Garry Breitkreuz

[Petitions, April 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, this petition comes from residents in the province of Saskatchewan who want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that since 1992 concentrated liquid strychnine poison has been available for purchase by farmers for use in the control of the Richardson's ground squirrel.

However, since 1992 Health Canada has restricted the sale of strychnine such that it is currently available only in a premixed form with the amount of ingredient limited to .4% by volume.

The current allowable limits for strychnine have greatly reduced the effectiveness of the poison with the result that the populations of Richardson's ground squirrels are steadily increasing. The crop and hay land damage caused by this squirrel is very costly to farmers in regard to productivity, equipment repairs and injury to livestock. They petition parliament to amend the relevant regulations so as to permit the sale of concentrated liquid strychnine to registered farmers until such time as an effective alternative can be found.

[Gun Control, April 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, this week I made public the fact that more than a million firearms owners failed to apply for a firearms licence before the January 1 deadline. Of course the government has done its best to keep this phenomenal failure of the gun registry a secret.

The Liberals ignored all the common sense advice they received in 1995 concerning Bill C-68, and look at the jam they are in now. This type of backlash is predictable when millions of good citizens are treated like criminal suspects.

The government made the dubious claim that the gun registry would somehow be useful to police, but how will a registry with more than a million gun owners missing from it be of any benefit? No wonder the vast majority of front line police officers are so opposed to the gun registry.

On September 22, 1998, the justice minister said that the debate on Bill C-68 was over. If the debate was over back then, why did she have to introduce 22 pages of amendments to it? Six hundred million dollars sure would have put a lot of police on the street.

[Foot And Mouth Disease, April 3rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue from where my colleague from Selkirk—Interlake left off.

The vast majority of Canadians purchase fire insurance for their homes hoping they never need it. They cover themselves adequately and within reason. We are saying that we need to use the same approach on this issue. We have a $20 billion industry, possibly even more, that deserves protection. A few billion dollars, maybe $100 million, spent to protect the industry is not too great a price to pay to ensure that it is adequately protected. We are talking about our dairy industry, our beef and cattle industry and hog industry. These are the industries that are directly concerned with the outbreak of foot and mouth disease.

I have received a lot of phone calls in my riding on this issue. People are concerned about the security at our airports. People are concerned about other farmers coming across to Canada and establishing themselves in our farming sector. These people want to be sure that the government is doing all that is possible to protect them in this area. That is what we refer to as a little bit of insurance to protect the industry.

We must also assure consumers that they do not need to be concerned about the quality of their food supply. We believe that there is adequate protection in place so that our consumers of these products in Canada do not have to be concerned.

I want to begin my remarks by talking about how farmers and ranchers feel about this issue and what message they have for the government.

I would like to quote directly from a news release put out by the Canadian Cattlemen's Association.

The Canadian Cattlemen's Association (CAA) today reminded cattle producers that the risk of introducing Foot-and-Mouth Disease into Canada is minimal so long as the proper precautions are observed. These precautions include keeping away from farms and ranches anyone who has been in a country with Foot-and-Mouth Disease within the past 14 days, and if they must come to the farm or ranch, ensuring that their shoes, clothing and equipment are disinfected.

“Many countries in the world have Foot-and-Mouth Disease and we have successfully kept it out of Canada for almost 50 years,” says Carl Block, Chair of the CAA animal Health Committee. “With the heightened awareness of this disease and the increased surveillance taking place at points of entry into Canada, we may well be less at risk now than in the past when it was next to impossible to get travellers to take this disease seriously”.

Block points out it is neither practical nor possible to ban the movement of people to and from countries where Foot-and-Mouth Disease exists. “Let's not forget, we're not just talking about Europe. Foot-and-Mouth Disease exists in many countries around the world including India, China, and parts of South America, Africa and Asia. We cannot shut ourselves off from the rest of the world”.

Block points out that the most important precaution is for individuals to take the threat of this disease seriously and not attempt to smuggle meat or other agricultural products into Canada. Those caught illegally bringing agricultural products into the country can be fined up to $400 on the spot, with further prosecution possible for more serious offences. The cattle industry is supportive of fining all individuals who break this law.

CAA commends the extra precautions now being taken by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the Customs and Revenue Canada Agency to ensure that this disease is not introduced into Canada. CCA has long advocated stricter surveillance at border points. CCA is urging that these precautions be maintained after the current outbreak in Europe is brought under control.

The reason I quoted that news release is that these people have put into words what we are trying to express. We need some common sense on this. We need to be vigilant. Foot and mouth disease has been around the world forever. We need to be continually vigilant against this disease. We urge the government to ensure that all the resources and precautions are being taken and that there is a plan in place to deal with this if by some remote chance it would be introduced into this country.

I want to emphasize that one of the reasons a debate like this is important is that it gives us the opportunity to raise public awareness on this issue and to inform them in a rational and sensible way on what is happening. We need to let tourists know that they are one of the greatest risks to our beef, pork and dairy industry. It could take carelessness on their part to introduce into Canada a problem that may risk the entire livelihood of some people.

We need to put this into context. We have a farming sector now that is experiencing one of the worst possible crises that it has had in a long time. If this disease were to be introduced into this country, it would devastate a part of farming that right now is profitable. We need to ensure that this does not happen and a debate like this raises public awareness.

What can travellers do if they are one of the more serious risks that we have in this country? Travellers who are entering Canada should ensure that all the meat, dairy and animal products that they are bringing into Canada are declared at the border so that customs officials can be aware of that. If travellers are visiting a farm abroad they should make sure that the clothing and footwear they wore during their visit are free from soil or manure. They should also clean and disinfect their footwear and dry clean all their clothing. That is the least they can do to protect our cattle industry. The footwear would not just be what they are wearing when they cross into Canada, but anything they may be carrying in their luggage. They should stay away from Canadian farms for at least 14 days after returning to Canada, as recommended by the World Organization for Animal Health. We ask them to please protect our farmers by doing that.

If one farms in Canada one should prevent farm or ranch visits by anyone who has been to countries with active foot and mouth disease in the last 14 days.

Although humans are not susceptible to foot and mouth disease, they do serve as carriers and Canadians travelling abroad need to know that and farmers here need to protect themselves by not allowing someone from another country like that to come on to their property immediately upon their return.

If visitors must visit a farm, they should take additional sanitary precautions, such as washing and disinfecting all personal effects and equipment that accompany them. It is particularly important to clean and disinfect footwear, as I have already mentioned.

Livestock owners should increase precautionary measures to protect their own herds. For example, farmers must exercise caution before allowing visitors on their farms and all visitors must be made aware of the risks of transmitting the disease and follow additional precautions. Visitors must take additional sanitary precautions, such as washing and disinfecting all personal effects and equipment that have accompanied them. It is particularly important to clean and disinfect footwear.

All visitors, including vets and livestock buyers, should use footwear provided by the farm instead of their own.

In conclusion, I would like to outline what we, as the Canadian Alliance, have done to bring about some kind of precaution, some kind of safety and to ensure that the government is handling this properly.

We of course were the first ones to raise this foot and mouth issue in the House of Commons. We have had at least eight questions and statements already in the House of Commons. We have made repeated presentations to the minister involved, through letters and so on, to ensure that adequate measures are being put in place and universally enforced.

On March 29 we issued a plan of action calling upon the government to improve its security measures at the ports of entry as well as improve its information campaign. I hope the debate tonight will assist in that.

The Canadian Alliance has pushed the CFIA to release its plan to the public and to members of parliament. Because of our efforts, the CFIA and the Department of National Defence will be appearing before the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

The Canadian Alliance has also initiated its own communications campaign that includes direct mailings to constituents as well as detailed information posted on our agricultural website. I would like to make the public aware that at www.canadianalliance.ca/agriculture, Canadians can find out more about this issue.

I urge the government to continue to push the information out on this issue and to ensure that our farmers are properly protected.

[Health, March 30th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the risk of foot and mouth disease entering and gaining a foothold in our country has many farmers and their families losing sleep at night.

An article in the Edmonton newspaper quoting a lead veterinarian with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency has me worried. To quote Larry Delver, the veterinary program officer with the CFIA, he said:

We are at risk. We don't have sniffing dogs at the Edmonton or Calgary airports and we can't go through a traveller's luggage unless we are suspicious...Once people go through the foot baths at the airports they are gone. We just have to trust them.

This is not a time for partisan politics. All members of the House and all levels of government need to put every ounce of effort into protecting our borders from this outbreak.

If the government is so dedicated to Canadian farmers and, for that matter, our economic prosperity, then how does it justify only six dogs, minimal baggage inspection and flat out failure to inspect people and baggage coming here from areas infected with foot and mouth?

We should not be needlessly ringing alarm bells, but we are talking about a $20 billion industry that needs protection. Why has the government not put in place a plan to better handle this issue?

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, March 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, again that is not what I said. I would ask the member to check Hansard and read it very carefully. A direct answer to what he just asked is that it is not the same as getting kids involved in hockey. This a very different program. I would ask the member to go and check the record because I do not have five minutes to re-explain it.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, March 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the member was during my speech. He completely misrepresented what I said. I do not think his question merits an answer.

The Liberals would rather accept the violence growing in our society than take an idea that the opposition might offer, run with it and prove that it actually works, as has been proven in many parts of the country.

Why would the Liberals want to mock a very good idea that really could reduce the violence in our society and help rehabilitate a lot of young people, by labelling it? When we label something in an attempt to not engage in a decent discussion, it really smacks of—well, I will let you fill in the blanks there, Mr. Speaker, because I do not want to engage in the kind of debate where we just throw labels at each other and we do not debate the ideas that I have seriously put forward.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, March 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, we do not have to look very far to realize that there is something terribly wrong in our society.

Statistics Canada reported in 1998 that 106,984 youth aged 12 to 17 were charged with a criminal code offence. One in five youth were charged with a violent crime. The rate of youth charged with violent crime is 77% higher than it was a decade ago. By comparison, the increase for adults was only 6%. Over the past decade the rate of female youth charged has increased twice as fast at 127% as compared with male youth which was 65%. Two-thirds of female youth were charged with common assault compared to just under half for male youth. Male youth tend to be involved in more serious crimes such as robbery and major assaults than female youth.

These are alarming statistics, but the newspaper stories about youth crime tell us the real stories behind the statistics. Here are just a few articles.

On December 5, 2000 a Chronicle Herald headline read: “Teen gets seven months for taking gun to school; Mill Cove kid thought it was a cool thing to do”.

On November 20, 2000 a Calgary Sun headline read: “Gun incident again rocks Lethbridge high school”.

On September 12, 2000 a Winnipeg Free Press headline read: “Hero takes shotgun from pupil”.

On April 17, 2000 a Winnipeg Free Press headline read: “Police investigate three threats of violence in local schools”.

On March 3, 2000 a Toronto Star headline read: “Teen charged in the seizure of handguns, a cache of ammunition and machete following a school fight”.

On September 28, 1999 a Vancouver Sun headline read: “Students taking weapons to school are trying to protect themselves. Nine percent of grade 7 to 12 students surveyed said they have taken a weapon to school”.

In October 1999 an editorial in the Peterborough Examiner stated: “Adding to the already strict gun control laws is not going to achieve safer schools. If laws aren't going to fix these problems what is?”

The statistics and the stories we read in our newspapers signal a dynamic societal change. We see it but we do not know what to do so we pass more laws. Instead of instilling in kids a sense of duty, we pass more laws restricting their freedom even more, which causes them to rebel even more.

Dramatic societal change such as illustrated in these news stories and statistics cannot be fixed only by legislation. Little of anything will be fixed by this particular piece of legislation.

When I was growing up this problem was non-existent. The guns hung in the rack in the backroom and the kids knew exactly what the firearms were for. We longed for the day when we would be old enough for our father to take us out in the bush to show us how to use the firearms safely. We longed for the day when we would join our father and uncles in the hunt for birds and game for our table.

Some of us took guns to school all right but it was for hunter safety training courses or to target practice in the shooting range in the school basement.

We did not have to lock our doors. No teenager would dare enter their neighbours' homes without being invited. We played cops and robbers and cowboys and Indians and wore our cap pistols proudly on our hips, and none of us became homicidal maniacs. The only violence in our schools was a bit of fisticuffs and the penalty for brawling was a few licks of the strap from the principal.

What happened in the last 30 years to bring about such dramatic change in how our young people act?

It will take more than passing more laws to bring about the changes that the public is demanding. Maybe we should be asking for the government to work with our communities and churches to develop programs to address the underlying reasons that are causing our young people to turn to violent crime.

What kind of programs might that entail? Studies have been done that show us the direction we must head. There are even programs that are showing dramatic results. They are not the programs that liberals and other left wingers will like hearing about, but I have the floor and I will tell them about them.

In July 1999, Charles Moore's column in the Calgary Herald was titled, “To Know Guns is to Respect Them: Kids didn't shoot up schools before gun control became all the rage”. In his column he reported:

A study conducted from 1993 to 1995 by the United States Department of Justice's office of juvenile justice and delinquency prevention tracked 4,000 male and female subjects aged 6 to 15 in Denver, Pittsburgh and Rochester.

Among the study's findings: children who are given real guns by their parents don't commit gun crimes (zero percent); children who obtain guns illegally are likely to commit gun crimes (21 percent); children who get guns from their parents are less likely to commit any kind of street crime (14 percent), children who have no gun in the house (24 percent), and are dramatically less likely to commit a crime than children who acquire an illegal gun (74 percent); boys who own legal firearms have much lower rates of delinquency and drug use than boys who obtain illegal guns, and are even slightly less delinquent than non-owners of guns.

After I read this article, I ordered a copy of the study from the U.S. department of justice.

The column goes on to quote Dr. Garry Mauser of Simon Fraser University who commented on the U.S. department of justice study. He said:

Socialization into guns for sporting and hunting purposes appears to have “inoculated” the adolescents against the criminal use of firearms. Time magazine reported that:

—teachers and counsellors affirm that kids taught to use guns responsibly generally demonstrate more maturity, better manners and saner attitudes than their non-gun using peers.

Teacher Cesario Guerrero, who supervises hunting trips for programs for kids from tough, inner city neighbourhoods in Houston, Texas, told Time that these kids often “become part of a different crowd” as a result. “It gives them pride”.

It gives them pride. Would that not be something if we could give our young offenders back their pride?

Before I became a politician, I was a teacher. One of my greatest accomplishments would be those occasions when I could instil one of my students with pride. Hunting trips for troubled kids gives them pride. Who would have thought? Well, anyone who hunts understands this.

Randall Eaton, author of the book called The Sacred Hunt: Right of Passage , understands this. He was in Canada recently and did a number of media interviews. He even impressed Valerie Pringle on Canada AM with the results of his research. Eaton has proven that taking young boys and girls hunting is not only good for kids but it can also help rehabilitate young offenders. That is why I am bringing that up here today.

The New Brunswick Telegraph Journal reported on Mr. Eaton's visit to Canada. Its article reported that Eaton is an American author and lecturer with standing in several universities, “has studied the role of hunting in behavioural evolution and cultural history. Respect for life starts with the food chain, and the food chain becomes a love chain when we participate directly in it”.

Eaton believes hunting can curb teen violence because when a kid takes an animal's life they discover the consequences of pulling the trigger and are less likely than anyone to take a human life.

The Toronto Star reported that Eaton spoke about a 13 year program in Idaho for wayward boys that teaches them the benefits of self-sufficiency. Eaton said:

I know of three other such programs and I know they have turned around the lives of seriously aggressive young men. Going out into the wilderness connects a youth with nature in a profound way and it also engenders respect for life, paradoxically enough by taking a life.

On Canada AM Eaton claimed that the Idaho program had an 85% success rate.

This is a program worth looking at. This is a program that every wildlife federation in every province would be willing to sponsor and manage.

This is a true young offender program, one that sets kids back on the right course and one that brings about real change, societal change. We should not only be thinking of passing more and more laws. We have been going down that road for the last 30 years and look where it has taken us. We need to try some other things, things that work.

After waiting seven years for a youth justice act, we finally have to ask: Is this all we get? I have offered a positive alternative that the government could incorporate in its legislation or practice. The bill is too long, too complex and too expensive. By following my suggestion, it could address all three of those problems.

In conclusion, I was listening to the government members as they argued in this debate that it was better to let 10 people go free than convict one innocent person. I would like to propose that it is better to rehabilitate 10 young people than to cling to one ideological system that is not working.

The government's liberal ideas may help one person, but if it took my proposal, it could help 10 times as many for much less cost to the justice system.

[Request For Emergency Debate, March 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your patience with us here. I would like to give a brief example of why this needs to be done now.

I am reflecting what my constituents are telling me. There is an emergency in agriculture. They want us to get on to that in this House. They see that we tend to be fiddling while Rome burns. The agriculture debate needs to take place and yet—

[Petitions, March 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions from the residents of the province of Saskatchewan who wish to draw the attention of the House to the following.

Prior to 1992, concentrated liquid strychnine was available for purchase by farmers for use in the control of the Richardson's ground squirrel. However, since 1992 Health Canada has restricted the sale of strychnine such that it is only available in a premixed form, with the amount of strychnine limited to .4%.

The allowable limits for strychnine have greatly reduced the effectiveness of the poison, resulting in populations of the Richardson's ground squirrel increasing. A great deal of crop and hay damage is caused by this ground squirrel. It is very costly to farmers in lost productivity, equipment repairs and injury to livestock.

The petitioners are asking parliament to amend the relevant regulations so as to permit the sale of concentrated liquid strychnine to registered farmers until such a time as an effective alternative can be found.

[Rights Of The Unborn, March 22nd, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I thank all hon. members who have spoken in support of my motion. I appreciate that. I thank them for putting politics aside and standing for what is right. Some who have spoken are more eloquent than I on this issue.

The question I have asked is: What is the unborn? I have talked about the abortion issue and will continue to do so because it is one of the key consequences of my motion. I will briefly reply to some of the people who oppose the motion.

Anti-life advocates or those who oppose the motion say that abortion is a private matter. The response to that is we do not allow child abuse if it is done in private. Those who oppose the motion will say that many poor women cannot afford to raise another child. The answer is obvious: We do not kill people just because it is too expensive to care for them.

Those who oppose the motion say killing a fetus is not the same as killing a person. The response is that it comes down to a simple question: What is the unborn? By the way, Madam Speaker, did you know that the word fetus means little one?

Opponents to the motion will ask whether we think a woman should be forced to bring an unwanted child into the world. The response is obvious: The homeless around us are unwanted, but we do not kill them. If the unborn are human beings they deserve the same protection as other human beings. In Canada they do not have that protection. We are one of the few countries that does not provide it.

For the government to defend its current stand supporting abortion, it must offer a better definition of a human being than currently exists in the criminal code. I ask that they produce evidence that the unborn are not human.

If people could produce evidence that the unborn are not human, I suspect that the people supporting the motion and I would walk away from the debate immediately. Some will respond by saying that no one can prove whether the unborn are human so we will keep killing them anyway. We cannot accept that. What if the criminal code is wrong? What if we are killing human beings when we kill a fetus? Is the question not worthy of a full debate in the House?

I will offer three scientific reasons as to why an unborn child is a human being. First, the unborn is genetically distinct from its parents. It is not just a part of the woman. Second, the unborn has human parents and human parents can only produce human offspring. Third, the unborn is genetically complete. It is a self-integrating organism.

In a paper presented to the 1978 meeting of the Association of Planned Parenthood Physicians in San Diego, California, abortionist Dr. Warren Hern, in describing the abortion procedure, said:

The sensations of dismemberment flow through the forceps like an electric current.

An unborn child differs from a newborn child in only four ways: It is smaller; it is not as well developed; it is located inside its mother; and it is more dependent. Those are the only differences. The evidence is clear that the unborn are human beings. They deserve protection. After 10 years of not debating the issue and not talking about it in the House, they deserve a fair hearing.

In conclusion, we could probably all reach a decision. We need to talk about the issue. I think people on both sides of the debate would agree that what we have in the criminal code is not enough. There must be some point at which we can agree that pre-born children must have protection.

Because I think the debate should continue, I respectfully request the House to refer the motion to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights so that parliament can hear what Canadians think. The committee can hear from scientists and from people on both sides.

I ask for the unanimous consent of the House for that to be done on the issue at some point. When the government feels it is appropriate, this should be discussed by the justice committee. I hope this has been enough of an indication that we need to further debate the issue.