Garry Breitkreuz

[Petitions, June 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition that is signed by residents from across Canada. It states that grandparents, as a consequence of death, separation or divorce of their children, are often denied access to their grandchildren by their guardians, that the relationship that exists between grandparents and grandchildren is a natural and fundamental one, and that the denial of access can constitute elder abuse and can have a serious detrimental emotional impact on both grandparents and grandchildren.

Therefore, they petition parliament to amend the Divorce Act to include a provision, as supported in Bill C-340, regarding the right of spouses, parents and grandparents to have access to or custody of their children and grandchildren.

[Petitions, June 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have a large number of petitions to present. Over 30,000 petitioners are adding their names to the over 100,000 already presented.

The petitioners are petitioning parliament because they are horrified by the pornography that depicts children and are astounded by the legal determinations that possession of such pornography is not criminal. They say that it is the duty of parliament through the enactment and enforcement of the Criminal Code to protect the most vulnerable members of society from sexual abuse.

Therefore, they ask parliament to take all measures necessary to ensure that the possession of child pornography remains a serious criminal offence and that federal police officers be directed to give priority to enforcing this law for the protection of children.

[Agriculture, June 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I regret to inform the House that the farm income crisis on the prairies has resulted in tragedy.

Today I was informed that a Saskatchewan farmer who was struggling to keep his farm operation going committed suicide. That is how bad it is on the prairies. This farmer was willing to take his own life and leave behind his family including two young boys because he could not no longer deal with the struggles of farming.

Our agriculture minister has said that his new farm aid package, AIDA, as well as NISA and crop insurance were enough to get producers through this crisis. Evidently it was not enough for this farmer.

The farm income crisis is far from over. Grain prices are not improving and input costs continue to rise. The number of calls coming into the Saskatchewan farm stress line in 1999 is already well above the monthly average for 1998.

It is time for the government to wake up. Help is needed on the prairies and its current solutions are not working. How many more tragedies does it take before the government realizes that its farm disaster program is not helping the farmers who need it?

[Questions On The Order Paper, May 25th, 1999]

For each of the past five years: ( a ) how many gun smugglers and illegal gun traffickers have been (i) identified, (ii) prosecuted and (iii) convicted in Canada; ( b ) in each case, how many illegally-possessed firearms were recovered; ( c ) in each case, how many of these firearms were categorized as either prohibited, restricted or unrestricted; ( d ) in each case, how many of these firearms were previously registered; and ( e ) in each case, prior to the offence, how many of these individuals had ever applied for or registered a firearm?

[Division No. 425, May 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, once again I have to address the bill.

It is a sad occasion as far as I am concerned when a property rights bill that I brought before parliament has fallen by the wayside. However, I will save that matter for another day.

It seems that the longer the Liberals are in power, the more often we have to point out that this is a sad day for democracy in Canada. Bill C-78 is another one of those sad days for Canadians under this arrogant, self-serving Liberal regime.

Canadians do not have to believe me. All they have to do is listen to the words of a pension plan expert. On May 2, Mic Cohen of the actuarial consultants William Mercer Ltd. was quoted in the Ottawa Citizen as saying:

The handling of this bill is symptomatic of the government's failure to come clean with taxpayers and negotiate with its own unions. It's a sad commentary on democracy. When the government isn't prepared to agree, it bullies its way. Now I think they are doing all the right things to fix the plan but the process stinks.

I agree with the actuary from William Mercer. The process stinks. It stinks to high heaven. The Liberals make it stink even worse by invoking closure or time allocation in the House to arbitrarily take away $30 billion from a pension fund surplus that rightfully belongs to both public servants who paid into their own pension plan and the taxpayers of Canada who paid the other share.

I notice there are smiles and grins across the way. This is a serious situation for the people involved.

The government is saying that the 670,000 employees and pensioners who are covered by this plan do not have a say in how the surplus will be managed or spent. By limiting debate of this 200 page monstrosity in the House of Commons and through committee, the government is also saying that it does not want the taxpayers to find out what it is doing with the share of the surplus paid into the pension plan by taxpayers. It has hidden it. The government is not disclosing what it is doing with it.

The Ottawa Citizen also quoted another pension expert, pension lawyer Fiona Campbell. She said:

This bill is unprecedented. I'm not aware of pension legislation of this magnitude in both what it's trying to do and how quickly it's being done with no input from the people affected.

We just witnessed, even after this quotation, that the government has invoked closure on the bill. It is limiting debate.

The Citizen article went on to say that Ms. Campbell is worried that the government's actions may allow other employers to lobby for changes that will allow them to get at pension surpluses when they need some cash. Is this the tip of the iceberg? Is this just the beginning? If it is this easy for the government to just run roughshod over the rights of Canadians, when will it do it again and who else will take that as a precedent?

Why is this so worrying? It is because for the first time the government will have the power to change premiums or benefits without seeking parliamentary approval.

Why does the government need this unprecedented power? Why do so many bills rammed through the House create new powers for ministers to bypass parliament? The absolute power by the Prime Minister and his cabinet make a mockery of democracy except at election time. I guess the logic of the cabinet is why bother going through the trouble of running a bill through the House of Commons when we can just pass one bill to give us the power to bypass parliament from now until forevermore. This is called enabling legislation. It enables the government to bypass parliament and put to regulation whatever it wishes.

Back in April of 1997, I wrote an article called “Power Grab”, which cited a number of ways the fundamental principles of democracy were being violated by the Liberal government. It is getting worse not better since I put that out.

Bill Krause, president of the Social Sciences Employees Association, told the standing committee, and I quote:

This plan is unlike any other in Canada or the world and gives the government unique powers which could be abused in generating revenue from its employees. In essence, it gives them the power to tax employees.

Do members want to see the hypocrisy of the government? Let us look at another act of parliament that the government passed to regulate the pensions of employees working for federally regulated industries, the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985.

Here is how the government requires federally regulated employers to manage surpluses in federally regulated plans.

Section 9.2(1) states:

If an actuarial report filed under subsection 12(3) indicates that there is a surplus, no part of that surplus may be refunded to the employer unless

(a) the employer establishes that

(i) it is entitled to the surplus, or part of it, under the pension plan, or

(ii) it has a claim to the surplus, or part of it, under this section;

—and the Superintendent of Financial Institutions consents to the refund of the surplus to the employer.

Subsection 3 is the most important. “An employer has a claim to the surplus, or part of it, if, after being notified of the employer's proposal for a refund of that surplus or part of it, at least two-thirds of the persons, members or former members of the pension plan, notify the employer that they consent to the proposal”.

The hypocrisy. I have to ask why there is this double standard. Why is there one set of democratic pension rules for federally regulated industries and a dictatorial set of rules for the federal government? Why pass one set of reasonable rules to govern pension surpluses in federally regulated industries and then pass Bill C-78 which gives the government total control to do anything it wants with the pension surpluses? Why?

One more question. Why did the government not put the same provisions from the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985 in Bill C-78? Why? Because it has the absolute power to do anything it wants. And we all know that absolute power corrupts absolutely. To cap it all off, the government has made sure the secrets of how it handles or mishandles pension surpluses remain secret.

Bill C-78 denies the auditor general's conducting an audit of the board's investments. The pension investment auditors will not have the power to report to parliament and the board will be exempt from access to information laws.

A couple of hours ago I asked the government some questions. They are on the record. I do not think I have to repeat them. In fact I do not have time to repeat them. It is refusing to answer these questions. We are supposed to have a debate here and not only does the government invoke closure on this and limit the debate, but it does not even answer our questions. It does not even have the courtesy to reply to the very serious questions we ask. I have just asked another series of questions. I think it is about time the government came down off its high horse, became a little less arrogant and responded to our questions.

[Division No. 425, May 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in the next few moments I will express my concern as well with this group of amendments.

The government is bringing in through the back door what it does not have the courage to do openly. It is becoming more and more obvious as we look at this group of amendments that there is a real problem. I have a hard time understanding how the Liberals can sit in their seats and calmly observe and accept the whole process that is taking place because of its serious implications. They are faced with the questions we are asking, which I will summarize in a few moments.

I would like to defend the definitions of marriage, spouse and the traditional family. Unfortunately the Liberal government says one thing and does the opposite. I have listened to what government members have said. They have used the excuse that the courts made them do it.

Who makes the laws in the country? Is it not supposed to be parliament? If it is not the people through their elected representatives making the laws in the country, we have a problem and we had better change the system.

The Liberals say that they are defending the family, except when they will not fight court cases that undermine it. That is at the root of this problem. The Liberals say that they are all for strengthening the family, except when they bring in laws to redefine it. I say that facetiously because they say one thing and do another.

Bill C-78 is yet another example of the Liberal government redefining marriage and spouse in federal legislation, thereby undermining the definition of the family which has served society so well for thousands of years.

Bill C-78 would not only extend survivor benefits to married couples, as it should be, but survivor has been redefined to include couples who cohabited in a relationship of a conjugal nature for at least a year before the death of the pension plan contributor. I found the word conjugal 19 different times in Bill C-78.

According to the government it does not matter whether one is a husband or a wife of a pensioner. If one is having sex with a government employee over a period of a year and that person dies, one is entitled to his or her pension benefits. That is what the legislation clearly says. That is what we will be approving in the House when we vote this evening on these amendments.

The Liberals are promoting a system whereby government benefits will be allotted on one's sexual relationships, and not on whether or not one is married. Is not ironic that the party of Pierre Trudeau who said that the government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation, is now willing to extend benefits because of what happens in the bedroom? What has happened in the last 20 or 30 years?

The Reform Party believes in the institution of marriage and would vigorously defend it in Canadian law. Reform policy defines marriage as:

—the union of a man and a woman as recognized by the state, and this definition will be used in the provision of spousal benefits for any program funded and administered by the federal government.

That is what we stand for and that is what we believe in. Opening up public benefits to conjugal relationship will create a nightmare. I want to conclude with four questions which must be answered by the government before it passes the legislation.

First, how will the government determine if a relationship is conjugal in nature? My colleagues have asked questions about whether it will put a camera in the bedroom.

Second, how will a survivor prove that his or her relationship with the dead pensioner was indeed of a conjugal nature? How will the survivor prove that when it comes to a court case or to claiming the benefits? What will the survivor do? Will our government now go into the bedrooms of the nation to determine whether or not there has been a conjugal relationship?

Third, why has the government shifted from a clearly defined test of legal marriage to a relationship that is open to anyone's definition and therefore abuse? We now have a clearly defined definition of marriage. Now it will do away with that and go to anyone's definition of it. This will open the door to tremendous abuse.

Fourth, and maybe the Liberals never even thought of it, how many survivors will there be? The spouse and one, two, three or more lovers who claim to have had a conjugal relationship with the pensioner? How many people will start claiming after the death of someone that they have had a relationship of a sexual nature with that person?

It will be a dream world for lawyers. I can just see the court cases coming forth as all these people claim that they slept with a person for a year. Another person will say “so did I”, and so on. It is absolutely ridiculous what the legislation does and what it creates. Before we go any further I call upon the government to answer those four questions.

[Questions On The Order Paper, May 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, that excuse would not apply to this next point of order.

On December 9, 1998, I placed Question No. 185 on the order paper asking for a list of contracts between the government and the consulting firm KPMG, Peat Marwick Thorne. Again, in accordance with Standing Order 39, I asked for a written answer within 45 days. I have now been waiting 156 days. I have been waiting three times as long as the standing orders require.

Why do I have to raise multiple points of order to get answers to my written questions? The government is really interfering with my ability to do my job. When can I expect an answer to Question No. 185? A real serious pattern has developed here. The government should answer within 45 days and it is not doing so.

[Questions On The Order Paper, May 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, on November 23, 1998, I placed Question No. 169 on the order paper. The question asked how many gun smugglers and illegal gun traffickers have been identified, prosecuted and convicted in Canada using the gun registration system. In accordance with Standing Order 39, I asked for a written answer within 45 days. My constituents and I have now been waiting 169 days. Why can the government not answer my questions in 45 days as it promised? When can I expect an answer to Question No. 169.

[Firearms Law Sunset Act, April 30th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the government has misrepresented what this bill does in the comments made that this bill will only give a few months for us to scrutinize firearms regulations. It clearly says in the bill that there are five years for the auditor general to assess the legislation. Then the government went on to defend Bill C-68 that it passed almost four years ago claiming it was effective.

The arguments made by the Liberals, if in fact they are true and we listened to them, should be open to the examination of the auditor general, an impartial party. The argument made by the government was that it was keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals. If that is true, why not let the auditor general examine these laws and determine if it is true? That is only common sense.

The NDP did not participate in the discussion.

The Bloc Quebecois went on and spent much time arguing against my bill describing the problem of organized crime. My question for the Bloc Quebecois is what is there in Bill C-68 that will affect organized crime in any way, except perhaps to encourage gun use by criminals, smuggling and the black market?

In fact, Bill C-68 puts Canadians more at risk because it ties up scarce law enforcement resources rather than allowing them to be used most effectively such as in fighting organized crime. The Bloc should support my bill because it ensures our laws will become more effective.

In these last few minutes I would like to explain some of the inefficiencies and the ineffectiveness of the government's current legislation.

The registration of handguns has been mandatory since 1934 but neither the Department of Justice nor the RCMP is able to produce any evidence to prove that this firearms registry has helped solve or prevent even one crime. In fact, the RCMP does not even collect statistics on whether a firearm used in a crime is registered. It is not a factor. It is almost as if the government did not want to know it was a failure.

Statistics Canada reports that 75% of all firearms crimes are committed with handguns and less than 7% with rifles and shotguns. Is it not time for the auditor general to look at why the registration of handguns has never worked as intended?

Over the years tens of thousands of guns have been restricted, registered, then prohibited by the government even though there has been no evidence to show that these firearms were involved in criminal incidents or were a threat to public safety. Many prohibited firearms have been confiscated from their rightful owners without compensation, breaking if we had them, property rights laws.

It is time to have the auditor general determine if this prohibition strategy is actually reducing crime, improving public safety or saving lives.

The firearms acquisition certificates have been mandatory since 1979 but this has not prevented criminals or madmen from getting firearms. Has it kept firearms out of the hands Marc Lépine or Valery Fabrikant or Denis Lortie or Mark Chahal or Pierre Lebrun and so on? Is it not time for the auditor general to examine the effectiveness of the government's licensing program?

If my bill or any version of it became law, it would force a constant improvement in this country's gun control laws. Gun control laws that do not work would be repealed. Gun control laws that are working would be retained and improved. There would be a dynamic process of change and improvement. We should not just have it here, we should have it in all legislation.

Most important, my bill would take the politics and the emotion out of the process of making gun control laws. Laws would be based on reason and logic and solid research. The public trusts the auditor general far more than it trusts politicians. I am willing to put our gun laws to the public safety test. Is the government ready to do the same?

I would like to thank everybody who participated today. Someone drew to my attention a comment made by somebody who thought that we needed more gun control laws. He did a thorough study. Gary Kleck said: “The research has caused me to move beyond even the skeptic position. I now believe that the best currently available evidence, imperfect though it is, and must always be, indicates that general gun availability has no measurable net positive effect on rates of homicide, suicide, robbery, assault, rape, or burglary” and so on. We need to see if this is true.

Before this bill dies today, after all the arguments have now been heard, I respectfully request the unanimous consent of the House to send the bill to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for further review and examination. Let us send it to committee.

[Firearms Law Sunset Act, April 30th, 1999]

moved that Bill C-278, an act to provide for the expiry of gun control legislation that is not proven effective within five years of coming into force, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, once again I must deplore the fact that all private members' bills selected in the draw are not declared votable items in the House. This is a real lack of democracy and it allows the government to sweep issues under the rug that it does not want to address.

I have been working on this bill, the firearms law sunset act, since 1994. I first introduced the sunset clause as an amendment to Bill C-68 during the debate in the spring of 1995. This bill was first introduced in the House as Bill C-351 on September 28, 1995 and then again as Bill C-357 on December 2, 1996.

It is most disappointing to put so much effort into a piece of legislation and to have it die after one hour of debate in the House. This is a situation that must be rectified if we are ever to have any chance of our constituents' legislative initiatives being given their rightful consideration in the House.

In light of the rash of recent shootings, both here and in the United States, more and more people are clamouring for tougher gun control laws. What we need, and what the people really want, is effective gun control laws. As we have seen with Bill C-68, the Firearms Act, tougher does not equal effective.

Bill C-278 would rectify the government oversight by implementing a process that would ensure that only gun law provisions that were proven to be effective by the auditor general would remain the law of the land.

Frankly, I do not know how any member of the House could logically argue that they support ineffective gun laws. While there may be arguments opposing the legislative process and the wording of this bill, I would be absolutely amazed if anyone in the House will be brave enough to argue against this principle.

People arguing against this bill will have to argue that they support gun control laws even if they do not work, no matter how much they cost and even if another measure might work better. I am not arguing that gun control laws are unnecessary, only that police time and resources should be spent on measures that get the best bang for our bucks. That is exactly what Bill C-278 is designed to do.

At this point, I would like to thank the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough for seconding my bill on November 7, 1997 when I reintroduced this firearms law sunset act in this session. That day the House leader and the chief justice critic for the Conservatives said:

Issues of justice and public safety transcend partisan party lines. These (Firearms Act) regulations are not about public safety—it is just another tax.

It is just another tax. We want effective measures and that is what this bill is all about.

This bill is a sunset law. I want to point out to the members exactly what that means. Robert D. Behn wrote this explanation:

The idea of the sunset law is that every government program should periodically terminate, and continue only after an evaluation and a legislative vote to reestablish it. The objective is to replace the assumption that every program automatically continues unless there is a vote to terminate it, with the assumption that every program automatically terminates, unless there is a vote to continue it. Consequently, sunset laws are designed to ensure meaningful program evaluation, to introduce the possibility of termination, to merge duplicative programs and rationalize program structure, and to eliminate conflicts and competition between programs.

By shifting the burden of proof from those who would terminate a program to those who would renew it, the advocates of sunset laws hope to create an incentive for individual agencies, and the government as a whole to improve.

That quotation says it better than I could. I think we have to very carefully listen to what was said. That is what I hoped to achieve in drafting the firearms law sunset act.

The bill would provide a five year sunset provision on all gun control measures which means that the measure would be automatically repealed unless the auditor general has reported that it has been a successful and cost effective measure to increase public safety and reduce violent crime involving the use of firearms. That is, in essence, what the bill does.

The auditor general's report has to be considered by a committee representing broad interest in the firearms community and the committee report must be presented to and concurred in by the House or the sunset provision will take effect automatically at the end of the five years. That is what the bill provides for.

The bill also provides safeguards to allow parliament the time necessary to make amendments to allow ineffective gun control measures to expire without affecting the parts of the legislation that are effective at fighting firearms crime.

We want to make our society safer. We want to pass laws in parliament that are effective. We need sunset provisions so we can focus on what works.

This bill is the total opposite of the ill-conceived Bill C-68, the Firearms Act, that was passed into law on December 5, 1995 and prematurely brought into force on December 1, 1998. Bill C-68 will guarantee that gun control laws are costly and ineffective. Whereas my bill will guarantee that every gun control law has to be both successful and cost effective in saving lives and reduce the criminal use of firearms.

If members of Parliament want gun control measures that reduce violent crime they will support this bill. If members of the House want gun control measures that improve public safety and save lives they will support the bill. Finally, if MPs want gun control measures that not only reduce violent crime involving firearms, but also want the most successful and most cost effective methods for achieving these goals, they will support the bill. If the MPs have an open mind and look at the bill, I cannot see how they could not support it. Hopefully, they will have an open mind.

Every year the government passes hundreds of new laws but seldom repeals any. Should every bill passed by parliament not come with a built in sunset clause which would automatically repeal any measure that is not working or is not cost effectively achieving its stated objective? How much could we save the taxpayers of the country if we had that clause built into every bill? That is our job as parliamentarians. It is fundamental that we make sure that the laws of the land work. If they do not, we should get rid of them. They cost the taxpayers a lot of money because there is bureaucracy that is put in place to track these measures.

Bureaucrats who depend on costly, ineffective government programs for their jobs will hate the bill. Ministers who are more intent on building empires and retaining their status at the cabinet table will hate the bill. Conversely, taxpayers who are footing the bill and the general public who have to pay even higher taxes for this bureaucratic bungling and inefficiency will love the firearms law sunset act.

If members argue against this bill, they have to argue that we should have laws whether they work effectively or not. I rest my case. I think I have clearly explained the importance of the bill.

The bill needs more time to be fully debated and explained. It should be debated by all members in the House. I would like to seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion to make Bill C-278, the firearms law sunset act, a votable item. In support of that, I hope the attitude I detect on the other side by the laughter will disappear. The need to have this item votable should be uppermost. I would like to seek unanimous consent to make this a votable item.