Garry Breitkreuz

[Parental Rights And Responsibilities, November 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, this week I introduced Private Member's Motion No. M-300 calling for parental rights and responsibilities to be entrenched in section 7 of the charter of rights and freedoms.

Family autonomy and parental rights and responsibilities are threatened by the constant intrusion of big government. It is time to restore some common sense and give parents protection of their fundamental and natural rights.

Motion No. M-300 reads as follows:

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 and responsibility of parents to direct the upbringing of their children, and urge the legislative assemblies of the other provinces to do likewise.

I ask all members of the House to give my parental rights and responsibilities motion serious consideration. Consult your constituents-

[Speech From The Throne, November 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting here all afternoon listening to the various statements and comments with regard to the throne speech and I have a few comments of my own.

I was a teacher, before I came to this House, for almost 25. I have been a parent for almost all that time. I have met people from across the entire country since coming here and previously and a lot of the remarks that I have today in response to all the speakers who have been on this afternoon come from that.

There is one group of people in this country that I think is the key to the future. Despite all the rhetoric we hear, the government gives the impression that children come first but its policies and its legislation contradict this. That group of people that I think we must consider first and foremost in all the things we do is our children.

Liberal crime bills are very often merely job creation programs for lawyers. Liberal tax policies have forced both parents out of the home in order to avoid poverty. Liberal social engineering programs cause education, health, justice and social program costs to escalate. But the most horrific aspect of the Liberal policies, and the throne speech is an example of that, is they cause violent crime to increase, and our kids will pay a terrible cost.

What is the best crime prevention strategy that we could implement? It is simply to give children back their parents. This is the basis of Reform's fresh start family issues policy.

Let us look at education. The first and best teacher a child could ever have is a loving, caring parent. If we look at justice the best strategy for preventing violent crime is one that encourages bonding between a child and a parent. If we look at health care, the best health care program is one that starts at home with proper emotional development. If we look at social programs, the best social program is one in which taxes are lowered to the point where one job will provide for the needs of the family. It is common sense. It is simple.

When voters examine our fresh start platform they will see that Reform is the family friendly party. The party that puts kids first will do more to make society safer, improve health and education and reduce social program costs than all the big Liberal spending programs.

[Questions On The Order Paper, November 6th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I would prefer that those questions remain as they are so I receive a good answer to them.

My response to what the hon. member has said is that they have told me this for months already. The fact is this information should

be on the public record and available before the legislation is even brought before the House. Therefore I cannot understand why it is not available to me.

[Questions On The Order Paper, November 6th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order today to ask the government House leader when I can expect to receive answers to my Questions on the Order Paper Nos. 4 and 52. I requested an answer to both questions within 45 days.

As of today, Q-4 has been outstanding for 253 days and Q-52 has been outstanding for 175 days. Q-4 is about public safety. It is about criminal access to firearms from the police and military. Q-4 was first placed on notice in the last session of Parliament on November 24, 1995, almost one full year ago. Even though I requested an answer within 45 days, almost a year has passed and the government still refuses to provide me and my constituents with the information we need to hold the government accountable for its actions.

I am concerned that the government will call an election before it gives us an answer. I as a member of Parliament cannot function and do my job if the government continues to hide information that should be on the public record and that it should have full access to.

I am going to ask the Speaker as well, can you tell me what options I have to ensure that my rights and privileges as a member of Parliament are respected in this regard?

[Canadian Bill Of Rights, November 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, when I last addressed this topic I explained why property rights need to be strengthened in Canada. I made the point that property rights make society richer, that they protect freedom and democracy and that they protect the environment.

Today I would like to go on to explain that we each have seven fundamental property rights. The bill of rights only provides rather feeble protection for three of these seven. First, it provides protection or the right to the enjoyment of property. Second, in the bill of rights there is the provision for the right not to be deprived of property except by due process. Third is the right to a fair hearing.

Even these rights can simply be overridden by saying so in the legislation, just like the Liberal government did in Bill C-22 which cancelled the Pearson airport contract.

The Canadian bill of rights does not provide protection of the following property rights. Out of the seven there are four that are not included. First is the right to be paid fair compensation. Second, it is not included that it should be a right to have the compensation fixed impartially. Third is the right to receive timely compensation. Fourth is the right to apply to courts to obtain justice if they feel any aspect of their property rights have been denied or infringed upon.

This is why we need to improve the bill of rights. This is why we need to strengthen the protection of property rights in federal law by supporting Motion No. 205.

I would like to examine and refute the objections put forward by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice when he spoke in opposition to this motion on June 10 of this year.

Here is a brief list of the Liberal government's opposition to strengthening property rights as explained by the hon. member for Prince Albert-Churchill River in my home province of Saskatchewan.

The Liberals say this, first, that there is already more than adequate protection for property rights. They also said laws already provide fair procedures and fair compensation. They said common law already provides presumption of compensation. They said much of the responsibility for regulating property is provincial.

They said this would establish a hierarchy of rights in the bill of rights. Last, they said it may prevent socially useful legislation.

Those were the arguments that my Liberal colleagues used in saying we do not need this. These are pitiful excuses at best. They can be easily refuted and I want to do that one by one.

If there already is adequate protection for property rights, why did Liberal Prime Minister Trudeau fight so hard to include protection for property rights in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and denied that? He said we need to have that, but it was opposed.

If there is such adequate protection for property rights why during the 1980s did the House of Commons and the provincial legislatures of British Columbia, New Brunswick and Ontario each pass resolutions calling for property rights to be entrenched in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

How can the parliamentary secretary stand in the House and read exactly what the bureaucrats write for him when there is such overwhelming evidence against his position? It is obvious to everyone but him that there is not adequate protection for property rights.

If federal laws already provide for fair procedures and fair compensation, how can the parliamentary secretary the explain that his government tried to expropriate the investments made by individuals and companies that participated in the Pearson airport contract?

How can the parliamentary secretary explain that his Liberal government included a section in that legislation which would have denied these property owners the right to a fair hearing and fair compensation?

How can the parliamentary secretary explain to the Canadian people that American and Mexican citizens have better protection of their investments in Canada through the NAFTA than Canadian citizens have in their own country? That is not right. And that is why all people, all members listening to this, should support my colleague's motion with regard to this.

If much of the responsibility for regulating property is provincial, can the parliamentary secretary explain why he is objecting to this motion which only proposes to strengthen property rights with respect to the laws, activities and operations of the federal government, not the provincial governments?

The parliamentary secretary is concerned that passage of Motion No. 205 would establish a hierarchy of rights in the bill of rights. There is already a hierarchy of rights.

All the other fundamental rights and freedoms have been strengthened by their inclusion in the Constitution and the charter of rights and freedoms. Property rights were left out of the charter.

How can the Liberals honestly explain their refusal to strengthen property rights with respect to federal laws as this motion proposes? It should be put in the charter, but let us begin by putting it in the bill of rights.

Finally, the parliamentary secretary is concerned that property rights may prevent socially useful legislation. This, for everyone listening, is the real reason why the Liberals of the 1990s and the party of big government are opposed to the Reform motion to better protect property.

The parliamentary secretary made it clear in the speech he read in this House, the speech the justice department bureaucrats wrote for him, the speech the Minister of Justice had him read, that Motion No. 205 might prevent the Liberals from re-engineering society.

The truth is that property rights are the only way average citizens have to fight the arbitrary intrusion of big government.

Motion No. 205 might slow the Liberal government's plans to expropriate property arbitrarily like it wanted to do with the Pearson airport contract.

Motion No. 205 might slow the Liberal government's plans to confiscate over half a million legally owned handguns it banned in the passage of Bill C-68.

Motion No. 205 might interfere with the Liberal government's plans to expand its monopoly powers over property, such as produce and products grown by farmers in the west.

Motion No. 205 might slow the Liberal government's plans to expropriate private property by passing any number of the following laws, and I am quoting from the parliamentary secretary's speech, environmental laws, land use laws, laws provided for establishment and operation of corporations and ownership and disposition of shares, laws on banking, laws on bankruptcy and copyright laws.

The excuses given by the Liberals are completely without substance. They are empty. They are void and they have just been destroyed.

There is so much more to say. Suffice it to say that if members of this House support Motion No. 205 the measures will not prevent the Liberal government or any future governments from passing laws that take property away from Canadian citizens.

Motion No. 205 will give Canadian citizens a bit of added protection of their property rights which, based on the words and deeds of the Liberal government, would seem more than justified.

I urge all members to vote their constituents' wishes on this motion. Over 70 per cent of Canadians support greater protection of property rights. It is time we moved on this.

They have it right. We need this fundamental protection of property in this country. It is totally inappropriate that Americans and Mexicans, through the NAFTA, have more property rights in Canada than we, ourselves, have. That ought to send a signal here that we have a huge problem.

[The Divorce Act, November 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very brief comment that I would like to make.

The parliamentary secretary said that he would not give an explanation why this is necessary because the Reform Party would not understand it. The arrogance displayed by that is unconscionable. The people of Canada deserve an explanation. There has to be something on the record to explain why at the 11th hour the government introduced an amendment without any explanation of why it is necessary. That has to be on the record. Otherwise, why should we approve it?

[The Divorce Act, November 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have one question for the parliamentary secretary.

[Family, November 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, this is National Crime Prevention Week. The direct and indirect costs of crime are likely $35 billion to $46 billion annually, with government expenditures on criminal justice almost $10 billion a year. Crime costs us more than education.

Why has this national disaster come about? A main contributing factor is the decline in the foundational role the family plays in child development and the transmitting of spiritual and social values. Mothers and fathers in the home foster the necessary emotional development during a child's formative years.

Governments over the past 30 years have undermined secure families and healthy homes.

A Globe and Mail writer said of Reform's fresh start that tax changes would take 1 million low income families off the tax roles and increase child tax benefits a whopping 80 per cent. Families under $30,000 income would see nearly all federal taxes erased.

Reformers believe strong and secure families are our real crime prevention program. It is the family, stupid, I say.

[Questions On The Order Paper, October 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to ask the government House leader when I can expect answers to my two questions, Q-4 and Q-52.

I have asked this question previously and have not received an answer as to when the answer is forthcoming. Q-4 has been outstanding now for 227 days and Q-52 for 149 days.

Because I am being refused this information I am prevented as an MP from doing my job properly. If the government does not provide me or other MPs with the information within a reasonable length of time, we as MPs in opposition cannot properly debate and critique government legislation.

I do not know why the government is reluctant to release this information. It should have this information available before it introduces some of the relevant legislation in this House.

When can I get an answer to this? This is of great concern to me. It is incumbent on the government to produce this information.

[Reform Party, October 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, since coming to this House three years ago, I have seen some notable changes. Liberals have taken shaky, tentative steps in trying to implement Reform policies.

The biggest contrast between a Reformer and a Liberal is their vision for the future of Canada. It is appropriate during family week to point out that Reform is the family friendly party because of its concern for children. Reform's fiscal policies are designed to lessen the debt and tax burden on our young people and to give them better jobs and more opportunities.

The Liberal-Tory policies have instead forced our children to pay for government excesses that occurred before they were even born. Overtaxation forces both parents to work outside the home. A weak Young Offenders Act and targeting law-abiding citizens rather than criminals are the Liberal's legacy.

However, the area where the most contrast exists is the Liberal vision for the future, which redefines families. Social engineering does not work. Liberals obviously are not learning their lessons by attending Reform school, so implementation of the Reform vision will have to be left to a Reform government.