Gerry Ritz

[Taxation, December 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that this finance minister takes his marching orders from his cabinet and special interest groups and not from Canadian taxpayers.

Canadians are paying more in taxes than they are for food, shelter and clothing combined. Average families are paying $21,000 in taxes and only $17,000 for food, shelter and clothing. That is a $4,000 shortfall.

The minister and the government talk of balance. Where is the balance in forcing Canadians to pay more for taxes than for food, shelter and clothing?

[Taxation, December 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, if we could figure out some way to tax the finance minister's overblown rhetoric we would be out of debt by January 1, 1998.

Canadian families have seen their after tax incomes shrink by over $3,000 since 1993. Frankly Canadians have had enough. Eighty-two per cent of them have made it abundantly clear that they could spend smarter than the government.

Why does the finance minister continue to think he can spend Canadians' money smarter than they can?

[Taxation, December 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, according to the Liberals' own statements they have balanced the books and it is now time for personal income tax cuts. They have been raised $12 billion since they took office in 1993. Average Canadian families have $3,000 less disposable income now than they had in 1993.

When will minister stand and give Canadians income tax relief?

[Taxation, December 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, we have had 86 months of 9% unemployment and the highest income tax rates in the G-7. These might be just numbers to members opposite but back home in our ridings families are hurting.

Excessive Liberal taxes make it impossible for Canadians to compete in the global economy. They make it impossible for ordinary people to find employment. Canadians have spoken clearly.

Will the government stop tinkering with its agenda and give Canadians income tax relief now?

[Taxation, November 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the finance minister is deaf to his colleague's admission the other day that the Liberals are “very familiar with the fact that our income taxes are very high”.

Will the government do the responsible thing and bring tax relief to millions of working Canadians who have been impoverished by bracket creep, or the one million small business owners whose small business deduction remains unchanged for 15 years?

Where is the tax relief for all Canadians from the government's insatiable tax appetite?

[Criminal Code, November 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, a bill has once again been introduced in this House to repeal section 43 of the Criminal Code. That section admits that parents and guardians may use corporal punishment if the situation warrants. Although opponents of section 43 would have us believe they have the interest of the child at heart, it is our responsibility to examine the motives and logic they bring to this debate.

The United Nations sponsored convention on the rights of the child has been mentioned as a document that prohibits corporal punishment. Our own charter of rights and freedoms has also been mentioned although the reference is less clear. In either case the intention is to say to parents that special interest groups and politicians who hide behind their self-described expertise are much better qualified to raise your children than you are.

Canadians do not condone family violence but they are sick and tired of hearing the outrageous abuse of facts that come from government subsidized conferences held in foreign countries. I urge all parents to love their children and to look critically at any statement that begins, the convention—

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, November 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a western Canadian farmer certainly concerned with the future of our grain industry.

The quality of life on western Canadian farms is definitely tied to the power of this unaccountable wheat board. There is a growing dissension with the market status quo on the prairies today.

If the minister were to hold meetings in the west, he would find the people attending would most certainly have different things to say. Our input costs are rising. The end of the Crow drastically increased our transportation costs. Canadian Wheat Board grains are backlogged and plugging the system.

As a result, farm returns are now non-existent. As a result of wheat board policies, we also find that we are not allowed to bring our feed grains and so on into different marketplaces. Interprovincial trade and access to these markets is not there for us.

The hon. member from Manitoba talked about using the port of Churchill. That may also give us cheaper access into the maritimes with our feed grains for their poultry and hog industries. Those types of things are not done now under our wheat board system.

There are many sections and subsections of Bill C-4 that farmers in my riding on both sides of this issue agree are fundamentally wrong, mainly the continuation of the unaccountability to producers of their board.

The cash purchase clause that they are trying to put in through Bill C-4 circumvents the final payment values derived through the pooling system that we have now. The board, as it is shown in Bill C-4, would consist of 15 directors, 10 elected and placed at the discretion of the minister. That is a major point. Four are then appointed by the minister to sit on this board and the president or CEO is appointed on the recommendation of the minister.

All these people are there at the discretion of the minister and can be removed at any time should they go against the minister.

The Canadian Wheat Board also may indemnify from, in layman's terms remove, any legal liability or responsibility for the actions of its employees. This section goes on to say that this also covers the employees' heirs and legal representatives and would cover all costs, charges and expenses included in amounts paid to settle or satisfy a judgment. No one is accountable. This clause certainly protects the board over the producers it serves.

The Canadian Wheat Board annual operations plan will be submitted to the minister and will require his approval before it can be implemented. This certainly would seem to circumvent the elected portion of this board.

For the record I certainly do not oppose the Canadian Wheat Board concept in principle. However, when I see the entrenched lack of accountability of the board in this bill, my constituents, through me, can do nothing but oppose it until it can be amended for a positive impact on the depressed industry we see in western Canada.

[Taxation, November 19th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions admitted something that ordinary Canadians have always known. He said that the Liberals are “very familiar with the fact that our income taxes are very high”. This is quite an admission from the Liberals.

Now that we all know our taxes are very high, when will the government do the responsible thing and bring in some tax relief?

[Supply, September 30th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the comments from my esteemed colleague. He talked specifically of help to Atlantic Canada. In our election platform and again here in the House we talk about equality of opportunity for everyone.

The member for Medicine Hat earlier today stated that cutting taxes helps people at all ends of the country. It creates jobs, lets small business become the small engine of the economy that we know it to be.

Subsidies and grants have proven not effective over the last number of years. There are too few dollars for too many people. We would also like to see a review of the infrastructure system in Atlantic Canada to help it facilitate the worldwide market that we are finding more and more out there. Those types of things will have to be addressed.

There is a fisheries crisis in Atlantic Canada. He talked about us being regional. We have an agriculture crisis in the prairies. We are not alone in coming to this House with regional viewpoints. That is much of the reason for the make-up of the House as it is. People are sending us here to address issues that are common to them.

[Supply, September 30th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his questions. He mentioned the Canadian Business Development Bank and Farm Credit Corporation. Certainly we welcome any positive conditions that they will introduce to further business in Canada. However, the one thing that usually flies in the face of anything that happens through developments like this is that they never really consult the people that they purport to serve.

I know in my instance, the Farm Credit Corporation having just gone through a major shake-up and a major reorganization in my area, has not really seen any dramatic growth or have I heard people saying “You are doing a much better job”. We just do not see that out there.

Regarding health care in my province of Saskatchewan, we have seen hospitals closed at a record rate. The line-ups are definitely longer. People are waiting longer and longer for less health care. It is unfortunate.

Of course I do not have all the options and answers. We are here in this House to discuss them. I think of some of the things that we are going to have to do. We need a much more preventive medicine situation out there. We are going to have to allow some alternative treatments and so on like that.

We need to assure that people have the right to basic health care and make sure that we can sustain that into the next millennium.