Garry Breitkreuz

[Canadian Livestock Industry, March 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to also rise and represent the constituents in my area who depend on agriculture.

The BSE crisis and border closure has impacted the industry like nothing else because it comes on top of other catastrophes in the industry. The frosts across Saskatchewan on August 20 had a terrible impact on the grains industry.

Agriculture producers want to see a much more vigorous defence of agriculture internationally and domestically by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture. I wish the agriculture minister would be making the speeches I hear him making here to the U.S. senators.

I want to send a very clear message to the agriculture minister today that the CAIS program is not working. I get calls daily from farmers at wit's end trying to adequately access those funds and get them in a timely fashion.

Something was done very quietly, not announced in the budget, and that is the farm improvement loan, the FIMCLA program. Why was this program quietly cancelled? Farmers have come to me in the last while saying the program--

[Civil Marriage Act, February 21st, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to pose a question to my colleague across the way.

One of the key points that he made as he built his argument at the beginning of his speech was that Canada is a constitutional democracy. I would like to point out to him that the Supreme Court, in one of its recent judgments, said that our charter and Constitution are living, breathing documents. In other words, if we take that statement at its value, it makes it absolutely clear that the Supreme Court feels the charter and Constitution can be changed easily. By that, I mean that it can be interpreted, depending on who does the interpretation.

I would like to point out to the member that one of the reasons we have a Constitution is to provide for stability, to provide for security in society, and to give people the assurance that changes that could be detrimental to society will not be easily invoked.

I would like to ask the member, is the reason that we have a Constitution and charter not to provide stability to those institutions on which society has been built?

[Petitions, February 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to present a large number of petitions with thousands of names of Canadians from coast to coast. They are very concerned about the issue that is presently being debated in the House.

The petitioners state that because the majority of Canadians believe that fundamental matters of social policy should be decided by elected members of Parliament, not the unelected judiciary, and that also the majority of Canadians support the current legal definition of marriage as a voluntary union of a single unmarried man and a single female, that Parliament should ensure that marriage is defined as Canadians wish it to be defined.

They petition Parliament to use all possible legislative and administrative measures, including invoking section 33 of the charter if necessary, to preserve and protect the current definition of marriage as between one man and one woman.

[Equalization Program, February 21st, 2005]

Madam Speaker, a remarkable consensus was reached in Saskatchewan on Friday.

Political leaders from four different parties agreed to press the federal government to implement the 10 province standard for equalization in Canada, which was a key factor in the Conservative election platform.

The premier of Saskatchewan, the provincial leader of the opposition, seven Conservative MPs and the leader of the provincial Liberal Party all agreed that the people of Saskatchewan deserve an equalization deal that has the same terms as those provided for in the Atlantic accord. In particular, non-renewable resources should not be included in calculating transfers to the provinces.

We urge the finance minister, who is a Saskatchewan MP, to stand up for his home province and deliver a fair deal for the people of Saskatchewan. What possible excuse can the member for Wascana give for not treating all provinces equally under a program that is supposed to be a national program?

[Petitions, February 9th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to submit a large number of petitions from residents right across Canada with regard to the issue of marriage.

The petitioners draw the attention of the House to the fact that the majority of Canadians believe that fundamental matters of social policy should be decided by elected members of Parliament and not the unelected judiciary; that the majority of Canadians support the current legal definition of marriage as the voluntary union of a single man and a single woman; and that it is the duty of Parliament to ensure that marriage is defined as Canadians wish it to be defined.

They therefore petition Parliament to use all possible legislative and administrative measures, including invoking section 33 of the charter if necessary, to preserve and protect the current definition of marriage as between one man and one woman.

[Criminal Code, February 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have had a chance to speak in support of Bill C-10, and I am pleased to have been given the opportunity to do so today.

The entire debate of the bill in the House and in committee should serve as an example of how Parliament should work. I want to thank the hon. member for Provencher and the other members of the justice committee for the role they played in making Bill C-10 an even better piece of legislation.

The bill would modernize the mental disorder provisions of the Criminal Code to make it more fair and efficient, while preserving the overall framework of the provisions.

Bill C-10 explains and modernizes the provisions of the Criminal Code dealing with mental disability. The bill also would make consequential amendments to several related statutes to ensure consistency with the Criminal Code provisions on mental disorder.

Bill C-10 attempts to respect individual rights while ensuring public safety. Its amendments cover: review board authority; “permanently unfit accused victims;” repeal of unproclaimed provisions of the 1992 reforms to the Criminal Code; interprovincial transfer of unfit accused persons; and police powers. They run the entire gamut in regard to this issue.

Bill C-10 is the second step that the federal government has taken to elaborate and clarify a defence in the Criminal Code based on the mental disorder. Bill C-30 was the first.

Following the production of several reports between 1979 and 1985, in 1985 the Department of Justice released the final report of the mental disorder project. Based on that report, a draft bill was proposed by the Minister of Justice in 1986 to deal with the criminal insanity defence. Consultations on the bill continued through to the 1988 election.

The final push for change came in 1991 with the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Regina v. Swain, dealing with the defence of insanity. The Supreme Court struck down the legislation and common law practices dealing with this defence as unconstitutional.

Following this decision in 1991, the former Progressive Conservative government introduced Bill C-30 to modernize the insanity defence, to remedy the parts that the Supreme Court had deemed against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and to allow the courts to use certain set criteria in determining whether an accused person was unfit to stand trial.

Bill C-30 modernized the insanity test by replacing “in a state of natural imbecility” and “disease of the mind” in subsection 16(1) of the Criminal Code with the words “mental disorder”. However, “mental disorder” continued to be defined in section 2 of the Criminal Code as a “disease of the mind,” allowing common law rules to continue governing the application of the previously known as “insanity defence”.

Bill C-30 provided a new definition and criteria for “fitness” as defined in section 2 of the Criminal Code, as well as allowing the courts to order involuntary treatment for the mentally disordered.

Bill C-30 also introduced an extension to the 10 year detention cap for a mentally disordered person if they were accused of a serious personal injury offence, carrying a penalty of 10 years or more. These provisions allowed the courts to detain such offenders for life instead of 10 years. Bill C-30 received royal assent in 1992.

In response to the report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in 2002, the government introduced Bill C-10 to address some of the concerns raised regarding mental disorder provisions in the Criminal Code.

The report that was put forward in 2002 was approved by all parties. In fact, the result of the review is an important example of how committees, when they are focused on the issues rather than partisan politics, can work in a cooperative fashion. This report is a demonstration of that cooperation and the value of committee work. I wish more committees would take note of the fact that we can work cooperatively and achieve our common goals.

Bill C-10 takes into account many of the recommendations of the justice committee's report in June 2002 as well as further input from the Department of Justice consultations with stakeholders.

The amendments in Bill C-10 address six key areas: first, the expansion of the review board powers; second, permitting the court to order a stay of proceedings for permanently unfit accused; third, allowing a victim impact statement to be read; fourth, the repeal of unproclaimed provisions; fifth, the streamlining of transfer provisions between provinces; and sixth, the expansion of police powers to enforce dispositions and assessment orders.

Bill C-10 was introduced and read the first time on October 8, 2004. On October 22, 2004, the motion was adopted and the bill was referred to the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness before second reading. The justice committee held six meetings and heard 24 witnesses and reported the bill back to the House with amendments on December 10, 2004. Bill C-10 was concurred in at report stage on February 4, 2005.

The amendments made to Bill C-10 were primarily minor technical ones that included: an amendment that made the description of what kinds of health professionals could do assessments on mentally disordered accused more flexible; amendments that clarify how copies of documents can be provided to review boards; amendments concerned with victims' rights in terms of how and when they are notified of hearings as well as in terms of their victim impact statements; amendments dealing with summons for the accused; amendments dealing with how we determine the fitness of the accused to stand trial; an amendment incorporating the language recommended by the Supreme Court case regarding clear evidence, even though our party did not agree with this language because it was not clear what was meant by “clear evidence”; an amendment clarifying a provision giving flexibility to police; and several amendments clarifying the French expressions and ensuring that they mirror the English expressions in meaning and intent.

In closing, I would like to thank the members of the House and the members of the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness for the cooperative spirit with which they addressed the debate and the amending of this important piece of legislation.

[Firearms Registry, February 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, that answer indicates that the government is shooting blanks and missing the target completely.

The Canadian Firearms Centre sent out letters with 770,000 free licence renewals but 46,509 letters came back as undelivered.

How are the police supposed to know where all the guns are when they do not even know where 50,000 gun owners live?

[Firearms Registry, February 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised voters a more open and transparent government and yet he hides a report on the $2 billion gun registry, a report he ordered and a report he promised would fix this mess. That report came back full of blanks.

Why is the Prime Minister blanking out the truth? Why is he doing the same thing Jean Chrétien did, keeping Parliament in the dark?

[Supply, February 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my Bloc colleague. I also appreciate that the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is still here in the House listening to this debate.

Before I read another letter, I would like to summarize what farmers in my area are telling me about the CAIS program. They are saying that we urgently need to do something for farmers. Agriculture producers are hurting and especially across Saskatchewan where there has been an untimely frost. August 20 was a devastating night. We had a very cold summer. That night the temperature when to -3°C and -4°C in many locations, absolutely devastating crops. The quality and the quantity was greatly affected.

Many of the comments that are coming forward are as a result of this. The farmers are not only affected by the BSE crisis and the border closure to beef, but now the grain prices have been hit very hard. The farmers complain a lot about the bureaucratic nature of our programs and the fact that other countries stand behind their food producers to a much greater extent than Canada does.

Getting to the letter from Karen Walden, she writes:

I am writing concerning the disaster in the west. I am enclosing some grain tickets to show what the railways and elevators receive compared to farmers. Our end amount was $887.72 which went toward cash advances is what we would have received, compared to $2,383.41 for freight, trucking, et cetera.

These numbers are just astounding. This means she did not get the money. In other words, the amount that the farmer received, almost $900, compared to about $2,400 going for freight, indicates how much of a problem these farmers have. Then she goes on to say:

We'll be lucky to get another $1 on payments. In fact, the U.S. upped their subsidies to their farmers. We need a disaster payment and not to be run through the CAIS program as we need the money now. The CAIS program is too flawed to be a disaster program. Payments are too late.

I would urge the government to seriously consider putting the CAIS program aside and addressing the agriculture programs right now in an urgent way because of what has happened in Saskatchewan.

[Supply, February 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity and I want to thank the agriculture minister for being here to listen to this debate. My remarks are directed to him rather than the last speaker, who does not appear to really be familiar with farm programs. I also want to thank the agriculture minister for coming to my agriculture forum on January 13 and listening to farmers directly.

After the minister left, I received some letters from farmers who were frustrated because they could not talk with him directly. I am going to publicly read part of one letter. This one is from Monica Lipinski and is very representative of the letters I am getting in regard to the CAIS program.

In case I do not get through the whole letter, I will tell members that she makes three points. First, she explains why CAIS does not work and why it needs to be changed. Second, she then gives a very good example of how hugely bureaucratic and inefficient the program is and how that needs to change in order to serve farmers. Finally, the timeliness of payments is a huge concern, as is the way the payments are made.

I will begin with Monica's letter and outline for the agriculture minister her primary concern. She begins by saying that this is:

A program built for government savings, not for farmer's aid.

Averaging guarantees the farmer poverty.

Only in an occupation of farming does averaging take effect. Five year averaging of income and expenses, then taking out the good and the disaster years, only guarantees the farmer a poor income. How can it improve if you never show the best year. Plus our expenses are sky rocketing every year, and inflation is never factored in for the farmer.

Farmers are penalized for good management and having a good year. This high year is deleted from the five year averaging. This unfair act will never give the farmer a fair payment.

During a disaster year, this disaster year is deleted, along with the good year. How can you accurately calculate if a farmer needs aid if you take the bad year away?

What should be done, is take the good year and subtract the disaster year. The difference should be what the farmer should get as a payment. Easy calculation, saving millions of dollars in administration. There should also be a percent increase, taking inflation into account. This would aid the farmer in coping with sky rocketing expenses that the government will not put a cap on.

In other words, in my own words, the structure of this program is extremely flawed. It is not helping those who need it most.

Ms. Lipinski goes on to talk about the huge administrative inefficiencies and the lack of payments in a timely fashion.

This debate is absolutely essential in the sense that the government needs to address the agriculture crisis immediately. It cannot wait for a month or two from now. Farmers need some cash right now so they can plant their crops in the spring.

I appreciate the minister listening to this. I hope he will take some of these points. I will forward these letters to him so that he can read them at his leisure.