Garry Breitkreuz

[Firearms Registry, March 31st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, in February 2002 the justice minister sent reports to my office confirming that they had already lost track of more than 38,000 licensed gun owners. It is still happening.

I ask members to listen to this story from B.C.:

Two years ago, I contacted the CFC to tell them I was moving and to arrange the paperwork to move my handguns. I duly received my temporary ATT that was issued for the day of my move and subsequently received the full time version at my new address a week later. Sounds very efficient so far. 18 months later when I got around to registering my long-guns I contacted CFC to find out why I hadn't received the registration paperwork. They said they had already sent out several reminders to me and a final warning letter. When I said I hadn't received the paperwork we established they had been sending them to my old address. I find this a little concerning given that they are threatening gun owners with jail if they don't report change of address within 30 days.

So much for a system that is supposed to tell police where all the guns are. It seems like it takes a billion dollars for the Liberals to make a real mess.

[Criminal Code, March 31st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my voice to those of my colleagues in regard to Bill C-20, the bill that makes amendments to the Criminal Code to safeguard children from sexual exploitation, abuse and neglect.

I would like to make a few observations. This legislation is of course very complex. It has many cumbersome provisions that will not make it easier to prosecute sexual predators. The existing defences of child pornography such as artistic merit, it is educational, scientific or for medical purpose and the public good are now being reduced in this bill to the single broad defence of “the public good”. This is simply not sufficient.

First, there is no substantial difference between this defence and the previous defence, the community standards test. That was rendered ineffective by the Supreme Court in 1992 in the Butler case. The community standards test, just like the public good defence, was concerned primarily with the risk of harm to individuals in society. There is no positive benefit in recycling laws that have already been discredited by the courts. That is why I would ask the government to strengthen this legislation.

Second, it is clear that the artistic merit defence which has been eliminated on paper may still apply in practice. The minister has simply renamed and repackaged the artistic merit defence in this bill.

The bill does not raise the age of consent of sexual activity between children and adults as my previous colleague mentioned. The bill creates the category of sexual exploitation with the intended aim of protecting children between the age of 14 years and 18 years. In determining whether a person is in a relationship with a young person that is exploitative of a young person, a judge must consider the age difference between the accused and the young person, the evolution of the relationship and the degree of control or influence by the person over the young person.

It is already against the law for a person in a position of trust or authority with whom a young person, someone between 14 years and 18 years was in a relationship of dependency, to be sexually involved with that young person. It is unclear how adding people who are in a relationship with a young person that is exploitative of the young person will help protect young people. By the Liberals failing to prohibit adults having sex with children under the age of 16 years, the police and parents are still faced with the continuing task to children that is not effectively addressed by these amendments, but a continuing risk of that. Only by raising the age of consent will young people be truly protected under the Criminal Code.

The bill increases maximum sentences for child related offences. These offences include sexual offences, failing to provide the necessities of life and abandoning the child. This is truly meaningless if the courts do not impose the sentences. Currently, sex offenders often receive a slap on the wrist and serve time in the community. What is needed is truth in sentencing, eliminating statutory release and conditional sentencing for sex offenders and putting in minimum sentences in order to deter child predators.

Modern technology has surpassed the legislative provisions that govern the use of evidence in these cases. The bill fails to address those shortcomings and amendments are required in order to deal with child pornography cases effectively and efficiently.

The bill creates a new offence of voyeurism and distribution of voyeuristic material. This is a positive step. This makes it an offence to observe or make a visual recording of a person who should have a reasonable expectation of privacy if the person is in a place in which the person can be expected to be nude or engaged in sexual activity.

As to the impact the legislation will have on the family, we must observe that there are no substantial improvements that will benefit children and their families. The protection of children is of vital interest to Canadian families but this bill fails to take the necessary steps to address pressing concerns in this area.

The Canadian Alliance has called for the complete elimination of the artistic merit defence and for the age of consent to be raised to 16 years from 14 years. The bill does not do that. Bill C-20 falls short of protecting Canada's children. The Canadian Alliance will continue to advocate raising the age of consent to 16 years and will continue to advocate for the elimination of defences that protect sexual predators. I will have to oppose this legislation because it is just not good enough.

I agree with my colleagues in the Canadian Alliance. The bill is a timid first step for Canadian children. It is complex and has cumbersome provisions that will not make it easier to prosecute sexual predators. Police and prosecutors still do not have the tools to deal with child pornography cases effectively or efficiently. Children must be protected from abuse at the hands of adult predators, regardless of whether that relationship is a so-called trust relationship or not. The Liberals' failure to prohibit all adult-child sex leaves children at an unacceptable risk.

After months of the Canadian Alliance demanding an elimination of the artistic merit defence, the Liberals have finally recognized its danger. Unfortunately, the Liberals have replaced the existing defences with the single defence of the public good. There really is no substantial difference between this defence and the previous defence that was rendered ineffective by the Supreme Court in 1992.

Higher maximum sentences for child pornography and predation will not be effective unless the courts enforce them. The bill also fails to prohibit conditional sentences for child sex crimes. Child predators should serve their sentences in prison, not in the community.

The age of consent for adult-child sex must be raised from 14 years to 16 years in addition to the new category of exploitative relationship. The bill's criteria for evaluating if a relationship is exploitative are vague and very subjective. By not raising the age from 14 years to 16 years, Canada's children are still at risk.

I add my voice to those of my colleagues. I have to oppose this legislation. Even though there are some good provisions in it, it just does not do what it should do.

[Gasoline Prices, March 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I met with more than 800 people from my constituency in the first week of March. The most common complaint I heard was that the price of fuel and natural gas was too high.

Farmers trying to keep their vehicles and machinery running are especially hard hit. The price of natural gas is driving up the cost of fertilizer making it even more difficult for those struggling in the agricultural sector. High fuel prices, driven even higher by taxes, are nothing short of highway robbery.

Every year Canadians pay $4.8 billion in fuel taxes but instead of most of that money being put back into roads, it goes straight into general revenues. The Liberal government siphons $375 million in fuel taxes out of Saskatchewan each year, but since 1992 only a total of $26 million has come back. The sudden announcement that $39 million will be spent on roads in Saskatchewan this year is an obvious attempt to buy votes.

Why is the government robbing struggling farmers to fund corporate welfare?

[Supply, March 25th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to make the point that the questions do not reflect how Canadians feel once they find out the costs are going to $1 billion and they are probably going to $2 billion or $3 billion in the next few years according to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and the Library of Parliament. This thing is out of control.

How much more money should be spent on this system? Will the member continue to support the gun registry if the costs go to $2 billion and $3 billion? It is not gun control. The surveys that are done always portray this as gun control. The gun registry is not gun control. It is a paper pushing exercise that has spun out of control. How much more money will the member be willing to put into the system before the government will say no?

[Supply, March 25th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the member is misleading Canadians and anybody she speaks to when she says that the majority of Canadians support the gun registry. I have before me an Ipsos-Reid poll which clearly says that the majority of Canadians say the gun registry should be scrapped immediately.

The member referred to a poll. I have the question in front of me. I wonder if she has even read the question. She is claiming that this is support for the gun registry. That is a bogus claim because the question asks:

The government of Canada has passed a law concerning the ownership of firearms. This law requires that Canadians register each firearm that they own, prohibits certain kinds of firearms, requires that owners pass a safety test and a safety check, and that firearms are stored unloaded in a secure place. In general do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose this law?

If all of these things are mixed into a question, I myself who knows about it would say yes. This is how ridiculous it is for the member to claim that somehow Canadians support gun control. Canadians support improved public safety. Canadians support police that are able to have a proper check on their systems. That is what they want.

I would support--

[Supply, March 25th, 2003]

--when he said that all of the costs are before us, that Parliament has been told the full costs. The Auditor General said clearly that the costs had not been revealed to Parliament. The enforcement costs could be huge.

Is the member going to support this no matter how much it costs, without a cost benefit analysis? That was the point of our motion: without a cost benefit analysis. His own justice minister did not answer three questions I asked today. Where is the cost benefit analysis? What about the enforcement costs? What about all the things that now have to be done to go back and correct all of the errors in the system? None of those questions were answered.

[Supply, March 25th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the remarks of this member and I find it really unconscionable how he has twisted the Auditor General's report. The Auditor General clearly said that this report was not a comment on whether the gun registry was effective or not effective. She said this was just a survey of the costs that she could determine. She made it abundantly clear that the costs will be at least $1 billion by the end of next year, but she said that there are many other costs unaccounted for and it could go well beyond that.

The question I have for this member is one which he completely avoided. He is not even debating the motion that we have before the House today. The question I have for him is this: Is he going to support this gun registry no matter what it costs? If it goes 500 times over budget, he is still supporting it. The Library of Parliament yesterday released a report showing that it is probably going to be another $1 billion in just the next few years just for the enforcement costs. If we look at our motion we will see the long list of other items that are going to be very costly and that the government has not talked about. The Auditor General made it abundantly clear that the main problem she had with the government and its handling of the situation is that it kept Parliament “in the dark”.

He did not tell the truth--

[Supply, March 25th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I want to pick up on something the member said. She said that the Canadian Police Association supported this. I hope the association is not playing politics and is actually representing its members. We have Chief Julian Fantino saying, “a law registering firearms has neither deterred these crimes nor helped us solve any of them”. There is an obvious disconnect to the police I am talking to and what the member is saying.

[Supply, March 25th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, the question that should be asked of the Canadian Police Association is: “If you were in charge of this money how would you best spend it? Would you rather have more colleagues on the street helping you enforce a licensing system?”

The Canadian Police Association has not seen a cost benefit analysis either. If it were to see that, if it were in charge of the funds and if it had to make the decision on the best way to target the root cause of violence and crime in our society, what would it then say?

That is not the question it is answering. I will tell the member right now that it is just the people with whom he has been talking. If he were to talk with the police in the street he would get a much different answer. I have been talking with the police in Regina and I have been given a very different answer.

[Supply, March 25th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by agreeing with the way the member began his remarks. We have no greater responsibility in the House than to provide for the safety of the people of this country. I agree with him there. I think that is something we should all remind ourselves of.

I want to touch on one of the things he raised in his speech, which was that the Alliance was not listening to Canadians. I want to make the point absolutely clear that the gun registry is not gun control. The government uses that term all the time and gives the impression that this somehow is gun control and improves public safety.

I have scratched beneath the surface on this issue and I challenge the member and all Canadians to do the same thing. I will use the same example that he used.

Fourteen women were killed at the polytechnical institute. That was a terrible tragedy and I agree with him. However the registry would not effectively have prevented that. How does laying a piece of paper beside a gun prevent a madman from using it in a crime?

If in fact we had a licensing system that did the proper background checks and if we had enough police on the street to effectively enforce that, then we might have a better chance of preventing that kind of a crime.

That is why we in the Canadian Alliance have said that this is not gun control. If we were to use that billion dollars and begin to target the causes of violence and crime in our society more directly, we might do a better job.

When we were told that it would cost $2 million to the taxpayer to implement this program some people said that we should go for it. However, once it becomes a billion dollars we are talking about a completely different question. That is what we are raising today.

I appeal to the Bloc members to look at our motion. We are saying that a cost benefit analysis should be done of the firearms registry. The government has done that but it has not released it to us. Why is it hiding this?

Every opposition member should be calling upon the government to tell us why this is a better expenditure of funds than targeting the root cause of violence.

The member said that the system was working well in Quebec. A study done in Quebec indicates that many firearms owners in the province do not have licences nor have they registered. In fact, non-compliance in Quebec could be higher than in the other provinces. That is something for the member to ponder.

Without a cost benefit analysis how can the member support this program? Tax dollars are not unlimited. How do we know that we are not much better off spending this money elsewhere, targeting the root cause of violence?