Garry Breitkreuz

[An Act For The Recognition And Protection Of Human Rights And Fundamental Freedoms, February 25th, 2000]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-437, an act to amend an act for the recognition and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms and to amend the Constitution Act, 1867.

Mr. Speaker, this is the fourth time I have introduced my property rights bill in the House.

The government has such disdain for any legislative protection for property rights that thus far it has refused to make my previous attempts votable, and it has refused all attempts to even have my proposals reviewed by the standing committee.

Individual property rights need strengthening because they were intentionally left out of the charter of rights and freedoms. Recent court cases have proven that Canadians have no protection whatsoever from the arbitrary taking of property by the federal government.

My bill would make up for this mind-boggling omission from the charter by strengthening the property rights provisions in the Canadian bill of rights. My bill would also require a two-thirds majority vote of the House whenever the government passes laws that override fundamental property rights, like it did when it passed the Firearms Act and the Canadian Wheat Board Act.

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

[Agriculture, February 24th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, farmers in Saskatchewan are losing the shirts off their backs and the government is to blame. The ministers brag about all the money they have promised but 75% of the money the Liberals promised is still in Ottawa's ivory towers, not in the farmers' pockets.

Today's announcement for farm assistance to Saskatchewan is just another billion dollar boondoggle. I held eight town hall meetings in January and attended farm crisis rallies in Toronto, Regina and Saskatoon.

A group of farmers asked me to bring the shirts they are losing to Ottawa and give them to the Prime Minister. I have a box full of them. I am going to be out in the lobby after question period with this box of shirts. If the Liberals want to show they care about western grain farmers, I trust one of the ministers responsible for this disaster will come out to the lobby and pick them up.

Farmers are being taxed to death by Ottawa. One farmer wrote a note on his shirt, “Jean and Paul have taken—”

[Firearms Act, February 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, during the debate of Bill C-68 in 1995 the justice minister appeared before the standing committee on justice and testified that he had consulted with the provinces.

Today we have six provinces and two territories challenging Bill C-68 in the Supreme Court of Canada. Four provinces have even refused to help the federal government implement the fatally flawed law.

The former justice minister's consultation with the provinces was a complete and utter failure. The current justice minister's failure to ignore reality is just adding insult to injury.

In 1995 the Liberals ignored reality by ramming Bill C-68 through parliament. Now they are trying to ram it down the provinces' throats. This is the Liberals' style of co-operative federalism.

The government claims the registry is a success because of all the firearms licences it has refused and revoked, and all the gun sales it has blocked. Better background checks are responsible for this new success. The firearms registry contributes absolutely nothing. It is—

[Petitions, December 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the last group of petitions I have contains 203 signatures from Canadians from coast to coast. They want to add parental rights, responsibilities and liberties to the charter of rights and freedoms. They call on government to amend section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to recognize the fundamental right of individuals to pursue family life free from undue interference of the state. Again, I will not go through the whole petition because time does not permit me to do so.

[Petitions, December 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the next three petitions are mainly from people in Ontario on what has been called the spanking law, section 43 of the criminal code.

The petitioners believe that Canadians have the fundamental right as individuals to pursue family life free from undue interference by the state. They request that parliament insist to maintain the time honoured rules of common law and the criminal code and uphold the rights of parents to discipline their children by use of physical force that does not exceed reasonable limits under the circumstances.

[Petitions, December 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of 35 of my constituents requesting that parliament give Canadian taxpayers tax relief in the next federal budget. I cannot go through all of the petition, but the petitioners see that the tax burden on the average Canadian family has skyrocketed 30% and that taxes have grown from $9.4 billion to $20.9 billion. They have expressed concern about that.

[Petitions, December 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of presenting another petition containing 203 signatures of Canadians from coast to coast who wish to add parental rights, responsibilities and liberty to the charter of rights and freedoms.

These petitioners call on government to amend section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to recognize the fundamental right of individuals to pursue family life free from undue interference of the state. I will not go through this all, but—

[Petitions, December 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present petitions signed by 299 concerned citizens from across Canada.

They call on the government to reassure Canadian families and reaffirm written statements made by the government on June 9, 1998 that concern the convention on the rights of the child, that it undermines the role of parents, it is unwarranted and concerns that the government intends to remove section 43 are unwarranted. These citizens recognize that the family is the fundamental unit of society and the natural environment for the growth and well-being of children and it should be protected.

[Petitions, December 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the next group of petitions that I am pleased to present today are from 255 concerned Canadians who wish to draw to the attention of parliament that over 100,000 therapeutic abortions are performed each year in Canada costing over $50 million per year.

These petitioners and all Canadians deserve to have a voice on how their health care dollars are spent and which health care procedures they consider essential. They call upon parliament to support a binding national referendum to be held at the time of the next general election to determine whether or not Canadians are in favour of government funding for abortion on demand.

[Petitions, December 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity. I have a large number of petitions.

The first group of petitions is on behalf of tens of thousands of Canadians from across Canada who urge parliament to take all necessary measures to ensure the possession of child pornography remains a serious criminal offence, and that the federal police forces be directed to give priority to enforcing this law for the protection of our children.

The existence of child pornography places children at risk of exploitation and sexual abuse. The recent court of appeal decision in B.C. is of great concern. The petitioners want the notwithstanding clause to be invoked to protect our children.