Garry Breitkreuz

[Canadian Wheat Board, January 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, as I drove the back roads of Yorkton—Melville during the Christmas break, I was concerned with the growing unrest within the grain farming community.

Many farmers are telling me they want to choose for themselves where they may market their grain. Being forced to turn their grain over to the Canadian Wheat Board is viewed as unfair. They point out to me that a recent Pool Return Outlook reveals that our western barley growers get about $2 per bushel less than North Dakota farmers just a stone's throw away. A huge differential in wheat prices also exists.

Grain producers ask me, “What kind of democracy forces farmers to sell their product back to a government agency for a discounted price?” Furthermore they ask, “Why must our western farmers sell to the Canadian Wheat Board while eastern farmers can sell their own product to the highest bidder?”

Farmers in Yorkton—Melville tell me that if they were free to market their own grain, many other government funding programs could become unnecessary.

Prairie farmers must contend with drought, flooding, wind and pests. They should not also have to battle with the Canadian Wheat Board.

[Committees of the House, December 10th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security in relation to Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (certificate and special advocate) and to make a consequential amendment to another Act.

This bill incorporates the amendments required to make security certificates a tool that our officials can use to maintain Canada's safety. These changes were made necessary because of the ruling by the Supreme Court. Bill C-3 needs to be dealt with in a timely fashion.

[Charter of Rights and Freedoms, December 4th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to resume my support for enshrining property rights in the Constitution.

Property rights are essential for our well-being, our economy and our way of life. Why then do we afford them so little protection? Our most important rights and freedoms belong in our Constitution.

The common law statutes and the Bill of Rights are second best. Only a constitutional amendment can put property rights where they belong, in the supreme law of Canada.

Canada is the only modern industrialized country that does not protect property rights adequately. The right to own land and other materials is not included in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and this is a glaring omission. Property rights have been at the centre of the human rights movement from the beginning.

Since 1912 and Magna Carta people have understood that the right to own and use property is necessary for political freedom.

After the English Civil Wars, John Locke famously argued that the right to life, liberty and property were natural inalienable rights and if the state was to have legitimacy in the eyes of its people it had to secure these rights. We are making the same argument today in this House.

Small wonder that many people are disillusioned by big government tactics that trample on the rights of the individual. It is astounding that property rights were not written into the charter when it was tabled to much fanfare 25 years ago.

As recently as last December our Prime Minister supported putting property rights into the charter, but he will wait until the provinces and public are ready to agree on the amendments.

Private members' bills and motions to enshrine property rights have been debated in the House of Commons 10 times since 1983 and 5 of those debates were bills or motions that I introduced. Members can see that it is very important to me as it should be to the House and it is to most Canadians.

Property rights are included in the Bill of Rights, but they need to be written into the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to have the protection of the courts. The right to own property, enjoy one's property, and not risk being unfairly deprived of one's property is a cornerstone of a free and democratic society.

It should have been unlawful for the government to ban and devalue legally registered firearms with Bill C-68 in 1995 without compensation. The law-abiding firearms owners did nothing wrong, yet big government simply waved its hand and rendered their property worthless overnight. Many of the firearms collections that suddenly became taboo were family legacies passed from generation to generation as heirlooms.

There is also the case of the mentally challenged veterans who were denied payment of millions of dollars of interest on their pension benefits by the federal government when they lost their case before the Supreme Court in July 2003. Big government should not be allowed to take away what is rightfully ours.

Many farmers across the land are not allowed to sell some of their own crops when and where they want because the government continues to control the flow of certain agricultural products.

Canada is being left behind. Today we find property rights protected in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the American Convention on Human Rights, the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights and in the constitutions of several nations.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights for example states:

(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Who would deny this? Who would deny that these rights are fundamental in a free and democratic society? It is clearly a basic right to own property and not to be unfairly deprived of one's property. Basic rights belong in the Constitution.

Against this background the charter appears to be an anomaly and as a document that guarantees rights and freedoms in a free and democratic society, its silence about property rights is clearly an omission that must be corrected.

Canadians expect to see property rights in their supreme law. They want to know that they will be treated with fairness and respect. In fact, an SES Research national survey showed that a strong majority of Canadians support adding property rights to the charter.

A recent Globe and Mail-CTV poll found that 73% of respondents support the notion of having the right to own and protect property enshrined in the charter. Let us listen to those Canadians and support this motion. For all these reasons, I support this motion today.

I would appeal to all members in the House to look carefully at the issue. Many have simply dismissed it as not important. It is one of the important fundamental rights that we should be debating fully in the House and will, hopefully, approve. I look forward to this debate and a positive outcome to this motion.

[Parliamentary Outdoors Caucus, December 4th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, today is a very special day on Parliament Hill.

MPs and senators were treated this morning to an informative meeting of the all party parliamentary outdoors caucus. We were delighted to hear guest speaker, Bob Izumi, discuss the importance of uniting Canada's decision makers with Canadians who enjoy our traditional heritage activities.

Bob Izumi is a well-known TV host of Real Fishing and the creator and chair of Fishing Forever, the non-profit foundation dedicated to the protection and conservation of sport fisheries in Ontario. We thank Bob Izumi for bringing the great outdoors indoors today and helping to remind MPs and senators about their crucial role in creating laws that protect outdoor activities.

Millions of Canadians invest about $10 billion annually in hunting, fishing, trapping and sport shooting, and the outdoors caucus is their voice in Ottawa.

I encourage all MPs and senators to join this important caucus to represent those who seek to preserve Canada's rare natural beauty.

[Budget and Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2007, December 3rd, 2007]

Personal taxes.

[Budget and Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2007, December 3rd, 2007]

Tax reductions.

[Old Age Security Act, November 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-362 today.

Canada's public pension system is generally regarded as one of the best in the world and is recognized internationally for the quality and generosity of the financial assistance available to Canadian seniors. This is something that the government takes great pride in. Canadians believe in sharing the benefits of our economic prosperity with our fellow citizens and this government shares that belief. The government recognizes the important role seniors have played and continue to play in strengthening our communities and the hard work they have done to make our country the greatest in the world.

This is why this government has, first of all, delivered more than $1 billion in tax relief to Canadian seniors and pensioners. Second, it is why we passed Bill C-36, so that seniors apply only once and do not have to reapply year after year to receive the GIS. This change is helping more than 1.5 million low income Canadian seniors every year. Third, it is why we have put in place a $1,000 increase in the age credit amount, which will provide significant tax relief to low income and modest income seniors.

This government's record speaks for itself. It is one that I would put up against the Liberal record any day.

As members of this House, we have a responsibility to maintain the quality and integrity of our country's public pension program. It is up to us to make sure the laws that govern our social programs are the right ones. That means making sure the legislation we pass in this House is prudent and that it will maintain the integrity and long term sustainability of our social programs.

The opposition has been reticent to consider the long term ramifications of many of their private members' bills during this Parliament. The opposition has not been forthcoming on the true costs of this bill and what these proposals would mean for the long term viability of the OAS program.

We have estimates that put the cost of this bill at more than $700 million per year, a cost that will rise dramatically with the changing demographics facing the Canadian population in the next 20 years.

It is the goal of this government to preserve this program for future generations, including the children and grandchildren of new Canadians.

As we have seen, bills being brought forward by members of the opposition are lacking in due diligence. Many provincial social assistance programs are tied to the OAS, yet the opposition has not spoken with any provincial governments.

This government believes in consulting with the provinces, not imposing things upon them, especially when the proposed changes will cost hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars per year.

Clearly the bill was proposed in the spirit of trying to win votes rather than sincerely helping the seniors of Canada. It is also surprising to hear my colleagues from across the aisle stand up today and pretend to be the protectors of seniors and new Canadians when their record speaks otherwise.

The hon. member for Brampton West said during debate at a previous stage of the bill that “to demand a residency requirement any longer than three years is unreasonable”.

It was not unreasonable when she and her party had consecutive majority governments to deal with this issue and did nothing. It was not unreasonable when her government fought and won two separate cases in court on this issue. It was not unreasonable when the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that fact.

It appears it was unreasonable only when we were elected to government and the hon. members across the way no longer had to concern themselves with the consequences of their proposed changes. The members across the way continue to say today that the current OAS program discriminates against immigrants, but when the Liberal Party was in power it fought against this in two high profile cases which proposed the very changes outlined in the bill.

I am referring to Pawar v. Canada in the Federal Court of Canada in 1999 and Shergill v. Canada in the Federal Court of Appeal in 2003. In both cases, the Liberals believed that the residence requirement to qualify for OAS did not discriminate against the applicants on the basis of national or ethnic origin. The Liberals felt that the current OAS program was fair then, and it continues to be fair today.

This hasty turnaround now that the Liberals are in opposition should cause a severe case of party-wide whiplash. We have even more instances of Liberal hypocrisy on this issue. When the issue was raised in the House during the last Parliament, it was the Liberals who voted against Bloc amendments that would rectify this so-called historical injustice that my colleague bemoans today.

That is the Liberal record. As much as the hon. member for Brampton West would like to run away from it, she simply cannot move that fast.

The opposition has been creating a lot of white noise on this issue by pretending that theirs is the party that stands up for the interests of new Canadians. As we have seen time and again, their record contradicts the Liberals' rhetoric.

For 13 years the Liberals froze settlement funding and saw the success rates of new Canadians drop to alarming levels. It was our government that within months of being elected increased settlement funds to new Canadians by $307 million. These funds will help immigrants, both old and young, adjust to a new home, learn a new language and get the help they need.

It is this government that moved on the issue of foreign credentials recognition, an issue the Liberals managed to hide under a barrel for 13 years.

The Liberals have opposed these advances for new Canadians at every turn, but they cannot have it both ways. They cannot sit on their hands for 13 years and then claim to be the ones standing up for immigrant communities. They cannot oppose the changes to the bill when in government and then support them in opposition, but this is just what they have done.

It is hypocrisy in the raw and new Canadians can see through this ruse.

In order to be eligible to receive any OAS benefits, applicants must meet the specific residency requirements, a minimum of 10 years of residence. It has nothing to do with citizenship or immigration status. All that is needed is residency. It is really quite simple. The Liberal Party recognized that when it was in government, but it appears to have forgotten this now.

However, none of this is to say that the government should not be open to making changes to seniors' benefits. In fact, the government is open to change and has already acted to get results for seniors and new Canadians alike.

The government supports change when change is needed, but Bill C-362 simply does not fly. I believe the existing OAS legislation represents a fair balance between providing a taxpayer-financed pension to our seniors and recognizing their past contribution as residents of Canadian society.

It would appear that my Liberal colleagues believe it, too, which is why they did not address this during their 13 years in power. I challenge them to stop using new Canadians as pawns in their political chess game and vote against this bill.

[Charter of Rights and Freedoms, October 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a privilege for me to also enter into this debate this evening. I have had a special interest in this topic since I was first elected 14 years ago.

Since 1983, property rights bills and motions have been debated in the House 10 times. Five of those bills and motions were ones that I have introduced over the past 14 years. That just indicates the interest that I have had in this as well as the importance of the debate.

I will not let go of this debate until it is resolved in the affirmative. That is why I appreciate that the member for Niagara West—Glanbrook again has given us an opportunity to engage in this very important debate.

I only have three minutes to speak, which is why I cannot deliver my speech, so I am going to comment on some of the objections that have been raised.

One of those objections is that property rights cannot work in Canada. Some have made it appear as if this is not anything that can be accommodated by our Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that it would not work with our present political system. However, we are the only modern industrialized country that does not have property rights. How can one argue that they do not work if they work in every other modern industrialized country?

I would like to also point out that a couple of years ago even China saw the importance of this and China is a communist country. It saw the importance of property rights, but we in Canada still have not realized, at least not in this chamber, that this is a very important right.

Some have argued that it is all a matter of conflicting rights, but it flows out of the very fact that we have a right to life. If we follow that up, which I cannot do in two minutes, it follows that we have the right to our labour and the fruits of our labour and no one has the right deprive us of that. Those who want to argue against this would have a very hard time making a solid argument that it conflicts with our human rights, because it does not. I think that needs to be emphasized over and over.

One member argued that this is a right of the provincial government, that this is a responsibility according to our Constitution that follows from the way our Constitution--

[Charter of Rights and Freedoms, October 30th, 2007]

That is a good point.

[Canadian Fertilizer Institute, October 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to welcome members of the Canadian Fertilizer Institute as they gather in Ottawa this week.

This industry employs some 12,000 people and contributes $7 billion a year to Canada's economy. We provide 12% of the world's fertilizer materials and export to more than 50 countries.

The fertilizer industry helps farmers provide safe and nutritious food to the world's growing population. Fertilizers have enabled farmers to triple crop production in the past four decades.

The industry can also take pride in its environmental record by reducing emission levels 10% while it increased total production by 39% since 1993. Increasing fertilizer use means more carbon dioxide is taken from the atmosphere by plant growth.

Surely, the Canadian fertilizer industry rates among the most efficient in the world.

I encourage all my colleagues to learn more about this essential industry while Ottawa is honoured to host the Canadian Fertilizer Institute.