Garry Breitkreuz

[Supply, November 22nd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member said, “I am a Liberal and I don't do things by rote”. Who on the other side of the House voted against this treaty when some 90% of the people in British Columbia are opposed?

[Supply, November 22nd, 1999]

I have another brief question, Mr. Speaker. It really puzzles me that the Bloc members would oppose a referendum on this issue. They are very strong on a referendum deciding the separation of Quebec. Why do they oppose a referendum of the people of British Columbia with regard to this issue?

[Supply, November 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the member neglected to answer the question I posed with regard to a statement the government made with respect to the courts being able to tell members of parliament how to speak on this issue. Does he agree with the government's position that the courts should be able to dictate to us how to speak on these aboriginal affairs?

[Supply, November 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take what my Reform colleague has said one step further.

The hon. member from the Bloc said clearly that Quebec does not believe in the equality of all Canadians. The Bloc is here to promote separation. The government said that there was a process whereby everybody was actively involved. It now becomes obvious that was not the case. Everyone was not actively involved.

Here we have the Bloc members making it absolutely clear that they support this because it will lead to the separation of groups, and the government is also supporting this.

The Globe and Mail put it very well when it said that the government's aboriginal policies would lead to separation, both political and economic. That is why the Bloc supports this. Now the government goes along with it.

The government said very clearly that the minister consulted all sides. It has in fact created the sides. It is responsible for dividing up our society into all of these various groups because of the improper process, because it does not allow the moving toward equality. I think that is the problem. That is probably why the Bloc is doing this.

The government said that the courts are criticizing members of parliament for speaking up and criticizing some court decisions. Many Canadians are concerned that the courts are dictating legislation. Do the courts have the right to tell members of parliament how they shall speak on an issue like this? I would the member to answer that. I would also ask him if he agrees with the Minister of Justice who says “We have one law for all but it is flexible in its application”?

The government makes a big point about treating everybody equally, but the Minister of Justice says “We have one law for all but it is flexible in its application”. Does the member agree with the government when it makes those statements?

[Agriculture, November 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the comments by the Prime Minister of this country are very distressing. As part of his tour in Africa he said that Canada has not done enough to help out third world countries and will in future contribute more money to these nations.

The Prime Minister should look in his own backyard first. Travelling halfway around the world to see people needing help is unnecessary. Come to my home province of Saskatchewan and see the suffering going on in rural communities.

He gives aid to foreign countries, but will not look at supporting the people who put the food on his plate every day. Here is what one of my constituents had to say:

To hear the Prime Minister promise more aid to another country with my money when I could use that money myself seems, well, just plain wrong.

The government has lost touch with the rural segment of our society. The Prime Minister should make a trip out to the prairies to see suffering in his own country. When will he realize that if he does not take any action on the prairies, he will have a third world country to bail out, but this time it will be his own.

[Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution Act, November 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for giving me a few minutes.

I have been sitting here all day listening to this debate and becoming educated on an issue I know very little about. I am really astounded at the amount of money that has been spent on Cape Breton. Two billion dollars is quite a bit of money to a small prairie boy.

The member talked about Santa Claus giving away all this stuff. Santa Claus gives away his own money. Where does the money come from that is given to these people? I come from Saskatchewan and the prairie farmer is—

[Agriculture, October 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, farmers see the lack of effort from the Prime Minister and the results that have happened internationally. Europe's borders are closed to our beef and canola. U.S. protectionism is rising. Both European and U.S. subsidies are up.

The Liberal government has failed. The Prime Minister's lack of concern over the farm income crisis is an insult to Canadian farmers.

I ask again, why is the Prime Minister failing to lead a delegation against European and U.S. subsidies?

[Agriculture, October 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the premiers of Manitoba and Saskatchewan will be in Ottawa tomorrow demanding that our producers be put on a level playing field with our international competitors.

In Europe 56% of a wheat farmer's income comes from the government, while in the U.S. 38% comes from the government. These subsidies are killing our family farmers and are the root cause of the farm income crisis.

Why is the Prime Minister refusing to lead a campaign against European and U.S. subsidies?

[Petitions, October 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the next group of petitions I am pleased to present is 154 pages long with 3,649 signatures of concerned citizens from eight different provinces and one territory in Canada.

Canadians from coast to coast are united in opposition to the federal government's fatally flawed, billion dollar gun registration scheme.

My constituents have asked me to keep a running total of repeal Bill C-68 petitions that I have introduced. Since April 1998, I have introduced 2,009 pages of petitions with a total of 49,914 signatures.

The petitioners are calling for an end to the government's firearm fiasco because: First, registration will do nothing to curtail the criminal use of firearms; second, registration is not an effective way to address the violent crime problem in Canada; third, registration is opposed by the vast majority of frontline police officers; and fourth, registration is being challenged in the supreme court by six provinces and two territories, comprising more than 50% of Canada's population.

[Petitions, October 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have quite a number of petitions to present.

The first set of petitions I am pleased to present totals 11 pages with the signatures of 158 concerned Canadians from the provinces of Ontario, Alberta and B.C. For those who are keeping track, that is a total of 15,415 signatures of people who are demanding better protection of property rights in federal law.

These citizens are most concerned that there is nothing in the charter of rights and freedoms which restricts the government in any way from passing laws which prohibit the ownership, use and enjoyment of their private property or reduces the value of their property.

These Canadians are also concerned that there is no provision in the charter that prevents the government from arbitrarily taking these lawfully acquired and legally owned properties without compensation.

The petitioners request parliament to support my private member's bill which would strengthen the protection of property rights in federal law by amending the Canadian Bill of Rights.