Garry Breitkreuz

[Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, October 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the member who just spoke said that the reform party would slash military spending.

These off-handed comments diminish credibility when they are not true. I want the member to be honest and cite one example from the debates in this House, or our policies, where we have ever advocated that. We have always defended the military, and we always will.

Our military is essential to our sovereignty as a nation. Our military is essential for the respect other nations will have for Canada. Our military is essential to the well-being of our nation in many other ways.

I have been here since 1993 and I know that the men and women in the military have been a priority for us, even when the budget deficit was a huge deficit.

I would like the member to stand and give me one example when we have ever advocated cutting the budget of the military.

[Bankruptcy Legislation, October 9th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, in the reply just given to my question the member has emphasized that the Auditor General's recommendations are being taken into account. That is not true at all.

The Auditor General said that the full costs of the program had been hidden from Parliament. My question specifically asked, what are the total costs and what will it cost to maintain this program?

That answer was not forthcoming and that was the key thing that the Auditor General said should be revealed to Parliament. What are the total costs? We have been waiting for almost 10 months and that has not happened yet.

The second part of my question was not even addressed. Why is the criminal not targeted rather than the law-abiding citizen? It is absolutely clear that this is simply a bureaucratic paper-pushing exercise that is not gun control. It is government out of control. It is government spending a billion dollars, probably much more than that, on something that will not improve public safety.

[Bankruptcy Legislation, October 9th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, on May 8, 2003, I asked the Prime Minister if he regretted saying that some of the bureaucrats in charge of the billion dollar sinkhole known as the gun registry had been demoted and fired when it is now known that the statement is not true.

In fact, no one was fired and no one was demoted. In fact, some of the bureaucrats in charge of this mess were promoted and many of them got bonuses.

The Prime Minister did not answer the question and neither did the fourth minister in charge of this mess. His predecessors said repeatedly that they were fully accountable and responsible for the gun registry screws-ups, but to date no one has been held the least bit accountable and responsible.

What good are words if they are not followed up by actions? Why has no one paid for this billion dollar mistake? When will someone, anyone, be held fully accountable and responsible for this billion dollar mistake?

It has been 10 months since the Auditor General blew the whistle on the biggest error in accounting estimates ever made in the history of this country, and Parliament is still being kept in the dark. In the last 10 months, the government has repeatedly failed to answer our questions: How much will it cost to fully implement the gun registry and how much will it cost to maintain?

In my supplementary question, I asked the Solicitor General why his billion dollar gun registry fails to track the addresses of 131,000 convicted criminals who have been prohibited from owning firearms. These 131,000 most dangerous individuals get to roam Canada free while two million licensed gun owners have to report their change of address within 30 days or they could go to jail for up to two years. Where is the logic in that?

Last weekend the Toronto Star reported how absurd the Liberal logic is. The Star reported that Daniel Greig, who was on parole and prohibited from owning guns, illegally acquired the following weapons: a six shot .44 calibre Smith & Wesson; a .45 calibre Glock semi-automatic; a .45 calibre Heckler and Koch semi-automatic; a 12 gauge Franchi pump action shotgun with a pistol grip; an M-16, a .223 calibre Colt semi-automatic assault rifle; and several rounds of ammunition. The Star reported, “Why the police are sad: Greig was able to buy all these guns...with no trouble at all”.

Why would the Solicitor General insist on keeping a billion dollar gun registry whose only purpose is to monitor the activities of millions of law-abiding citizens and not monitor at all the activities and whereabouts of 131,000 dangerous criminals like Daniel Greig? Why does the Privacy Act protect the privacy rights of 131,000 convicted criminals but not the privacy rights of millions of law-abiding gun owners?

Last May 8, the Solicitor General failed to answer this question about the highly questionable target for the failed Firearms Act. Instead, he chose to obscure this fact with more bogus numbers. He told the House that the gun registry had assisted in 325 actual police investigations. However, an Access to Information Act request revealed that the minister's department was unable to produce the documents to back up his claim.

My questions: Why do MPs have to file Access to Information Act requests, why is most of the information blacked out when we get it, and why is Parliament still being kept in the dark?

[Petitions, October 8th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions containing thousands of names and they are in regard to the traditional definition of marriage.

A recent court decision has redefined marriage contrary to the wishes of Parliament and 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 precedent for democracy in Canada. Elected members of Parliament should decide the marriage issue not appointed judges.

They therefore ask 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 a union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

I cannot go through all of this but there are people from throughout Saskatchewan. Hundreds of different towns are represented here. I will simply submit these without going through a list of all the different places the petitioners come from but there are thousands of names.

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police, October 8th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, real criminals are still on the loose because of cutbacks in DNA analyses at RCMP labs and yet at the same time the federal government continues to spend millions registering the guns of law-abiding citizens.

We fully expect the minister to stand and continue his song and dance about how wonderful the registry is but this is the question: Will the minister please explain why registering firearms is a higher priority than uncovering DNA evidence that would put real criminals behind bars?

[Health, September 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by thanking all members who spoke in support of Motion No. 83. For those members of Parliament who oppose the motion, I really only have to wonder why they would be afraid to examine the health issues surrounding abortion. I ask them to please read the motion carefully before voting.

Why should Parliament not fully examine and document all the health risks for women having abortions? Why should all women not have this information before they take a chance on an unwanted pregnancy? Why should all pregnant women not have the best information available as part of making their choice to have an abortion or not.

Without first studying the medical necessity of abortion and the risks associated with having an abortion, we will never be able to provide women with the best information available in making what surely will be one of the most important decisions of their lives. Certainly it is the most important decision for the life of the baby inside them.

I would also like to thank the 10,679 Canadians who signed petitions supporting Motion No. 83. It is indeed gratifying to know that so many people agree with the motion being debated in the House today, and voted on in the House tomorrow.

We have heard statistics quoted by speakers on both sides of the debate on my motion. What are Canadians to make of this often contradictory evidence? Are Canadians supposed to believe the statistics that reflect their own particular point of view on a woman's right to choose or a baby's right to life? It is up to Parliament to provide leadership on important moral issues. It is our job as members of the House of Commons to provide the best information to our constituents on all issues, but especially issues involving life and death, rights and freedoms and right and wrong.

Parliament should not leave the truth about the medical necessity of abortion or the risks of having an abortion as a multiple choice question for women, but that is what we have done in the last 12 years. For 12 years, MPs have abdicated their responsibility to provide all the facts about abortion to Canadians, and especially to women. It is time for us to stop ducking the issue. Canadian women should be able to come to government for the truth about all risks associated with every medically necessary service provided by our state health care system. Right now they cannot.

A vote in support of Motion No. 83 is the first step in correcting this 12 year oversight by Parliament. The health minister and her officials have admitted that they do not have any evidence in their files to show that abortions are medically necessary. We should all be asking why not. If the Department of Health does not collect this information, is it not incumbent on Parliament to do the studies the government will not undertake? Even Dr. Henry Morgentaler agrees that abortions get riskier for the mother as the pregnancy progresses.

On September 19 the Hamilton Spectator reported Russian health officials saying the following:

Artificial termination of pregnancy after week 12 is fraught with grave consequences for a woman's health. Abortions account for 30 per cent of maternal mortality in Russia. It has been decided to reduce these dangers.

All I ask with Motion No. 83 is for Parliament to determine what the risk is for Canadian women. In a recent column that appeared in a number of CanWest papers, Lorne Gunter reported:

Of the 40 or so major studies on the ABC (abortion-breast cancer) link, nearly three-quarters have shown a statistically significant correlation.

In response to Mr. Gunter's column, the Vancouver Sun published a letter on September 10 from two doctors and the program director of the B.C. Women's Hospital citing one study that did not find a correlation. Based on this one study the doctors reassured women having abortions that, “they have not put their future health in jeopardy”.

Somewhere in these studies is the truth. What is it? It is time to replace emotional arguments on both sides of the abortion debate with sound science. For the sake of the health and safety of all women, this needs to be done.

Doctors take an oath to do no harm. I believe the government should take the same oath. Governments should be held to the same standard that we hold individuals and corporations, that is that we are all responsible for our actions and damages they cause. If medical procedures are proving to be causing harm, then precautions have to be taken. If medical procedures cause more harm than good, then we have to be even more careful how we deliver and insure these services under the Canada Health Act.

It is the government's solemn duty to do no harm. I urge all members to vote in support of women's health and safety.

[Income Tax Act, September 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian Alliance members will vote yes to this motion.

[Parliament of Canada Act, September 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian Alliance members present vote yea to this, including the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands.

[Firearms Registry, September 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, an April 2003 report by the justice department's own evaluators found major weaknesses in the ability of the billion dollar gun registry to provide crucial information to firearms officers and police.

Last week when I raised this matter in the House, the Solicitor General said that his February action plan addressed all 90 problems identified by the April evaluation of the firearms program, but in today's newspapers the Solicitor General is being contradicted by an official in his own department.

Last week, one of my 380 access to information requests revealed that the RCMP failed to check CPIC before they registered thousands of stolen guns.

Why does the new minister of this mess continue the culture of secrecy? Where is the openness and transparency we were promised last December? When will the minister finally tell this House how much it will cost to fully implement the gun registry and how much it will cost to maintain?

[Petitions, September 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is with honour that I present petitions with the signatures of 10,679 Canadians who are asking for Parliament to support Private Member's Motion No. 83.

Motion No. 83 asks the health committee to examine whether abortions are medically necessary as defined by the Canada Health Act and to compare the health risks for women undergoing abortions to those for women who carry their babies to full term. I would like to thank the 10,679 Canadians who signed the petitions. As members will see, the number of petitions is quite large and I submit them.