Roy H. Bailey

[Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act, October 1st, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I would like to make a brief comment and put a question to the hon. member.

Would the hon. member not agree that in the length of time it has taken to consult on this bill that perhaps they have not done a good job of selling the proposals? Today, with the bill in its current form, the majority of the provinces have not definitely said whether they will be on board. We have not heard from the largest provinces as to whether they will be coming on board.

Would the member not agree that perhaps what we have to do is call in some super salesmen to sell it to the provinces now, before the legislation is put in place, to avoid each province having to negotiate changes within the act to suit it?

[Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act, October 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest all day to members talking on this bill. It was a little humourous to hear some members talking about how Canadians cheerfully pay their taxes.

I was thinking about my last trip home when somebody opened a letter from Revenue Canada at the post office. They owed something like an addition $600. I assure members they did not say “goody, I owe the government another $600”.

I want to address this point in particular to the member for Ottawa West who spoke earlier. She said we need better service. I believe she used the word service about eight times while she was speaking.

Service has a connotation of servant. The IRS in the United States had to look at its whole department and say it has to become more humane in dealing with people. If there is one lesson that human resources needs, even if this bill goes through, it is to treat the taxpayers of this country with a great deal more respect than it does at the present time.

It is a fallacy beyond comparison for members of the government to say they handle people and it is cheerfully done.

I have caseload after caseload of widows and elderly people who get letters that are a disgrace. I have yet to see a letter from Revenue Canada that offered an apology to any of my clients dealing with that department.

Would the member for Prince Albert not agree that they need to take a lesson in public relations?

[Supply, September 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, how dare the hon. member refer to the rural people of Souris—Moose Mountain as a special interest group. Shame on him. How dare he refer to the police associations out there in protest as special interest groups. How dare he refer to the Reform Party applying accountability for the position it holds by taking the bill back to the people and getting their opinion on it. How dare he make mockery of democracy.

I guess my speech has intrinsically raised some guilt in the hon. person. My people are not special interest people. They are real people. They are not ignorant people. They are very clever people. The group out there has every right to protest. He would like to say that they are a special interest group, without intelligence, and they have no right. Shame on him.

How could the member say that Reform sat idly by and did nothing when it brought in not a 150 amendments but 200 amendments to the bill. Shame on you for making that statement. You certainly are totally out—

[Supply, September 22nd, 1998]

There was no answer. How could the government in committee change legislation that we have been discussing without it even coming to the House? It is called enabling legislation.

In closing I want to make clear that they can talk all they like about figures, fancy surveys and so on, but there is more opposition from every corner of Canada to Bill C-68 than there has ever been. Opposition from people who are aware of the bill is growing, even from those who do not own guns.

They do not have the courage to make it universal. They do not have the courage to bring it back if they want to change the legislation. Having said that, they should not have had the courage to bring the bill before the House.

[Supply, September 22nd, 1998]

The legislation says that there will be a registration of all guns. This information could fall into the hands of the wrong people who would say “There is a good house to hit. They have three long guns in that house”. They cannot prove what they are saying and they know it.

Yesterday afternoon in question period the former parliamentary secretary to the minister in charge of the wheat board asked a ridiculous question about North Dakota farmers wanting to sell wheat to the Canadian Wheat Board. American farmers said on television last night, that they were getting $2.75 U.S. but if they sold it in Canada they would only get $1.40 U.S. That shows how ridiculous the question was. They make fun of people in different areas and they delight in doing so.

The bill is not one law for all people. It is not a universal bill. The minister has declared that the bill will be flexible in its application. That in itself is a very dangerous statement.

What do they mean that it will be flexible in its application? We know what it means. The people in western Canada know what it means, but the rest of Canada does not seem to know what it means. It means that some people will be required to register their long guns and some people will not. Yet the government supports the bill and says it will be flexible in its application.

I have take the time to talk to the police in my constituency who have basically said no way. They want no part of it whatsoever. They have made it abundantly clear that they want nothing to do with it because they know certain people within their district will be exempt from registering their guns. It is not a national registration.

Shame on the government. It deliberately harasses honest law-abiding citizens to register their guns but at its discretion it leaves whole blocks of people who do not have to register their guns.

The legislation says that it is enabling legislation. That means the government, not the legislature, not this body, not elected officials, will have the right to change the bill at any time.

The government is asking us to support the bill. The Minister of Justice says that it is a done deal, that the legislation will go forward, that it will be law for all but will be flexible. In other words it is not law for all and it can be changed at any time. All it has to do is sit before the committee.

How can any person elected to the House who is totally in favour of the gun bill be in favour of making it selective legislation where only certain people will be required to register? How will that prevent crime? It just does not add up. The people in western Canada and the people in my constituency know this.

I asked in the justice committee if they could guarantee that every owner of every long gun would have to register their guns? Do members know what the response was?

[Supply, September 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the constituents of Souris—Moose Mountain, very similar to those of Cypress Hills—Grasslands, would find it almost sinful if their member did not speak on this issue.

I want to inform the members opposite that I have yet to receive one letter or phone call in the last 16 months in favour of Bill C-68, not one. But I have received hundreds of letters and hundreds of petitions in opposition.

I resent very much government members, including the Minister of Justice, speaking on this bill and referring to those who oppose this bill as somewhat misaligned in thought. There are thousands of people outside who have come from across Canada, some here from Yukon, who have paid out of their own pockets to protest and they are not weak in the head. They know exactly why they are here.

I wish hon. members opposite would quit using statistics like 82% of this or 80% of that. How come this terrible misinformation wrongly or rightly got into the justice committee which completely distorted the number of guns involved? There is no remorse at all, none whatsoever from the government.

There was a Liberal by the name of Mr. Trudeau who took a political gamble that he would institute a national energy policy. Note the word national. But the word national would only affect western Canada. So they weighed it up and introduced the national energy policy and to this day western Canada has never forgiven the party for doing just that.

Let me give the history behind Bill C-68. Let us get the true history behind Bill C-68. The former Conservative government had everything in place with the previous bill but crime was on the rage in Montreal and Toronto and so the government said once again it will do like the Liberals in the past, it will take a chance and bring in a national bill even though it knew it would isolate western Canada and certain parts. It did just that and it certainly paid off politically.

One of the reasons why this government lost most of its western support was its complete disdain for western Canada. There is no remorse yet with the Liberals for the national energy policy and there is still no remorse for what they are doing to the law abiding people in western Canada with this bill. Where do they get the idea that the registration of guns will protect me?

[Special Interest Groups Funding Accountability Act, September 21st, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member for Wentworth—Burlington's giving support.

The member who spoke for the NDP had things a little mixed up. Perhaps I should say mixed up a lot. Perhaps the reason why she does not want to get into this is the contributions made by interest groups that get large amounts of money from the federal government, namely the CLC. In the last two elections that party received $1.5 million out of my pocket and everyone else's pocket, taxpayer money. That is what this bill is all about. That is why this is wrong.

I am not talking about charities. The hon. member said that giving to one special interest group and not to another is unbalanced and unfair. This would change that. This government has no right to be giving money to groups that want to influence their own thought against the will of the majority of Canadians. That is wrong. If they want to raise money let them go out and raise it themselves. There are many organizations and some of the largest organizations in Canada do just that.

I want to turn to what the hon. member did in his report. What people deplore is government supporting groups which exist primarily for one side or the other of the issue. That is wrong. The hon. member said it is a system that has gone sour. It is more than sour, it is rotten and it is rotten to the core.

I am glad some progress has been made in this. I am glad I had an opportunity to state my case on the private members' bill. In closing I would like to move a motion to have unanimous consent to make this motion votable.

[Special Interest Groups Funding Accountability Act, September 21st, 1998]

Madam Speaker, as members read in the introduction, this bill was to be debated the Monday after the House recessed.

I want to pay tribute to the hon. member from Hamilton—Wentworth who did a tremendous amount of work on this in the last session. I can tell the hon. member that I used his material.

I took his material along with my bill to every local government in my constituency. I made a visit to see what they thought about what the hon. member had presented and, in a minor form, what I was presenting. There is a fundamental difference in our presentations, in that I want this government to be held accountable to the people of Canada for some $49 billion which is handed out to special interest groups with absolutely no requirement for accounting.

This summer, after giving local government people an explanation, I heard responses such as: “I cannot believe it”. “That is incredible”. “How dare they”. Madam Speaker, I might tell you that they said some words which I cannot repeat in this House more frequently than the examples I have given.

The basic tenet of this bill is that every Canadian should have the right to know who is receiving funding from this government and what is the purpose of the funding. Let us bring this to debate so that Canadians will have accountability.

The Prime Minister mentioned the other day that if he is going to increase grants in health aid or other help to the provinces he wants accountability. We would not argue with that.

I hear government members saying that what people do not know will not hurt them. I would turn that around and say that what people do not know about this funding is hurting them. It is hurting them by $49 billion a year. It is hurting hep C people who are deserving of payment. It is hurting them because this money is not accounted for and not audited. It is hurting them because it is forcing them to pay higher taxes.

I want to make it abundantly clear to everyone that my intent in bringing this bill forward had one goal and one goal only; that is, to offer Canadians, no matter where they live in Canada, the opportunity to see totally, with accountability, where their tax dollars are going.

This is not a witch hunt. This is not a bill to embarrass some private interest groups. This is strictly trying to give Canadian people accountability as to where their money is going.

Canadians across Canada will tell us that it is a growing industry, hidden under the secrecy of government. Government is not making figures, facts and the individuals who are receiving these funds available to Canadians.

Let me talk a moment about our heritage and what happened in the village next to where I live. Because of rail line abandonment and property taxes its total revenue is down to some $200,000. It has to hire an administrator who is bondable. It has to prepare a budget as to how that money will be spent. At the end of the year it has to have an auditor come in to show the public where every cent of that money has gone.

That is part of our history. Part of the Canadian way is to have responsible people, including elected politicians at the local level and the federal level, who will say “Here is where our money is being spent”.

Why is it that a group that will get as high as $15 million or $16 million does not even have to submit a statement as to the intent of how that money is going to be used? That is incredible. What is worse is that the money is not accounted for. There is no audited statement and we do not know the source, who is running the operation, or the the purpose of that group.

Even the grassroots aboriginals have had something to say about this bill. They said things this summer and I want to quote two of them. The first quote is “Without democracy, equality and accountability there can be no self-government”. Grassroots people all over are saying that this is a terrible plague which this government has. It is willing to take $49 billion of taxpayers' money and tell us it does not have to account for it.

This government can take $100,000, as the hon. member from Hamilton—Wentworth pointed out, and does not have to say it gave any amount and then can repeat it five times. It can make that half a million dollars. There is not even a record on the books.

How can the people of this House sit by when we have groups like the hepatitis C group outside and we are not telling them how we are spending $49 billion on special interest groups? How can this government do that?

The second quote told to me by a grassroots aboriginal this summer was “A significant roadblock to accountability is indeed the Indian Act itself”.

Let me point out a few things. Let me point out what happens. We have a special interest group which knows it does not have to put forth a statement as to its intent and does not have to describe or give an accounting for one red cent. They can actually take that money and use it for any political purpose they like. That money may be used to counteract or go against worthy volunteer organizations within a community.

I noted a few things this summer. I met with several museum groups in my constituency. What are these people doing? They are working, volunteering, scraping up money to get a building to try to preserve part of our heritage which is the heritage of the homesteader who came to Saskatchewan. They cannot get $50 worth of grants from either government. I showed them how much money was flowing out of this government into unknown coffers. They, to put it quite bluntly, are extremely disgusted that this type of thing is taking place.

The hon. member from Hamilton—Wentworth made this statement loud and clear. Any group of people receiving government funding should not be allowed to make political contributions. It is happening all the time. I suggest if a study is made of this we will find that there are some very strange gifts going out when an election is near which are not accounted for and the parties which receive them make huge contributions to a political party. That is wrong. Canadians all across Canada say it is wrong.

What we need are regulations in place governing the funding of any organization. I would challenge anyone in the House, from any party, to stand and say that it is wrong for an organization receiving government funding, first, to state a purpose for which that funding will be used, and second, to have an annual audited statement as to how the money was spent.

I sat as a CEO to a school division. We had no choice but to print a final statement as to the money that was spent.

If senior government thinks that is a great thing for our villages, rural communities, towns, cities and province, why is it not a good thing for the government to exercise the same practice? Why is the government prepared to hoodwink Canadians into the billions of dollars but to deny help to hepatitis C victims and local museums? I could list a hundred of them, but the government will not move on this issue, to its demise, I hope. The lack of accountability of the taxpayers' dollar should show up come next election time.

I want to say how the people feel about this issue when it is explained to them. The trust in government goes down. What they think of politicians goes down. What they think of the whole nation because of this scam goes down.

If this uncontrolled industry continues, what will we find? If they can do it, why can we not do it? If the government can hide millions of dollars, why should I not cheat on my income tax? Why should I not cheat on the GST? Why should I not cheat on this and that as it pertains to government? The very act of government doing this is a signal to the rest of Canadians to go ahead: if they can do it we can do it. It is time for the government and the House to say no, we are finished, that our books will be open and there will be total accountability.

Although this is not a votable bill, I would encourage members who sit on the finance committee to give Canadians a right they deserve. Let us give Canadians a right to be able to look at the thousands of different organizations that get money and for the first time make government completely accountable.

Failure to bring a halt to this practice does nothing but foster mistrust in government. It makes parliament weaker and, above all, it deprives our citizens of their God-given right to know where their taxpayers' dollars are going. I challenge anyone to come up with some logical reason why this should not happen. There may be many defenders, but there is no defence against this accountability act. No one could muster up or find a defence.

[Special Interest Groups Funding Accountability Act, September 21st, 1998]

moved that Bill C-310, an act to require special interest groups that receive grants or loans from public funds to submit for tabling in Parliament a report on the purposes to which the funds were put, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased on opening day to discuss a topic which Canadians want to discuss, at least those who I met this summer.

I believe I have all party agreement to share my opening 15 minutes. I would take 10 minutes and share the other five with the hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River.

With your permission the hon. member will take five minutes at the beginning.

[Petitions, June 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition from the constituency of Souris—Moose Mountain. It has 15 pages. The people across this constituency from every corner are asking parliament to significantly amend the Young Offenders Act. It is a big issue there and I am pleased to present this petition.