Alex Shepherd

[Supply, April 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have had some experience with farming. This time of year we would normally be out on the land cultivating. Most of the farmers in Durham are doing just that. I sometimes wonder if they are not better off than I am sitting in the House.

In my riding of Durham one in five jobs is food related; 2.8 per cent of provincial milk production is from farmers in Durham. Our grain sales are over $10.5 million. We have won worldwide acclaim for livestock and crops. One can see farming is no strange animal to the people of Durham.

One million, eight-hundred thousand Canadians are engaged in the vocation of agriculture. It accounts for 8 per cent of gross domestic product and 15 per cent of the Canadian workforce, clearly a very important industry.

Agriculture is a shared jurisdiction and there are some very good reasons for that. This has occurred from the time of Confederation and continues today. One thing we have in common is we all must eat. Clearly it is very important to produce our agricultural products efficiently, to transport them effectively and to continue Canada's excellent reputation in the export of agricultural products.

I will discuss quickly how in some ways Quebec benefits by this shared jurisdiction. The argument laid out today is that somehow the agricultural sector of Quebec has been subsidizing some other aspect of agriculture within the country.

In 1990, Quebec-these are total government spending and taxation figures-received $35.1 billion in federal government spending. It paid $24.5 billion in taxes. Clearly there is no subsidization process here. This is just a trick with numbers taking one aspect of that spending and taxation system and expanding it to make a big argument.

Quebec benefits in many other ways. In the GATT negotiation our government argued very strongly and very effectively to protect our supply managed industries. High tariff walls will prevent a quick reduction in commodity prices in Canada. All farmers in Canada have benefited but certainly the people in Durham, a large dairy farming area, have expressed their appreciation for what the Government of Canada did for them. I am sure Quebec dairy farmers feel similarly.

When the supply management system was established in Canada, of the industrial milk quota, Quebec had 48 per cent of the industrial milk production. That is what is owned currently by Quebec farmers.

In research and development, and we have touched very briefly on that subject, I have an interesting quote from the member for Quebec East, the agricultural critic of the Bloc: "There is no doubt that with regard to research Quebec is not unfairly treated at agriculture Canada". Clearly even the Bloc has recognized it is not unfairly treated within our federation.

The federal government spends approximately $360 million in Quebec in the area of agriculture. Quebec's agricultural production which it sells within the country is three times

greater than what it exports. Clearly Canada is a major market for Quebec produce. Over one-third of the total production of Quebec agriculture is sold within Canada. Much more of that is consumed within the province. Canada is a major consumer of Quebec products.

The federal government today has 1,400 employees engaged in Quebec assisting with agriculture. By reducing subsidies, and I believe this is the essence of the motion before us, we will increase flexibility within the agricultural sector.

This is what the members of the Bloc have been arguing for over the last year; reduce grain subsidies, reduce transportation subsidies to the west. That is what we have done. The Bloc today should be rejoicing rather than having motions of this type complaining about the fact that it has happened now.

By reducing subsidies we are giving farmers the ability to be more innovative, to produce value added crops in Canada. Why do we ship raw materials all over the world while other people ship us finished goods? This is something Quebec and western farmers, indeed all farmers in Canada, have to address.

The farmers in my riding have not complained about the 30 per cent reduction in the subsidies for industrial milk production. They do not like it but they understand it and they are less concerned about it. When the budget came down they told me to make sure the negotiated stand by the government for them under GATT is maintained.

In 1993 Quebec's agri-food industry reached $1.2 billion, 9 per cent of the total Canadian market proceeds. In the last 12 years Quebec farm income has risen 67 per cent. Quebec farmers have the highest per capita income of all farmers in Canada. Here they are complaining about agriculture. It seems odd to me.

Let us get back to discussing co-operative federalism and why this is a shared jurisdiction. The report by the Government of Quebec only last year showed that the two levels of government work well together. This was its concluding remarks. Overlap and duplication are minimal, estimated to be less than 1 per cent of combined federal-provincial spending.

In July 1994 the federal and provincial agriculture ministers reaffirmed their commitment to work together to ensure that agricultural exports in Canada will reach $2 billion by the year 2000. Canada at one time had 3.5 per cent of the entire global agricultural trade. This has slipped over the last two years. This joint federal and provincial task force has reset those goals to take Canada back into the area of 3.5 per cent of global agricultural trade. A federal-provincial development council has been established in order to reach these goals.

This creates one single window of opportunity so that all aspects of agriculture in Canada will be able to market their programs internationally. Indeed the federal government has donated and committed 50 full time federal employees to attempt to penetrate 150 foreign markets throughout the world.

In summary, by continuing to co-operate federally and provincially to solve the problems of agriculture, to work on our research budgets, hopefully not meaner, but leaner and more effectively, will make Canada a world leader in agricultural product marketing. It will also make for a more efficient industry within our borders.

[Rail Strike, March 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the people of Durham and Oshawa are concerned over the continuation of the rail strike.

I have spoken today with General Motors and understand that both its inbound and outbound production systems are close to being curtailed. This will affect the jobs and the economy of the whole region.

When I see the main reason for the Bloc Quebecois' blocking the passage of this legislation is clause 12 regarding the importance of economic viability and competitiveness, I know it is the party of the status quo. Some of the collective agreements still include blacksmiths.

It is the party that does not want change. It is afraid of the 21st century and wants to cling to the past. It is so rigid that it would force people across this country to lose their jobs and livelihood so that the traditions of the past can be maintained.

This is really where the Bloc wants to go, not into the future but back to the 19th century. The people of Canada do not want to go.

[The Economy, March 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.

Much of the recovery in the economy has been driven by export markets. Durham and Oshawa have benefited since automobile production is a big feature in the area.

When can other small and medium size businesses, their employees and consumers generally see some relief?

[Supply, March 21st, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I have great interest in taking part in this debate today.

It is seemingly unusual that only yesterday I was in the House arguing and defending the budget program of the government. At that time my hon. colleagues in the Bloc were saying: "Cut more. You need to cut more. You have not done enough. The province of Quebec is sitting in a sinking ship and we are not doing enough". Today, they are speaking the reverse argument. "You are doing too much. You are hurting us. Do not do that any more". What is it going to be?

It is clear to most people in Canada that the status quo is not good enough. As we approach the 21st century we have to change. We have to change as a government, as a country and as a people. The status quo which is being defended by the Bloc Quebecois is not satisfactory.

While talking about the status quo, it is interesting to note the problems we are having with our rail industry today. That is part of the same argument in some ways because some of these contractual agreements have matters in them that go back almost a century.

I was surprised to learn that blacksmithing is a job description which is still available in the CN. One has to be a blacksmith to get certain types of jobs. This is the kind of thing the Bloc Quebecois is defending, blacksmithing, as we approach the 21st century. I do not think that is good enough.

I can say that the people of my riding in which General Motors is a major feature are not at all impressed by the ability to manage this economy that the Bloc Quebecois has shown so clearly. We try to manage and people are stopping us from doing that.

We share the North American continent with our tremendously large neighbour to the south. This neighbour has tremendous resources, huge programming and cultural diversity. It is exporting its culture all over the world. Programs come easily across the border. Indeed as we go to better telecommunications devices it is going to be almost impossible to avoid that kind of culture penetrating the North American milieu. That affects our culture, both English and French.

I have always been a supporter of the CBC. I have always believed it is necessary to foster Canadian culture. What we have to do is to foster it in an affordable way.

Clearly the CBC has been a vanguard of supporting culture both in English Canada and French Canada. I note that Canada is an exporter of French programming and clearly therefore, it has been a success. It has been a success not only of the CBC but also of our federal system which has recognized the need to foster these industries, to get them going and let them flourish.

As we approach the 21st century, it is clear we have to change the way we conduct our government and the way we do business. It is clear that governments want to withdraw from direct management of different types of industry, whether they are cultural or direct industries like CN Rail and let others do that for them. It does not mean the government wants to abdicate Canadian culture, far from it. The object of the exercise is to find a better and more efficient way to deliver the same thing.

The CRTC has a mandate which does just that. New licences have just been issued. The basis of that licensing program was to foster and assist Canadian culture.

I remember not too many years ago when the finance department brought in an incentive to support both the French and English Canadian film industry. I was a little pessimistic at first. I am always pessimistic about tax driven investments. However it was very successful both for the French and English people in Canada who developed a movie industry. Once again, Canada was an exporter of French language programming to the world.

We have now slowly moved out of the tax incentives for that. Once we get a child going, it is no different from a family. If we think about it, when our children reach a certain age it is time for them to go out on their own. It is time for them to do their own thing. That is really what we are saying about the CBC.

Even after these cutbacks the CBC will still have funding of $1.4 billion. We can hardly consider that a small amount of money in support of cultural broadcasting in Canada regardless of what language it is in.

We are not saying to the CBC that it has to cut a lot of jobs, which possibly it will. We are saying that it has to redefine where it is going in this country. It has to define the things it can do well and rethink some of the things that perhaps it should not be doing any more.

I had a discussion with some journalists one day. They thought it was unusual that the CBC could have journalists in just about every town in this country whereas other private broadcasters had to rationalize that and make it more efficient. This is what we are asking the CBC to do, to become more efficient so it can be slowly weaned off the public payroll.

The motion very clearly is talking about the concern of the reduction in funding. I ask my colleagues in the Bloc, what would the alternative be? Would the alternative in meeting our deficit targets be to transfer this tax on the poor, the needy, the unemployed? Those are the alternatives. We have to get our deficits in order. That is the commitment we have made to the Canadian people. I can say that the Canadian people are very happy about the leadership we have taken in these areas.

I know there are many new broadcasting ventures. My colleague from the Reform Party mentioned CITY-TV in Toronto which has a tremendous array of new broadcasting programs. In other words it is not necessary to have publicly funded broadcasting companies simply carrying on with this type of production.

The bottom line is that it is necessary. The taxpayers are saying we have to get our economic house in order. The taxpayers are on the hook even after all of this is over for $1.4 billion. Taxpayers want to be able to see what they are getting for that money. In some ways they are getting valued service for that.

Most people in Canada will continue to support cultural funding for broadcasting, but at a significantly reduced level. That is only reasonable. We have to focus on the things which possibly are missing, those things that perhaps need a bit of help right now, but those other areas which can stand on their own, we can let them fly.

In conclusion, it upsets me very much to see that members of the Bloc Quebecois simply want to carry on with the old systems of the past. They do not want to be flexible in seeing how we can change government financing. More important, they do not want to assist their cultural industries from the infancy stage to fruition.

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1995-96, March 20th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague from Roberval a number of questions. He mentioned he was not good at numbers and I would have to agree with him.

He talked about the deficit climbing up to $800 billion. What he seems to ignore is we have a thing in this economy called growth. Canada is one of the fastest growing economies in the western world right now. If he actually applied an element of growth he would see that deficit start reducing under the finance minister's plan.

He also talked about his great imagination. It is very true. He does have a terrific imagination. The federal government basically collects money on behalf of the provinces. That is part of the constitutionality of this country.

Everyone realizes all governments are in this together and we have to reduce spending. This argument has been going on in Ontario for years. We keep blaming each other. Someone else is always responsible.

The taxpayer is not fooled. In Ontario people are fully cognizant that the province has to reduce spending. We have reduced the transfer payments to the provinces far less than we reduced our own expenditures.

I do not think you can fool the people of Quebec. They know governments have to reduce spending. This includes Quebec, which to this day has a $70 billion deficit. It is not doing anything about it. The leader of Quebec is running around with a referendum or something but he is not dealing with the economic problems of that province. Blaming all the problems on the federal government is not going to wash. I do not think it is going to wash in Quebec either.

Everybody shared in the budget. We did increase taxation on some of our largest banks. Some things are not told. The Royal Bank had a billion dollar profit. What some do not understand is it had losses year after year before that.

Far be it from me to defend the banks, but I am telling the reality of it. Sometimes a billion dollars sounds like a lot but $125 billion worth of assets is not a very good return, especially considering losses in the previous year.

Blaming everything on the banks is not going to cut it. We all have to do something to get our costs of government down. That is what the budget does. It does it from the federal perspective and will do it for the provinces. I would like to have my hon. colleague address that.

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1995-96, March 20th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell is still very much a lion in the House. I have heard him at various times assaulting the policies of the member's party and I think he does it quite well.

Talking about absenteeism, we have in our minds how much space we will have on this side of the House at the end of June. We are certainly looking forward to it. I could certainly use a lot more space when I conduct my business. I would be happy to observe that when we come back.

It is a borrowing bill. I would be happy to stand in the House some year when there is no borrowing bill. That is where the budget is taking the country. It will reduce the need to borrow on the market and hopefully get the country in the position where it can actually calculate surpluses.

That is what this is all about. I am sorry if my colleague has missed that.

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1995-96, March 20th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague for Waterloo. I have been listening to my fellow colleagues from the Bloc and the Reform. I felt very depressed when they talked about history and all the things that have gone wrong in the country.

The reality is we have a very good and very strong country with a bright future. It is five years before the 21st century and it

is time to focus on how we need to change. We have had a good history together but there are things that have to change in the country. That is what the budget and the borrowing authority are linked together to do.

My colleagues have possibly missed the real point of the budget. I became involved in politics and came to the House for some of the very fundamental reasons we are discussing today. I was very concerned about where our country was going economically.

I can see where we have overborrowed and where we have made lots of mistakes. We made genuine mistakes because we wanted to do the right things. In some ways they went askew but we are learning the process of government. The budget is an attempt to address how we will change. I would like to deal with the basic concept of how the budget is about change and about a new future for Canada.

I took the time to go to my riding where I conducted a number of tax forums with the professional community and lay people. While there were some exceptions to parts of the budget, they were all very supportive. They said that it was about time a government had taken leadership to try to move us away from our debt and deficit problems to a new tomorrow. The younger generations were concerned that they would never have better incomes or a better way of life than their parents. These negative aspects existed prior to the budget. The country feels a lot better today because of the actions of the Minister of Finance.

In what ways are we changing? We could talk about the history of the country which is good. I am a great believer in history. The lessons of the past teach us a lot about the future. Also some of the things we did in the past have not worked very well.

Basically the budget is about seeing government a little differently than we possibly have in the past. We see government today as being a referee of the country, a referee between business groups and individuals, making certain that people disenfranchised by the system become part of the system and making certain that the wealthy do not abuse their power. Some things in the budget try to strike a path toward the 21st century in which all Canadians can share.

How is the budget different? I do not remember a government bringing in a budget like the one for this fiscal year which was $2 billion lower than projected. I do not remember that in my lifetime. We have developed a whole culture of assuming that every time a government brings down a budget it will overshoot it. The government did just the reverse and the people of Canada are happy about it.

How are some of the things we have done in the past being addressed in the budget? We have a bloated civil service. It is not the fault of people in the civil service. Nor is it the fault of anyone in particular. It just happened. It happened in all other governmental administrations in the western world.

Technology has caught up to Canada. Sometimes it caught up with us a lot faster than we wanted it to. In some ways people are having problems with job security because the country is being pushed into a technological framework with which we have to deal. It is global. It not only affects Canada. It affects all countries of the world. We will either be part of it or we will be washed up on the shores of disaster by not taking it into account.

We need to restructure the civil service in fundamental ways. Not only do we need to reduce some of the numbers within the civil service. We need to do it equitably as well.

There is a human side to the downsizing buzzword. There are real people involved. The government is committed to finding approaches to retraining and to finding new entrepreneurial skills so people will be able to share in the massive expansion of our labour market which saw over 422,000 new jobs created last year.

By restructuring the civil service we are also talking about a new way of government. We want the civil service to be more responsive to the needs and the desires not only of government but of the people generally. It should be responsive to the needs of the community. We need more quantifiable measurement tools to remunerate people and progress them based on their success. This is healthy for government and for the civil service because it gives them a future and it gives them a challenge. After all, that is what most human animals really want.

What other areas do we need to change? The government has come to the conclusion that it cannot be an interventionist in the economy any more. In past times it has worked; new industries and so forth have been created. Today we simply cannot afford it and it has not been very efficient. I think governments are realizing that business can run business a lot better than they can. That does not mean we give a total licence to business. It means that we temper it and recognize the rights of citizens. At the same time we realize that governments should simply govern and business should do business.

How is this affected by the last budget? Clearly privatization of CN is one such aspect. Another one is the possible sell off of Petro-Canada. In a number of other areas the government will gradually withdraw and allow the private sector to make up the difference. It is good for the economy and it is good for the taxpayers of Canada.

That came through loud and clear before the budget, indeed in the last two or three years. Canadians feel overtaxed. They do not think they are getting value for their tax dollars. They want us to be more efficient. That is what the budget was all about.

We are downsizing. We are also cutting out subsidies to industry. Different types of people are living off the governmental system. One is industry living on subsidies and getting grants. These things will be curtailed. Most people in the

business community recognize that it is no way to run a business.

I referred to subsidies. We talked about rail subsidies with which I will deal in a minute. There are also grain subsidies. The first intentions of a subsidy program are usually good. We want to encourage some kind of action. Unfortunately what invariably happens-and history has told us-is that it becomes a dependency. It distorts trade.

We have heard from many members about grain travelling all the way to Thunder Bay when it is on its way to California from Regina. These are some of the ridiculous aspects of subsidization. We need to create value added products in Canada and I believe by reducing subsidies we will do just that.

Industrial milk production is another area that will be curtailed by subsidy programs. We need to become more competitive. GATT has told us that we will have to be part of an international marketplace. Gradually reducing tariffs is a way to make the Canadian economy much more efficient.

The rail industry is on our mind these days. Much like government it has some prehistoric systems within its employment structure. Some of the contracts entered into hearken back over 100 years to a guild system. I understand there are still blacksmiths in some machine shops in Toronto. We pay people to be blacksmiths even though the whole industry has disappeared. We must revisit the contracts that people have with the government through crown corporations. We cannot let job security ruin the security of the whole country.

We have to revisit these matters. We have to retool the country. We have to make it whole again. That is what the budget was all about. It was positive in terms of change for Canada and for the people of Canada.

[The Budget, March 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's comments. Every time we get into this debate somehow Quebec seems to be a very interesting place with no debt problems but a simple examination of its financial record indicates quite the reverse. I believe the province of Quebec's deficit is currently about $70 billion. This was done in Quebec by Quebecers. It continues to expand and if my memory serves me correctly, it is probably expanding a lot faster than the federal government's deficit.

While the leader of the Government of Quebec is out talking about sovereignty, he is not dealing with the very problems of his own province. It costs $5 million for a sovereignty debate that nobody wants. This is irresponsible. I do not believe the people of Quebec are going to be happy with this expenditure or with the continual pushing of Quebec into a deficit situation.

Bonds are a big financer of government debt. Quebec government rated bonds continue to escalate their interest costs. Why? Because people have many misgivings about where this is going.

The hon. member talked about job creation. Job creation and job losses are an absolute. They must be netted together. Sure, there will be job losses in the civil service. Everybody in Canada, including Quebecers, have said how necessary it is that governments downsize and become more efficient.

I have heard my colleagues from the Bloc say those very things. Stop duplication. When the government stops duplication they say: "You should not lay these people off". The reality is that 433,000 new jobs were created in Canada last year, net job creation. That is positive and it includes Quebec.

Finally, $78 billion of the federal government debt is held by Quebecers. They believe in Canada, but what is their future with this crazy concept they have? How are they going to get reimbursed in this strange emulation of a new country? There is $78 billion that Quebecers hold in Canada.

I would like to have the hon. member answer those questions.

[Petitions, March 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition from 190 of my constituents. Their concern is the addition of the phrase sexual orientation either in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the Canadian Human Rights Act.

[Firearms Act, March 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-68, an act respecting firearms and other weapons.

The riding of Durham has both a rural and an urban component. Being neither a gun owner or user myself, I have gone to the shooting clubs and have listened to the concerns of legal gun owners. I have taken both gun owners and those abused by guns to meet with the Minister of Justice.

I have studied the crime statistics of both the justice department and the gun lobby. I have spoken with our police chief, the local firearms registration officer, judges, police in the field, homicide detectives and finally, I visited Millhaven penitentiary and spoke with murderers in their cells who actually used guns in the commission of crime.

Tougher penalties for the use of firearms in the commission of a crime, tougher controls of cross-border smuggling and trafficking of firearms are all supported by the people of Durham, including legal gun owners.

Rather than looking at the strengths of the legislation I would like to focus on what I see as some weaknesses. Hopefully these matters will be addressed at the committee stage of the bill. I would like to address the matter of the registration of all firearms. As you know, Mr. Speaker, handguns in Canada have had to be registered since the 1940s. I note this has contributed little to the reduction of the use of handguns in the commission of crime.

Primarily the issue for me is one of cost benefit analysis. What are the costs? Who is going to pay? What are the benefits of the system? This revisits the very foundations of our democracy which is that government has entered into a contract with the people. This is Locke's Two Treaties on Government . In the 15th century Locke determined that a fundamental democracy was one where people consented to be governed based on an unwritten contract with their government, a contract that implied a basic consent of the people not only to be governed but also, most importantly, to be taxed.

People want to revisit their contract with government. They want to know how taxes are consensual. They want to be part of the process. They want to be included with regard to the taxes they pay and the programs they finance. Across the nation people are demanding more accountability from governments.

Taxpayers want to know how much programs are costing and specifically who is paying for them.

As you may know, Mr. Speaker, I intend to introduce a private member's bill early this spring, the subject of which will be a taxpayers' bill of rights. I note that if this legislation was in place, the current bill would have some additional and much needed information attached to it. Specifically the program would be costed fully during its implementation stage. It would detail the specific costs and would allocate them to the years during implementation. It would also show the anticipated revenues from registration charges to gun owners. Finally, the Auditor General would have certified the costing methods used as being reasonable.

The taxpayer is tired of discovering years after the implementation period of the waste of their money. I would like to quote from the Auditor General's report of 1993 concerning the previous gun registration system that is only a couple of years old: "We found several weaknesses in the methodology, which significantly reduce the extent to which the government, members of Parliament and the Canadian public can rely on the evaluation to be assured that the gun control program is effective".

I am afraid we are about to repeat the errors of the past. I note it has been stated that the proposed new registration system may cost $85 million. However, there is great confusion. The current registration system for handguns costs $60 million per year and includes only 560,000 handguns. There are a minimum of five to six million long guns in Canada.

I have a study here by Professor Gary Mauser at Simon Fraser University that states it could cost $82 per firearm, $496 million, or half a billion dollars. It has been suggested the first year be free to encourage registration. However the taxpayer knows that nothing is free. In studying budget projections, I can see no allocation of funding in the Department of Justice's budget for this program. We need a better fix on how much this program is going to cost.

The taxpayer has the right to know this now. Clearly we can no longer afford the luxury of introducing programs for which we do not know the cost. The taxpayer wants to see better fiscal responsibility and in some ways we have done that in the recent budget.

This leads me to the second part of my analysis, which is the study of the benefits of the system. Benefits would have to be clear and obvious. They would have to promote the common good. They would have to demonstrate that there was clear correlation between registration and the intended results.

At this point I found gun owners generally reasoned people. They have tried to understand why the registration system is thought to be needed and so important today. I would further like to point out that a democratic society is judged not on how it treats its majorities but rather how it treats its minorities.

It is clear to me that the opinions of the majority who do not know the facts are of questionable validity. Most surveys would indicate that the average person is more concerned about crime control than gun registration.

I further note that both gun owners and taxpayers generally are a minority in this debate. It is clear to me that without convincing a sizeable portion of their numbers of the effectiveness and affordability, the registration system will fail.

Here are the stated goals as I understand them of the registration system: that it will allow firearms removal from domestic violence situations; that it will afford law enforcement agents better information when approaching a household for investigation purposes; that it will lead to safer storage practices.

My time today will not let me deal with these issues at length, however the result is that it is totally unclear whether some of these objectives are not already available in the current law and are not being enforced or whether the objectives can be met at all with the registration system for long guns.

I can find no clear documentary evidence from the justice department that makes this case. If I cannot make this leap of faith, neither can long gun owners. This is the real danger of the legislation, that we are placing a sizeable group of people in the category of believing that the system is unwarranted. They see the imposition of fees as an unwarranted tax, the proceeds of which will be wasted on further bureaucracy with no tangible results.

I spoke earlier about the concerns of taxpayers. Needless to say gun owners are taxpayers. I said that they wanted to revisit their contract with government. Do we have examples of where people believe taxing systems exist without consent and how they have reacted? We have only to look at the dreaded goods and services tax, clearly a tax that lacked common consent.

A recent study by the accounting firm Peat Marwick concluded that over 50 per cent of taxpayers would avoid paying this tax if given the opportunity. Police officers in my riding have avoided giving minor speeding tickets because they believe that the three-price increase in one year is just an unwarranted form of taxation on the working class.

The conclusion is that we are developing a system of justice in Canada where people pick and choose the laws they are governed by. This is mainly because they do not feel that they consented to them in the first place.

I do not think this system of justice is sustainable. I believe that it will lead to chaos. Clearly our democracy must be one of inclusion rather than exclusion. Our society is becoming more complex and technical.

I would like to end my comments by quoting from one of our own political philosophers, Mr. George Grant. In his book Twilight of Justice he observed that one of the changes to a more technical society in Canada, that the need for control of humans in a technological society increases with the complexity of society. Technique causes the state to become totalitarian, to absorb the citizen's life completely.

Finally, the definition of liberal, which I am, is favouring individual liberty. I hope the committee will take the time to discuss some of these matters.