Roy H. Bailey

[Petitions, May 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to present a number of petitions today from every corner of my constituency. These petitioners pray that the government take all measures necessary to ensure that possession of child pornography remains a serious criminal offence and that federal police forces be directed to give priority to enforcing this law for the protection of our children.

[Agriculture, May 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, last week I spent three days viewing an area in my constituency that is suffering a severe financial disaster. At least 50% of the cultivated acres in five rural municipalities in my riding are under water. The remaining 50% will not be seeded this year.

This area is roughly the same size as the total number of farm acres on Prince Edward Island. The current disaster accompanied by a significant drop in farm income from previous years could spell an end to hundreds of farm operations.

Today I ask the minister of agriculture to join with his provincial counterpart to view the area that I have visited and to take the necessary steps to declare at least the five rural municipalities a disaster area.

[Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, May 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, as we were getting close to question period I was attempting to draw an analogy of this bill to a storefront. On the storefront it says “Men's clothing”, but there are side doors and back doors. The main business being done in that building is bootlegging. We will call this building the government building.

I want to show the House what has happened. I have received hundreds of petitions from my constituency concerning the term marriage and for every one of those petitions I have received this response from the government: “The term marriage in Canada is clear in law and is defined as the union of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others”. That is what the government is saying at the front door. However, the bill we are discussing will change the meaning of marriage forever and ever.

The government goes on to say: “There is no need to either enact this definition in legislation or to amend any existing legislation”.

While the government makes that statement, while it appears to be maintaining the definition of marriage and while it appears to be saying that it will preserve it forever and ever, this bill will clearly destroy the meaning of the term marriage forever and ever.

This bill will go down as the bill which, when put on the storefront, says marriage, but through the back doors and the side doors it is anything but.

There are many questions that have to be answered. When this bill is proclaimed, think of the hundreds of thousands of people who will be able to claim spousal benefits from life insurance policies who are in a relationship which is not based on what we consider to be a marriage.

The government cannot even ask this question. What about CPP death benefits? To whom will they go? Anyone will be able to challenge the current existing laws relating to the Canada pension plan, and they will.

This is probably the most serious bill that has come before the House in years. It is the beginning of the destruction of what we have had in this country from the beginning of time. This bill will destroy our heritage. This bill will destroy the terminology of marriage. Make no mistake about it, this bill will destroy the very moral fibre of this country. This is not a laughing matter. The government is going to have to answer to Canada. Unfortunately, Canadians will not see the ill effects of this bill for a few years.

What is the government's definition of the relationship of what we call the new nature? What is the relationship? How does the government propose to ensure that only those individuals who are engaged in a relationship of a sexual nature will get the surviving benefit? The question has been asked, but it has not been answered. How will the individual prove that the relationship is indeed a true relationship? Who is going to prove that? Canadians need to be worried about this. It is not so much my concern, it is a concern for my grandchildren and for their children.

We have come through a great era in the building of this country. Men and women, marriages and families have built this country. The government has destroyed it through the back door.

On top of that, the government has moved closure on something that is held high and dear by Canadians. Shame on the government.

Why are pension benefits extended solely on sexual activities? No one on the other side will answer the question. Those members do not care. What the government puts on the front door is not what is going in the side door and it certainly is not what is coming out. Shame on the government.

Will we now have sex inspectors to verify activity? Just think of that. That will take place.

Hundreds of acts will be modified by this bill through the back door. The government may say that marriage will never be changed, but this bill will change it. The government knows that, so it brought in closure.

If a person is currently married but separated and living with somebody else, who is the survivor? That question has to be answered before we can proceed with this bill.

I beg the government to pull this bill before tonight. It is wrong for Canada. It is wrong for the people living in this century. It will certainly be wrong for Canadians in the future. This is a terrible piece of legislation. Canadians, I am afraid, will learn that only too late.

[Business Of The House, May 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the government hon. House leader if he could provide the House with the batting order so that we will know what pitchers to put up.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am assuming that I will get the rest of my time after question period.

I want to say very clearly that this bill which the government has moved closure on will affect Canadians from coast to coast for years to come and it will not be in a positive way. This bill will cause more confusion, more anger, more disappointment in that years to come than any other bill in the last two years. I can guarantee that simply because the Liberals are letting through the side door and the back door and through the roof what they are saying up front. It is a camouflage bill. It totally distorts something which is true and historic to Canada.

I have presented hundreds, not dozens but hundreds of petitions to the House which this bill completely ignores. I want to use an analogy. In the town where I lived as a boy there was a store and on the front it said “Men's Clothing”, but what went on inside the store? Bootlegging. What this bill does—

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1998, May 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in that case the individual tried through various means and ways to get some support, or at least to get back what it would have cost in Canada, or a portion thereof, but he was not able to do that. He saved his own life. The officials refused to give him treatment. He was refused that surgery outright for at least three months. He would have been dead. He saved his life and now, as my hon. colleague has mentioned, he has been denied follow-up care simply because he used the services at a clinic which is world famous.

We have to face reality. There are hundreds of cases like this. The least the government could do would be to pay a portion of their expenses, at least the same portion as they would have paid here. That is not the only case. There are three more, Mr. Speaker, but I know that you do not want to hear about them right now.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1998, May 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member asked that question. First of all, when that program was announced there was some reluctance on the part of Saskatchewan to even opt into it because basically, as this House knows, most of the farmers in Canada live in Saskatchewan. Therefore, the greater proportion of the 60:40 split would have to be borne by the provincial government. The province opted in, but, interestingly enough, just a week later the agriculture minister for Manitoba said “We are opting in because only 15% of our farmers will qualify”. What did the minister of agriculture for Manitoba know that we did not know?

I now know that less than 15% of our farmers will qualify because of the Houdini form that has been sent out. The government is returning to Canada's number one industry, Saskatchewan's number one industry, $900,000, which is a great deal less than was spent on the floods and the ice storms, and those people deserved it. Is the government trying to say that the people out there do not deserve it? They did not deserve the forms which were sent out. Most assuredly, that is the biggest disaster they have had so far.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1998, May 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in debate. As my colleague from Cypress Hills—Grasslands stated, we in Saskatchewan have taken a terrible beating in health transfer costs because of the government opposite.

If I were to talk about individual cases which have come across my desk, I would be speaking at midnight about the horror cases in my province. People would like to blame that totally on the provincial government. When a any government issues a figure of $11 billion it sounds good, but it forgets to tell us to divide it by five.

On the way into work the other morning a radio host had three people on his show representing the three parties in Ontario in the upcoming election. I could not believe what one individual said, that we just could not stand any more tax cuts. If there is anything the country needs right now, it is individual tax cuts. A T-shirt can be seen on almost any street in any Canadian city which says “Tax me, I am a Canadian”. I have three brothers who went state side and stayed there to develop their professions for obvious reasons. They could not stand the Canadian tax regime.

It used to be in April of any year most senior citizens on my block would come to me with their tax forms. They would ask me to fill them out. It was a very simple form and I gladly did it. Now it is no longer a simple form. It has become a very complicated form. Only a government can produce a complicated form for a very simple process of collecting income tax from an 85 year old lady.

Let us talk about simple forms. Saskatchewan farmers used to get a form from the government by mail. I cannot ever remember a form coming from the government on Internet. They have to apply for it or have to go to the RM office for it. It constitutes about 40 pages even though the form itself may only be seven or nine pages. The farmer looks at it and says “It is like my income tax. I cannot fill out this form”.

Members opposite tell me that it is a very simple form. Of the hundreds of people who phoned in, I only know of three who actually tried to fill it out themselves.

We continue to completely ignore the wishes of the people. One Norwegian chap phoned me and said that he thought the government should get a very simple form with only three lines on it. The first line would be “How much did you make?” The second line would be “What were the expenses?” The third line would be “Kindly remit the rest”. That is about the way it is.

I have to congratulate those who figured out the AIDA form. They did a masterful job. It would take real brains to figure out how to force a person farming to put all of this down on a form, only to find out how much money they made and there would not be any help coming. That is the kind of form it is. It is a Rubik's cube.

Canadians have a right to know about our budget. When I was asked on television what I would say about the budget if I were the finance minister, I said that I would say this to all of the employees and workers in Canada: “Thank you very much. We just robbed you of $26 billion bucks. Thank you very much, workers and business people, because that is what we took away from you in extra employment insurance premiums”.

Another thank you should be mentioned. We ought to thank those who contribute to the pension fund because the government is dipping into that fund and will take out $30 billion.

The “tax me, I'm a Canadian” theory goes beyond just income tax. I must mention something that really bothers me. There is excessive income tax, but the government is also finding the ways and means in different departments to take more funds.

Where I live partly borders on the state of Montana and partly on the state of North Dakota. There are nine border crossing points and many of my people live closer to a hospital south of the 49th parallel than they do to a hospital in the province. Members will know that when their wife is expecting they will take the shortest route in the case of an emergency.

That is what happened to a family that lived almost 70 miles closer to a hospital in Montana than they did to a hospital in their province. This couple has paid their income taxes and has watched the form grow and grow. They have watched their taxes, municipal taxes and school taxes, grow until they are at the point that they get the AIDA form and they do not even know if they can fill the thing out. On three occasions Brian and Louise did not have much choice. Away they went. After less than 30 miles they were in a modern hospital. Three of their four children were born stateside, just a few miles across the border.

They are Canadian people. Both mom and dad were born here in Canada. Both paid large income taxes. Both paid huge agriculture taxes. Both paid huge road taxes, and they do not have any roads. Their children received their birth certificates from the states. The oldest boy is now 14. Guess what? He has to get a SIN number to take his driver's training. Guess what? It is going to cost Brian and Louise $75 a kid, or $225, for them to get their SIN numbers. Talk about a government that does not miss a beat. Congratulations. If it can get its hands in the pockets of a Canadian citizen, it certainly knows how to do it. These people and many people who cross the border in an emergency situation in my constituency use the hospitals in the United States. It is not out of preference, it is because of an emergency. They do not ask the provincial government or the federal government to pay their costs, they just do it. But when these three individuals want to get their social insurance number it will cost them $75 apiece.

Who do they contact? They contact their member of parliament. What will their member of parliament do? Just what I said I would do; not only will I speak in the House about this, but I will write the particular authorities to complain bitterly.

We need to humanize this whole idea of extracting money. We simply make fools out of ourselves by doing this. These three little kids, born to Canadian parents, have lived here, have been raised here and went to school here, but the government says “Give us a little more”, and they are protesting.

Finally, I want to draw the attention of the House to another factor. I mentioned this case before. There was a single working mother who had two children. The government finally caught up with her husband and extracted a lot of money from him for support payments. He was made to pay three years of support payments, which amounted to about $11,000. What did the government do? It said “Give us $5,500 all at once”. My argument is that members opposite are wrong. It should have been divided by three and it should have been at that rate, but so far this valiant young mother has not heard from Revenue Canada.

I think that Canadians deserve a little more attention. Perhaps the government could humanize its approach to Canadians. We are human beings. Brian and Louise do not have $225. They do not even know if they will be able to plant a crop because of this.

Not one cent of AIDA money, to my knowledge, has been dropped into the province of Saskatchewan. I know the minister says that the farmers in Prince Edward Island have it and the farmers here have it. They all had their forms before ours were printed. I would bet that our income tax forms arrived at the same time. I know that mine did.

My constituents are like other constituents. The young people move away. There are more than 200 students going to university in Minot. Why? Because they can get bursaries and grants and it is cheaper. Why do we do this? Why do we continue to tax ourselves to a standstill?

I most certainly will not be supporting Bill C-72. I cannot do it. My conscience would not let me do it even if I were sitting on the other side of the House, but I expect that all of those members will support it.

[National Housing Act, May 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise on the debate at report stage of Bill C-66 on the National Housing Act and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act.

Even though it is considered to be a large sprawling rural constituency, my constituency is very much affected by this bill, the regulatory measures that are in this bill and which have preceded this bill.

In my constituency most of the single house dwellings are under contract with a local individual who is a one man contractor. Some 15 people from one area have come to me. If there are 15 people in one area, there are probably 30 people within my constituency who are young contractors who are very upset with the regulatory body. Think of how many of these small contractors are being affected across Canada.

What I am trying to point out is that the regulations that apply to this bill hurt the businesses with one or two people who build houses. It is not like the huge developments I saw last night while I was driving on the outskirts of Ottawa. Individuals who 10 years ago built houses in the rural areas, in the cities and in the towns of my constituency can no longer afford to meet the regulatory measures of this bill.

Anyone who wants to see the quality of work these contractors do can go to the city of Weyburn, or Estevan, or out to a rural area like Moosomin. There are a dozen show homes that have been lived in for 20 years. Ask those people what kind of quality went into those homes. It is top notch, the very best. There is no excuse whatsoever to deny these people the right to maintain a business within their community.

A one man contractor gets a contract to build three separate houses and what happens? Not only does he have local employment but he hires students during the summertime. They get a salary and they have on the job training. The large firms from the city do not do that. Let me also point out that when a local contractor is engaged to build a house it also benefits the immediate community. The subtrades stay within that city and community. Because of this bill these people can only build for those people who have the cash outlay.

The people in rural Canada, and not just in my constituency, are being denied the right to make a living, to live in that community, to buy in that community and to make that community prosper. And if there are 30 of these contractors in my constituency how many of these single contractors are throughout Canada?

They cannot at the present time meet all the CMHC regulations. In other words the government has regulated out of the business a whole new crop of top notch contractors. The key point is that they go out of business. In order to fill a contract, somebody has to come in from 100 miles away. They bring the subcontractors and their products with them and the local community suffers. If that is true in my constituency, it is true all across Canada.

There is another point I want to make. I have a letter presently in the hands of the Minister of Finance, the Minister of National Revenue and the Minister of Industry. That letter contains a suggestion from one of these local contractors. If the ministers will just look at this and get their responses to me it will provide me and the government with an insight as to how to keep business within the small community and how to keep the economy from going underground. As well, the suggestion which the contractor has made will help to facilitate home repairs to houses throughout the winter months.

I beg of the government to not just think of the CMHC as being involved in massive housing developments around our large cities and to not just think of the number of huge construction sites that are being developed. And I am not against that portion of it. I am simply saying that this bill, with all its regulatory means, is knocking the single contractor completely out of business. Unless he can build for a person who has money in his or her back pocket he is simply out of business.

The economy where I live is down. I do not know of a single contractor who formerly built houses who even has a house to build, for the simple reason that the only way he will get money is to go through the CMHC and that contractor cannot meet all the regulatory demands of the CMHC just to get one house to build this summer.

I beg this government to not only examine the letters that are with the three government ministers, but also to consider rural Canada, to consider these people who are quality craftsmen. They are being put out of work simply because of the regulations of this bill.

[Committees Of The House, April 21st, 1999]

Yes, indeed, it is tied selling and anything related to the selling of the House to Canadians. That is what I am talking about.