Garry Breitkreuz

[Canadian Human Rights Act, May 9th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the point that we have been trying to make all along in this debate is that these people are already protected under the law. We do not have to create another category for this.

If what the member is saying has any credibility, if this is an important issue, why is it being pushed through the House in eight or nine days? If all of these repercussions need to be addressed why is debate being limited? That flies in the face of what he is saying, which is that in a democratic institution all of these things should be fully examined to see what the repercussions are and to assure people that there is not a hidden agenda. Some documents have already been uncovered to show that there are other things that will take place. Probably 43 other acts will be amended because of this.

If people have concerns in this area why in the world is this bill being pushed through without debate? That really contradicts what the member is saying in regard to the concerns that people have.

[Canadian Human Rights Act, May 9th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it has been very difficult to get up on this matter today. Time allocation has made it such that those members who wish to address this are having great difficulty in doing so. I would like to make two comments in regard to what the member and other members have said today.

This morning the Bloc member of Parliament for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve gave an example of a church in Quebec that refused a group which openly promoted homosexuality the use of its facilities. My understanding, at least through the translator, is that he felt churches should not be allowed to exercise this choice.

What rights do churches have? One of the points we as Reformers have been making is precisely that this amendment will infringe on the rights of other groups to speak out on ethical moral issues. Will they be able to choose whom they associate with? There is a moral element to this issue. Will churches be able to make these moral judgments after this legislation is passed? The fundamental question is: Where do we get our values from?

Does the government have an ulterior motive in all of this? The questions we have asked have revealed that we are not opposed to sexual orientation in the sense that it would prevent discrimination. We are opposed to all the other things this opens the door to.

Homosexuals are now given as much protection as everyone else. We do not want to discriminate. But because none of the amendments that we proposed were approved, we have to wonder if there is a hidden agenda. Are there ulterior motives?

At second reading we approved in principle that we are opposed to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. I would like all members to consider how they are going to vote at third reading stage. We really have a choice. In light of the fact that none of the amendments were accepted, I hope that all members will seriously consider what we are doing when we include this in the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Many many people in this country are gravely concerned as to what this may do to churches, educational institutions or family life. If the member has any comments in regard to that I welcome them. Those are our basic concerns.

[Petitions, May 9th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the House for the opportunity to present this petition. It has 127 names which can be added to over 100,000 names which are already on record with regard to this issue. I will condense the preamble. It states that the Holy Scriptures very clearly state that homosexual and alternative lifestyles are not acceptable and are wholly abhorrent to normal family life and it is clear that homosexual and alternative lifestyles have created a medical scourge in Canada. Therefore the petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to totally reject any inclusion of the words "sexual orientation" in any act, code or bill.

[Questions On The Order Paper, May 8th, 1996]

Since 1934, how many crimes, in total, have been solved using the RCMP's restricted weapon registration system and ( a ), how many of these crimes have been solved by tracing the firearm back to the registered owner, and ( b ) how much money has the government spent since 1934 to implement, maintain and operate the restricted weapon registration system?

[Canadian Human Rights Act, May 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out an obvious contradiction in what the last speaker said.

He began his speech by saying that the family will not change no matter what we do in this House. He went on to conclude that society is changing, that it is making progress and that we should support those changes.

I listened carefully to the remarks he made. If his arguments are valid, it means he would logically support all of the amendments. He would have no problem with the protection of the family and making sure that this does not have an effect on the family.

The events of the last week remind me a lot of a little lizard in the South Pacific when I was there in 1988-89. It was called a gecko. The gecko had a very unusual escape mechanism. When a person went to catch it, if they were not quick enough, the gecko had the amazing capacity to detach its tail. The person would be left with a wildly wriggling tail in their hand and the gecko would escape. The person's attention was diverted from the main stage, just as many Liberals are managing to divert attention from the main issue before Parliament. With their wildly wriggling tongues accusing Reform of being anti-gay and discriminatory, they are diverting attention away from what they are really doing in the House.

Canadians will eventually realize that their attention is being diverted from what is happening here by some of the other issues that have been raised such as name calling and other tactics the Liberals are using. Canadians will eventually see through that. Just as a person realizes after a while when they look at the wildly wriggling tail that the gecko has escaped, Canadians will realize that the Liberals are trying to escape detection on what they are doing here.

The main issue before Parliament is the inclusion of sexual orientation in the Canadian Human Rights Act and the undemocratic nature in which it is being foisted upon an unsuspecting Canadian population. Debate is being stifled by invoking time allocation at every stage. I submit that is probably being done so that Canadians will not become too excited about this and become aware of what is happening. It is hurriedly being shoved through Parliament before people can realize what is happening.

By the way, this is not a Liberal election commitment. It is simply a pledge the Prime Minister made to the gay community in Vancouver. I wonder why it carries more weight than his GST promise.

Let me put this discussion into the context it should be in. Canada may recover in time from the huge financial mess it is in, but the damage that will be caused to Canadian society by changes made this week to the Canadian Human Rights Act will haunt us for many generations to come. Why? The unethical downloading of debt on to our children may be corrected in a generation or two, I hope. However, the irreparable harm caused by creating virtually equal status for gay and lesbian marriages with others will take a lot longer to heal.

We will destroy the very fabric of society by allowing the courts to redefine marriage. Gays and lesbians will be able to adopt children. If we do not believe that to be true, we ought to approve all of the amendments that are being put forward. If we are so sure that is not going to happen, we should approve these amendments.

All the studies I have seen indicate that children develop best when they live with their father and mother. The social crisis we are presently in will be compounded if we approve this legislation. We must encourage parents to make lifelong commitments to the care and raising of children. Society's acceptance of impermanent relationships has caused a great many problems. Many of the problems experienced in education and justice stem from this.

While the public and media look at Sheila Copps and the comments of some Reform MPs, the Liberals are creating changes to society that will cause future generations to ask who was asleep at the wheel when we hit this rock. While the tongues are wildly wriggling, the Liberals will escape the close scrutiny of what has happened in Parliament this month.

Remember that including sexual orientation in the Canadian Human Rights Act will cause the value of traditional marriage to

erode even further. It is not just me saying that; I am reflecting the views of very many Canadians.

The main point that needs to be made in this whole debate on including sexual orientation in the Canadian Human Rights Act is that it will lead to the redefinition of the family in Canada. Just as in algebra where a leads to b , or as in geometry with the logical progression of arguments, one can make the argument that this will lead to the redefinition of the family. Even the highest court in the land has stated that it will have a very negative effect on the basic structural unit of society.

We as parliamentarians are responsible to look at the big picture, the overall effect legislation will have on society. The Liberal government assures us that it does not intend to have these negative consequences, but good intentions do not ensure good results. The court or judge looking at the law reads the letter of the law. They look at what it actually says. They do not read the Liberals' speaking notes.

One of my colleagues across the way said that he was assured this would not happen. Those assurances are not written into the legislation. These amendments would have to be approved in order for those assurances to be genuine. Therefore, I urge all members to approve these amendments.

The speeches being made by the Liberals are no more credible than the promises they made on the GST and NAFTA. We have no hold on those assurances that this will not affect the family. I have grave concerns about the effect this legislation will have if it remains unamended. The amendments Reform proposes try to limit some of the negative effects the legislation will have. Homosexual couples should not be given marriage-like status.

The Most Reverend Adam Exner of the Archdiocese of Vancouver makes this point which I believe reflects the views of many Canadians: "Canadians that are morally opposed to homosexual behaviour must have their rights protected". We as Reformers have tried to make that point in the big kerfuffle of the past week. We should not divide society into groups. We should not have any groups in the Canadian Human Rights Act. The Most Reverend Adam Exner goes on to say that homosexual couples should not be given marital or marriage-like status.

Now let me quote from Reform's interim party policy which has been approved by our caucus and the democratically elected council of the Reform Party:

The Reform Party affirms the equality of every individual before and under the law and the right of every individual to live freely within the limits of the law and with the full protection of the law. Under the charter of rights and freedoms, homosexuals have the same rights and privileges as all other persons in Canada. The Reform caucus supports the continued protection of these rights based on the position of each human being, not on his or her sexual orientation. For these reasons, the Reform caucus opposes as unnecessary and inadvisable the government's announced intention to include sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination in the Canadian Human Rights Act and in other legislation.

The real question is: What will be the long term effect of including sexual orientation as a prohibited category in the Canadian Human Rights Act?

Many other speakers have already made excellent points, but the one which concerns me most is the one concerning the status or the structure of the basic unit in society. That is the point I would like to make and I hope I have an opportunity at a later time to make it further.

[Edmonton Institution For Women, May 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is on the Edmonton women's prison.

The eye in the sky camera was not in place when it opened. The electronic door locks never worked and were never repaired. The alarm systems have never worked properly. Security specialists were not involved until just last week. Residents were promised that maximum security prisoners would never be held there. This is a terrible embarrassment for the government.

My question is for the acting solicitor general. Why were maximum security prisoners transferred to a prison like this?

[Correctional Services, May 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, we have a correctional system which is no longer effective in deterring criminal behaviour because it has lost the will to punish.

Three decades of correctional experiments in which many violent and serious criminals are forced against their will to participate in rehabilitation programs has proven costly and largely ineffective. The collapse of Edmonton's facility for women illustrates the failure of Canadian corrections to manage criminals, let alone change their behaviour.

Making prison conditions too easy only undercuts the deterrent effect of imprisonment. The philosophy that dangerous, violent and repeat offenders serving hard time should live in residential style cottage units, benefit from taxpayer funded perks such as university education, cable and colour television and special meals is wrong-headed.

Canadians want dangerous offenders held in maximum security institutions, not in prisons where the electronic door locks and alarm systems do not work. Canadians are demanding public safety first, punishment second and rehabilitation third. When will the Liberals learn from their mistakes?

[Equality In The Workplace, May 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I address this motion. First, I will make a few comments.

What is the essence of discrimination, racism, prejudice? Is it not when a label is pinned on somebody, when they are simply considered as part of a group? I find it interesting that the members pay lip service to this kind of anti-discriminatory measure while they practise it, even at the highest level.

I would like to give an example of our own Prime Minister. The Prime Minister was on a platform with four black members of his caucus. Instead of remarking on the contributions those members of Parliament made, the Prime Minister said that he was impressed with them because they smiled a lot.

If that was not bad enough, he went on to say something, possibly unintentionally, with regard to one of the black members of his caucus, a very fine person, a parliamentary secretary. Rather than mentioning the role she played behind the scenes, the Prime Minister explained that she was the woman who trotted behind him as he went into question period.

It is obvious that blacks have a long way to go in this country if even our own Prime Minister refers to their smile and their ability to trot behind him into the House of Commons. I think that is deplorable.

For members to start throwing comments at us and pinning labels on us is the essence of prejudice. They ought to look in their own backyard before they start doing some of these things. It is too bad that I have to bring up examples like this. When are people going to start looking at themselves and look at the whole issue?

We have to look at ourselves on an individual basis. We will only overcome this problem on an individual basis. We will not do it by legislation, by putting people into categories. I wonder how Liberals feel about the comments their own Prime Minister makes.

Now I will address the issue with which we are dealing. I feel very strongly about this because I have been the subject of prejudice and discrimination from time to time. I will not give examples today. However, my constituents feel very strongly about what I am going to say today.

My first taste of unfairness and reverse discrimination imposed by federal government departments, federally regulated industries to Canadian workers happened to come in February 1995 when I learned that the RCMP training academy in Regina would train 426 new cadets in 1995. But the top brass, the people who running the show, decided that 112 of them would be aboriginals, 112 would be visible minorities, 95 would be women. That is 74 per cent of the total number of new recruits.

When my constituents heard about this they were outraged. I am appalled that the federal government can run such a blatantly discriminatory and racist affirmative action program and then have the nerve to call it equality.

I ask the members of the House: how can Canadians be assured that these are the best police officers for the job? Time after time the merit principle on which all public sector hiring should be based takes a back seat to the applicant's race, the colour of his or her skin, his or her gender. When Bill C-33 is rammed through the House this week or next, hiring quotas will be based on each applicant's sexual preferences and behaviour.

This one example proved to me and my constituents that political correctness is rampant, even in the RCMP. The federal government is gambling with the safety of the public. Think about it. The Liberal's hiring quotas are a higher priority than public safety.

Canadians are more concerned about having the very best RCMP officers patrolling our highways and streets than they are about the colour of their skin or whether they are a man, a woman or a homosexual. If I am wrong, I am sure I will hear about it.

To this end in the last sitting of Parliament I introduced motion M-356 which I would like to read:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should enact legislation which would repeal the federal Employment Equity Act, guarantee the right of all federal job applicants to be evaluated solely on the basis of merit, and withdraw all federal funding from all affirmative action programs.

When Parliament was arbitrarily prorogued for purely political grandstanding, my motion bit the dust and I reintroduced it again in March.

Motion 141 which we are debating today and put forward by my hon. colleague for North Vancouver would remove the constitutional authority that allows the government to have an employment equity act in the first place. This motion proposes to eliminate section 15(2) of the charter of rights and freedoms because it permits the government to discriminate.

Section 15(1) of the charter says: "Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination".

It is followed by section 15(2) which states that subsection (1) does not apply if: "the law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of the conditions of the disadvantaged groups or individuals". That section 15(2) of the charter of rights and freedoms says that it is okay for people, companies or the government to violate equality provisions of the charter just so long as they only discriminate against Canadians who are not members of so-called disadvantaged groups.

I would like to get back to the example of the RCMP for a moment. About the same time the hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam released information which showed that RCMP members who are visible minorities and aboriginals are also given preference in transfer placements and assignments so that they can be near their family and their own community. I have heard of many RCMP officers who have been denied transfers to even their home province, let alone their own home town.

How do these officers feel when their colleagues are being given special treatment because of their race? Police officers have a tough enough time without the hiring and transfer practices of the force creating resentments among the ranks. Dividing people into categories simply does not break down barriers. It puts more bricks on the walls that divide us. That is what it does.

I believe in true equality. The most important criteria for hiring any employee is that he or she is the best person for the job. If all the qualifications of the two applicants are equal, then I do not mind giving certain people a break. But these quotas actually promote outright discrimination. It must undermine the confidence, the self-esteem, the credibility of RCMP officers to know they got their job because they are aboriginal, or they are female, or because of the colour of their skin, not because of their qualifications necessarily. It is just like it affects an MP who is appointed by the Prime Minister because she is female.

How must applicants from a minority group feel whenever they meet another officer or a member of the public? Do they ask themselves: "I wonder if they think I got this job because I was the best person for the job or if they think I got it because of the colour of my skin or because I am a woman?" That is the kind of thing that happens in reality.

Employment equity and affirmative action are just legalized racism and sexism. The Liberals think the only way to achieve equality is by discriminating. These government policies and laws can do nothing but divide us. I will do everything in my power to see that they are reversed.

The government is trying to stamp out discrimination by discriminating. It is trying to enforce equality by violating the charter's equality rights. It does not even matter that the individual receiving the special status and special rights may not be personally disadvantaged, only that he or she is a member of the disadvantaged group.

We can all experience discrimination. I have had that uncomfortable experience myself. Have you ever heard so much doublespeak, Madam Speaker? George Orwell's Animal Farm has come to life right here in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This has all been cultivated by the Liberal government. Under its stewardship this is a growth industry. It is promoting this kind of thing, the very opposite of what it intends.

Now that the government has given itself this power to discriminate against Canadians, the power to override the equality provisions of the charter, Statistics Canada has come up with a question on this year's census that is blatantly racist. The bureaucrats have found the ultimate make work project. If they can identify more people in each of the so-called disadvantaged groups, they can justify more money for more affirmative action programs so they can discriminate against the rest of us even more.

I am sure the House is familiar with this. The affirmative action bureaucrats tell Statistics Canada they need more information about racists. Statistics Canada complies with the request. On May 14 the census will ask 20 per cent of randomly selected Canadians to define their race and the colour of their skin. Then recipients of the census will be able to choose from 10 categories including white, black, Latin American, Chinese.

If persons find the question racist and insulting, the government has the power to fine them $500 if they do not answer the question correctly. Statistic Canada says that the information is used to administer programs such as employment equity and that all the responses will be kept strictly confidential. What they should be saying is that it is a blatantly racist question that has no place in the national census.

The government has the onus to prove that what it is doing is effective. It has never ever done that. Any law that is passed in this

House should be proven to be effective or it should be repealed. That is what we are proposing with this motion.

In conclusion, what gives people dignity and confidence and the feeling that they belong? Certainly it is not by being segregated into groups. It comes through being recognized for who you are and what you have accomplished.

Last Saturday I met with Grassroots Indian people in Saskatoon. The Reform MP from North Island-Powell River was the only other MP who was also there. The reporters covering the story commented that it was very interesting that the MPs who had been given a certain label as being racist were the only ones who showed up at this gathering of about 60 people. We sat there all day and listened to their concerns. We are representing those people in the House.

It is these things that break down barriers. The barriers will be broken down on an individual basis by doing our part to look at the people, each one as an individual, and being special and not belonging to a group. We will be accepted by society by the contributions we make and our achievements, not by other means which most people perceive as being discriminatory.

I hope this government will take this to heart.

[Canadian Human Rights Act, May 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have a brief comment on what my colleague from Calgary had to say.

Yesterday in the mail I received a little booklet that describes why the government is adding sexual orientation to the Canadian Human Rights Act. I find it very interesting that it has already put this out as a fait accompli. The government has limited debate in the House.

What is being done here today is a sham. It is not going to change the mind of the government. The government has already decided what it is going to do. It has printed the information as if it is an accomplished fact already that the amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act will be passed.

This is a travesty of democracy and debate. There is absolutely no point to what we are doing in the House. It becomes abundantly obvious when the government invokes closure on the motion that it has already set its course. The Liberals will not listen to the Canadian people. They will not listen to the debate in the House. That is unconscionable. It is a travesty of democracy and the way things should work.

If the people of Canada were demanding this we would have a very different view of this entire thing. However, what we have here today is top down, "we are telling you the way it is"; it is being published it in advance, before the bill is even put through the House.

Liberals refer to their speaking notes all the time. Are those speaking notes binding on this legislation? I do not think they are any more binding than the promises they made on NAFTA, the GST and all of these other things. They do not mean a thing and they will not be binding on this bill.

[Aboriginal Affairs, May 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, in a democracy the rules of governance must be controlled by the governed and not dictated by the governors. These fundamental principles, integral in the very foundations of a democratic society, are being denied to the first peoples of this land.

First Nations people are being downtrodden, bankrupted and oppressed under elitist power structures sanctioned and financed by the Government of Canada. With the full knowledge of and condoned by Indian affairs, irresponsible self-serving native leaders are diverting, mismanaging and misusing funds earmarked and allocated to fulfil treaty obligations.

This unconscionable state of affairs has become epidemic in Indian country with honest accountable native leaders being notable exceptions instead of the rule. The concerns and grievances of the general membership of First Nations must be investigated thoroughly and resolved accordingly before discussions on native self-government proceed any further. To do otherwise would result in fascist states disguised as native self-government.

This from Leonard Iron, a Cree of the Canoe Lake Band and president of the First Nations Coalition for Accountability, who I am pleased to represent.