Garry Breitkreuz

[Committees Of The House, September 19th, 1996]

Sadly amusing.

[Questions On The Order Paper, September 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a very important matter to ask the government House leader when I can expect an answer to my question on the order paper No. Q-4.

A little bit of history is in order here. The question was first placed on notice on February 27, 1996 and I requested an answer

from the government within 45 days. As of today, 204 days have passed. This same question was on the order paper for 71 days before the government prorogued the House in the last session. This has become a very serious matter. It is a total of 275 days that the government has had to prepare a response.

The answer to this question is a matter of public safety, specifically regarding the unsafe storage and theft of firearms from police and military armouries.

On May 29, 1996 the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader responded to my previous point of order saying we could expect him to provide us with the information very soon. Mr. Speaker, 104 days have passed since the parliamentary secretary promised the information very soon. This is now bordering on the absurd. My question is: How long do my constituents and I still have to wait?

[Agriculture, September 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, before the last election the agriculture minister promised to hold a plebiscite on grain marketing and the Canadian Wheat Board. That is now a broken promise. He is still doing behind the scenes surveys. The Angus Reid group tells us they conducted a survey on behalf of his department, but the minister's office refuses to give us the results of the survey.

When will the minister uncover the results of this survey? More important, when will he hold a true and open plebiscite? His lack of action is hurting the prairie economy and is still a broken promise.

[Canadian Wheat Board, September 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, when Reformers asked the minister of agriculture what he would do to improve the operations and accountability of the Canadian Wheat Board, the minister always dodged the question by saying wait for the report of his hand picked western grain marketing panel. Now this same minister ignores its recommendations. Why?

In the ag minister's recent open letter to farmers he said that it is the quality of the support that he is considering more than the quantity. Read his lips. His opinions will take priority over the opinions of the majority of farmers. If the marketing panel's unanimous report is not a quality report, what else could possibly be good enough? Why did he even commission the panel of experts?

The minister tries to excuse his inaction by saying this is a dispute between groups of farmers. Wrong. He is the one who has created and fuelled the division.

Who should control the Canadian Wheat Board, prairie farmers or the minister and his bureaucrats? The minister's own weakness, indecisiveness and lack of action for the past three years is going to destroy a valuable marketing tool for western farmers.

What about the broken election promise for a plebiscite?

[Prisons And Reformatories Act, September 17th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I would like to complete the point of order I raised previously with regard to the procedure in the House of Commons. I had a question for you. Why, when one member was here waiting to speak, was that privilege denied by the Chair, and then another member rose and the Speaker recognized or wanted to recognize another? That member was not in the Chamber and we were not accorded the same privileges that member received. What was the procedure with regard to that? I would appreciate the Speaker's comments.

[Prisons And Reformatories Act, September 17th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order that regards the happenings in the House in the last few moments.

I am very concerned with what I have seen happen. The Speaker asked for someone to rise and address the issue at hand. That person was not present in the Chamber. A few moments previous to that, because the member was not present-

[Criminal Code, September 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this bill. It gives me no pleasure at all to make some of the points that I have to make today.

I was the one who seconded the bill that the member for York South-Weston brought to this House. I laid aside partisan politics. It did not matter that he was a member of the Liberal Party at that time. I felt the issue was important and deserved to be supported.

I would appeal to every member in this House to do what we have been sent here by our constituents to do, which is to look at every piece of legislation, to listen to the debate very carefully and to decide whether or not it is a good law.

I would submit that the evidence that has been presented, all the speeches that have been given on this would indicate to the members in this House that section 745 should be repealed.

As my constituents have sent me to Ottawa to be their voice, I want to express my complete and utter opposition to the amendments and to this bill. My constituents have told me this: If a criminal is sentenced to life imprisonment without parole, then that is exactly what the sentence should be. I believe that no one can reasonably second guess a decision made by a judge and jury 15 years earlier, nor do I think our laws should ever permit them to do so.

Eighty-six per cent of my constituents say that it is time to return to capital punishment as a punishment option for judges. Eighty-six per cent. At every public meeting I attend, from virtually everyone who deals with criminal justice issues there are demands not only for capital punishment but also for corporal punishment to be reinstated.

These are the things that my constituents are saying. I wholeheartedly agree with them. I have looked at the evidence. I have examined the issues. They are right.

Given my constituents' thoughts on the return of capital punishment, members can understand their determination to ensure that premeditated murderers are required by law to serve their full sentence. Twenty-five years without parole should mean 25 years without parole. Section 745 must not be repealed and not be amended.

The question that I want to discuss very briefly is, why should we be listening to the people out there in regard to this criminal justice issue. Is it important or do we somehow feel we think at a higher level than the people around us? I do not believe we do.

Justice is fundamental to maintaining the fabric of a society. That is why we should listen. The laws that are put in place by a Parliament in a democratic country should reflect the values of that society. If they do not, the very fabric of society begins to unravel.

I want to give an example. The Young Offenders Act has become a revolving door for many young people. I have fairly close connections with the high school in the city of Yorkton. I have had my own children going through that school. The effect of not having a young offender properly dealt with is that it begins to affect everyone else in society. That is what I mean by the fabric of society beginning to unravel if we do not have true justice in

society. If the people do not perceive that justice is being served their whole attitude toward the law begins to decline. That is why section 745 needs to be repealed. The people in our country are beginning to develop a very cynical attitude toward the law.

In the high school in Yorkton that I am referring to, when these young people are not dealt with properly the rest of the young people in that school begin to take the attitude: "It does not matter what I do. It does not matter. I can do as I wish". It even goes so far that the quality of work produced by the students begins to decline. Therefore justice does not affect the attitude toward the law but it begins to affect everything else in society.

If we want to maintain a quality of life within our country, we must listen to what the people of Canada are telling us. It is fundamental to maintaining a structured, healthy, vibrant society. That is why I submit that we as politicians, as parliamentarians, should be looking at the overall effect of the laws in our country and what they do.

If we underestimate the impact this section is having, I ask members to please keep in mind this fact. In the next 15 years approximately 600 killers will become eligible for judicial reviews to have their sentence reduced by up to 40 per cent. Six hundred killers will have the opportunity of having their sentences reduced.

Currently section 745 hearings are biased in favour of the criminals. When I went to some of the investigations and some of the prisons across Canada I could not believe the system and how it does not work.

These hearings are preoccupied with the interests and rights of the criminal to the detriment of the interest and rights of the victim and the victim's family. At these hearings the criminal has more rights than the victim. Victims are currently not even allowed to appear as a witness and give evidence at these hearings.

The bureaucrats who are running the prisons get to select what information is given to the judge and jury about the inmate. They say they cannot release negative information about the convicted killer because it would invade their right to privacy. Can anyone believe this? A killer has the right to privacy. I believe that when someone commits a heinous crime like murder, some of those rights are lost. I especially believe the right to privacy is forfeited. They have failed our society. I question the need for killers to have any rights when they are in jail.

I know my constituents are making these demands and it is time for the government to listen to what Canadians are saying. It is so fundamentally important that justice be the thing we focus on in the House.

The hon. member for Macleod gave an example and, time permitting, I will also give the House an example. This is not an isolated case. We must understand that every murder committed in this country has a story surrounding it. Here is another one.

In 1994 an early parole hearing for a murderer was held in Saskatoon. The victim's family was not allowed to appear before the judge and jury. The victim's story was never told. Here are the facts of a premeditated, cold blooded murder.

In 1978 Constable Brian King was working alone in the Saskatoon detachment area. He was married to Marie and had three small children. He stopped a car with no rear licence plate, something he had done hundreds of times. But this time there were two men inside the car that had only one thing in mind: they were going to kill a cop.

Greg Fisher and Darryl Crook had been partying earlier that night and had told people they intended to kill a cop that very night. They removed the licence plate from their car so that the unsuspecting police officer might stop them. When Constable King stopped their car, Crook threw a beer bottle into the ditch. As King went to pick up the beer bottle the two killers got out of the car, jumped King, stole his gun, handcuffed him, forced him into the car, drove him to the bank of the South Saskatchewan River, made him kneel down and shot him twice in the head at point blank range.

They were caught later that night by the Saskatoon city police. Both Fisher and Crook were convicted of first degree murder, which means premeditated murder, and they were both sentenced to life imprisonment with no eligibility for parole for at least 25 years. It was not 15 years, but life imprisonment with no eligibility for parole for 25 years.

This information and all its gory details had to be part of any hearing regarding the possible reduction of the sentence. Every juror at the hearing must feel the horror of Constable King's last minutes on earth. Only in this way would they understand why these killers were sentenced to the maximum sentence allowed by law.

I and the majority of Canadians only wish that capital punishment had been an option for the judge and jury in this case. It should have been.

There is another part of the victim's story that these hearings are denied, the pain and suffering the victim's family had to go through because of the callous disregard for human life that Fisher and Crook had for the victim. The judge and jury in these cases must understand all of the consequences of these senseless murders before they rule on reducing the sentence by even one month.

When Mr. Fisher's hearing came up early this year it was suggested by Mrs. Marie King-Forest that they might just want to stay at home and not even attend the hearings. After all, what could be gained? Mrs. King-Forest said: "How can it be that my entire family is forced to go through this all again? This is wrong. He was sentenced to life with no parole for 25 years. That is the penalty for killing Brian. There should be no shortcuts".

To Mrs. King-Forest's credit she was able to mount such a high level of public support for her situation that the judge granted a hearing mistrial because of media coverage and police attendance at the hearing. She later appeared before the federal Minister of Justice to ask him to repeal section 745, but he gave no indication leading toward such changes.

This is one more story to underline that we must repeal section 745.

[Questions On The Order Paper, September 16th, 1996]

For each of the last 10 years, how many Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP)-owned service revolvers, pistols, rifles, shotguns and tactical weapons have been destroyed by the government, and why is the government planning to destroy approximately 178 rifles, 136 pistols and 22,000 revolvers in 1995-96, and ( a ) what is the fair market value for these firearms as collectors' items or as historical artifacts, and b ) why does the RCMP remove or obliterate the corporate markings, such as RCMP'' orMP'', which reduces the market value and historical significance of these firearms, and ( c ) why are these firearms not traded-in for newer weapons or offered for sale to individual firearm owners who are authorized by the RCMP to own these types of firearms?

[Privilege, September 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the points have been amply made and I will be very brief.

I was the one who seconded the bill and I would have introduced another bill if this bill had not proceeded through the House. Therefore I feel my privileges have been breached because that opportunity is now gone and I feel it is really important. If you rule this to be a question of privilege, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.

[Supply, June 19th, 1996]

The member also said he was listening to the people. I want to tell the member the results of a survey which was done in my riding.

Of the people in the riding of Yorkton-Melville, 80.5 per cent think the government should hold a plebiscite of all Saskatchewan farmers and producers regarding the future of the Canadian Wheat Board; 66.1 per cent do not think the Canadian Wheat Board should continue to have a monopoly on wheat and barley sales in western Canada; 73.9 per cent think producers have the right to sell their grain, including wheat and barley, anywhere they want; 96.3 per cent think the operations of the Canadian Wheat Board should be open and accountable to the farmers it serves. That is the people speaking and this government refuses to listen.

Last of all, 51.9 per cent of the people think the government should exempt the wheat and barley shipped through the port of Churchill from the authority of the Canadian Wheat Board because they do not trust the wheat board to handle it properly. They feel it is controlled by eastern interests.