Garry Breitkreuz

[Gun Registry, June 13th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I wish somebody would take the batteries out of the Liberal pink bunny that keeps spending, spending, spending.

One would think that a deficit 150 times larger than expected would cause the Liberals concern. Now we find out that everything is a mess at the gun registry headquarters and $129 million for this year is not enough.

[Gun Registry, June 13th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

In 1995 the justice minister tabled a document titled “Financial Framework for Bill C-68” that projected a deficit of $2 million over five years for implementation of the gun registration scheme.

It is now five years later and the deficit is $320 million. That is 150 times larger than the deficit first projected.

What is responsible for this huge waste of money, the previous minister's ridiculous estimate or the current minister's mismanagement of the scheme?

[Access To Information Act, June 13th, 2000]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-489, an act to amend the Access to Information Act (cabinet confidences).

Mr. Speaker, in June 1999 the government used the provision for total exclusion of cabinet confidences under section 69 of the Access to Information Act to keep 172 pages of gun registry budget information a state secret.

In September the government used the cabinet confidences exclusion again to hide from the public a 115 page report on the economic impact of the gun registry. That was enough for me and I knew the law had to be changed.

The purpose of this bill is to make certain amendments to the act as recommended by the information commissioner in his 1996 report, The Access to Information Act and the Cabinet Confidences: A Discussion of New Approaches. The information commissioner was kind enough to recommend changes to an earlier draft of this bill.

This bill makes cabinet confidences mandatory exemptions as opposed to exclusions. This results in the withholding of information and documents that are considered cabinet confidences being subject to the independent review under the act, rather than the entire act being inapplicable to them. The bill also excludes from the exemption documents that refer to but do not reveal the substance of cabinet confidences.

Among other safeguards, this bill would require that requests for cabinet confidences be handled only by officers who have received the appropriate security clearance.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Treaties Act, June 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from the Bloc for bringing forth this private member's bill for debate, Bill C-214, the Treaties Act.

I want to just briefly outline what we are discussing here today in the context of this debate because members may not have been able to pick it up from some of the commentary that has been made.

This bill provides that all important international treaties must be tabled in the House of Commons for approval by resolution and that no treaty may be ratified unless so approved.

The bill goes on to define an “important treaty” as: any treaty whose implementation requires legislative action by parliament; vests the government with new powers; imposes a new tax; imposes new financial obligations on Canada; affects the boundaries or transfers the territory of any part of Canada; calls for the imposition of economic or military sanctions against another country; affects trade or investment or Canada's place in the world economy; or involves participation in international institutions, including any transfer of jurisdiction to international institutions.

The bill also provides that every international treaty shall be tabled for 21 sitting days prior to ratification, along with an explanatory memorandum, including a summary, implications for Canada, new obligations undertaken, estimated expenditures to be incurred, proposed conditions for denunciation or withdrawal and a record of the consultations undertaken in Canada with non-governmental parties, an indication of any legislation required for implementation, and of existing legislation that requires amendment, and also, the provinces must be consulted in areas of provincial jurisdiction.

The bill provides for greater efforts to inform the public about what the treaties contain through publication in the Canadian Gazette and on the Internet.

Let me begin my response to this bill by saying, yes, this is good and it is a step in the right direction.

From what I have witnessed over the last seven years since I was elected a member of parliament, the government's approach to international agreements and conferences has been of major concern to me. The Parliament of Canada has not been consulted. The government does most of these negotiations and conferences behind closed doors with no meaningful public input. This concerns me a great deal because it does in fact affect everyone in this great country.

Parliament, and in fact all Canadians, should be informed of the positions Canada takes at international conferences. The ideas and policies that our delegates promote at international symposia or meetings should be debated in parliament and approved.

United Nations conferences, such as the Beijing conference, the Kyoto conference and the conference we had in Brazil on the environment, are all examples of conferences held where the majority of Canadians did not agree with the policies that were advocated. This is most serious when these policies are approved by the UN and Canada signs on, we are then obligated to comply without these being debated or passed in parliament in a democratic way.

In other words, the democratic process in this country can be circumvented. Certain groups within the country can twist the arm of government, can get on some of these delegations that go there, promote policies that most Canadians would not agree with, get those approved or negotiated internationally, the government signs on and then it comes back and says that we have to put these in force in our country. This is deplorable. This gives democracy a bad name because we are not allowed to properly debate these things.

I am of the opinion that the wording in Bill C-214 does not quite go far enough. I do not think it adequately protects Canadians. For example, the wording is that the provinces should be consulted, but it does not ensure that consultation will be done in a meaningful way, nor does it say that the opinion of the provinces that has been expressed would have any impact on any of the agreements or the position Canada takes.

I have had a lot of experience with Bill C-68 and the gun control issue. The consultation the government claimed it had with the provinces was totally inadequate. We now have six provinces and two territories taking the federal government to court. The case is presently before the supreme court. If this had been an adequate and meaningful consultation process, of course that would not be the case. We probably would not even have the present legislation.

The last time parliament put forward a treaty of an international nature for ratification was the auto pact. Guess when that was. Back in 1966. NAFTA was signed without consulting the provinces in a meaningful way. International affairs have a huge impact on Canadian affairs. Why are we not allowed to debate the issues that come forward?

Since I was elected a member of parliament in October 1993 the government has signed 470 international treaties and has ratified 295 treaties. And they have not come before parliament in any meaningful way; 470 international treaties in the period from 1993 to 1999. Most of us have never seen these treaties and know almost nothing about them. It is difficult to access copies of the text of the agreements. It is difficult for us to even find out what positions the government is advocating at some of these conferences. The essence of democracy is that we have this information.

Our neighbours to the south, the Americans, are not in the same situation. Their international agreements must be ratified by their elected representatives.

Our international agreements are negotiated and signed behind closed doors. We often do not even know who is doing the negotiating. Groups of non-governmental organizations are hand-picked by the government. Groups of bureaucrats and others who make up these agreements are not accountable to the people of Canada through their elected representatives. We sometimes find out about them when they are leaked to reporters. We often never find out what is in these agreements or what has been agreed to.

We presently have a situation in the Sudan where the Minister of Foreign Affairs maintains policies that would not allow most Canadians to sleep at night if they knew about them. Genocide in southern Sudan is a terrible tragedy and the position of our government is not acceptable to most Canadians I am sure.

Canadians have the right to be told what is going on and to be consulted on our positions internationally. What assurance do we have that the positions advocated by our government are the best possible positions? In the last election the MAI agreement was an issue. Most Canadian people did not even know what it was all about.

Democracy is not something to be feared, but it is a protection for our leaders. People would take more of an interest in the affairs of our nation if they were allowed to participate. People often complain about the apathy in Canada. Why is that? It is because we do not have proper democracy. The people of Canada do not feel they have a say in what is going on here in Ottawa.

Time is also important. The Liberals often ram legislation through the House without adequate debate. This leads to cynicism and a lack of interest in democracy. We need to have adequate time to debate things. That is what this bill would address in a meaningful way.

Transparency, democracy and accountability need to be improved in government. This bill is a step in the right direction.

What are some of the things the government could do? One example is parliament must be able to examine the impact these foreign agreements would have on the family. The Canadian Alliance has a policy that it examines all these things to see what impact they will have on the family, the basic building block of society.

Another thing that could happen is that the Senate, which should be elected, could perform a very meaningful role in this area. The provinces could elect the senators. They would represent the interests of those provinces and could spend a lot of time looking at these agreements to see their impact, whether they are good or bad. They could represent the position of Canadians.

I will conclude by reading our policy in regard to treaty negotiations. Our blue book states that parliament should be asked to approve all agreements or declarations before they are ratified as Canadian positions. This was designed to enable parliament to have some role in ensuring that Canadian interests are being properly represented before treaties are signed, and to give MPs a check on unaccountable officials and NGOs at international negotiations. Indeed the blue book demands that the identity of and proposed position to be taken by all officials, NGOs and individuals speaking for Canada at the international or United Nations conferences be fully disclosed.

[Petitions, June 8th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a number of petitions from people in my riding and throughout Ontario on the topic of Bill C-23.

The petition says that there is significant empirical evidence about the value of marriage as the cornerstone of public policy which produces real tangible public policy benefits. The petitioners draw the attention of the House to the motion passed on June 8, 1999 which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

The petitioners also point out that there is inappropriate intrusion and discriminatory practices on the part of the federal government to extend benefits based on a person's private sexual activity excluding other types of dependency relationships.

The petitioners ask that parliament withdraw Bill C-23 and affirm the opposite sex definition of marriage in legislation and ensure that marriage is recognized as a unique institution.

[Grain Transportation, May 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, $300 million is what farmers would save each year if we had a commercial grain handling system. Yet last week the Liberals announced a plan that will continue to control and restrict Canadian farmers.

In their news release the Liberals admit that moving the Canadian Wheat Board out of grain transportation would save farmers money. Why is the government only cutting the board's involvement in grain transportation by 25%? This action proves that the government is more concerned about the Canadian Wheat Board's monopoly than cutting costs for farmers.

The proposed changes to the grain handling system will do nothing to address the congestion of rail cars at the ports. This costs farmers millions each year.

The plan to put $175 million into prairie roads over five years is also a farce. That works out to about $12 million per province per year. That is enough to rebuild about 50 kilometres of secondary roads.

Instead of deregulation, farmers have a system that continues to take money out of their pockets. It is evident the government does not want to give farmers the freedom they deserve.

[Yorkton Regional High School Marching 100, May 16th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to bring attention to one of Canada's greatest bands, the Yorkton Regional High School Marching 100.

These high school students from my constituency are in Ottawa as part of an eastern Canada tour called “Combining Canadian History With Performance”. They will be performing in Ontario and Quebec and will also be learning about the cultures, history and languages of this great nation.

The Marching 100 have acted as excellent ambassadors for Yorkton, Saskatchewan and Canada in their extensive travels. These students have become well known for their abilities as band performers with their most notable performance being at the world famous Rose Bowl parade. Larry Pearen, the director, has also been to four Grey Cup games with this award winning band.

Today this band will be performing on Parliament Hill. I urge all members to come and see what makes this band so great. The band's many awards are the result of hard work and supportive parents who have encouraged its members to excel.

Hats off to the Yorkton Regional High School Marching 100 who are in our gallery today.

[Gun Registry, May 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice appears to be ending up with egg on her face after a recent announcement that her useless gun registry is doing something about reducing firearms crime in Canada.

A bit of an investigation revealed that she has not even bothered to put into force the part of Bill C-68 that requires guns entering the country to be registered. If the minister believes the registry is so important, why was the entire shipment of World War II army rifles, which she says was a threat to public safety, knowingly waved through Canada customs without even being registered?

The RCMP advised me that Canada customs does not even tell the registrar about the guns coming across the border. The minister's own research shows that between 200,000 and 300,000 firearms enter Canada illegally each year but are never registered because the minister has not put into force legislation passed in 1995.

Everyone should be wondering why the minister waited for a so-called criminal to register a 1,000 World War II rifles destined to collectors if registration is so important for public safety.

The minister cannot change this mountain into a molehill. This is a billion dollar boondoggle.

[Motions For Papers, May 3rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I believe I have the option of moving it for debate.

[Criminal Code, May 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak. I have done a lot of work in this area and have formulated a declaration of parental rights and responsibilities, which, if time allows, I will go into a little bit.

I want to say several things in the short time I am allowed. I want to show the necessity of the resolution we are debating. I also want to point out clearly that the government says one thing but does another. It talks the talk but it does not walk the walk. That is why this resolution is necessary. I will give a couple of very good examples of that. That is why this should have been voted on in the House but the government would not allow that.

Before I go into this, I will point out my view and the views of many of my constituents on this. Parental discipline is quite different from child abuse and neglect. Child abuse and neglect should not be tolerated but section 43 strikes a balance by protecting children from abuse while still allowing parents to correct their children, within the limits that are acceptable to Canadian society.

The Canadian Teachers' Federation states:

Section 43 of the Criminal Code does not sanction or condone child abuse.... There is no evidence to indicate that the existence of Section 43 is a root cause of child abuse or that it encourages abuse of children.

I also point out that responsible, loving parents sometimes have to correct their children to keep them from harm. Removing section 43 of the criminal code may make criminals out of parents who use reasonable corrective action with their kids.

Parents, not the government, are best suited to determine the needs, including disciplinary measures, of their own children. Removing a means for parents to discipline their children will result in more state intrusion into family life.

Maintaining section 43 of the criminal code shows respect for Canadian parents. It shows respect for the democratic process. It is through debate in parliament, not in the court chambers, where important public policy decisions like this should be made.

If there are concerns about what is deemed reasonable in parental discipline, it would be better to develop guidelines rather than potentially criminalizing all parents by a court decision. Using tax dollars to fund a lobby group to make an end run around the democratic process and push social policy through the courts is inappropriate.

Those are my views and that is where I am coming from when I make my comments.

We have laws that address abuse. The government has done a terrible job on family issues and should not interfere with parental rights.

I am a former teacher. I want to read what the Canadian Teachers' Federation had to say about section 43 of the criminal code, because this section does not just deal with parents, it also deals with teachers.

The Canadian Teachers' Federation appeared in court in December to argue in favour of keeping section 43 in the criminal code. The federation believes that the removal of section 43 would be detrimental to maintaining a safe and secure school environment for all students. Removing section 43 would encourage some students to engage in insubordinate or disruptive behaviour.

As an aside, I was a teacher for 24 and a half years and I think that is a very key point. We should not tie the hands of our teachers in this regard.

The Canadian Teachers' Federation points to a number of day to day school situations in which the safety of students in the learning environment would be adversely affected if section 43 were to be repealed. Such situations are more likely to occur in a school setting than in the home given the large number of children and youth who attend school.

Here are some examples that the Canadian Teachers' Federation puts forth. There is a need to protect students or teachers when a fight occurs at school, including the need to restrain students if necessary. Another example is the need to escort an unco-operative student to the principal's office. A third situation would involve ejecting a student who refuses to leave the classroom or the school itself. A fourth situation would be placing a young student on the bus in a situation where the student has been on a field trip and refuses to return on the bus. The last example would be restraining a cognitively impaired student.

These are all examples I can relate to because I had similar concerns and incidents when I was teaching.

The Canadian Teachers' Federation is concerned that if section 43 were removed from the criminal code, the result would be a dramatic increase in the number of assault charges. As a precaution, teachers would be advised or choose not to intervene in school situations, since their stepping in to resolve the situation might lead to their being charged with assault. We would accomplish the very opposite of what we want, which is the protection of our children. That is why we should not change this.

I also want to point out that since the state has discouraged the use of physical correction in schools, violence has increased, which is the opposite of what many of these groups have argued.

I said I would give a couple of examples in the few minutes remaining. I do not have time to read the entire response to a petition I had submitted in the House. The response comes from the government and indicates quite clearly that the government says one thing to the public but it does not walk the walk.

This document states:

This government fully recognizes the indispensable role of parents in the upbringing of their children and the need for governments at all levels to support parents and families in the exercise of this role.

It then goes on to say that section 43 of the criminal code is consistent with these principles and that it will protect them. There is no indication on the part of government that it is going to withdraw this.

It goes on to say “and is not funding any research on its removal from the criminal code”. The government said this on July 22, 1998. Guess what we found out in November of that year? We found out that it was funding the Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children, a loyal lobby group purchased with $365,000 of taxpayers' money. We also found out that the government was only funding one side of the issue, and this was the only organization it was funding.

I wish I had more time because I think this is a key point. The government says that it is defending parents, that it is defending their rights, that it will not touch section 43 and that it will not fund any of these things, but a few months later we find out that it was in fact pouring big bucks into that.

When my colleague from Calgary Centre pointed this out, he sent an inquiry to the bureaucracy about the parliamentary review of Canada's report that it was sending, and we found out that the government funded only one side of the issue.

The second example is the court challenges program. Here we have the government again funding only one side of the issue. I have evidence on this but I do not have time to give it. This is yet another example of the government saying one thing but doing another. The funding of the Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law is clear on this issue.

I wish I had time to quote from my declaration of parental rights and responsibilities but I will refer people to my website on the Internet if they want to know what I proposed in this regard.