Garry Breitkreuz

[Question No. 18, November 29th, 2004]

Having regard to statements made by the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness on May 20, 2004, that funding for the Firearms Registry component of the Program will be capped at $25 million per year, starting next fiscal year: ( a ) what has been the total cost of the firearms program for each year since 1995; ( b ) how much was spent on the firearms owner licencing component of the program for each year since 1995; ( c ) how much was spent on the registration component of the program for each year since 1995; ( d ) how much will it cost to implement fully all components of the firearms program; ( e ) when will the firearms program be fully implemented; and ( f ) how much will it cost to maintain the firearms program each year after it is fully implemented?

[Question No. 17, November 29th, 2004]

What are the current status, current cost and projected cost of the Canada Firearms Program’s Alternative Service Delivery Program and what are the current status and costs of all contracts with Team Centra, GCI Group, BDP Business Data Services and EDS Canada?

[Ukraine, November 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, while world opinion has been unanimous in calling for free and fair elections in Ukraine, Russia's President Vladimir Putin, who made campaign-style appearances with Prime Minister Yanukovych only days before the Ukrainian election, has said that he considers the flawed results favouring his candidate to be final.

Will the government call in the Russian ambassador for consultations and urge Russia not to interfere in Ukraine's democratic process?

[Post-Secondary Education, November 26th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, post-secondary education costs are skyrocketing. Many of our future teachers, nurses and engineers are being forced to forgo career dreams simply because they cannot afford the high cost of tuition.

The Canadian Alliance of Student Associations has put together a list of recommendations that will assist Canadians from low income backgrounds to obtain an education that could in turn provide a brighter financial future. Among those is a recommendation to provide funding through a dedicated Canadian education transfer.

These recommendations come from those who are directly affected by the increasing costs of education, the students. These are people who want to better themselves and the future of Canada through education. They also want to see that all Canadians, regardless of their financial situation, have the same opportunities.

Maybe the Liberal government should take a lesson or two from Canada's post-secondary students.

[Firearms Program, November 25th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, earlier this month the entire country spent a day remembering all our veterans who took up arms, and fought and died for the rights and freedoms we enjoy in Canada today.

Last week one of those veterans called my office to complain that he had just received a demand for $60 from the Canada Firearms Centre. Apparently, this $2 billion sinkhole is so hard up for cash that now it is sending our vets a bill for $60 to renew their firearms licences. Why do Liberals think we will all be safer if our brave veterans have a licence to own their guns? These are the same people who had guns thrust into their hands and were asked to defend our freedom and democracy.

At the same time, the government is giving free licence renewals to 770,000 gun owners in Canada. Why could the Liberals not find it in their hard hearts to extend this free offer to our veterans? This is a shame. Lest we forget, 2005 is the Year of the Veteran.

[Agriculture, November 24th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, a cold summer night may be an inconvenience, but for grain producers sub-zero temperatures in August are a nightmare. In one night bumper crops became worthless fields. No one could have predicted such a natural disaster, but the August 20 frost that hit Saskatchewan was just that, a disaster.

Our producers, still struggling to pay this year's farming bills, do not know where they will find the money to plant their 2005 crop. The CAIS program is only an income stabilization program, not a disaster relief program. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has admitted as much.

Our producers need an avenue of financial support. It is high time the federal government recognized the plight of producers by designing true disaster relief programs that meet the needs of producers caught in desperate situations beyond their control.

The 2004 crop has become known among our farmers as the best crop there never was. Without proper support from the government, it may also be their last.

[Supply, November 18th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I have been listening carefully to the debate today as it is of great interest to farmers in my area, many of whom are canola growers. They have raised some concerns with the fact that we may be moving too quickly if there is a one year timeline on this.

Research takes quite some time. It does not happen quickly. If we move with too much haste within the one year timeframe, we may actually create negative consequences and more problems than we are solving. I have been in the House for over 11 years and have found that sometimes something looks very good and if we move quickly on it, we regret it later on.

I think we should move very carefully. I do not think anybody here is taking issue with the intent of the motion, but it is the unintended consequences that we have to worry about.

Healthy alternatives may not be developed if we move too quickly and if we do not handle the issue carefully. At the present time we should be focusing on education. By raising this issue here in the House, we are starting to move in that direction. We are educating people as to the fact that trans fats are not good.

An article I read indicated that if trans fats were taken out of food and not done properly, there would be other negative, harmful substances entering our food that would have even more of a negative impact on our health than trans fats because of the shelf life of food.

I would also like to raise one other issue quickly. We may be increasing the price of food if we go in this direction too quickly and that may have a negative impact on the poor people in this country. That is possibly an unintended consequence. If we go too quickly in this direction, the people we are trying to help the most may be the most harmed by this. Let us get it right.

[Petitions, November 4th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to once again submit a petition from the constituents of Yorkton--Melville. Despite the government's attempts to downplay the importance of the issue of traditional marriage, it continues to be a huge concern.

The constituents call the attention of Parliament to the fact that in 1999 a vote was taken to preserve the traditional definition of marriage, but a recent court decision has redefined marriage contrary to the wishes of Canadians. Now the government wants Parliament to vote on new legislation but only after it has been approved by the Supreme Court. This is a dangerous new precedent for democracy in Canada. Elected members of Parliament should decide the marriage issue, not appointed judges.

Therefore, the petitioners call upon Parliament to immediately hold a renewed debate on the definition of marriage and to reaffirm, as it did in 1999, its commitment to take all necessary steps to preserve marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

[Criminal Code, November 1st, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I first spoke in favour of a real DNA data bank, one just like the police lobbied for to the Liberals back in October 1997. I argued then that victims' rights should come before a criminal's rights and nothing the Liberals did then or have done since then has changed my mind.

During the 1997 election the Canadian Police Association slogan in support of a real DNA data bank was “Register criminals before guns”. The Canadian Police Association had made a backroom deal with the Liberals promising their support for a universal gun registry in return for a real DNA data bank. That is what they wanted. What did the police get? They were shafted. They had a useless billion dollar gun registry in 1998 and had to wait another two years before the Liberals' watered-down version of the DNA data bank opened in 2000.

This was 11 years after the RCMP had the capability of analyzing DNA in its forensic laboratories. The Canadian Police Association called the government's failure to act quickly on this highly effective crime tool as “an abdication of responsibility to public safety”.

In 1997 the Canadian Police Association pleaded with the Liberal government to give them the same rights to collect DNA samples just like they do fingerprints from accused criminals. The Liberals ignored their pleas in 1997 and they are still ignoring them today.

On October 19, 2004 the following report was in a Toronto newspaper:

Canada is “sadly” lagging behind other countries in the use of forensic DNA as a potent crime-fighting tool, Toronto police Chief Julian Fantino told an international conference on sex crimes. It should follow the lead of England - one of the most “proactive countries” when it comes to the most “efficient and effective use of DNA in law enforcement” - and allow police to take DNA samples upon any arrest.... He noted that England's database contains more than 2 million DNA profiles, and each week 1,700 “hits” linking suspects to crime scenes are made.

“Can you imagine?” Fantino said. “Much of the success has to do with the legislation that allows them to collect DNA samples upon arrest, for any recordable offence. We don't have that here”.

Compare England's 1,700 hits a week with Canada's 2,000 hits in four years. The difference is unbelievable. Even with feeble Liberal DNA legislation and just $3 million or $4 million a year being spent on the DNA data bank, it is still putting real criminals in jail.

On July 23, 2004 the RCMP issued a news release announcing:

On June 29, 2004, the DNA Data Bank recorded its 2,000th successful DNA match linking crime scenes to convicted offenders.

This sounds great but not when we compare it to England's phenomenal success rate of 1,700 hits per week. Then MPs have to question the government about the operational effectiveness of our DNA testing facilities.

Last week I questioned the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness in committee and in the House. I asked her why she was pumping $120 million into a completely ineffective firearms program this year while more than 1,700 DNA cases were backlogged in the RCMP forensic labs. I asked her how many criminals are walking around free because of the lack of adequate funding for the RCMP labs. She ducked the question both times and her parliamentary secretary ducked it once again during the late show.

Here is what my sources in the RCMP are telling me. In 2000 the DNA case backlog in the RCMP forensic laboratory was 330 cases. In October 2003 the backlog had risen to twice that, 683 cases. This October, one year later, it had reached an all-time high of 1,733 cases. The backlog doubled in this last year. The RCMP's evidence recovery and biology services business plan called for an increased investment to deal with the DNA backlog situation, but its request was denied. Why?

The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness is not improving public safety. She is letting criminal suspects roam free because she will not give the RCMP labs enough money to analyze DNA samples. Just how many violent criminals are roaming free because the minister is more interested in the political priorities of the Liberal gun registry than the police priority of the DNA data bank?

Using internal statistics my RCMP sources have calculated that there are at least 340 repeat offenders among those 1,700 cases in the DNA backlog. Just think about that statistic. How many people are roaming the streets, recommitting, and putting our citizens at risk because the government has the wrong priorities? This is a travesty.

I ask members of the House not to think about the 340 repeat offenders roaming free in Canada. I ask them to think about their 340 victims and their pain and suffering. I ask them to think about the victims that these repeat offenders will attack tomorrow, next week, next month and next year, and all the while, investigating police officers are waiting for the 1,700 case backlog to be cleared.

I cannot understand why the Liberals insist on wasting $120 million this year on a completely useless firearms program rather than clearing up this DNA backlog and putting hundreds of violent criminals in jail, nor can I understand why the Liberal government is more concerned about the rights of accused violent criminals than they are about the rights of the victims of these accused criminals.

On August 10 Toronto Police Chief Julian Fantino wrote a letter to the Globe and Mail and stated:

No one has yet offered any credible reason to distinguish fingerprints from DNA. We are allowed to collect fingerprints at time of arrest; we are allowed to collect DNA only after conviction for a select number of very serious offences. This makes no sense.

In 1988 the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the forcible taking of a criminal suspect's fingerprints, or even a strip search, did not violate a person's charter rights. Why then is the government more concerned about taking saliva sample from a prisoner's mouth than it is about the victims of those violent criminals? It makes no more sense to me than it does to Chief Fantino.

The Deputy Prime Minister and her government have their priorities all mixed up. Where is their common sense? The Liberals say they are compassionate. I say show us.

[Supply, October 28th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I did not get any answer with regard to what I asked about the DNA registry, and that is regrettable. I hope I will get an answer some time.

As the member opposite has just explained, this is really an example of how poorly thought out this entire program was. Right from the get-go the government was told that it was completely unworkable and that the costs would spiral out of control. The government claimed it could do it for a cost to taxpayers of $2 million. The Auditor General said that it went 500 times over budget and we are still paying about 60 times more per year than the total cost was supposed to be.

What are we getting for that? Millions of guns are still unregistered. More than 400,000 firearms licence holders have not registered their gun. More than 300,000 registered handgun owners still have to re-register their handguns. Five million guns in the registry are still not verified. The police cannot even use the information.

This has to be one of the biggest boondoggles the government has ever come up with. When will it finally back off? This latest thing is just more evidence.