take legislative action, even if it is in a step by step fashion. We should not wait any longer for the government to implement a ban on human cloning.

Considering the morale and ethical questions involved with each and every aspect of prohibiting and regulating reproductive technologies, I think it may be better to debate each and every issue separately in this House. That is how important this is.

For example, the vast majority would probably support a ban on human cloning, but to prohibit or restrict the use of technology to help an infertile couple conceive a child of their own would probably seem unreasonable to most. The question is where to draw the line. The line is right here before us today: ban human cloning.

During the last hour of debate on February 17, the member for Drummond explained the purpose of her bill and how it would work. I agree with her approach, making human cloning a criminal offence, although I think a lengthy jail term should be a sentencing option for the courts.

Bill C-47, the government bill on reproductive technologies from the last parliament which died on the order paper last year when the election was called, called for a maximum penalty of a $500,000 fine and 10 years' imprisonment.

For everyone's information, here is a list of practices that were prohibited in Bill C-47:

Sex selection for non-medical purposes.

Buying and selling of eggs, sperm and embryos, including their exchange for goods, services or other benefits, but excluding the recovery of expenses incurred in the collection, storage and distribution of sperm, ova and embryos for persons other than a donor.

Germ-line genetic alteration: Manipulation of the genetic material contained within the eggs, sperm or embryo. Any changes to the germ-line which may be passed on to the next generation.

Ectogenesis: Maintaining an embryo in an artificial womb.

The cloning of human embryos.

The creation of animal-human hybrids.

Retrieval of sperm or eggs from cadavers or fetuses for fertilization and implantation, or research involving the maturation of sperm or ova outside the human body.

Commercial pre-conception or surrogacy arrangements.

Transfer of embryos between humans and other species.

The use of human sperm, eggs or embryos for assisted human reproduction procedures or for medical research without the informed consent of the donors.

Research on human embryos later than 14 days after conception.

Creation of embryos for research purposes only.

The offer to provide or offer to pay for prohibited services.

I was impressed when I read the member for Drummond's words “new reproductive technologies raise an extremely serious and worrisome problem for the very future of our society as we know it”. She went on “the use of these technologies challenges our values because it involves the very definition of the foundations of our society, our descendants”.

Her warning about the scientist who said “cloning and reprogramming DNA is the first real step toward taking his place beside God” was particularly alarming for me. When scientists start playing God, everyone ought to be alarmed. Parliamentarians should be doing something about it now.

In November 1993 the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies released its final report. I do not think it was an accident that the report was titled “Proceed with Care”.

The hon. member for Thornhill spoke on behalf of the government during the last hour debate. She informed the House that the Minister of Health was in fact planning to table legislation that would address many of the issues regarding reproductive technologies, including the issue of cloning.

I suggest the government proceed with care and not try to lump issues that have widespread public support with ones that are highly controversial. This is a trick that has been used in the past and we should not tolerate it.

I disagree with her contention that the banning of human cloning should be in health legislation and not in the Criminal Code. Failing to register a firearm, which is regulation of private property, is a Criminal Code offence punishable by up to 10 years in jail. Why cannot something far more serious like cloning of human beings not be in the Criminal Code? This is another example of the misplaced priorities of the government.

I disagree that we should wait for the government to introduce comprehensive legislation. I think we should pass this bill and immediately move amendments to strengthen it as suggested by members during debate.

My hon. colleague from Wanuskewin spoke in favour of this bill. He outlined a number of dangers associated with the cloning of human beings, including unknown health risks, considerable psychological and emotional risks and the moral and ethical dilemmas that would inevitably flow from it.

I suggest that these are dangers our society cannot control by a voluntary moratorium. They are dangers that require a clear and unequivocal statement by Parliament that in Canada human cloning will be a criminal offence. If scientists want to play God, they will have to play it in another country.

As I mentioned, I agree with my hon. friend's position that fines are not a sufficient deterrent to rich multinational companies. Prison terms for owners, officers and directors of these companies will be a deterrent.

It was also mentioned that 19 countries in the European Union have moved to officially ban human cloning. I suggest this is a list to which Canada should be proud to add its name.

I read with interest the comments of the hon. member for Charlotte on this issue. I plan to talk to him to learn more about the prior political experience he had and the discussions in the House in 1989 surrounding the creation of the royal commission new reproductive technologies.

I have noted my reservations about this omnibus bill and others, how members are often forced to accept some bad in order to get something good. Why should this be? Why can the government not just introduce a bill which, with open and honest debate, will eventually gain the support of the majority of the public and the majority of parliamentarians? These omnibus bills should not be brought to Parliament. I think the bill before us today would be supported by the public and by members of the House.

Finally, I wish to comment on the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health in response to this bill.

Rather than issue platitudes to the hon. member who introduced the bill and rather than just make vague promises of some bill the government will be introducing in the future, he should be supporting this bill now.

The government needs to send a clear message that, regardless of the bill to be introduced in the future to deal with a myriad of issues, in Canada human cloning will be a criminal offence right now.

This is the message Canadians want to hear from their government. I encourage the government to support this bill. Further, when it is passed, the government should propose amendments to strengthen it. When this is done, the government should communicate to everyone in Canada that human cloning and playing God is banned in Canada.

[Committees Of The House, April 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, there was not a question there, but I have to make another comment in regard to this.

My colleague from Crowfoot has read a letter from Mr. Scott Newark, the executive officer of the Canadian Police Association, who has grave concerns in regard to this. We have the commissioner of the RCMP who has stated in his letter that incorrect reporting of the RCMP statistics could cause the wrong public policy or laws to be developed.

Mr. Speaker, what else do we need? That should be enough to cause unanimous consent in this House at this time to not concur with the regulations that have been tabled in this House.

It is a very serious matter. I think every member sitting here realizes that we have put into place some regulations that we should not have done on the basis of incorrect information.

[Committees Of The House, April 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague, the member for Crowfoot, has pointed out, the premise on which these regulations are based is false. They are before this House on false pretences.

Only recently we find out that the members of this House were presented with false and misleading firearms statistics during the debate of Bill C-68, the Firearms Act, by the Minister of Justice and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police.

It is not the Reformers or the gun lobby saying this. It is the commissioner of the RCMP saying this in a letter he wrote to the Department of Justice on July 21, 1997.

So Members of Parliament know exactly what the facts are and so there is no confusion from this day forward about firearms and violent crime, I want to read the entire text of RCMP Commissioner Murray's letter to the deputy minister of justice, Mr. George Thomson:

Dear Mr. Thomson:

I am writing to request that the Department of Justice correct its representation of the 1993 Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) statistics on firearms involved in crime.

Around June 1994, the Firearms Control Task Group requested information on all files investigated by the RCMP during 1993 where there was a firearm associated with it. Since the RCMP does not collect statistics on firearms in this format, a special software application was written to extract the data for the Department of Justice. The data was provided in electronic format with the coding information necessary to interpret the date. The Firearms Control Task Group tabulated the data and produced reports without consulting the RCMP staff on the accuracy of their interpretation of our data.

The RCMP became aware that there was a problem with the representation of the 1993 RCMP statistics on firearms involved in crimes in February 1997, as a result of the correspondence from Ms. Wendy Cukier of the Coalition for Gun Control, in which she requested an affidavit as to the accuracy of the data in Appendix “A”, titled “RCMP (PIRS) Table 2. Firearms Involved In Crime: Type of Firearm Recovered According to Offence”. Ms. Cukier required the affidavit for use in the province of Alberta's constitutional challenge respecting the Firearms Act. The Firearms Control Task Group created Appendix “A” from the statistics obtained from the RCMP in 1994.

Since the RCMP had not created Appendix “A”, we extracted the 1993 data again and tabulated the number of firearms involved in a crime under the category of violent offences. We believe that most people would interpret the Appendix “A” caption: “Firearms involved in Crime: Type of Firearm Recovered According to Offence” to mean a firearm used in the commission of an offence. In some cases, without completing a more detailed review of the file, it was impossible to make a definite determination; therefore, we resolved some of the questionable decisions in favour of the Department of Justice findings. We determined that our statistics showed that there were 73 firearms involved in a violent crime compared to the Department of Justice findings of 623 firearms involved in a violent crime. A further analysis of the Department of Justice statistics had not been done due to the volume of work involved. However, a cursory review of the remaining 909 cases revealed that only a very small percentage of these would meet the definition of a firearm involved in a crime.

In order to mitigate damages, the Firearms Research Unit, the Department of Justice, and Ms. Cukier were notified that the RCMP could not provide a affidavit on the accuracy of the 1993 firearms statistics presented by the Department of Justice.

At a subsequent meeting with the Firearms Research Unit staff to discuss the release of similar 1995 RCMP statistics, they presented a report entitled, “The Illegal Movement of Firearms in Canada”. This report contains the same statistics as those in Appendix “A”, however, the RCMP statistics are combined with those of other major Canadian police forces. The Firearms Research Unit representatives believed that the firearms identified in Appendix “A” had actually been used in committing a crime.

It is of particular concern that the Minister of Justice and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police relied on these statistics while Bill C-68 was being processed in Parliament as evidenced by statements in the report “Illegal Firearm Use in Canada”.

A quotation from page 2 of the report states that: “It can also been seen that rifles and shotguns were involved in 51% of violent firearm crimes, airguns were involved in 19%, and handguns were involved in 17% of violent crimes. The Firearms Smuggling Working Group was concerned with a significant number of long guns involved in crime.” This statement is not significant when we consider that in 1993, the RCMP investigated 333 actual homicide offences, including attempts, but only 6 of these offences involved the use of firearms according to the statistics provided to the Firearms Control Task Group. Furthermore, the RCMP investigated 88,162 actual violent crimes during 1993, where only 73 of these offences, or 0.08%, involved the use of firearms. If we display the RCMP 73 offences in the same manner as the Firearms Control Task Group, we would say that rifles and shotguns were involved in 79.5% of violent firearm crimes investigated by the RCMP. This is not surprising when we recognize that rifles and shotguns represent 84.4% of all firearms in Canada. The difference between 623 violent firearm crimes credited to the RCMP, compared to the actual number of 73 is significant.

The Canadian Firearms Centre (CFC) staff were unwilling to meet to confirm where the problem occurred with the interpretation of the 1993 RCMP data. Their efforts were focused on producing a report on the 1995 firearms data. The CFC offered to make comparisons between the results of their current research project and other similar research conducted in the past. This proposal was not acceptable since there was no means to validate the 1993 data, only a possibility of some comments on differences between the findings of the two years. This would leave the 1993 data in circulation. The incorrect reporting of the RCMP statistics could cause the wrong public policy or laws to be developed and cause researchers to draw erroneous conclusions. Considering that the data is clearly marked as belonging to the RCMP, we must accept ownership and responsibility for the harm the data may cause. For these reasons, something must be done to correct the data or remove it from circulation.

Since the data in our Police Information Retrieval System (PIRS) and Operational Statistics Reporting (OSR) special reports is open to interpretation, it was necessary to suspend further release of similar firearms data pending an agreement on regulating this problem.

I am, therefore, requesting your assistance to resolve this issue. In addition, you may wish to inform the Minister of Justice about this issue to ensure that she does not refer to the RCMP statistics quoted in the Department of Justice report.

Sincerely,

J.P.R. Murray.

In light of that letter and the seriousness of it, and since the RCMP commissioner's letter was released to us in an access to information request, we have been made aware of the fact that these misleading statistics were also introduced six times in the Alberta Court of Appeal in affidavits filed by the federal Department of Justice and interveners supporting the government's position in the provincial court challenge of Bill C-68.

Mr. Speaker, do you realize the seriousness of what is transpiring here? The RCMP's analysis of its own firearms data was never introduced in the court by the federal government. I urge you to ask them to correct this oversight before alternative legal measures are considered.

It is clear that the standing committee on justice should have the opportunity to reconsider the regulations in light of this new evidence and in the light of a letter written by a senior research officer from the Canadian Firearms Centre. It is in the Ottawa Citizen today. In this article he says the RCMP is wrong.

We need to move the following motion and the hon. member from Cypress Hills—Grasslands will be seconding this motion. The motion reads:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following therefor: the fourth report be not now concurred in but that it be recommitted to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights with instruction that they amend the same so as to recommend the deletion of the Firearms Registration Certificate Regulations.

[Income Tax Act, March 31st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, last July the commissioner of the RCMP accused officials in the Department of Justice with misrepresenting RCMP firearm statistics by overstating the number of firearms involved in violent crimes. He also criticized the Minister of Justice and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police for using these false and misleading statistics during the debate on Bill C-68, the firearms act.

I obtained the RCMP commissioner's letter by using an access to information request. Here are some excerpts. They are rather long:

The RCMP investigated 88,162 actual violent crimes during 1993, where only 73 of these offences, or 0.08% involved the use of firearms.

The RCMP investigated 333 actual homicide offences, including attempts, but only 6 of these offences involved the use of firearms according to the statistics provided to the Firearms Control Task Group.

We determined that our statistics showed that there were 73 firearms involved in a violent crime compared to the Department of Justice findings of 623 firearms involved in a violent crime.

It is of particular concern that the Minister of Justice and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police relied on these statistics while Bill C-68 was being processed in Parliament as evidenced by statements in the report, “Illegal Firearm Use in Canada”.

The incorrect reporting of RCMP statistics could cause the wrong public policy or laws to be developed and cause researchers to draw erroneous conclusions. Considering the data is clearly marked as belonging to the RCMP, we must accept ownership and responsibility for the harm the data may cause. For these reasons, something must be done to remove it from circulation.

I asked the Minister of Justice to explain why the RCMP's analysis of its own firearm and violent crime statistics has never been made public?

The misleading analysis of the RCMP data was introduced six times into the Alberta Court of Appeal by the Department of Justice and interveners supporting the federal government.

Will the minister explain why the RCMP's analysis of its own firearms data was never introduced into the Alberta Court of Appeal? Why was justice department lawyer David Gates removed as a federal government lawyer in the provincial court challenge of Bill C-68? Why was a government lawyer replaced by a lawyer from the private sector midway through this important case? Did Mr. Gates object to the affidavits being filed by his own department?

On September 3, 1997 Tony Dittenhoffer, senior researcher for the Canadian Firearms Centre, sent an e-mail message to CFC's director of policy and programs, Gordon Parry: “It is important that we have full explanation on the public record”.

Can the minister explain why Mr. Dittenhoffer did not make this important information public when he appeared as a witness before the Alberta Court of Appeal? Why is the minister ignoring the advice of her own bureaucrats?

Yesterday the minister received a letter from the Canadian Police Association which said that the misuse of RCMP firearms and violent crime statistics in public, in Parliament and possibly the courts “will result in a justifiable lack of confidence amongst Canadians”.

How does the minister intend to restore the public confidence that has been shattered by the revelations in the RCMP commissioner's letter.

Manitoba Attorney General Vic Toews has said this is an example of the police being used as political tools. This it will breed disrespect for the law.

When the government rams through this 137 page bill and 130 pages of regulations, it has to answer this final question. Is that why the minister and her bureaucrats did this and why—

[Judges Act, March 30th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member broadening the picture. I do not agree necessarily that more education is going to be the answer. We have already made suggestions. In addition to putting more police on the street, we should not be hurting the family with legislation that is coming before this House and especially with taxation that is forcing both parents to work and allowing children to virtually fend for themselves.

There is a lot more to the problem and I am glad the member has broadened this whole justice issue. Yes, more police on the street would help but there are many other things that would help reduce the rate of crime in our country.

We need to strengthen our families first. That will do much more than trying to impose maybe some kind of an educational scheme on the whole country that does not fit. I think we need to discuss this a lot more and I thank the member for raising it.

[Judges Act, March 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I suppose I could add to the list, the list of condoms, voting privileges, gun registration and all of the associated costs. I could add the costs of the golf courses, the pool tables, the cable TV and I would be asking the government the very same that this member is asking me. Would it not be better to put that money into law enforcement, putting police on the street where they are going to do a lot more good than to put it into what this government is putting it into? That is the point that needs to be made over and over.

I worked on that gun registration issue a long time. I examined it very thoroughly and if we look at the hundreds of millions of dollars being wasted in setting up a huge bureaucracy that will not make our lives any safer we would be asking the question why is that money not going into hiring more police. I think this needs to be debated. I see the government unfortunately avoiding this debate.

[Judges Act, March 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the member makes an excellent point. I can only underline and underscore the importance of that point.

If we do not have a judiciary that is at arm's length to Parliament it will begin to become political and will be influenced by its political masters. That should not happen.

With regard to the law schools and the influence they are having on the judiciary, that is becoming more and more commonplace. People have made predictions as to the decisions that will be coming down from the supreme court simply by reading the literature that is coming out of the law schools. The judges are reading that literature, the commentary and the political correctness that is often associated with it, rather than looking at the merits of the case.

We need judges who are not political. We need judges who are carrying out the will of the people in this country, who are concerned first and foremost with justice. That is I think the point that the member was making and I agree with him.