Garry Breitkreuz

[Firearms Act, October 26th, 2005]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-433, An Act to amend the Firearms Act (registration of handguns).

Mr. Speaker, I have been forced to introduce this bill because the government refuses to take steps to bring into full force and effect the Firearms Act, section 12(6.1), an amendment passed by Parliament in Bill C-10A and given royal assent on May 13, 2003.

The federal government issued the owners of these firearms a firearms acquisition certificate before they purchased these handguns. Then the government approved the registration of their handguns in accordance with the law that existed up until December 1, 1998.

All these law-abiding gun owners want to do is re-register their handguns in accordance with the Firearms Act as it exists today. The problem is the government failed to implement the will of Parliament because it did not bring the Bill C-10A amendments into force in time to allow these law-abiding firearms' owners to take advantage of the grandfathering privileges we provided for them in section 12(6.1).

My simple amendment to the Firearms Act would remedy this dilemma and save the government the embarrassment and cost of hundreds of lawsuits.

As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness was quoted in newspapers yesterday saying, “Handguns in the right hands are not the problem”. He is right and Parliament has already decided these section 12(6) handguns are in the right hands.

Let us pass my bill and finish the job Parliament started in Bill C-10A.

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

[Criminal Code, October 25th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague as well. I appreciated her remarks. My reaction to this legislation and much of what is debated in the House is this: why do we not really get to and start debating the real causes of violence and crime in our society? We seem to be very superficial in a lot of discussions of this.

I want to zero in on something that has happened in Saskatchewan over the last 30 years or so. Saskatchewan now has the highest property crime rate in Canada and most of North America. The real concern of people in Saskatchewan is that we do not have enough police officers on our streets.

In some cities in the province, we have over 140 Criminal Code incidents per police officer. Now, if we pause and reflect on this statistic for a minute, we will realize that some of these police officers have to deal with a Criminal Code incident every second day of their working lives in the province. How can policemen do a good job of witnessing in the courts and of targeting the criminals in our community when they are so stressed out? They have to do all the paperwork as well, and the amount of paperwork involved in dealing with some of these Criminal Code incidents now is horrific.

It seems as though the Liberals want to get us talking about all kinds of extraneous issues when in fact we should be talking about targeting and improving the enforcement of law and order in our communities. I wonder if the member could comment on that.

[Queensway Carleton Hospital, October 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We have a private member's bill and an amendment which we are trying to debate. This is totally irrelevant. If she wants to fight an election battle in her riding with someone who is not in this House, let her deal with that, but we need to stick to the issues here.

[Agriculture, October 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the northern portion of my riding has been hit hard with 17 inches of rain since August 23, just as grain producers were preparing to harvest. The result is a disaster. This is the third year in a row that farmers have been hit hard, first by drought, then by frost and now by flooding.

Grain producers have creditors pressing them hard for payment. Government support programs are not working. Many farmers have not even received their 2000 CAIS payment, so my question is this: what is the Liberals' acceptable waiting time for CAIS payments?

[Telecommunications Act, October 20th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I have sat here for a couple of days now and listened to the debate. I support Bill C-37 in principle. It protects the privacy of Canadians and prevents them from harassment.

However, when I hear the Liberals mention the word “registry”, a red flag is immediately raised. I have not heard very much discussion on what it will cost.

The Liberal member who just spoke is absolving himself of responsibility in this area. He is in a sense almost blaming the opposition if this thing does not turn out right, if a bloated bureaucracy develops that is not effective while the opposition had a chance to correct it. The government administers these programs. The government's own bureaucracy will be responsible for the program. The minister has to take responsibility for it.

I have seen a gun registry that was supposed to have good intentions and results spin out of control and become so flawed as to be completely unusable. It ultimately became a big joke and a sinkhole for our tax dollars.

The Liberal MP has said that he has confidence that the costs will not spin out of control. I do not have that same confidence. I saw the government try to quietly sneak by a $273 million contract on the gun registry in March of this year. It did not even follow its own rules as to where these things should be listed and accounted for. I am a bit concerned.

I want to move on to something else. This is the main point of what I have to say today. In a sense this is putting the whole discussion in perspective from the average Canadian living outside of the Ottawa bubble.

Canadians look at what we are doing here today and they are asking me if this is all we have right now or if this is all we have in the agenda.

I just returned from a tour of my riding last week. Agriculture producers in the northern part of my riding are struggling with a harvest that is almost impossible to bring in. Imagine 17 inches of rain falling on the prairie in just a couple of weeks and the water has no place to go. The water sits on crops that were supposed to be the salvation of farmers who have struggled through a year of drought in 2003 and a killer frost in 2004. They had a nice crop coming along and suddenly they had rains that far surpassed what Katrina dumped on Louisiana and Texas. This rain has devastated what they had.

If we want to put a perspective on what we are debating here today, if we were to stand where these farmers are standing and look at what we are doing today, we might have a very different perspective. If we were surrounded by water that made it almost impossible to maintain our livelihood, this discussion today would seem quite irrelevant.

I do not have many opportunities to bring issues such as the flooding forward. The government dismisses the livelihood of farmers and agriculture producers as not a big factor with which it wants to deal. That is extremely unfortunate.

The people of my riding say that it is nice to pass this kind of legislation. It will allow people to sit on their couches and not be annoyed by someone phoning them to sell some vacation in Florida. However, when a farmer is losing his farm that has taken generations to build because the government has inadequate disaster relief available for grain producers, what we are doing today seems quite trite to them.

My constituents are asking me why Parliament is not dealing with issues that are of a higher priority to them. There are issues such as forcing a farmer to try to salvage a crop because he is trying to comply with some government imposed rules for crop insurance or a farm support program, such as the CAIS program. This is a problem which makes getting off the sofa to answer the phone look pretty insignificant.

That is the perspective in relation to which I want us to see this debate. We have spent so much time in the past two years blowing a lot of hot air past our teeth discussing nuances in legislation which for most Canadians is not a great priority. As they see us here today, they are thinking that it would be nice to have a do not call registry, and I support it, but they would rather have lower taxes so they could spend their money on their priorities, stay on their farms and not have more government programs imposed on them. That is their fear with another big registry. They quiver when they hear the word registry.

Farmers may also have some difficulties, but when they look at what we do here they ask why we cannot debate how our farm programs could be designed to be effective, because right now they are not working. The farmer sees government make big announcements about money flowing to agriculture, but he is frustrated by the fact that it just fuels a load of bureaucracy. It takes 50% to administer the government assistance programs. The farmer sees very little of the money coming in assistance to him.

I witnessed some unbelievable events this past week. Craig and Sharon Stegeman took me on a tour of their farm. We are not allowed to use props so I will just have to describe the pictures that they gave me. Standing on a bridge, as far as one can see there is water. The bridge happens to be the highest point of land. In another picture of their farm, the only things that show up are a few power and telephone poles sticking up through the water and maybe a few blades of grass that are a little longer than most. As far as one can see there is water, a high grid road with water covering it, or fields of grain standing in water. There is picture after picture of water. Then there is a place with trees and it looks as if the beavers have a built a dam, but they have not. That is just the natural result of 17 inches of rain. Swaths of grain have been washed into the ditches. There is no more swathed grain left in the fields.

A month after the rains, farmers tried to harvest their fields with their combines. They had to fit their combines with dual wheels. It cost them more than $20,000 to adapt their combines to drive through the water to cut the heads off the grain that was standing in the water. That is what these people are faced with and they have to do it. The farmers cannot even access any of the crop insurance or farm assistance if they do not make an attempt to harvest. They are ruining their land when they do this. It is unbelievable. I rode on one of the combines. The farmers do not want to scoop up water in case it gets into the grain they are harvesting. The grain is reasonably dry standing in the water.

The average city person probably does not even understand. These are not pictures from Louisiana and Texas. These are pictures from an area north of Yorkton.

When I went there last week there were 30 farmers waiting to talk to me. Every farmer in that area was there. We had a tailgate meeting. They poured their hearts out to me. It would have made members weep to hear the young farmers, their wives, and the older farmers tell the stories of how they have been working so hard. They have been killed by fuel costs. They have been hurt by fertilizer and chemical costs.

The Liberals have 40 pieces of legislation before the House. They have given the impression that we are really busy here. All these committees are working, but where the rubber hits the road, where the average person is trying to make a living, this seems to be quite irrelevant. The government sweeps agriculture problems under the rug. It gives the impression that CAIS and crop insurance are helping, but the claims for the year 2003 have not even been filled. The assistance that should have been coming is not there.

We need our city cousins to realize what is happening in rural areas, because what is happening is going to impact on them. The cheap food, the good quality food they have been enjoying will no longer be there when corporations take over because farmers cannot make a living supplying our city cousins with good quality food.

Let us take note of this. Let us put this whole debate in perspective because I am concerned for my constituents.

[Property Rights, October 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank everyone who has been participating in this debate, especially those who have agreed with the intent and principle behind my property rights motion.

I thought my opening remarks and the speeches made by the hon. members for Edmonton—Leduc, Nepean—Carleton, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, and Durham clearly pointed out the need of persons to have the right to full and fair compensation when the federal government deprives them of their property.

While I appreciate the remarks made by my Liberal colleagues, especially the member for Scarborough—Rouge River, I wish to remind them that this is a motion, not a bill. It was meant to give direction to the House, not set words in stone.

If the Liberals want to see what words I do want to set in stone, I refer them to my private member's bill, Bill C-235, an act to amend an act for the recognition of protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms and to amend the Constitution Act, 1867. I introduced that on October 20 last year.

The hon. member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale said my property rights motion was “substantially over-broad” and “poorly conceived”. Well, it was not conceived by me. It was conceived through a most democratic process at the Conservative Party's policy convention held in Montreal this past March.

If the grassroots of our party proposes a policy, then far be it from me to substantially change their wording unilaterally. I did not introduce this motion for me. I did it for the members of our party and for all those Canadians who have had their property taken by this Liberal government without being fairly compensated. I emphasize that because that is what this is all about.

Surely the members opposite must be concerned about the trampling of fundamental property rights by their own government. I appeal to them to take a look at this motion. Let us send it to committee and get the legislation right.

I know for a fact that the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River is concerned for the future of one of the successful businesses in his riding. The only manufacturer of handguns in Canada is about to have its business threatened because of the government's new firearms marking regulations, which will add significant costs to the manufacturing process.

I would like to quote the Ottawa Citizen and tell members what its editorial board explained:

The legislation in question would require imported firearms to be marked with the date and country of importation—an exceedingly expensive proposition, since the marks would have to be laser-engraved on the gun frames, post-manufacture.

Meanwhile, there appears to be a significant disconnect between the intent of the legislation, preventing small arms from being illegally re-exported to war-torn regions, and the effect, pricing legitimate sport hunting out of reach of many Canadians....

By all means, then, apply the new marking system to military weaponry, which Canadian civilians are already prohibited from owning.

Why, though, should duck and rabbit hunters be forced to foot the bill for a marking system that is entirely superfluous: their weapons of choice are used neither for combat nor crime, their movements readily traceable via existing serial numbers, their ownership logged under one of the world's most stringent—if dysfunctional—gun registry systems?

This is just one of the most recent examples of the warped United Nations policy finding its way into Canadian law, pushed by bureaucrats using high questionable regulations under the authority delegated to the minister and therefore completely avoiding a real debate in this House or any other place.

Just last Thursday, the minister of public safety sent a letter to the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, refusing to implement a Firearms Act amendment, passed by this Parliament in Bill C-10A, that would grandfather the law-abiding owners of their legally registered handguns. Now their only option is to dispose of their lawfully acquired and registered property.

This Liberal government mucked up and takes no responsibility for what it has done. I could go on and on, but I will not. During these two hours of debate the speakers have provided a long list of examples of where this government has violated the fundamental property rights of Canadians.

It is time to put a stop to this injustice. Voting in favour of this motion will send a message to this Liberal government that people are fed up and we are not going to take it anymore. If a Liberal government will not change and respect property rights, then it is time to elect a government that will.

I have heard all the arguments. The Bloc feels it is not inclusive enough. The Liberals say it is too broad and includes too much. I think we have struck a balance with this motion. We should send it to committee and decide how to implement it.

The Liberals argue that it would affect their governance. To that I say, yes, it would affect their governance and it should. They should have respect for property rights. Property rights are essential in a free and democratic society and a strong economy. Please support the motion, take a look at what it says and let us move forward with property rights.

[Gasoline Prices, September 29th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, two and a half years ago I informed Parliament that the most common complaint I was hearing from farmers in my riding was that they were fed up with the high price of fuel. Imagine what they are seeing today.

Liberals are telling Canadians that they will not lower taxes because high taxes are helping municipalities and the provinces. This is false. Funding for infrastructure in our communities will only amount to 5¢ a litre and not until 2010. This is a far cry from the 40¢ a litre every Canadian is paying in gasoline taxes today.

Many grain producers at this time of year are paying at least $400 a day for fuel. That is well over $100 a day in taxes alone. In 1969 gas was about 6¢ a litre and farmers were getting about $1.40 a bushel for their wheat. Today gas prices are 12 times higher, yet wheat prices are barely twice as much. It is obvious that something has to change.

Is it not sad that the finance minister, who lives in Saskatchewan, will not lower gas taxes?

[Civil Marriage Act, June 27th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, the member is being completely inconsistent. A free vote is being allowed for the entire Liberal caucus except the cabinet. He has not answered the question. Why is it a free vote for all of caucus because it is a conscience issue, yet for cabinet it is not and suddenly becomes a different issue? He is being inconsistent. I would like him to explain that inconsistency.

[Question No. 150, June 21st, 2005]

With respect to the implementation of sections 35, 37 and 40 of the Firearms Act by the Canada Border Services Agency: ( a ) how many person years have been allocated to this activity for the fiscal year 2004-05; ( b ) how many person years will be allocated for each of the next five fiscal years; ( c ) what is the total amount that has been spent for the fiscal year 2004-05; ( d ) what is the total amount that will be allocated for each of the next five fiscal years; ( e ) what activities does the implementation of these sections entail; and ( f ) what are the potential risks to public safety and national security resulting from the diversion of human and financial resources from activities such as the pursuit of smugglers, terrorists, illegal immigrants, illegal guns, drugs, explosives, and other contraband?

[Question No. 144, June 17th, 2005]

How many person-years have been allocated and what has been the total cost spent by both Foreign Affairs Canada and International Trade Canada, for each year since 1994, for the following activities: ( a ) organizing, operating and participating in the National Committee on Firearms; ( b ) formulating, implementing and administering the Canadian Plan of Action on Small Arms and Light Weapons; ( c ) developing and implementing the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects; ( d ) developing and implementing the Protocol against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Their Parts and Components and Ammunition, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime; ( e ) developing and implementing the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe Document on Small Arms and Light Weapons; ( f ) developing and implementing the Inter-American Convention Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials (Inter-American Convention), signed by Canada in November 1997; ( g ) developing and implementing the European Union (EU) Joint Action on Small Arms and Light Weapons adopted by the EU States on December 17, 1998; ( h ) developing and implementing the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports adopted by the EU States; ( i ) planning and participating in the Small Arms Survey 2001 and 2002; ( j ) participating in the planning, implementing and administering the Canadian Firearms Program, the Firearms Act and regulations and Part III of the Criminal Code; and ( k ) processing and issuing import and export permits for firearms and related products?

(Return tabled)