Garry Breitkreuz

[Gun Control, October 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to get back to the issue of gun control which the justice minister says enjoys such wide support.

Opposition to Bill C-68 continues to grow: 100 per cent of the chiefs in the province of Saskatchewan are opposed, 85 per cent of the RCMP in Alberta, justice ministers in four provinces and territories.

Does the justice minister not realize he is destroying the trust people have in the criminal justice system by forcing through a law that a large segment of society, including the police, does not support?

[Oceans Act, September 28th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest for the last several hours to the debate with regard to this bill.

I find something very disturbing as I look through it. I have been very involved in Bill C-68, the gun control bill. Now I look at Bill C-98 and at many other bills before the House and there is a trend that disturbs me very much, a trend toward centralizing power in Ottawa, the big bubble, the place that seems to lose touch with the concerns of grassroots Canadians, the concerns that people have out there trying to make a living, trying to find a livelihood they can depend on. This bill does not address that. In some instances it makes it even more difficult. Let me explain.

A bloated bureaucracy is being developed. There is the minister centralizing power within his office. It is a very top heavy administration, just like in agriculture, an area I am very familiar with. A study was done. In agriculture we have approximately 1 bureaucrat for every 5.8 farmers.

If we look at the fishing industry, how many bureaucrats does it take for the fishermen to fish, to do their work? We have through this bill even more of this type of bureaucracy developing.

I listened to what was said, things like we need to co-ordinate, we need to do all these wonderful things. Are they just euphemisms? Are those code words for more bloated bureaucracy?

I look at other things in the bill. The governments says it will need fees to cut back on the deficits in this area. This is just another word for taxes these fishermen will have to pay.

It was an eye opener for me to go to New Brunswick a couple of weeks ago, to the southwestern part of the province, and talk with the fishermen who are being squeezed out of the fishery by the regulations the government is putting in place, by the taxes in the form of fees which are driving these fishermen out of work. I find that unacceptable. The bill makes that even more possible. We have to start addressing the real concerns of real people out there.

Is it the intention of the government to give big corporations more power to fish? If we talk to the people out there they will tell us about the draggers, the big chains destroying the environment. I hear the member speaking about how the government will protect the environment and protect all of these things. That is not happening. That is not the reality of what is happening.

These people are allowed to fish and the handliners are being restricted. They are not being allowed to fish. It does not make sense that we allow these huge boats that carry these big chains or drag these big nets to fish every day of the week but the handliners are being restricted to one or two days and sometimes not even that.

We have a real problem and the bill does not address that problem. The government is out of touch with reality. It is becoming obvious to Atlantic Canadians that big central government, just like it has become obvious to the Bloc and the people of Quebec and the people of western Canada, is attempting to centralize power and this big central government grabbing this power is not the answer to the needs of people out there. That is a big problem.

What about allowing more fishermen a say in their industry? Is there anything built into the bill, any structure, whereby they can have elected boards or make their bureaucrats and politicians more accountable? I do not see it. It is not there.

It sounds so good to have Ottawa co-ordinate all this stuff. I think it is just another euphemism, another excuse for more big government.

The bill also makes it possible for special interest groups to influence the minister and the bureaucrats to get their way. That is probably happening already at this time.

The government could have done things like extend the 200-mile limit to solve some of these problems, but they are not in here. The teeth for this I do not find in the bill.

In Canada there are over 6,000 department of fisheries officials managing 65,000 licences. It sounds just like the department of agriculture, a huge number of bureaucrats. The fishermen do not warrant such numbers.

The department operates with a budget that exceeds $750 million to administer it. Clearly there is room for a little cost cutting at the very top, and not simply increasing the fees of the fishermen. Perhaps the minister could lead by example and save a little money on his office furniture. That was a concern; maybe one less oak table could have helped one more fisherman in Atlantic Canada. It would say the minister and the department are not treating the fishermen with absolute disdain if there were some cutbacks made by him and by the department.

It is adamantly clear the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is not committed to downsizing his bloated department. He would rather try to slip a new level of bureaucracy into his department under the guise of broad consultation rather than deal with the harsh realities of downsizing.

Has the minister not got the message? Canadians want less government. Everywhere I go they repeat government members should be listening but they are not. Canadians want less government.

What the Atlantic fishermen tell us in no uncertain terms is their distress over the licensing fees for Atlantic Canadian fishermen is a very serious matter. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans wants to collect $50 million in access fees from the fishermen who ply their trade in the waters off the coast of Atlantic Canada.

These fees are just taxes, as I have already explained. No matter how the Liberals dress them up they are simply more taxes. Fees are nothing new to the industry but it is irresponsible for the government and the minister to subject the fishermen of a region already devastated by mismanagement to further hardship.

These people are having a rough time. They cannot afford this. Talk to them when they have to increase their fees from less than $100 to four times that amount. Some of them will have to pay up to $16,000 if they want to fish in certain parts of the industry.

It is ridiculous that a government would expect them to come up with that kind of money. That is more than their net income in an entire year. This tax will only make things worse for the fishermen. It will be an unbearable burden on all fishermen from coast to coast, not just the people of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland or P.E.I.

The tax increase will be enormous. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans collects about $13 million in licence fees and its goal is to increase this to $50 million, three to four times the present amount. That is totally unacceptable.

Any Atlantic Canadian MP who speaks up for the fishermen in his or her own riding knows well they may end up in political oblivion. The bureaucracy that has developed within the Liberal Party, within this Ottawa bubble, has made it so that the common people cannot even have their voice heard.

Another problem is that in the future any decisions made on the new fees will be through governor in council decrees without parliamentary scrutiny. We saw the same thing on gun control, Bill C-68.

The minister gives himself absolute power to make these regulations, to do these things behind closed doors. That is not acceptable in this day and age. We need to open things up. We need to give the fishermen a voice in what is happening in their own affairs.

What message does this send to Canadians on the accountability of government? Governments need to be more accountable and I do not see it happening in the bill. I wish I could go on. I appreciate the time I have had to represent the people of New Brunswick. I hope the government will listen.

[Bill C-351, September 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians want gun laws that are cost effective, reduce violent crime and save lives.

This morning as part of the Canadian agenda, the people's agenda, I introduced the firearms law sunset act. If passed, this bill would guarantee that only those gun laws that were successful and cost effective at improving public safety and reducing violent crime involving firearms would remain on the books.

The justice minister, following in the steps of his defeated predecessor, has been unable to produce a shred of evidence to show that a national firearms registry is necessary or will improve public safety. If the Liberals think it will they should support my bill. For anyone to argue against this type of sunset provision, they

would have to argue that they support gun controls even if they do not work and no matter how much the controls cost.

No one is saying that gun control is unnecessary, only that police time and resources should be spent on measures that get the best bang for the buck. This bill does exactly that.

[Petitions, September 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is signed by my constituents who are concerned about high government spending. Given that Canadians are already overburdened with taxation, these petitioners urge Parliament to reduce government spending and implement a taxpayer protection act to limit federal spending.

[Petitions, September 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present two petitions. The first is from 35 concerned citizens from my riding of Yorkton-Melville who are opposed to the approval of synthetic bovine growth hormone, known as BGH or BST. The drug is injected into cows to increase milk production.

The petitioners are concerned not only about health risks to the dairy cows, but also the serious risks to humans, including breast and colon cancer. They urge Parliament to keep BGH out of Canada until the year 2000 by legislating a moratorium on sales and use and until the outstanding health and economic questions are reviewed through an independent and transparent review.

[Firearms Law Sunset Act, September 28th, 1995]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-351, an act to provide for the expiry of gun control legislation that is not proven effective within five years of coming into force.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to introduce my firearms law sunset act today. My bill is seconded by the hon. member for Beaver River and co-sponsored by a number of members of Parliament. I thank my colleagues for their support.

If the bill is passed by Parliament it would provide a five-year sunset provision on all gun control legislation unless the auditor general has reported that the gun control law has been a successful and cost effective measure which has increased public safety and reduced violent crime involving the use of firearms.

The auditor general's report would have to be considered by a 12-member committee comprised of six MPs and six experts on firearms law. The committee report would also have to be presented to and concurred in by the House of Commons or a sunset provision would take effect immediately.

To argue against this type of sunset provision people would have to argue that they support gun control even if it does not work and no matter how much the gun control costs.

No one is arguing that gun control is unnecessary, only that the police time and resources should be spent on measures that get the best bang for the buck. That is exactly what the bill does.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

[Gun Control, September 26th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, on August 24 the Saskatchewan Chiefs of Police Association reported that 100 per cent of the chiefs of police in that province are opposed to the planned gun registry. On August 22, I released the results of a survey showing that 91 per cent of RCMP officers in Saskatchewan are also opposed to the registration system. Last week a similar survey in Alberta showed that 85 per cent of RCMP officers opposed it.

With such overwhelming opposition from police chiefs and police on the street how can the justice minister still claim he is bringing in the firearm registration system because police are requesting it?

Between December 1994 and July 1995 Environics reported that support for a law requiring all firearms to be registered had dropped from 90 per cent to just 60 per cent. Public opinion polls show support for Bill C-68 dropping like a spent bullet. By the time the Senate is done reviewing it support will be below 50 per cent. How far does support for his bogus bill have to drop before the justice-

[Corrections And Conditional Release Act, September 21st, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I will make a few preliminary remarks before I directly oppose the motions we are dealing with.

I am very concerned that as we sit in the House we do not feel for the victims, for the people who are suffering from the crimes being committed outside this place. We need to take more responsibility for the laws we pass. I realize a lot of people are possibly watching this debate on television, but we need to focus more on what we are

putting through the House. I am very concerned with what is happening here.

We are giving the impression to people out there that Bill C-45 will fix what is broken in the criminal justice system. It will not. It is one small step in the right direction. Why do we not have the courage to do it right, right now? That is the problem we have.

Let us look at the things we are doing here. I look at a motion we just put through. It was tinkering and playing with words. People may look at this and say that the words life sentence are being changed to imprisonment for life. It may seem innocuous at first; it may seem like no big deal. However there is a difference. Imprisonment for life is always 25 years and a life sentence can be as low as 10 years. The Liberals are going soft with the amendments they are making, which is not right. People ought to know it is not just playing with words. We are dealing with people's lives. As the hon. member for Fraser Valley West just pointed out, these criminals are being released when they should not be released.

I support Motion No. 4 which the hon. member for Wild Rose put forward because it will prevent an offender convicted of a violent offence from getting statutory release. We must enforce full term sentences for violent offenders. That has to be the bottom line. The message must go out that we will not tolerate this kind of thing.

The Liberals believe in harsher sentences. They gave that impression with Bill C-41 in which they made hate crimes more punishable than other crimes. They give the impression that they believe in harsher sentences and then they come up with this stuff. It is inconsistent. Why should violent criminals not get harsh, full term sentences?

What is the most basic function of government? What is the primary function government should be performing? It is to provide for the safety of its citizens. It is simply that. We are not here to create huge programs, tax people to death, and do all this wonderful stuff that gives the impression government is taking care of its people. The basic function of government is to provide for the safety of its citizens. That is why it is so important for us to debate the bill.

We were here yesterday for the entire afternoon and I only heard Reformers dealing with the substance of the bill. Are we the only ones who care about the safety of people? Surely to goodness there must be enough compassion in this place that we would begin to seriously debate what should be the direction of our criminal justice system.

Like I said before, it is not our job to create and run big social programs and all kinds of other wonderful things. That may be something people will ask us to do from time to time, but the big picture is that government should first and foremost provide for the safety of the citizens within its borders. We need to pay more attention to crime, not just big crime but all crime.

On Motion No. 5 which the hon. member for Wild Rose put forward, we do not support statutory release in general but some may consider it for non-violent offences to be all right. The amendment still allows some form of non-violent statutory release but forces the offender to serve the full sentence if the statutory release is revoked or suspended.

The hon. member for Fraser Valley West has made the point, and I will make again. If a person receives a sentence for a crime and then commits another crime when on parole, not only should that person complete the first sentence but the next sentence the person gets should be tacked on. It should be consecutive.

Too often our courts do not add two and two to make four. For them two and two equals two. What is that? Is it Liberal mathematics? I am not sure. In my books two and two should equal four and that is what such people should be serving. For every single crime they commit they should be punished. They should not be able to commit five crimes and be punished for only one.

I strongly oppose the motion previously put forth in which offenders serving time at a provincial institution are transferred to a federal institution and can be released from the federal institution on the day they would have been released from the provincial institution. Why should they get out early just because the federal government is now paying the bill? That should not happen. They should not be able to play within the system. It is not right.

We oppose Motion No. 10. The amendment will not allow full term sentences for sexual offences against an adult female. The point has been made previously that there should not be a great distinction about whom someone commits the crime against. A crime is a crime and it is serious no matter whom it is committed against. We do not want statutory release.

I have made the point already that sentences need to be consecutive. If criminals recommit crimes they should serve those sentences plus the full sentences for the crimes committed previously.

We are moving in the right direction but we need to take more seriously what is happening in the House. We need to deal with these things and make sure we get them right. We need to provide for the safety of our citizens so they can feel safer in this great country of ours.

[Corrections And Conditional Release Act, September 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to address the motion which was made by my hon. colleague from Wild Rose. In that motion he proposes that we require the offender to pay restitution to the victim of an offence committed by the offender. We cannot separate this motion from any of the other concerns which we have with respect to the bill.

I have stood in the House many times and said these very words: This bill is a step in the right direction, but it does not go far enough.

Who can argue with the intent and the measures proposed in the bill? For example, strengthening the power of the National Parole Board to detain high risk sex offenders until the end of their sentence. That is very good. Strengthening the sentencing provisions for any person convicted of an offence while out on conditional release. All right. Strengthening the accountability of members of the National Parole Board or expanding the list of offences which would allow the detaining of offenders to the end of their sentence, or allowing Correctional Services Canada to deduct the costs of incarceration from income earned from offenders while in penitentiary. Good. That is the point we come to. What is going to be done with that money?

The signal which needs to be sent to the criminal element is that their victims are hurting and the money which they earn should go to help those victims. Their crimes have hurt certain people. I would even go so far as to say that those people should not even be let out until they have compensated them.

The point I am trying to make is that many of these things are a step in the right direction, but they do not go nearly far enough.

While I was travelling and spending the last two years listening to my constituents, one of the people I talked to about the failings of our criminal justice system said: "You cannot argue with these proposals but the Liberals do not go far enough. What are they afraid of? Why do they not do what is right? Why do they not fix it completely and not just tinker with it? Why are the Liberals afraid to bring in legislation which is as tough as the people want?"

Liberal members have to be hearing the same pleas that we Reformers are hearing. Why would the government not bring in legislation which would make these people happy? Why would the Liberal government not bring in legislation that would get really tough on criminals? All the government has to do is do what the people are asking.

Here are some of the things they are telling me about the criminal justice system and what should be in the bill: Force these criminals to compensate their victims for the loss and suffering. I heard the Liberal member opposite say that it is already there. Why is it not happening? That is a very weak excuse for not approving the motion which the hon. member for Wild Rose has put forward.

There should also be no statutory release for violent criminals and sex offenders. When a prisoner has breached the conditions of their parole or conditional release once, they should be kept in prison until the end of their sentence. Details of released child sex offenders should be accessible to all police forces in Canada. That should be in here.

When prisoners receive an additional sentence while serving a prison term, the prisoner should serve the full term of the sentence remaining for the first offence and then the full term for the second offence. That is what people are telling us. Parole and conditional release should be revoked not just in the case of a conviction for another crime but for being suspected of another crime.

Parole board members should be held accountable and liable for the mistakes they make by releasing violent criminals who then go on to commit violent acts. They should be held accountable.

The number of appeals that go to the parole board by prisoners should be limited to no more than one appeal every two years. I realize that again we are taking a step in the right direction.

Violations of prohibition orders imposed on sex offenders should result in an additional prison term.

There should be automatic HIV or AIDS tests for all prisoners and all sex offenders. When I visited the prison in Prince Albert this summer I was appalled that these people did not have to submit to these tests. Prisoners should lose some of their rights. They should have to compensate their victims. They should not be putting other people in prison at risk because they will not submit to HIV tests.

Bad behaviour in prison should result in extended sentences or even corporal punishment. The guard that I talked to said this should happen. Otherwise what can be done with them is very ineffective. Corporal punishment should be reintroduced for

prisoners who misbehave. They were saying to bring back the paddle.

I should like to give a case study on how the corrections system fails us. In June a person sent me a copy of a warning bulletin issued by the Metropolitan Toronto Police which reported the release of an habitual criminal from prison. The person had a record of over 100 criminal convictions, was a known member of a motorcycle club, was known to be involved in the distribution of heroin, and was considered by his case management team as a high risk to reoffend. The warning to police officers was as follows:

Warning! Subject is extremely violent and should be approached with caution! Any police contact whatsoever with the above named individual should be reported immediately to the reporting centre.

Canadians will find it incomprehensible that the National Parole Board let this guy out of prison. The solicitor general explained it this way:

In light of these legislative provisions, it was determined that this person did not meet the criteria for detention.

If this hardened criminal considered by his case management team as a high risk to reoffend and known to be extremely violent could not be kept in prison because of legislative provisions, who can be kept in jail? The people of Canada are demanding that this law be changed and changed now.

The solicitor general admitted the failure of the corrections and parole legislation and system by reporting that this dangerous drug trafficker had committed further crimes while on conditional release and that he had been arrested by police. There is no excuse for such legislative and bureaucratic incompetence. If the Liberals cannot fix it then Canadians will know which party to put in power that can fix it.

The Ottawa Citizen reported on August 19 the victim impact statements of two Ottawa city police who were shot during an armed robbery attempt. One of the officers had this to say during the sentencing of the man convicted of attempting to murder him:

I will never understand why a prisoner has to be statutorily released before completing their sentence when we have a parole system to decide if they are worthy of early release. Had these individuals served their full time for previous crimes they would not have been able to do this.

Maybe criminals should not be released until their victims have been fully compensated, until their victims have healed. It may make them think twice about what they are doing.

Frankly I just do not understand. No one I talked to can understand it either. The time to change is now. I appeal to Liberal members opposite and to the Bloc to support the proposed amendment that victims be compensated by the criminals for the crimes they have committed. I would like to see some real democracy in this place.

I would like to see some members opposite listening to the debate, listening to the arguments, judging for themselves, asking their constituents what they think about the amendment, and then voting accordingly. That is what should be happening and that is why I am making a speech saying that we do not go far enough in the House in fixing what is broke with the criminal justice system.

I was sent to Ottawa to be the voice of my constituents. If I voted for this bill I could not go back home and look my constituents in the eye. They demand better from me, and I suspect the Liberal members across the floor are being told the same thing.

I appeal to the House to support the amendment that would require criminals to compensate their victims more fully.

[Petitions, June 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the last group of petitions which I have the honour and privilege to present today is signed by 425 concerned Canadians, primarily from Saskatchewan and British Columbia, who request that Parliament support the existing laws which severely punish all violent criminals who use weapons in crime, support new Criminal Code firearms control provisions which recognize the rights of law-abiding citizens to own and use recreational firearms, and support legislation which will repeal and modify existing gun control laws which have not improved public safety or have proven to not be cost effective or have proven to be overly complex so as to be ineffective or unenforceable.