Garry Breitkreuz

[Petitions, February 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present 104 more pages of petitions with 2,355 more signatures of concerned citizens from nine different provinces, including Quebec.

The government has finally united Canada from coast to coast and Canadians are united in opposition to the federal government's fatally flawed gun registration.

My constituents have asked me to keep a running total of repeal Bill C-68 petitions. Since last April I have introduced 1,855 pages of petitions with a total of 43,265 signatures. The petitioners are demanding an end to the government's billion dollar gun registration scheme because it will do nothing to curtail the criminal use of firearms, it is not a cost effective way to address the violent crime problem in Canada, it is putting tens of thousands of jobs in jeopardy, and it is opposed by the vast majority of police on the street and four provinces and two territories, comprising more than 50% of Canada's population.

It may be interesting to note that there is an increasing number of petitions coming from Quebec.

[Canadian Farmers, February 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, January 29 I hosted a public forum to discuss the Estey report on grain transportation. Over 250 grain producers attended the meeting from across Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Farmers not only had an opportunity to listen to a panel of speakers discuss the merits of the report, but they also had a chance to get up and voice their opinion.

While producers are not unanimous in their support of this report, there was a message that was very evident during the meeting. Farmers are frustrated with the current system. Producers are losing millions of dollars each year due to government regulation and inefficiencies in the grain handling system.

CPAC, the parliamentary television channel, taped the meeting and it will be replayed on February 6 and 7. The Minister of Transport and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food should take time to watch the tape of this meeting.

I urge all MPs and Canadians everywhere to hear directly from food producers. Farmers put high quality food on our tables and are the economic base in many communities. We need to listen to them.

[Supply, February 2nd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, the previous speech demonstrates the real problem we have in this House. There is an attempt to appear reasonable but the inaction is unconscionable.

I am not trying to grab headlines. What would really grab the headlines right now is if these Liberals would reverse their position and act responsibly with regard to this matter.

What is the primary question at stake here? Is pornography, particularly child pornography, a concern? Does it have a negative impact on society, especially in B.C., at this moment? Yes, it does. Does it put people at risk at this moment if we do not act? Yes, it does. Does pornography have a useful place in society? No, I do not think it has.

What this member has to answer is should we maintain laws against it. Yes, we should. If there is a gap in those laws because of what court decision has come down, we must act immediately.

To be accused to fearmongering and all the other accusations that have come across here is completely counterproductive. If we see a problem developing in society, we must accept responsibility and we must act on that. That is what we are trying to do right now. We appeal to those members opposite to consider what we have to say. I cannot believe those members opposite would downplay the seriousness of this issue or not take it responsibly.

It is wrong to simply push this on to the courts. The courts are wrong and we need to act immediately. Parliament sends signals to society. Parliament sends signals as to what is right and what is wrong. We need to send the correct signal right now. We are the highest court in the land and it is about time we took that responsibility.

Do lower courts make mistakes? Yes. That is why we have higher courts. We need to act now in this place. Child pornography needs to be kept a crime. What could ever motivate us not to act? That would be my question for the member opposite. What would motivate us not to act right now?

Pedophiles are walking free at this moment. Decisions have come down. The police are no longer pursuing this because of the court decision. This is serious because this lack of enforcement is already having a very negative effect. Should we not be acting as soon as possible, right now?

[Supply, February 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my primary concern is that pornography is having a very negative effect. We are the highest court in the land and as that highest court in the land, do we not have an obligation to send a signal to the lower courts that something needs—

[Supply, February 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the primary purpose of government is to maintain law and order, to protect those people who cannot protect themselves, to protect the citizens of Canada and to provide for our peace and safety.

We have people walking free who are committing criminal, despicable acts offensive to most Canadians. We need to punish criminal behaviour. Our children cannot protect themselves. Our citizens, men and women and children, are at risk because of this judge's decision.

We have given more rights to those who want to use child pornography than to children who will be—

[Petitions, February 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the last two petitions are on behalf of 1,458 Canadians from coast to coast who are concerned about the rights of the unborn. They request that parliament support a binding national referendum to be held at the time of the next election to ask Canadians whether they are in favour of federal government funding for abortions on demand.

I have the privilege of presenting these names to be added to the many thousands who have expressed their concerns not only for the unborn but for the women who undergo medically unnecessary abortions and expose themselves to the health risks inherent in this procedure.

[Petitions, February 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to present an important petition on behalf of 216 residents of Kamsack, Saskatchewan who are concerned that freedom of choice in health care is becoming increasingly curtailed and threatened by government legislation.

The petitioners are calling for access to safe, natural health care products free of government restriction and censure. The petitioners want the definition of food to include dietary supplements in foods used for special health uses and that dietary supplements include tablets, capsules, powders and liquids that contain any of these vitamins, minerals, amino acids, herbs or other botanicals, concentrates or extracts. Only foods that are proven to be unsafe or fraudulently promoted be restricted and the burden of proof be on the government.

The petitioners want their concerns expressed that health choices will be limited.

[Petitions, February 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition I am pleased to present contains the signatures of 289 concerned Canadians who are calling on parliament to retain section 43 of the Criminal Code which affirms the duty of parents to responsibly raise their children according to their own conscience and beliefs.

The petitioners express concern that parliament continues to fund research by people who advocate its removal. The petitioners also feel that removing section 43 would give more power to bureaucrats and weaken the role of parents. The petitioners want parents to retain the primary right of raising and disciplining their children.

[Petitions, February 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions that I have the pleasure of presenting this morning.

The first is 41 pages of petitions with the signatures of 923 concerned Canadians from Quebec, Ontario, Alberta, B.C. and my home province of Saskatchewan. For those who are keeping track, that is a total of 12,841 signatures of people who are demanding better protection of property rights in federal law.

These concerned Canadians say that there are no provisions in the charter of rights and freedoms that prevent the government from taking their lawfully acquired and legally owned property without compensation. The petitioners are most concerned that there is nothing in the charter 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.

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.

[Canadian Wheat Board, December 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on November 20 I asked the minister about voting irregularities in the Canadian Wheat Board elections. The minister defended the process. Now we have learned that the election results were incorrectly tabulated by the government's consulting firm in at least three districts. The entire election results are now suspect.

Will the government order an independent audit immediately?