Garry Breitkreuz

[Firearms Act, June 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, congratulations to Bernard Lord for bringing about the spectacular end to the Liberal's 12 year reign in New Brunswick.

Part of the Conservative Party's election platform included the promise to join the other provinces in the court challenge of the federal gun control law. This despite the fact that it could mean the end to 200 or 300 federal jobs in the Canadian Firearms Centre in Miramichi.

New Brunswick joins the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and the three territories in their opposition to the Liberal government's gun registration scheme because it intrudes on its exclusive jurisdiction over property and civil rights granted them in the constitution.

That is half the provinces and more than 57% of the population. When will this democratic reality finally hit home? What will it take for the government to realize that it made a grave mistake by ramming Bill C-68, the Firearms Act, through parliament in 1995 without proper consultation with the provinces?

[Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act, June 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to correct the record. We support museums and we support various groups around the country promoting their culture.

My question for the member is, are we not Canadian and do we not have a culture without government trying to get involved in shaping it?

[Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act, June 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think the member is twisting what we are saying. We support museums and all the various groups around the country that promote—

[Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act, June 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I was not intending to speak to this bill, but in listening to the NDP, the Liberals and the Tories talk about a national cultural policy, it just sounds like something I would hear from some socialist communist regime.

Canadians do not want government telling them what our culture is or government shaping and moulding it. Government will promote and foster what it values and it will unlikely reflect the values and culture of its people.

In my own view I see this as just a means of social engineering society. When I hear words like tolerance and values, I believe they are code words for “see things the way I see them or you are wrong in your views”. I am very apprehensive about government trying to shape and mould culture. That smacks of a government which thinks it knows more than the ordinary people. It is telling us what to think, filtering what we will hear and telling us what we are going to say. Generally this is a huge waste of money.

How would a cultural policy reflect the views of Canadians when the government that would implement it was elected by 38% of the vote? The hon. member talks about how dangerous it is to not bring in some strong bill like this. I think it is much more dangerous to get government into moulding culture.

[Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act, June 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on a question I asked on April 30 about the AIDA farm disaster program.

At that point only 500 farmers had taken the time to fill out the AIDA forms and send them in to be processed. There are 100,000 farmers on the prairies. What percentage of them have now filled out these forms? How many claims have been paid? Very few farmers have been applying and receiving compensation. I would like to know if the minister thinks this program is helping farmers through the income crisis they are experiencing.

How much has been paid out under AIDA to producers in Ontario, in Quebec, in British Columbia, Nova Scotia and the other provinces? Even the minister of agriculture in Saskatchewan has called on the federal government to scrap this program because he has realized it is not helping the farmers who need it. Will the minister listen to farmers and get rid of the AIDA program?

AIDA was supposed to help farmers who had an income that fell 30% in 1998 but because of the fact that it is tied to NISA, a farmer's income has to fall almost 40% to qualify for any assistance. Did the minister tie the program to NISA so the government would not have to pay out the $900 million commitment?

When I asked this question during question period, the minister said that farmers were not applying. In essence he is blaming farmers for the fact the program is not working.

Long before the minister announced the AIDA program we urged him to keep the program simple and to make payments on an acreage basis. We made that recommendation over six months ago.

NISA is not working either for these farmers. In NISA, 8,600 Saskatchewan farmers have an average of $303 in their accounts. Another 10,000 farmers have less than $2,800 in their accounts.

I understand the reason the minister is not accepting negative margins in his AIDA package is that he does not want to promote bad farm management. Due to the drop in commodity prices there were an estimated 10,000 farm operations with negative margins in 1998. I wonder if the minister of agriculture is prepared to say that these 10,000 operations with negative margins are the result of bad farm management.

The calls coming in from the farm stress line in Saskatchewan are also an indication that AIDA is not helping producers. The number of calls to the farm stress line this year is already way above the monthly average for 1998.

AIDA is definitely not helping farmers get through this income crisis. Is the minister ready to admit that his farm disaster program is a disaster? Is he ready to sit down and work out a program that will help Canadian farmers?

It appears that the AIDA staff is also making up rules on the fly. A man called my office the other day. He and his wife have separate farming operations which include each possessing their own Canadian Wheat Board permit books, filing separate taxes and having separate NISA accounts.

The husband and wife each filled out separate AIDA forms and sent them in. When the AIDA staff looked at these forms it was determined that this husband and wife could not file separately because their farms were not at arm's length from one another.

I want the minister to explain how it is determined that these farmers who file separate income taxes, have separate permit books and have separate NISA accounts are not considered separate farms when it comes to AIDA.

This also raises a number of questions as to how AIDA staff will deal with other types of farming operations. Are the rest of the husband and wife operations to be considered as one farm? What about places where father and son each have separate farms but work together? Will they be considered one operation? The same applies for brothers or people who work together. Did the minister consider any of this when he was constructing AIDA?

[Criminal Code, June 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, last year impaired driving caused 1,300 deaths in Canada and 90,000 injuries, in one year. It is astounding the evidence and the gravity of the situation. The law, up to now, has been lax on the offence. It is time to act and time to send a message to those who drink and drive. I see the message contained in Bill C-82, as we are debating it here tonight: If we get caught we will not beat the charge. It will cost us a lot of money and we may go to prison for life. That is the message we want to go out from this Chamber.

It took a long time to get to this point, and the justice committee should be commended for getting the bill to parliament. I realize we, as Reformers, have been pushing this for quite some time, but it took many other people co-operating to get the bill to this point in the House and hopefully passed before we break for summer.

What are we getting in Bill C-82? Right off the top, we are finally treating impaired drivers like anyone else who kills somebody. Impaired driving causing death would now face life imprisonment just like manslaughter rather than the current 14 year prison term. What is wrong with that? It is manslaughter and the weapon of choice has been too much of the bottle, too much alcohol and then getting into a two tonne vehicle, which is a deadly weapon, driving it with abandon and with no concern for human life.

It is time to send a message that society will not tolerate this behaviour. If we offend, we will pay a heavy price. Impaired driving is not funny or acceptable in our civilized society.

If we look at the experience of other countries, when they got tough the negative results of impaired driving declined dramatically.

As well, we have in Bill C-82 a new maximum 10 year jail term for causing bodily harm while driving impaired. This puts some teeth into the act and is another signal to offenders that their behaviour has consequences, not just a slap on the wrist.

Bill C-82 will double the mandatory minimum fine for a first impaired driving offence to $600 from $300. The Reform Party is still of the persuasion that this is not enough and our minority report called for a fine of $1,000 for the first offence. However, we are moving in the right direction and that is why we are supporting the bill. Let drunk drivers know we are serious.

Bill C-82 imposes longer prohibitions on driving for those convicted of impaired driving. First time offenders would be banned from driving for up to three years, up from the current pathetic three month ban, which did nothing to deter repeaters. A second conviction for this behaviour could net the offender a five year prohibition, and a third time repeated would get a minimum of three years. The maximum disqualification for repeaters would be five years and this sends a signal to them. Currently the maximum is only two years.

Bill C-82 gives police some tools to deal with that. Up until now it was an easy rap to beat. Police now have up to three hours to take a breath sample after a suspected impaired driving offence. Currently, samples can only be taken up to two hours. The Reform Party would also argue for the police to be given tools like the new alcohol sensors which give them a better chance of determining impairment. This also would send a message to those who drink and drive that their odds of getting caught are better.

Like my colleague just before me, I believe that some of these things that still need to be improved in the bill will hopefully happen in the future.

Bill C-82 would give judges some further discretion. Judges can now impose ignition locking systems as a condition of probation. This would deter the repeater at the outset. As well, judges could impose mandatory treatment of alcohol abuse as a condition of prohibition. Furthermore, judges have further discretion in imposing a stiffer sentence on drivers found to be two or three times over the legal limit.

In court right now the two beer defence is taken to the extreme and the defence is becoming an absurd mockery of the system. Too many are beating the rap with this defence and the entire issue of these technicalities needs some further attention.

However, we have some positive and powerful first step tools in the bill. The message, I believe, to repeat offenders is a powerful deterrent to their behaviour. After all, repeaters are the main problem in this scenario. Stopping individuals who normally do not drink and drive from getting behind the wheel is, I believe, effectively dealt with in the bill.

Bill C-82 enhances deterrents and, I believe, the new penalties reflect the gravity of the crime of drinking and driving, in particular the life imprisonment provision for causing a death. I know my Bloc colleagues do not like this aspect. I would simply ask them what the difference is in killing someone with a car and doing it with another weapon. The results are the same. The family loss and grief are the same. It is about time we called this vehicular criminality for what it is and dealt with it appropriately.

Life imprisonment, like that for other manslaughters, is fair. If someone wants to drive their vehicle while impaired with such wanton disregard for human life then the consequences should be tough.

The Reform Party is disappointed that the legislation does not reflect a zero tolerance policy for impaired driving. When we get to that point I think we have completed the task. For now, we are pleased we got the legislation to this point. We want to see the legislation passed before summer when the profusion of drinking and driving increases.

Grant it we have some first steps on the road to zero tolerance. The Reform Party again thinks that incremental changes are the way to go. With this, as the Reform Party has argued, we would have like to have seen .05 as the alcohol limit. This is the first step on the road to zero tolerance. I think all parties should be reflecting on the next steps on this road to recovery.

It would be remiss of me not to acknowledge the work of MADD in its request to bring some rationale and acknowledgement to the offence of impaired driving. The founders of this organizations are the victims of the crimes of drunk driving. Their message is getting heard and acknowledged today in the House. The acronym, by the way, stands for Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

We should not allow alcohol to be an excuse for unacceptable behaviour and breaking the law. That is the point that needs to be made to the general public. We should not allow alcohol to be used as an excuse for breaking the law.

In conclusion, we have moved a major step today. The Reform Party is pleased to have played a major role in pushing for these changes.

[Petitions, June 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition from residents in Ontario and Quebec who say that sexual offences against children harm some of the most innocent and vulnerable members in our society.

Pardons are currently given in almost 100% of the cases reviewed by the National Parole Board. Studies have indicated that sexual offenders are more than twice as likely to commit further sexual offences and more likely to reoffend than a violent non-sexual conviction.

The petitioners pray that parliament pass Bill C-284 introduced by the member of parliament for Calgary Centre to ensure that a record of sexual offence against a child for which a pardon has been given is disclosed to children's organizations when they perform a criminal record check on an individual applying for a position of trust involving children.

[Supply, June 8th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. When we were discussing the amendment, I heard two or three no votes.

[Supply, June 8th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I have been waiting all day for a chance to make a few comments. I realize a lot of other people would like to do that. Perhaps we will have to extend the debate.

Some of the criticism we have received as Reformers is that there are more important things to talk about. We are talking about the family, the fundamental building block of society. It is necessary that we discuss this and send a clear signal to the courts.

I want to read from an article written by Lorne Gunter in the Edmonton Journal . The title is “Cohabitation costly for the taxpayer”. He wrote:

—studies consistently find that 80 to 85 per cent of couples who start out by living together fail to make it through life together. Among couples who never lived together before wedding one another, the failure rate is under 20 per cent. Still, what gives anyone else the right to suggest common-law marriages are wrong? Just one thing: the cost of cleaning up the wreckage. Children whose parents' relationship breaks down are much more likely to underachieve at school and in life. They are nearly twice as likely to drop out, and 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 and the incidence of `getting into trouble with the law' is nearly six times more. Simple marital breakdown is the leading cause of social problems, perhaps the leading cause. So because common-law relationships are so prone to breakdown they contribute disproportionately to the social ills that everyone must live with and subsidize.

In other words, we are talking about the family. We are talking about children. We are talking about the fundamental building block of society, not all the other things that people are trying to bring into this discussion.

[Supply, June 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on the question that my colleague just asked because we are very concerned that the policy resolution that was passed by the Liberals at their convention is in fact what is behind a lot of the concerns that we are raising today.

We talk a lot about the courts and we are very concerned that there is going to be more and more of an erosion of our fundamental beliefs. We need to send a message to the courts that the definition of marriage is sacrosanct. We would like to stop sliding down the slippery slope.

The basic building block of our society is the family and we are very concerned that this will lead to an erosion of that.

I would like to return to the court case which has formed the background for this discussion, the M. v H. case, which was before the supreme court. There was no disagreement on their legal rights by the time that case got to the court. The case had turned into an abstract argument over gay marriage. The monetary aspect had been closed. Both sides wanted the court to rule in the same way.

Why would the supreme court accept a case under those circumstances? Why did it not wait to decide whether gay marriage should be imposed on the country until a live argument was before it? My feeling is that the court did not wait because it was wanting to write gay marriage into the law. That is why this whole discussion today is so important.

I would like to know if the member has any response to my comments.