Garry Breitkreuz

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, April 3rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your intervention.

I cannot force the government to do anything. It will simply invoke closure on a bill and will ram it through. The power will rest with the people. We can be sure that if all the amendments we are proposing are not made, those people will render their verdict.

I have one more point. With all the interruptions I have had, I did not get through my speech. I would like to read a quotation from barrister and solicitor, Iain Benson. I think he said it best on March 21, 2000 when he testified before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

“What the gay rights approach has done is struck an arrangement with Ottawa that divides people into the sexual and non-sexual, in which only the sexual is recognized outside of marriage. Yet this is an unfair attack both on the primacy and genuine social importance of heterosexual marriage and to all those who are in dependency relationships of whatever sort, sick, single or same sex where sexual activity is not present or permissible. Other jurisdictions such as Hawaii in the United States have determined that other categories need to be created such as reciprocal beneficiaries or registered domestic partnerships where the focus is not so, to be blunt, genital”.

I cannot finish the rest. Maybe I will be able to finish it at a later time.

The Montreal Gazette agreed. The editor wrote:

And when did a sexual relationship become a new standard by which a relationship of dependency is measured? It is worth remembering that the existing laws surrounding benefits and obligations for dependent spouses were designed to support traditional marriage and, by extension, the raising of children.

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, April 3rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the only power I have is to tell the people of Canada what the government has done at election time. I cannot force the government to do anything. It simply invokes closure—

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, April 3rd, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I point out to the member who just spoke how it does make a difference. That will be the whole point of my speech. I ask him too to look at reality.

Last summer I spent a lot of time working on a family farming project. It was very labour intensive and provided jobs for a lot of young people in our area. I worked side by side with many young people between the ages of 16 and 20. Many of them were from a youth rehabilitation centre that worked with young people who had run afoul of the law.

After working side by side with me and doing some very difficult work, they began to talk with me one on one. They of course did not know that I am a member of parliament, nor did they care and it would not have made any difference to them. As they began telling me about themselves, their backgrounds and especially their home environments, I was struck by the fact that they all had one thing in common: every single one of them did not have a father in the home.

My experience provides the passion for what I have to say today in my whole argument. We have given certain groups within our society special privileges without balancing them with responsibilities. Who suffers? It is the children. That is my theme today. If we go ahead with Bill C-23 as it stands today without amendments, it is the children who will be hurt and it is the children who are not even born yet who will be hurt.

Let me explain. Hopefully Liberal members are listening and not just giving catcalls as they are doing now. This is not just an issue of personal conscience. Every law has consequences otherwise we would not even be talking about it or dealing with it in parliament. What are the consequences of Bill C-23 going to be?

By going back to the example I began my speech with, let me underscore the fact that if we do not have healthy, strong homes and close families where both parents play a strong role, we will end up with children who begin life with two strikes against them. It is the children who are hurt. Those are the consequences.

Solid homes and families build a strong nation. A solid home and family is built on a firm foundation. That firm foundation is a lifelong marriage commitment. It is not a sexual relationship. That is the big flaw with Bill C-23.

It is a huge mistake for the government to base benefits on a conjugal relationship. That is not the same as a marriage relationship. The state needs to encourage lifelong commitments to form the basis of a strong, stable family where children can grow, develop and learn the values from their parents that will give our society its palatability.

We have done some in-depth research on this. Legal research in the last week has indicated that putting a definition of marriage in the preamble of Bill C-23 is not good enough. The research shows clearly that the amendment is very weak and will do nothing to the 68 pieces of legislation that are being amended.

I want to emphasize that because that is a key argument in everything we are saying today. Why? Because Bill C-23 is an omnibus bill. It amends 68 other pieces of legislation. At the very least every other one of those pieces of legislation must have the preamble of Bill C-23 included in it and that is not going to happen as it is presently structured. Lawyers tell us that this bill is set up in a way that it will not happen. That is the great flaw with this legislation.

We must preserve the marriage commitment for the sake of our children. Is it any wonder that the world's greatest teacher said that it would be better for a millstone to be put around a person who hurt one of these little ones and then for that person to be dropped into the sea. Let us never forget that.

Benefits should never be based on a sexual relationship either. Benefits, if the government so chooses, could be based on a relationship of dependency. If I have time I am going to propose that positive alternative to what the Liberals have done.

This bill should not undermine the strength of the family home. If the state is to provide any incentives, it must consider the most vulnerable in our society, our children. Those incentives should promote stable family relationships where children are nurtured and developed. The state needs to promote the commitment, not the sexual act.

Let me point out that since I spoke up a week or two ago on this issue, I have received a lot of mail, both pro and con. The government's handling of this issue has created deep divisions. These divisions would have been unnecessary. Without exception the criticism I received did not counter my arguments. It only called me names. Pinning labels on those who disagree is hardly legitimate debate.

I pointed out that buggery was against the law back in the 1950s and is still in the criminal code today with two exceptions. Today one can receive benefits from the federal government if one practises it. As a noted person once said, if we want to get a jackass to listen, first we have to get his attention. By pointing out that we as a society have changed since the 1950s, people did pay attention. Many were shocked.

Here is another aside. Those who are preaching tolerance and respect, those who are criticizing me now quite verbally, do not respect the alternate point of view or even listen to the arguments.

The experience I have had in dealing with children is underscored by Statistics Canada data. I would now like to go through that. Two years ago Edmonton journalist Lorne Gunter analyzed how costly common law relationships are for taxpayers. Here are some of the startling facts he found published in Statistics Canada data.

Sixty per cent of domestic violence occurs in common law marriages. The chance that a woman or a man in a common law arrangement will be the victim of abuse is more than nine times that of a married person.

Sixty-three percent of children born in common law relationships will witness their parents separate before they reach 11 years of age. This compares to just 14% for those children whose parents never lived together before marrying and 26% of those children whose parents shacked up together before getting married.

Forty percent of common law relationships end before marriage. Couples who live together before exchanging marriage vows are more than 50% more likely to divorce than couples who did not shack up.

How do these family breakups affect children? Children whose parents' relationship breaks down are much more likely to underachieve in school and in life. They are twice as likely to drop out of school. Girls are nearly three times as likely to get pregnant before leaving their teens and far more likely to have abortions. Suicides are higher. Illegal drug use is greater. They are nearly six times more likely to get in trouble with the law. Four out of every five convicts come from broken homes.

Mr. Gunter's conclusion is that marital breakdown is a leading cause of social problems, perhaps the leading cause. Because common law relationships are so prone to breakdown, they contribute disproportionately to social ills and everyone must live with them and subsidize them.

I gather from the comments from across the way, the members are not even listening to the relevance of this argument.

[The Budget, March 27th, 2000]

Excise tax on fuel.

[The Budget, March 27th, 2000]

No they are not. They are built right in.

[The Budget, March 27th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member made a comment. He told us to talk to the recipients of grants. Obviously if people are receiving a lot of money they will say it is just great.

I have a question. Why not talk to all the people who are donating the money? What about all the people who have to donate money to that project? Why not talk to them? They are the taxpayers of the entire country. He tells us to talk to the people who are getting jobs because of it. What about all the people who are having their jobs destroyed because of it?

In my province of Saskatchewan farmers have to move off the land. Their livelihood, their jobs are being destroyed because of high taxation. They have to donate money to these billion dollar boondoggles and they are getting fed up. How about talking to the people donating money and losing their jobs because of mismanagement?

[The Budget, March 27th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to what my colleague across the way had to say. I want to reflect on what he had to say about transparency and putting all of these things on the Internet. I think that he misses a key point when he makes that suggestion. I have no problem with being transparent. No one would argue with that, but there is a much bigger question that underlies all of this.

If we were to give Canadians the opportunity to look at all of these programs and all of the grants and contributions that are made by government, I wonder whether they would not say “I think I am going to keep my money”.

I ask the member, why should money be transferred from people who are running a business efficiently to those who are not?

The government talks about creating jobs, so many jobs with this particular project and so many jobs with that project, but it never says how many jobs are destroyed by taking that money away from Canadians who have worked hard to earn it and transferring it to those who cannot do something properly and efficiently. That is the key question that needs to be answered by the government.

It talks about creating jobs but it never tells us how many are being destroyed by high taxes. I think it is a given that high taxes destroy jobs. What is the hon. member's response to that?

[Organic Foods, March 24th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the government never learns from its mistakes. I have just learned of plans by a government supported agency to take over complete control of the certification of organic foods in Canada. If the government allows this plan to proceed it would put 45 thriving private organic certification companies out of business.

The Liberals say they want economic diversification but continue to intrude into the marketplace to eliminate competition, limit freedom of contract and infringe on fundamental property rights. Liberal actions speak louder than words. There is a great concern among the people involved in the organic growing and processing industry.

In this time of declining farm incomes, this industry continues to thrive. I do not want to see it hurt because of this socialist government's desire for a single controlling body.

We have had an agency like that in western Canada for the last 60 years and it has contributed to the current farm income crisis. This monopoly is called the Canadian Wheat Board. We do not need another one.

[Canadian Institutes Of Health Research Act, March 23rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address this bill at report stage. Health care is not my area of expertise. However, I have some concerns that I want to raise at this time. As Reformers, we are basically supporting the measures that the government is putting forward.

At the outset, let me state that the devil is in the details. Health care research can have tremendous benefits. It can alleviate a lot of suffering. We do not deny that and that makes it absolutely essential that we explore the area of health care research.

We can save a lot of money in health care spending by doing research in the proper areas and, therefore, adjusting our health care system accordingly. We need to use public money much more efficiently. However, if there is not a balance in the way the money is administered, the effectiveness of that money will be diminished. That must be obvious to all of us.

I feel that there is a bias in Canada today in the medical establishment and in health care research. We can have all of the best intentions in the world, as are outlined in this bill, and we can make all of the best amendments, as we have tried to put forward, and we agree with a lot of them, but if a bias exists in the administration of those funds we do a disservice to Canadians. That is what I mean by the devil is in the details.

For example, we see in Canada a heavy emphasis on research into the effectiveness of drugs and other very intrusive procedures in the handling of health care problems when there is a lot of evidence to indicate that there are very effective alternatives. That is why I feel, when we look at this bill, that we have to ensure that all of these concerns which Canadians have are addressed. Research should not exclude the exploration of these other areas. We need protection in this bill to ensure that happens.

Our health minister made the statement that our health care system needs more than just money to fix it. I could not agree more. However, he then went on to condemn the provinces which explore alternative means of doing just that.

One of the concerns I have is with the group of people who will be administering these health care research funds. Who will be on the selection committee? How will we ensure that there is a balance, that we do not have just the so-called traditional experts, that we have people who represent all parts of society and all of the concerns which people have?

Although the intent of the CIHR is to foster scientific research and promote Canadian initiatives, there has been little time to consult various scientific communities and other communities which have a great interest in this to receive input as to the scope and area of research. For example, will the applicants themselves direct the bulk of the research or will the nature of research be directed by advisory boards and force applicants to apply for funding in areas dictated by the central body? That is what I mean by getting down to the details.

Although the CIHR will strive to ensure that only 4% to 5% of the total budget will be spent on administrative costs, a new institute will require a bureaucratic infrastructure to perform necessary functions. Can the CIHR avoid the trend of having a huge part of its budget administered for bureaucracy and not have sufficient funds to administer the actual research which is dictated under its mandate? Given the wide scope of its mandate, and it is very broad, will the initial budgetary expenditures be sufficient to carry out its entire mandate? If not, will parliament be required to allocate additional funds for the creation of the institute?

The president of the CIHR will make recommendations to the governor in council as to who should be appointed to the advisory council. The president will make recommendations based on public selection processes. However, will the president follow the advice of the public selection process or will he bypass these recommendations and appoint members of individual choice?

As I have said, there are many good parts to this bill. It appears to be an excellent model of an institute which will remain at arm's length from the federal government and conduct research independent of the government.

The consultation process for appointments will draw on leading experts from every conceivable field of expertise, and I hope that remains the case. That should reduce the influence of high ranking government officials. However, that sometimes is eroded over time and we have to ensure that does not happen.

These and all of the above-mentioned details can be addressed before the committee when the bill reaches that stage. There is a strong need to consult all of the health care communities and all of the people who have an interest in this research. We need their input into this whole area.

We basically support the direction of the bill, but we would hope that the government would take our concerns into account. I could give examples of some of the areas in which we have made huge mistakes by not looking at all areas of health care which need to have research. Sometimes, because of political correctness, we exclude some of those areas.

[House Of Commons, March 16th, 2000]

I refer to my previous intervention for those who are making catcalls. I would like to give a positive suggestion at this point.

The Clerk of the House and the law clerk are both appointed by the government. They are governor in council appointments. The Prime Minister's Office puts those people in place. One suggestion I can make is that these positions should be filled in the same way as the Speaker's position. The names should be put forward and approved by two-thirds of the members of the House.

I am asking if my colleague from the Bloc would agree that may be a positive suggestion. We have the whole question of confidentiality and solicitor-client privilege being put into question. The Speaker has a problem in that regard. I put that positive suggestion forward. I think we have to resolve some of these things.