Garry Breitkreuz

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

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should bring in legislation defining a “human being” as a human fetus or embryo from the moment of conception, whether in the womb of the mother or not and whether conceived naturally or otherwise, and making any and all consequential amendments required.

Madam Speaker, this is the most important issue facing Canada today. In fact, this issue is more important than anything that has been debated in the House since May 1991. Let me explain.

May of 1991 was when Bill C-43, an act respecting abortions, was debated in parliament. That was the last time there was any serious debate about the rights of the unborn in the House. That is a disgrace. For 10 years now successive governments have buried their heads in the sand on this life and death issue. I will correct myself. It is not a life and death issue, it is only a death issue.

Between 1988 and 1998, 1,021,965 unborn babies died because the government did not have the courage to deal with the issue. Now is that time. Those one million unborn do not think this is the best country in the world to live. They never had a chance.

Bill C-43 was actually passed by the House of Commons but was defeated in the Senate by a single vote. One vote was a death sentence to how many babies? After one million have died is the senator who defeated the bill proud? After one million babies have been killed is the government proud of how effectively it killed the debate of this issue?

The unwillingness of the government to even debate the issue, to even study the issue, to even ask Canadians what they think about the issue is criminal negligence if, in fact as I contend, these one million unborn were human beings. Does the government really think it can ignore the fact that 100,000 babies are being killed every year? Does it actually think there are no consequences for its actions?

Before I get into my main remarks, I want to tell the House about a response I got to one of my access to information requests. I asked Health Canada for the documents, reports and correspondence in the department that provided evidence that abortions are medically necessary.

On March 8 Health Canada responded by saying:

I regret to inform you that after a thorough search of all likely record holdings, departmental officials have confirmed that they have no records relevant to your request.

That is amazing. More than 100,000 unborn babies lose their right to live every year and the Department of Health does not have one document that says abortions are even medically necessary.

If they are not medically necessary, why are we doing them? Why are taxpayers paying for them? Why is this happening?

The problem is the way we define a human being in Canadian law. Our legal definition of a human being is wrong and needs to be amended. This is the sole purpose of my motion.

Currently a human being is defined in section 223(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada as follows:

A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother, whether or not

(a) it has breathed,

(b) it has independent circulation, or

(c) the navel string is severed.

Motion No. 228 which I put foward today states:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should bring in legislation defining a “human being” as a human fetus or embryo from the moment of conception, whether in the womb of the mother or not and whether conceived naturally or otherwise, and making any and all consequential amendments required.

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which Canada signed, states:

—the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth.

In Canadian law there simply is no protection for a child before birth. The Government of Canada cannot discharge its legal obligations under this international agreement, an agreement the federal government and 10 provinces have ratified, unless and until it changes the definition of a human being.

Prior to 1969, all abortions were illegal. From 1969 to 1988, Canada had a law in our criminal code that provided for an abortion only when a therapeutic abortion committee of three doctors agreed that the continuation of a pregnancy would cause harm to the life or health of the mother. The word health was not defined or limited.

In 1988 the supreme court struck down the 1969 abortion law as unconstitutional. The supreme court ruling, commonly referred to as the Morgentaler decision, provided constitutional parameters for a new abortion law.

Based on the instructions from the supreme court justices, in 1990 the government of the day introduced, debated and passed Bill C-43 in the House of Commons. As I mentioned, Bill C-43 was defeated by one vote in the Senate. Since that time the government has not restricted abortions in any way and the unborn have been without any rights. Since then more than one million babies have been aborted while politicians were hoping the issue would just go away.

In 1988 the supreme court said that this is an issue best left to parliament. I say it is time for parliament to assume its responsibility. Many key moral and legal issues such as reproductive technologies, rights of the unborn and a mother's duty of care for her unborn, all hinge on when the law says a child becomes a human being.

Today's definition is unacceptable in my mind. It is debatable in the minds of most people. It is time the debate began. How we define a human being is the place to begin this entire debate. That is why I have introduced this motion.

Since introducing the motion, I have been asked some important questions like why I am trying to ban abortions. While that would be my personal preference, my motion would only ban abortions if the legislation I am asking the government to draft bans them. The more likely consequence of my motion would be that parliament would determine at what point during a pregnancy an unborn human being has rights.

I have also been asked why I am bringing in this motion. Because the current definition of a human being in the criminal code is scientifically incorrect. A baby has to emerge completely from the birth canal before it becomes a human being.

It is obvious to everyone that a baby is a human being before it is born. It is a proven law of science that like things beget like things. Dogs have dogs, cats have cats and people produce people.

I have also been asked about a woman's right to her own body and if my motion is passed whose rights would come first, the child's or the woman's.

I agree that everyone has a right to their own body, until it interferes with the rights of someone else's own body. The problem is that under the Canadian law, the human being growing inside the woman has no rights until he or she has fully emerged from the birth canal. I maintain that at some point during the pregnancy the unborn baby's rights are equal to the woman's rights. Even the United Nations agrees that every unborn child has rights. These rights need the protection of the Government of Canada.

My motion would start a debate in parliament, and in the public, to determine at what point during the pregnancy does the helpless, unborn child deserve protection under Canadian law.

A month ago I had the pleasure to meet and listen to Scott Klusendorf. Scott is a director of bio-ethics for Stand to Reason from San Pedro, California. I was impressed by the simplicity of his approach and his direct hard hitting message. I appreciated his taking the time to meet with the pro-life caucus and with our staff. I thank him for the printed materials he shared with us, some of which I have used in preparing for this debate.

The question we must answer is “Can we kill the unborn?” The answer is “Yes, we can kill the unborn if it is not a human being”. How many have watched a video of what actually happens to a baby during an abortion? After watching any video that depicts the truth, no one can doubt what is being killed is a human being.

When MPs opposite support abortion, they are going against what Canadians would think Liberals normally stand for. Liberals normally pride themselves as defenders of the weakest members of society. Who could be weaker and more defenceless than an unborn baby?

Liberals normally pride themselves in not discriminating against anyone, and I use small l there, but every year they are discriminating against more than 100,000 unborn babies and defending every adult mother's right to kill the baby in her womb, for any reason or for no reason, up to the very moment the baby fully emerges from the birth canal.

During the election, the Liberals attacked pro-life policies and any politician who holds these views. However, who should really be attacked? The Liberals because they approve of killing more than 100,000 unborn babies or me because I want to save the lives of many of these poor, defenceless, unborn babies as possible.

What is so wrong with trying to save as many little unborn babies as we can? What is so wrong with trying to get a real debate in the House about saving these babies' lives? What are we so afraid of? What is the government afraid of?

We are not the scary ones. We are the ones who think the unborn have some rights. The government thinks the unborn has no rights. We are the ones who want to save these babies.

Why do we have a law that allows the killing of a little unborn baby, even when they are eight or nine weeks old? It is like unborn babies are not people. From conception to birth, the unborn are not technically people so it is okay to murder them. However, the moment they emerge from the birth canal, it is a crime to murder them. Where is the sense in that?

Remember when the law did not consider slaves to be people? They were property. Their cries were heard. Liberals agreed this was wrong and the law was changed.

Remember when the law did not consider women to be persons and denied them the vote? Their cries were heard. Liberals agreed this was wrong and the law was changed.

Remember when aboriginal people and Chinese immigrants were not considered people? Their cries were heard. Liberals agreed this was wrong and the law was changed.

It is time we recognize the fact that the unborn are people. It is time someone heard their cries. Their cry is not a silent cry. It is a silent scream. It is time the law was changed. It will take a lot more than one hour of parliament to provide some small measure of justice in the defence of the rights of the unborn. In a moment I will be asking for consent to go beyond that.

Abortion has been defined as the strong and independent exploiting the weak and defenceless. Here we stand, the strong and the independent. We are the only hope for the weak and the defenceless in Canadian society. There is no one weaker and no one more defenceless than an unborn baby. Anti-life activists challenge us by asking why we are forcing our morality on them. I say to them that their morality is being forced on me. When I cannot stand up for what I believe, is that right?

Anti-life activists approve of killing the most weak and defenceless human beings. I am trying to save them. Who is standing on the high moral ground? Abortion is not a complex issue. It involves the honesty of answering one simple question. What is the unborn? That is what I would like parliament to debate. That is what we are here for today.

Madam Speaker, could I request unanimous consent to make the motion that I have before the House votable?

[Supply, March 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are simply asking for the hour the government took up this morning. Perhaps we could have an extension of the debate by an hour because a few people on our side of the House would still like to speak to it.

[Supply, March 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am dismayed and disappointed by the comments made by the member. I am not sure why the member who just spoke wants to twist what we are doing today or why he wants to twist our policies. The attacks he made are false. People watching television may not realize they are false. We have not opposed supply management.

Then he made the point that somehow the Canadian Wheat Board was an indication of supply management. People watching television might not realize that there is no relation between supply management and the Canadian Wheat Board. The two are completely different concepts.

Then he said that the Alliance was opposed to subsidies and now it was coming forward with this. We have made it abundantly clear that we need to support our farmers because of the subsidies that are put in place by governments in other countries that stand behind their farming sectors. That is very different from subsidies within a country that have nothing to do with trade distorting programs in other countries. Those are two completely different concepts. To mix them is totally inappropriate.

We are correcting the record here today. Back in 1994 we were calling for 80% of that Crow money to immediately be put in a trade distortion adjustment program.

What we really are opposing is our tax money being used to subsidize projects in the Prime Minister's riding that cost more than all three prairie provinces get in similar programs.

[Supply, March 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I was hoping that this would provide an opportunity for the 50 or 60 rural MPs on the government side of the House to represent their constituents. I was hoping that would be what would take place today. We wanted to make this a non-partisan debate and suddenly we are shouting at each other, and those members are going to use it as an excuse not to support the farmers in their ridings.

[Supply, March 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, that was more like a little rant. In this debate we are trying to indicate clearly that the subsidies the government should be engaged in are those where we can clearly demonstrate that a sector is being hurt by another foreign subsidy. It is absolutely clear.

In regard to some of the programs he was listing, the businesses in competition with those being subsidized would have to pay those subsidies. That is blatantly unfair. We would not support that because that is within Canada.

[Supply, March 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I wish we could get the real facts into the House. I agree with the member on that last point. The members across the way are the ones who are distorting the predicament farmers are in right now. Not defending them or the motion is not looking at the facts.

Yes, philosophically we are opposed to subsidies, but clearly if other countries are engaged in subsidizing their farmers and we have hung our farmers out to dry at the international bargaining table, we have to stand behind them. We have a clear obligation to do that and we have said since 1994 that this is what has to happen. That is why we proposed that 80% of the Crow subsidy be put into a trade distortion adjustment program.

[Supply, March 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is really frustrating to see how Liberal MPs are twisting the entire meaning of this debate. We have an opportunity today to tell the agricultural producers of the country that we are not only concerned about their plight, but we are willing to do something about it. This motion to provide added financial support to our struggling farmers is not about politics or party policy. This motion is about ensuring that the primary producers of Canada are given the same opportunities as other sectors of the economy.

Last night on our government funded public broadcaster, there was a report about the amount of subsidies Canadian farmers receive. The CBC reported that in 1999 this country's producers received 57% of their income from the government. They project that by the end of this year a farmer will have received 75% of his income from the government. The CBC is crediting these numbers to Statistics Canada. Common sense would tell us that if these numbers are true then our farmers are in bigger trouble because their incomes are so low. The reason we are really in a crisis today is that the government puts so little into agriculture in Canada compared to what other nations do.

The tone of the report gives a completely false picture and it only serves to make the government look good. The figure the CBC is using is not an accurate portrayal of farm subsidies in Canada. The Organization for Economic and Co-operative Development, known as the OECD, which is the authority in determining agriculture subsidy levels, stated that in 1999 only 20% of a Canadian farmer's income came from government. That is quite a difference from the 57% reported by the CBC. Why is there that difference?

The OECD is actually taking into account the entire farm receipts received. Statistics Canada figures use the net farm numbers. When we use the net farm numbers it appears as though our producers are receiving some great subsidies, because a farmer's expenses will have been removed from the figure. If we use the net farm numbers, we are in effect counting the government subsidy level twice. If we count the government subsidy level once on the gross farm numbers and then when we eliminate the farm expenses and compare the subsidy level again, we come up with the preposterous figures that were delivered on the CBC last night.

Inaccurate reports from our publicly funded broadcaster are inexcusable and hurt the very people forced to pay for them. This irresponsible reporting is one of the main reasons we are here today. This type of misinformation gives the impression to our city cousins that farmers are receiving some type of huge payout from the government. However, that is far from the truth. If farmers were receiving 75% of their income from the government, does anyone think we would even be here today?

I hope that after hearing today's debate our national broadcaster will correct last night's report and accurately reflect the level of farm income support in the country.

Our minister of agriculture was on a CBC show this weekend. He made the comment that farmers should be treated like any other business. I could not agree with him more. Unfortunately, the minister and the government do not treat farmers like other businesses.

Let us look at how they are not treated fairly. The most obvious difference is the treatment at the international bargaining table. In 1986, Canadian wheat producers received about 45% of their income from the government. Since that time, support for our primary wheat producers has been reduced to the point where it is only about 11% from government. This would be fine if our competitors would have reduced their subsidy levels, but that did not happen.

In fact, the United States in 1986 had its wheat farmers receiving about 49% of their income from government. In 1999, a U.S. wheat producer received 46% of his income from the government. In the last year, that level of support has gone higher.

The inequality in subsidization is the reason we are here today. Subsidies distort the marketplace and have resulted in overproduction of grains, which in turn has forced the price for these commodities downward.

Our farmers in many cases are growing these crops below the cost of production. By doing that, they continue to subsidize consumers in our cities and keep food prices low. People shopping in our supermarkets today should understand that one of the main reasons a loaf of bread is not $4 is that our farmers continue to produce this product cheaply and efficiently.

When our food prices start to rise substantially, then there is going to be a public outcry. Will the government then realize it should have supported our agricultural sector? Unfortunately, then our family farms will be gone and it will be too late.

There are many examples of government preparing for problems within different sectors, but when it comes to agriculture, the planning is not there.

Back in the mid 1990s, when the government was balancing its books on the backs of farmers, it removed the Crow rate subsidy. At that time Reformers told the government that eliminating this program did not remove government from having to support farmers. We explained that even though times were good then, commodity markets would come down and the government had better be prepared to help when it happened.

In fact, we told the Liberals to take 80% of the money in the Crow and put it into a trade distortion adjustment program to be used when farmers needed it. Did the government listen? No. We would not be here today making this motion if it had done what we asked. If the government had listened to our suggestion, by 1998, when this crisis started to become apparent, there would have been over $4 billion to help farmers.

The fact the government was not willing to plan for the future relates to my main theme, in that government does not treat agriculture like other sectors of the economy. The government will plan for the future when looking at other sectors and industries, but when it comes to agriculture there is no long term agriculture policy.

Let us look at the Bombardier issue. This is a company that made $700 million in profits last year. It was competing with a Brazilian company for a $3 billion contract to build airplanes. The Brazilian company was receiving subsidies from its national government to give it a competitive advantage. Canada's response to this was an industry minister who said Canada could no longer afford to be the Boy Scout of the international trade world. This statement was also combined with a $1.5 billion loan guaranteed to help Bombardier compete against Brazil for a contract.

Here we have the government supporting a business that is being forced to compete against unfair foreign subsidies. Does this not sound familiar?

For the last four years we have been explaining to the government how our farmers are competing against unfair foreign subsidies, yet we do not have an industry minister or an agriculture minister who is willing to back up our farmers by making the same commitment that was made to Bombardier.

This is why I am saying agriculture is not being treated like other businesses or industries by the government. There are two sets of standards here and it has to stop.

Another example of the government preparing other sectors for problems down the road is our Canada infrastructure program. The government has committed $2.65 billion to deal with the need to replace aging infrastructure in communities. This is a prime example of how government can provide support to a sector by looking ahead, determining a need and addressing that need.

I cannot understand why the agriculture department is not doing the same thing. It has used ad hoc programs to address the current crisis. The programs are not working and the department still has not prepared long term solutions to help support agriculture. This is not treating agriculture like other sectors.

Let us look at grain transportation. It is not treated like other industries. The government promised $178 million in savings when it rammed its new transportation bill through the House of Commons last spring. After talking to grassroots producers, I can tell members that there have been little or no savings in transportation. Without implementing a commercial and competitive grain handling system, the savings will never be achieved. By government overregulating and not ensuring competition among the railways and grain companies, farmers continue to lose out.

The MP for Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington said farmers should be allowed to be entrepreneurs and I agree, yet when I talk to backbench Liberals they have no idea of how the wheat board works.

There is one glaring difference between prairie grain producers and other businesses: farmers cannot sell their wheat and barley to whomever they want. Producers are forced to sell their wheat and barley to the Canadian Wheat Board. They cannot process their own product and sell it to consumers without going to the CWB.

Other sectors of the economy are not treated like this. I do not know of any other industry that has to sell its product to a government controlled bureaucracy and then buy it back at a higher price before it can reap additional profits through processing. If another profession or industry would not stand for this, why should our farmers be forced to accept this type of approach? The government once again does not treat agriculture like other businesses.

Here we are, asking the government to approve an additional $400 million in support for our agriculture producers. This is not some cap in hand payment. This is treating our farmers like any other business in the country. When other businesses are sold out at the international bargaining table, there is an obligation to stand behind them. Why not agriculture? We have to put our political ideologies to the side and look at what is needed for our agricultural sector.

Members from all political parties in the House have expressed concern for the primary producers of the country. Now is our chance to not only talk the talk but walk the walk. This action would provide some immediate relief to producers to help them through this cropping season.

[Supply, March 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the member who just spoke has no real understanding of the Canadian Wheat Board and he has clearly demonstrated that by his comments.

Does he know that if a farmer wants to take his durum wheat, process it into pasta and add value to it he has to first of all sell it to the wheat board? He does not own the grain. He has to sell it to the wheat board. He has to buy it back at a price considerably higher because he is charged for transportation to a seaport whether he uses that transportation or not. He has to go through all kinds of hoops and hurdles which discourage him and cost him a huge amount of money before he can add value to it. Is that right?

We do not have property rights in Canada and that is one of our key problems. A farmer who challenges this will be found by the courts to have no basis for it. That is absolutely wrong. There is no way the Liberal government should be hamstringing our farmers this way.

The member could change this entire debate. If 50 or 60 Liberal MPs with rural components stood up and let their voices be heard, they could break the power of the Prime Minister's Office and we could get on with some meaningful assistance. I wonder if the member would support that.

[Supply, March 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, if there is a disaster in Canada, the Prime Minister usually visits the area. I personally delivered a letter of invitation to the Prime Minister but he has consistently refused to meet with farmers.

I do not believe the Prime Minister could ignore the plight of grain farmers, if he could personally witness this disaster. Why does the Prime Minister not come to Saskatchewan and personally meet with farmers?

[Privilege, March 14th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my main point is that it strikes at the very heart of democracy: the operation of parliament. This was not a secret, as it was supposed to be until it was introduced into parliament. The media was briefed, but we were not. This is a prima facie question of privilege.

The Liberal House leader made a couple of points. I would like to counter them. If this is simply about bills that were introduced previously, why did the media even need a briefing on this? This is the House leader's own argument, really, so he is not being upfront. It was not embargoed, because we were already being asked before the bill was introduced to comment on the bill. It was not embargoed and all the arguments I heard from that side are not true.

I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker. Canadians are so disillusioned with the process in this place and with democracy that if we do not do something to fix it right now, the perception will be that we are totally irrelevant and we might as well just shut this place down.