Bradley Trost

[Canada Grain Act, April 18th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, tonight on adjournment proceedings I am rising to bring forward the issue of equalization. This is a question which I first brought to the House some time ago.

It is a question which has united almost all of the politicians in Saskatchewan from all parties. We have had unanimity among the federal Conservatives and the provincial Saskatchewan Party, the provincial Liberals, the provincial NDP and the federal NDP. Only one elected politician in the whole province of Saskatchewan has stood against the province of Saskatchewan's interest. Only one politician from Saskatchewan voted with the separatists, the Bloc Québécois, in this House to stop Saskatchewan from getting a fair deal on its equalization. That is the one politician who had the ability to do something, the Minister of Finance, the hon. member for Wascana.

Why are we so passionate as a team of Saskatchewan politicians? Why are we so passionate across all political parties? The matter of equalization has to do with Saskatchewan's natural resources which by right of the Constitution we should have complete access to, we should have total and complete benefit of. It is a right which is being taken away from us through the equalization process.

The way equalization is currently structured, people of Saskatchewan are losing benefits from their natural resources. Every time the government of Saskatchewan gets a dollar in royalties for oil, or uranium and so forth, the federal government claws it back, and the people of Saskatchewan no longer get the benefit of that wealth which is supposed to be theirs under the Constitution.

The purpose of the question was to have the same principles apply to Saskatchewan that Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia received in the deals they made, and that is the full utilization of their natural resources for the wealth of the province. Many academics have demonstrated that the way the equalization system is set up currently is unfair. We end up with double counting in general GDP and then in specific revenues with the equalization. Unique categories such as asbestos and potash are counted one way, heavy oil another, hydro another, and so forth. We want nothing more than the basic principles of fairness applied.

To the province of Saskatchewan this would mean $800 million a year according to Library of Parliament estimates. What could $800 million do for the province of Saskatchewan? What could it do for the people? What is it in practical, concrete terms? Let me give a couple of examples.

Saskatchewan could have 260 MRI machines, which perhaps is too many but the province could have them. It could have 26 four lane bridges with full cloverleaf entrances. Again it is probably more than we need but that is how many we could have. We could completely abolish all the education property tax for everyone, farmers, businesses and homeowners, throughout the province of Saskatchewan.

That is the practical meaning of what equalization is. It is fairness we seek, fairness for the province of Saskatchewan.

[Income Tax Act, April 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to a bill which very much is part of the proud Canadian tradition of supporting hockey. It is not about supporting hockey just for hockey's sake, but doing it because hockey is important to our culture, to our people, to the people of Saskatchewan and to the people of my riding of Saskatoon--Humboldt.

When we look at this bill it is important to understand the history and the reasoning as to why it was put together. The history goes back not that many years, just a couple of years. This could very well have been a very simple issue.

Only a couple of years ago we would not have needed this legislation. The tax department, Revenue Canada, was reasonable. It realized that the stipend, the money given to people for taking care of amateur junior hockey players who played for non-profit junior hockey teams really was not income.

However a couple of years ago something strange happened. The people at Revenue Canada, the government's tax people, began to look around and noticed that there was more money to be had. They decided to do something about it, but they did not do it across the whole country. They decided to pick on one province only, my home province of Saskatchewan. They decided they would go after the SJHL, the Saskatchewan Junior Hockey League. They decided to go after those players and those teams and not just change the rules for the future, but to back tax them and make assessments.

For the House to understand just how absurd the government's position was with respect to this and how absurd Revenue Canada was, Revenue Canada did not even go after all the teams in the SJHL. It just went after the ones inside the boundaries of the province of Saskatchewan. For the record I am not arguing that the Flin Flon Bombers, the one team outside, should have been taxed. I am just noting the hypocrisy of it all.

To give credit to the current member for Prince Albert, he immediately started to get involved. The former member for Souris--Moose Mountain, Mr. Roy Bailey, got involved. They began to deal with the issue.

Having talked with members who have been in the House longer than I, what began to happen was a typical story of government ping-pong, “It is not my fault; it is someone else”. They talked with the revenue minister. They were told that no, it was with finance. They talked with finance and were told that no, it was with revenue. It was back and forth and back and forth. It was a classic case of dithering. There was absolutely no decisiveness, no leadership, no ability to stand up and make a decision on something as easy as hockey. It was just “It is not my department, not my fault”.

A couple of the members from the province of Saskatchewan began to take leadership. I wish to congratulate the member for Cypress Hills--Grasslands for taking that initiative and dealing with this after two years. It has become a bit of a national issue.

I will even note for the people watching on TV that I was not a member in the House when this issue first came up. I read about it in the newspaper. I watched Coach's Corner and saw Don Cherry, Mr. Hockey himself, stand up and speak for the SJHL and speak for fairness.

We are not talking about players who get out there and play for big dollars. These players do it for the love of the game. This affects smalltown amateur hockey teams, such as one of my favourite teams, the Humboldt Broncos, a team with a great history.

The government does not seem to worry about small things. We watch how it spends and wastes money. It did it with the gun registry. It is now doing it, as we are seeing in painfully excruciating detail, on the sponsorship program. It does not really seem to care about the little people, the things that impact and make a true difference to people in Saskatchewan and people all across the country. The government just seems to ignore it.

This is something that has a real impact on the town of Humboldt. It will have to raise money, and the amount could vary from $10,000 to $15,000, or depending on how the rules are, an extra $20,000 a year. That is money going from my community to Ottawa, money that has to be raised either through raffle tickets, or in whatever ways that amateur hockey teams do it.

The Humboldt Broncos have a proud tradition. Every little bit of government tax, every element of government assault on them makes it harder for them to do it.

In fact, the Humboldt Broncos are one of the best junior level tier two teams in the history of the league as it has been developed. In 2003 the Broncos won, I believe for the second or third time, the national championship. It is harder to win than the Memorial Cup because there are more teams and leagues involved.

I am very proud of the efforts of the players on that team and what they did. It is something that needs to be continued and which we need to support. It is only fair. All we are asking for is a practical solution, to go back to the way it was in the 1990s. We have been forced to do this because of the intransigence of the tax department.

What are some of the consequences if this does not go through? I have already talked about how it will affect the financial situation of various teams throughout the province of Saskatchewan and across Canada. This will affect teams in British Columbia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, all across the country.

One of the more practical things that has not been understood by the government is the effect this could have on university scholarships for hockey players. Most of the players do not make it into the NHL. Some do, such as Curtis Joseph. He is a graduate of the Notre Dame Hounds, one of the teams of the SJHL. Some do make it into the NHL, and most of the players tend to go on to play university hockey in the United States. They get outstanding scholarships for an excellent education, an education which many of the players could not have afforded otherwise.

The NCAA has a rule that if someone is a professional and has been paid professionally, that person cannot receive a scholarship. The NCAA is currently looking the other way and is not really enforcing the rules with regard to Canadian hockey players. We are fortunate that it has used some common sense to realize that these are not professional players, but the Government of Canada's ruling has put those players in jeopardy.

There is the potential that if the NCAA enforced the rules, those players would not be eligible for university or college scholarships. This is very serious. It could harm the future careers of the players or the potential for these teams to recruit players in the future. It would have a severe and negative effect on hockey in the province of Saskatchewan.

This is something we have to think about and be cautious and cognizant of when we are debating this issue. We do not want our hockey teams destroyed. We do not want them to be put under this pressure. We do not want to have to find new ways to do this.

All we are asking is for things to go back to the way they were, very simply, that the government not tax what really should not be taxed. Unfortunately this is the only mechanism we have been able to find to do it. If it helps protect amateur sports in other leagues or all across Canada, so much the better. There is so much more we should encourage. We thank the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands for his foresight on this bill.

I have heard some criticism from the government. I have heard its members offer some irrelevant statements. They do not really comprehend the root of this issue or what really has to be addressed. I have not heard any real alternatives. I have not heard any other way to deal with it. I would be open to listening to them. I think the member's bill is absolutely outstanding but I would be open to other ways in order to get unanimous consent in the House and pass the bill.

I appreciate the support from the member from the Bloc who has shown real courage in the issue, as well as the members of the New Democratic Party. If we could get Liberal members to come on side, I would be most happy to work with them, but unfortunately, that is not to be the case.

In conclusion, why am I supporting this bill? It is about fairness. It is not really about anything extra or special. It is about fairness, about the way the rules used to be so that the Humboldt Broncos in Saskatchewan are not discriminated against.

With respect to support for amateur athletics, we have to walk the walk and not just talk the talk. This is an excellent way to do it. It is an outstanding way to look after our athletes at a level where it is important and without costing very much money.

If we are to be serious, we must support hockey in Canada. We must support amateur sports.

[Civil Marriage Act, April 4th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-38, a bill of extreme gravity, a bill which only a few years ago would have been difficult for most Canadians to fathom, and a bill which launches two major attacks on cherished Canadian traditions.

First, the bill is a direct attack on the basic institution of marriage, the heart of family. Second, it is completely clear that a secondary purpose of the legislation is to malign the religious freedoms of millions of Canadians.

How does a simple piece of legislation do this? To understand my reasoning, let me first briefly lay out my political philosophy, so that all who hear or read these words may fully understand the context of my statements.

I believe and emphatically advocate the form freedom system of government. This is the philosophy from which we derive the basic forms of western governance. Whether it is in the form of a constitutional monarchy, as in most of the Commonwealth, or in the form of a republic, as with our neighbours to the south, it is the basic principle that has historically forged our system of governance.

This is a system which allows for liberty without anarchy and freedom without chaos. This is a system which promotes the rule of law and yet has permitted representative and responsible government. It is a view which is antithetical to libertarianism, the Marxism of the right, and socialism, the Marxism of the left. It argues emphatically for inalienable rights, but only grants these rights with inalienable responsibility.

How does this relate to marriage? How do these grand principles that have served our society apply to the situation at hand? Specifically, the rights of marriage can and must be given only with the responsibilities of marriage. To give one element of the equation without the other only invites chaos for civil society. With responsibility and no rights, there is no motivation to enter into marriage, but for the rights of marriage to be granted without responsibility would deprive society of the benefits of the institution. It would be an open invitation to societal chaos. If society derives no benefit from marriage, why should society seek to promote and protect marriage? In effect, marriage would diminish to the point of irrelevance.

What are the fundamental responsibilities of marriage? What are the incumbent rights? The advocates for the legislation argue that marriage is the expression of intimacy for two adults. They say that the legislation is necessary because of the need for acceptance of homosexual unions, and the need for public expression of intimacy. However, acceptance cannot be achieved through coercive powers of the state. Acceptance can only be given through free will, and if the public expression of adult intimacy is the basis of marriage, then marriage has become so trivial a matter that no basis for it is necessary in law. For if marriage is already defined for the purpose of acceptance and dignity as an intimate, adult, publicly acknowledged relationship, we no longer have marriage in the historic sense.

The underlying presumptives of acceptance and intimacy form the basis for the “rights” argument promulgated by the advocates of the legislation. They lay the groundwork for the spurious and circular reasoning of the bill. The argument is made that we must redefine marriage to protect rights, but redefinition of marriage is argued as the basis of these rights. What we have is a perfect tautology, a talented bit of sophistry by the advocates of the legislation. There is no true logic to support the legislation. The basis of the legislation is pure subjective emotionalism.

So in the positive sense, what are the fundamental responsibilities of marriage? What new accountability is acquired by entering into the state of matrimony?

The first attendant responsibility of marriage is children. No amount of social engineering will change the biological fact that heterosexual marriage can and often does produce children. It is the exceptions which prove the rule.

In fact, one of the central purposes of marriage is to procreate future generations, in a safe environment. This is something that should be emphasized. It is a responsibility of marriage to be a child centered institution. It is through marriage that we connect children with their biological parents, provide for future generations, and build society in a responsible and organized fashion.

Repeated academic studies have noted that where marriage has been redefined in the way this legislation proposes, or even under the guise of civil unions, the entire society understands the message. Marriage is for adults only.

In our sound bite area we would say that marriage then becomes about “recreation, not procreation”, much to the detriment of all society. Procreation is of course not the only reason why society supports marriage. A detailed explanation of even this specific reason would more than use up my allotted time.

There are other reasons why marriage is a necessary good for society and possibly, if I have the ability to re-enter the debate on Bill C-38, I will be able to elaborate on these reasons. I will say however that many other members of the House have delivered many good and similar reasons why marriage must be retained.

I believe I have made my general point. All of these reasons are for the good of society and all relate to the uniquely heterosexual nature of marriage. There is however a secondary purpose to this legislation, a purpose which has been alluded to by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the government's deputy House leader. That purpose is to attack religious freedom in Canada.

The government has insisted that this is a matter of human rights, thus it is implying that everyone who does not agree with it is a bigot. This is a powerful weapon because it implies that the state will later on use its coercive force to crack down on the dissenters who do not share its view of rights. Why is the government taking such a drastic approach? It is for one basic reason: the faith communities of the country have been the government's most effective critics of the bill. If the government can intimidate the churches of the country into silence, it will.

While I deliberately chose not to use religious arguments in this debate, the theological arguments against same sex unions are powerful and legitimate arguments. We must not exclude religion from our public dialogue. Do we forget that this is what has motivated great societal change? It was the religious convictions of British parliamentarian William Wilberforce which drove him to lead the fight against slavery. What better argument against slavery is there than that all mankind is created in the image of God?

It was a theological impetus that caused the 14th century English priest, John Wycliffe, who long before Abraham Lincoln, wrote in his Bible, “This book shall make possible a government of the people, by the people, and for the people”. The arguments and explanations of William Blackstone, Henry de Bracton and other great legal commentaries on English common law reiterate this point.

In our modern era, the struggle against apartheid only further illustrates what I already stated. While I firmly disagreed with both their theology and politics, most of the leaders of the CCF also used their faith as a primary basis to call for political and social change.

I am not saying that theological arguments are innately moral or even superior to other lines of reasoning. My point is just this. By calling them illegitimate and implying that they are bigoted, the government is seeking to suppress one of the most important and positive forces in the history of western civilization. The government is attempting to suppress dissent, an action which no democratic government should engage in.

In summary, let me restate the two basic issues that I have raised in regard to the bill. It is clear that the rights of marriage should only be granted with the responsibilities of marriage. It is a simple point but one that the bill has seen fit to miss. It is clear that communities and arguments based on theology have contributed much good to Canadian society, yet the government is determined to target them.

There is great irony in the debate. The government calls for its actions to promote rights. Marriage however is really the voluntary revocation of rights. When two become as one they yield their rights to each other.

I for one will choose to stand for what is right for all Canadians. I will vote against the bill. I will vote with and for the people of Saskatoon—Humboldt. Here I stand; I can do no other.

[Supply, March 22nd, 2005]

Violating the Constitution in a very clever and systematic way. With this violation of the Constitution and double counting, it discourages economic growth in Saskatchewan. Why should a provincial finance minister try for cuts in the tax rates if it will all be clawed back? Why should be there a push made to increase the wealth generated by natural resources if there is no benefit to it? It is a disincentive to the whole national economy and must be removed.

I will note that we on this side of the House have recognized this problem and have pushed for change. In the last election the Conservatives in the province of Saskatchewan were proud to campaign on our party's platform, which called for the removal of natural resources from the formula. It would have given the province of Saskatchewan the freedom to enjoy its own wealth and resources. All we are asking for is the same fairness, the same deal that the provinces of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador have received.

Historically and technically, offshore resources were owned by the federal government, not even placed as they were directly under the control of the provincial governments. Maybe it was more of a technicality than anything, but that unfairness was corrected, wisely slow. Even if the Prime Minister had to be dragged kicking, screaming and hollering and forced to keep his word, it was the right thing to do. It has been done, maybe only for eight years, but hopefully in perpetuity for the provinces of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. It is the right of the people of every province to own and control their own resources.

It is also heartening to see the near unanimity of political leaders in Saskatchewan. It has been said that politics in Saskatchewan is a blood sport. We are fiercely divided and often very aggressive in debating back and forth. In Saskatchewan today 13 out of 14 members of Parliament support this resolution and are arguing for it. The finance minister, the man who is in charge, is the only one opposing it.

The Liberal leader of the province of Saskatchewan supports this, joined by the New Democrats and the Saskatchewan Party. Socialists and Conservatives in Saskatchewan get along about almost nothing. This is in itself near miraculous. With all that unanimity and political support from the province, if we could only convince one we would do what is right for the province of Saskatchewan.

This is very clearly an abstract debate to most people. What it really boils to is very simple: fairness for the province of Saskatchewan, control of their own property, the ability to profit from its own resources so the people of Saskatchewan may be able to enjoy better health care, better roads, have money returned to them and put into their pockets. This will provide real dollars to the people in Saskatchewan, roughly the equivalent of $3,000 to $4,000 per family, which is real money to working people, struggling farmers and the people of Saskatchewan.

I ask for the full support of the House. I hope we will receive it.

[Supply, March 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Saskatoon--Wanuskewin, my good friend.

Today we rise to talk about a question dealing with equalization. At the root of the question of equalization, is the question of history and the question of fairness, of the history of what has been done to the province of Saskatchewan and fairness for the future in the province of Saskatchewan.

Let me start first with my personal history of why I am so passionately interested in this question, which in many ways is a technical question but has practical applications for many people in Saskatchewan.

I, like many in Saskatchewan, am the descendant of early settlers. For four generations my family has farmed a farm in the Willowbrook and Springside area, a piece of property which ironically was owned by the former premier of Saskatchewan, Mr. Charles Dunning. My family has always been proud to be from Saskatchewan, but we have not always been proud of the treatment our province has received at the hands of the federal government, particularly federal governments that have been run by the Liberal Party.

This year we in Saskatchewan are celebrating our centennial, a hundred years of proud history. There were the great depression and the struggles, but we are celebrating the strengths that we have come through. We are celebrating the ups and downs of the agricultural and natural resource economies which are so crucial to our history. Part of that history is the deprivation of natural resources from the province of Saskatchewan, the deprivation of the benefit of natural resources.

When we first became a province in 1905, the federal government did not permit Saskatchewan to control and enjoy the benefits of its own resources. The territorial premier at that time, Frederick Haultain, argued emphatically against it. We were being discriminated against, we were being treated differently than the provinces in eastern Canada. It was pure, blatant discrimination. Not until 1930, the era of the Conservative Prime Minister R.B. Bennett, did the natural resources agreement get signed and incorporated into the Constitution Act of 1930, giving Saskatchewan and Alberta full and complete control over their natural resources. It is not a new thing for the province of Saskatchewan to be deprived of the benefit of its own natural resources.

What is equalization? Equalization is the distribution across the country of payments by the federal government so all provinces may be able to provide reasonable services at reasonable levels of taxation. However, reasonableness in the eyes of political masters and of governments can often be seen by the beholder and be very subjective. It has been a very unfair system to Saskatchewan as the rules have changed over the years.

It has been noted that Saskatchewan, which incredibly has been listed as a have province, has a personal disposable income of only $19,685 per person compared to Manitoba's $24,267 per person. While this discrepancy would clearly point out that the province of Saskatchewan is poor, we receive on a per capita basis roughly $1,000 less per person in equalization, $1 billion a year. All of this is for one simple reason: because of the way that natural resources are accounted for in the equalization formula.

There is no logic behind the counting of natural resources in equalization. It is only an arbitrary and subjective judgment with no real value as to the long term wealth or the tax base of the province of Saskatchewan for a few reasons, and let me name quickly a couple of these as my time moves on.

First, when natural resources are included in the accounting for equalization, it causes a double taxation, a double counting in the formula. It has been long noted that housing prices, wages, et cetera in the province of Alberta tend to track their oil and gas prices fairly clearly. The wealth of our natural resource is already accounted for in our provincial gross domestic product. When we count it once in the tax bases for income taxes and sales taxes and count it again in the formulas for royalties, we are really counting twice against the provinces that are heavily involved with their economies in natural resources. It is simply and clearly unfair. It should not be counted twice against the province of Saskatchewan.

The second reason that natural resources should be removed from equalization is because they are most probably unconstitutional. Everyone will remember earlier in my speech I noted that Saskatchewan fought from 1905 to 1930 for the full benefit of controlling its natural resources. What equalization has effectively done is taken away the benefits of natural resources from the province of Saskatchewan. It has done this by clawing back at a rate sometimes greater than the payment of equalization.

When the province receives $1 extra from higher royalties to the wealth created due to higher oil prices, uranium or potash, and I realize potash is a slightly unique situation, the clawback in equalization can be in some cases up to $1.25. The numbers vary depending on the category of natural resource included.

What this means is that the province of Saskatchewan receives no benefit from the price rises of its natural resources. All of the benefit is accrued by the federal government, which effectively means the federal government has complete control and benefits solely from Saskatchewan's natural resources, thus of course discouraging the development and wise growth of these resources in the province.

[Agriculture, March 9th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's inability to get the border open to live cattle exports has claimed another victim. A rancher in my riding phoned to say that the bank had called in their loan. Their before-tax income was only $4,000. They have no money left on which to live.

How can the agriculture minister believe in his programs when farmers are going bankrupt?

[Budget Day, February 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, today the finance minister will tell Canadians what he wants for them. He will give Canadians what his priorities are but what are the priorities of Canadians?

Let me tell members about the priorities of one Canadian, my good friend Andrew.

Andrew is 30 years old, farms for a living and also works at a feedlot. He has two small children who his wife Vikki stays at home to look after. His priority is a child tax credit so Vikki can afford to stay home to look after the kids.

His priority is a tax cut on his EI premiums, income taxes and fuel taxes so he can afford to finish the house he is building.

His priority is a realistic agriculture disaster relief plan so he can afford to seed his crop this year.

Those are not unrealistic priorities and they are the priorities which I, as the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt, support because they are the priorities of the people of my riding, my province and my country.

[Equalization Program, February 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, today in Regina, Saskatchewan's Conservative MPs are meeting with Premier Calvert, Saskatchewan Party leader Brad Wall, and even the provincial Liberal leader. They have all agreed to work together to get Saskatchewan an honest equalization deal.

My question is for the Minister of Finance. Will he ever stand up for Saskatchewan? Will he ever stop cheating Saskatchewan of its own natural resources? Will he ever give Saskatchewan the same equalization deal as Newfoundland and Labrador?

[Official Languages Act, February 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I heard a lot of numbers over there. I heard a lot of posturing about they had done this and they had done that. I urge the parliamentary secretary to get out there, talk to the rank and file police officers and talk about their needs.

I am a Conservative. I do not like spending money by and large, but there are certain things the government has a need for, and spending for police services is one of them. It is an economical way to spend money. If we cut down on drug use, it will save our health care costs. If we cut down on property crimes, it will allow for more productivity in our economy. This is a wise and prudent use of resources, but spend it to meet the needs.

The government rattles off all these numbers. Talk to the police officers. What do they really need? I have asked those officers. They are not asking for any luxury. They have said that their rural detachments are declining. They have problems with their equipment. They need real resources. They do not need posturing. They do not need statistics.

[Official Languages Act, February 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, for the people who are viewing us on TV, I will briefly rephrase the question which I am bringing forward again in adjournment proceedings tonight. I put the question to the Minister of Finance, but it was answered by the Deputy Prime Minister, concerning the thousands of RCMP officer vacancies that are across Canada. In my particular case, I was most concerned about the province of Saskatchewan.

I referenced an earlier quote from the current Minister of Public Works which said that $1 billion would be better spent on the RCMP rather than wasting it on the gun registry. That was an admirable thought.

In the justice committee of the House, the Conservative members of the committee had brought forth the motion to transfer $56 million from the gun registry to training for the RCMP. The motion was defeated in committee with the support of the Bloc Québécois and the NDP supporting the government. So I put the question to the minister to encourage him to put more resources properly where they should be, to the RCMP.

During the election campaign I ran into eight or nine RCMP officers door knocking and campaigning. If I may say so proudly, they all pledged to vote for me. I asked them, “What do you need, what do you want? Is the government adequately supporting you?”

We find in the province of Saskatchewan that we have severe problems with crime. It is unfortunate that the province has a high murder rate and in particular, the city of Saskatoon has one of the highest which is not something we are proud of. We need more police services to deal with the crystal meth problem and the drug abuse problem. We need more police services to deal with break and enters. I realize that some of this has to do with cities and so forth, but the RCMP needs more resources.

I would go out and talk to the individual members, not in front of the cameras, not for consumption, so that they would tell me face to face what they would say to someone who they were viewing as their potential member and now is their member of Parliament. I would ask, “What do you really need?”

The Mounties told me that they needed more basic equipment. The buildings used by their rural detachments were falling apart. They needed better cars and just the basic equipment to handle their jobs.

They did not need the gun registry. They found it burdensome and a nuisance. In fact, one of the RCMP officers who first questioned me was in civilian dress and questioned me about the gun registry. I of course explained why I was saying it was such a disaster. He said, “Good, because we need that money for more proper and useful things. We have to actually deal with crime in the community and we need money resourced and reallocated. It was not the entire waste of the gun registry that we were asking for but just a portion”.

Therefore, my question for the government is, why not take the money and put it into filling these vacancies, and put it into something that the communities and the RCMP rank and file officers are calling for?

I know the parliamentary secretary will recite what the government has done, but the need is so great. The need continues and the need is not met. Irrespective of what the government will claim to have done, there is still a need for more funding. I wish the government would address that by transferring it from waste to proper spending.