Garry Breitkreuz

[Petitions, June 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the next petition is from 25 residents of Saskatchewan who are greatly concerned that under section 745 of the Criminal Code convicted murderers sentenced to life imprisonment without chance of parole for 25 years are able to apply for review after 15 years. The petitioners request the repeal of section 745 of the Criminal Code of Canada.

[Petitions, June 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the next group is petitions is with respect to the elimination of the Crow benefit.

The petitioners call on Parliament to eliminate the debt incurred by CN Rail and get the CN empire, government owned grain hopper rail cars and the Port of Churchill to western Canadian farmers operated in conjunction with the Canadian Wheat Board, thus allowing effective competition within rail transportation.

[Petitions, June 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to present a petition signed by 195 school teachers from my riding regarding the status of the Young Offenders Act.

The petitioners call on Parliament to change the legislation to make young offenders more responsible for their actions, to make the names of young offenders public and to increase the severity of consequences for repeat offenders.

[Petitions, June 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the next group of petitions is signed by 47 constituents of Saskatchewan, not in my riding, who call on Parliament to preserve Canadian unity, parliamentary tradition and to protect the rights of all the people of Canada by prevailing on the Speaker of the House of Commons to recognize the Reform Party of Canada as the official opposition during the remainder of the 35th Parliament.

[Petitions, June 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is my duty and pleasure to present a number of petitions which I have grouped into six topics in order to facilitate their presentation.

The first is signed by 83 responsible firearms owners from Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan who use firearms for their livelihood, sport and industry. They call on Parliament to recognize Canada already has the toughest gun control in North America with strong regulations regarding usage and storage, and to further recognize there is no relationship between responsible gun ownership and the use of firearms in crime.

[Cn Commercialization Act, June 20th, 1995]

In relation to Bill C-68, the changes the government made that responded to Reform suggestions were simply changes where a word may have been clarified. Virtually no other changes were made by the government. They were so minuscule as to be almost useless, very small wording changes.

With regard to Bill C-89 when we asked about allowing a company to move the headquarters from Montreal, the government did virtually nothing to act on that. When we questioned the government's official bilingualism policy being applied to a private company, it remained virtually unanswered, as did the question of the 15 per cent ownership restriction. All of these things we raised were not properly addressed. The answers we were given were superficial. They were not effective answers.

We are talking about Bill C-89, not Bill C-68, a whole different matter. I would gladly address that if we were debating it. What about the cancelling of CN's debts prior to privatization? In all fairness to the government, it addressed that question somewhat. By and large a lot of the suggestions we made fell on deaf ears. That is the problem with this place; that is the problem with much of the debate that takes place here.

We can speak 90 per cent of the time but it makes no difference. I wonder if Canadians realize we are acting as the

official opposition, that we are examining this legislation in minute detail. This is our job but by and large the government is not responding to the positive suggestions we have.

[Cn Commercialization Act, June 20th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I was involved with C-68, the gun control measure, and if the she wants to debate that, I would be very willing to. I think that is not what is-

[Cn Commercialization Act, June 20th, 1995]

Would I not have a chance to finish the remarks I was making? Is she allowed to interrupt me?

[Cn Commercialization Act, June 20th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Did the member not rise on a point of order?

[Cn Commercialization Act, June 20th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I wish the hon. member had been listening carefully to what I said. The point of what I am saying is that those members are not listening carefully to what we are saying.

We have made suggestions to the government. We were not complaining about the quality of debate. We are coming up with speeches, coming up with amendments, working on committees. We are doing all of these things that a good parliamentarian should be doing, but it is useless.

It is no different from what is happening in the Senate. These people make these wonderful speeches and it is to no avail. We come to this House and it is still to no avail because we do not

have democracy built into the system. We debated gun control, and when it came down to it we were not even allowed to vote freely on the issue. Liberal members were told how to vote.

We made suggestions as to how to improve some of the legislation in this House. My point was very clearly made that the speeches we made and the work we did was by and large ignored by the government.

I would like to conclude some of the other remarks I made in regard to the Churchill route because they may be misconstrued if I do not. Suspicion grows that the grain companies, the government bureaucrats, the railroads, and the eastern interests drive the agenda while the western farmer continues to be ripped off, not realizing the full benefits of his labour and his enterprise.