Bradley Trost

[Alzheimer's Disease, February 16th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the parliamentary secretary's remarks, but somehow I find this a little hard to believe.

I realize there are exceptions and the border will not be fully opened by March, but its being closed for basically two years is somehow considered to be a success by the government. The packing industry in the United States was lobbying on our side. The mainstream beef-producing organizations were lobbying on our side. We had powerful allies down there who in many ways did considerably more than the Liberal government did to lobby on behalf of Canadian cattle. It is a disgrace that the government was not as effective as they were.

I cannot understand how the government considers a two year border closure as some sort of major success. If we had had a proper relationship and open channels instead of members on that side antagonizing the American political establishment, we would have had this issue solved much earlier.

Again I ask the minister how he considers this long period of border closure to be a success.

[Alzheimer's Disease, February 16th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, to put into context my question for both the viewing audience and for the record, the adjournment proceedings tonight that I am participating in were sparked by a question I put to the government last year.

I said to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food that about all we had from the government on the live cattle ban was excuses on why the U.S. border would not open. I said that President Bush had come and gone and still the border remained closed. I then asked when the border would be opened.

I asked the question for a couple of reasons. I wanted to understand what the government's strategy or plan was on its foreign policy and agricultural policy, and particularly how the two were related. The debate on the BSE has gone on continuously. It has been roughly two years since the border closed. It seemed to me that the government had no plan and I wanted to try to understand, to grasp where it was coming from.

This is very important because the agriculture community of Canada is one of the vital, underlying, underpinning elements of our economy and, in particular, the cattle and beef industry ranges all across the country. It is important to almost every province, from British Columbia in the west, to the prairies and in my home province of Saskatchewan, to Alberta, Ontario, Quebec and even to the Atlantic provinces.

I put the question to the government to understand what proactive plan it had for the future, thinking ahead. This is interesting and important because we had seen the mad cow crisis as it had struck Europe and the lack of forethought the Europeans had. It was much greater than what we had. Brazil and various other countries had it but the government had no overlying foreign or agriculture policy proactively thought out ahead to see what and when we could do it as soon as it came.

We can see that the government had no effective plan because we see the results of it, literally two years to get the borders open on one case. It has now come to two or three different cases on the BSE, something so minor, so trivial that our borders should not have been shut down but it is something that we should have thought about.

I was curious and wanted to understand what the government was thinking on the agriculture policy but it also demonstrates our overall lack of a foreign policy. Agriculture, as with all trade departments, is involved in that too.

I was trying to grasp and understand what the Prime Minister and agriculture minister discussed with President Bush and to find out how we could use Canada's influence in the world. Unfortunately, we found out very clearly that Canada, with this government, has no influence in the world. Canada has no influence on agriculture policy in the United States unless we learn some of these lessons. The government apparently has not learned.

I will repeat my question to the government in more broad terms because the border is opening up. What is the proactive plan of the government on foreign policy, particularly as it relates to agriculture? What steps is it going to take to actually protect farmers from future disasters? We do not want just words. We want real actions.

[Employment Insurance Act, February 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to what my hon. friend had to say and as I listened I made a few notes.

While it is true that the government is increasing the permanent funding of $11.5 million, that is only the same amount as the temporary funding that was continually brought forward year by year. The Auditor General had been told that would be fixed by fall 2002. It was not and, may I say, perhaps it was not because there was a majority government on that side of the House and not a minority government.

I will state fairly clearly that the only reason the Auditor General has the support of the House is because of the minority situation, because of the strength supplied by the opposition parties to her office and to her resources.

I would call on the government to expand her mandate and continue to support her so she may be able to look into other areas of government funding that are currently not open for accountability and so all taxpayer dollars may be wisely and prudently spent.

[Employment Insurance Act, February 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the question I brought to the House some time ago in question period related to the Auditor General and support for the Auditor General.

Let me reaffirm that on this side of the House we have always valued the work and the integrity of the Auditor General. It is rare when members on this side of the House call for massive spending increases, but in the last election campaign we called for a $50 million increase for the Auditor General for the work that she does in saving the public money. That is why I brought the question to the House.

My question was about a 15% cut to the budget of the Auditor General. Specifically, the question came from the following quotes from the Auditor General's testimony:

Looking ahead, Mr. Chair...our financial position is less rosy. There are two related issues I would like to bring to your attention today: our funding...and the mechanism for...funding....

Specifically, the Auditor General noted at that time that her budget was to be reduced by $11.5 million to $60 million.

I am very concerned about this because the Office of the Auditor General is a very important institution.

Not only does the Auditor General save taxpayers' dollars by investigating and being involved in the small details, but the Auditor General brings to light breaches in ethics, as we have seen involved with the Gomery inquiry. This is an inquiry which reaches not only to the spending and the problems with the spending in a program, but is now beginning, as we see in the testimony, to talk about moving funds to political organizations. These are funds that were spent to subvert democracy.

The question I brought to the House was whether the government, instead of cutting the Auditor General's funds, would support her instead, possibly, as I hope some day to hear, as the Conservatives have advocated, with a $50 million increase to the Auditor General's budget. I hope to hear that from the parliamentary secretary tonight. Not only am I calling for more support for the Auditor General, but also for a broader mandate. The money must be spent efficiently and the Auditor General will see to that.

I am very pleased to see that the Auditor General has been effectively fighting for the rights of Canadians. We on this side of the House will always stand up for that.

We also call for the Auditor General to have a broader and more accountable ability to look into other aspects of government that are completely hidden, areas such as foundations. Tonight I call on the parliamentary secretary to call for an increased and expanded mandate for the Auditor General.

Again, instead of looking to cut the Auditor General's budget by 15%, the government should have called on the Auditor General's funding to be increased, to be spent wisely and to be delivered to the people. In this country we have seen too many abuses of spending by the government. We have seen the gun registry, the sponsorship inquiry and many other smaller scandals over the years.

To reiterate, we need accountability. The Auditor General is the instrument for accountability. I call on this government to give the Auditor General its full support instead of obstructing her. I ask the government to give the Auditor General the support that the Conservative Party has brought to the work of the Auditor General. I will appreciate hearing the parliamentary secretary's response.

[Telecommunications Act, February 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to address an issue that is of interest to many Canadians.

It would be safe to say that few people enjoy receiving a call from a telemarketer during supper hour. In fact public frustration with the persistence of ill-timed incoming phone calls has entered the realm of popular culture. I am not sure if members remember the Seinfeld episode where Jerry Seinfeld turned the tables on the telemarketer by saying he was too busy and asked the caller for his phone number so that Jerry might call him back during the caller's supper hour. This amusing sitcom moment illustrates the intrusion felt by many of my constituents when the phone rings as they are about to sit down for dinner or do something with their children. Someone is either trying to sell them something, probe them for information, or leave them listening to a recording.

Clearly the Conservative Party and I as the representative for the riding of Saskatoon--Humboldt do not support such invasions of privacy.

Let me say that the principle of this bill, the underlying goal, is very good. However the do not call legislation under discussion has some serious problems. Legislation that is flawed but good in principle must be amended. It is typical of the government to produce such legislation.

As has been pointed out too often in the past, Liberal governments try to deal with important issues by designing half-baked solutions. Ask any farmer in my riding about the prospect of losing their land without guaranteed compensation under the Species at Risk Act and members will get an idea of what I am referring to by poorly crafted laws.

Let me pause for a moment in order to say one thing about the Species at Risk Act to illustrate the problem of poorly thought out legislation. If only the federal government had had the presence of mind to work with farmers and ranchers, the protection of wildlife habitat could have taken a quantum leap forward across this country. We in the Conservative Party recognize that our farmers and ranchers are stewards of the land. They are quite willing to preserve the habitat, to cooperate with groups such as Ducks Unlimited Canada, yet the Liberals in their anti-rural and often unthinking way with their legislation showed evidence of not following through on the details. In bills like the Species at Risk Act the devil was in the details, as it is with this legislation.

Bill C-37 is poorly drafted legislation because the bill is very scant on important details. Bill C-37 would allow the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, the CRTC, to create a national do not call list. The CRTC would be empowered through Bill C-37 to hit telemarketers with substantial penalties. Bill C-37 does not spell out how this national do not call list would be maintained. There are no details in this bill concerning what information would be required from consumers to build the list into an effective database. There are no details in Bill C-37 setting up how telemarketers would check the do not call list in order to comply with the law. There are no details in Bill C-37 setting out how often telemarketers would have to check the list to be operating within the law. These are all important details, and details can change legislation.

In summary, under Bill C-37 telemarketers could be fined $1,500 per offending call, for individuals. The penalty for corporations that do not respect the do not call list is $15,000 per offending call. However there are no details in Bill C-37 setting out how telemarketers would check the national do not call list in order to comply with the laws.

In addition Bill C-37 does not explain who would have access to the do not call list. Imagine that, a national database of telephone numbers, callers' names, and who knows what other information provided by callers, and there are no legal parameters spelling out who has access to this information. We must be sure in this legislation that we do not, in seeking to protect privacy, end up invading privacy even more severely.

To top this all off, Bill C-37 does not have any reporting requirements on how the list is being run. Let us consider the implications of this. It would be a massive database with no reporting requirements. It is rather odd that there is nothing in Bill C-37 about these reporting requirements.

I thought the Prime Minister was going to have more government transparency and accountability as hallmarks of his government. Apparently, the timely reviews of government programs are not a priority of the Liberals. We need to know the details. We need to have proof up front about how the bill would work.

Too often we have seen that there are promises made and they never seem to be delivered. As another example of other government activities, I point to what my colleague from Edmonton—Leduc is still waiting for, a full review of Technology Partnerships Canada. It is a review that has been promised to be undertaken by three industry ministers.

Canadians watching this debate will be pleased to know that the Liberals have strived to recover a stunning 5% of the $2 billion in Liberal taxpayers' money spent on TPC since 1996. The government is following up this excess with the national do not call list, with no reporting requirements. Promises must be spelled out so that promises are kept.

We think of another registry, the national gun registry, a $2 million program that ballooned to $2 billion. Now the Liberals want to create another mega database of information, allowing the CRTC to create and regulate a do not call list as it sees fit.

Will the do not call list turn into another gun registry in terms of costs and management? I certainly hope not, but with this government, it is more than possible. Is the creation of a do not call list, its administration and enforcement including the penalty phase, within the CRTC mandate?

Finally, I want to talk about the bill's effect on charities. There are no exceptions in the bill for charities or companies that wish to have a relationship going on between themselves and their current existing clients, whether it is a charity or other groups that use the telephone to contact their members or clients.

In addition to a wide range of charities, this group could include telephone survey, polling companies and political organizations such as parties. Many charities and not for profit organizations rely on telemarketing campaigns. Without proper thought, exemptions for charities, Bill C-37 is going to severely restrict the good that a lot of groups do for our fellow Canadians, and people abroad like tsunami victims.

Personally, I do not know what the Liberals have against charities and volunteer groups. They drew up Bill C-21, the Canada not for profit corporations act, a bill which places a heavy burden, a continual bureaucratic burden, on not for profit corporations to keep up with all the reporting requirements stipulated by Industry Canada.

The legislation has been described as very detailed and technical, even by officials at Industry Canada. Bill C-21 is thick with regulations. Volunteer groups and service clubs will have to change their bylaws and their constitutions in order to comply with this new act. The legislation with its long list of requirements would make it harder to attract good volunteers and good directors for not for profit organizations.

Now the Liberals have brought forward Bill C-37 without any exemptions or exceptions for charities. What we have here is another Liberal example of symbol over substance. The PMO is quite happy to have a photo op showing the Prime Minister drinking purified water by the DART members, quipping meanwhile that he needs a little scotch while the troops are in, of all things, a dry camp.

While the Prime Minister is touring tsunami ravaged areas, the Liberals back here in Ottawa are pushing forward legislation that would hurt charities and not for profit groups to raise funds for others. I hope this is pure thoughtlessness.

A do not call list of some fashion would provide relief to people across our country who do not want their family time, their meals or TV programs interrupted by someone on the other end of the telephone selling some unsolicited service. I support the principle involved, but I believe the details need to be adjusted.

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police, December 8th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, not long ago the Minister of Public Works and Government Services said, “We should be getting rid of the long gun registry. A billion dollars would have been better spent on the RCMP”.

My question is for the Minister of Finance. There are thousands of RCMP officers required to fill vacancies across Canada, particularly in Saskatchewan. Seventy-six per cent of Canadians want more police, not a billion dollar boondoggle registry.

Why has the Minister of Finance failed to find the resources to fill the RCMP vacancies across Canada and in Saskatchewan?

[Credit Cards, December 7th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, I may have misheard the member and I apologize. I thought I heard him say McKnight in the previous exchange and we naturally think of Conservative members as distinguished members so we hear their names more readily.

In doing my research I also did some comparing. I found one credit card that charged prime plus 2%, which I believe was the hon. member's reference. In looking through my research, I am not aware of any credit card that charges a 60% interest rate. I would be very surprised to know that anyone would actually use such a credit card.

The highest rate I found, after recently looking through all the store credit cards and so forth, was approaching 30%. That was a charge card with more of a penalty for not paying it. I think the underlying view was that the stores did not want this as a borrowing mechanism. They wanted it merely as a convenience for paying. The high penalty was there to discourage people from even considering it as a borrowing fee.

I appreciate that parliamentary secretaries do more research. My staff is looking into this and will continue to do so, as I am sure his staff will. I think it is imperative that the public bring forward any stories or tales of this so we can deal with the problem and expose it. It was brought to light that if some people did not understand their options financially and so forth, they may end up using some of these usurious instruments of finance. As we educate people and let them have full knowledge, at that point they will find what the market defines as lower rates and move to what is more naturally better for them.

[Credit Cards, December 7th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, I appreciate my hon. friend's comments. I am dealing with this in a very serious manner. Let me be clear. I am a Conservative. I do not believe that government is the all powerful, almighty, all way to do it.

The hon. member suggested that if we put a cap on it, that would solve the problem. The banks know how to make a billion dollars a year. I think they are smart enough to figure out a way around it. They will do it with fees, with extra monthly charges, with extra charges on merchants who have to deal with it.

The underlying most powerful thing in any economy, in any society is not the government. That is where we have a very clear difference in philosophy. We can make laws here but those laws have to conform with reality. They have to actually deal with what goes on out there. We cannot repeal the law of gravity no more than we can repeal the law of supply and demand, no more than we can repeal the bankers' ability to make money. They are very talented at it.

While I appreciate the suggestion that they are trying to help and so forth, ultimately the solution is futile. It is a band-aid. It is a propaganda tool. It is nothing more than a charade. It does not help people. It helps electioneering. It helps with slogans. It helps on the campaign trail, but it does not actually solve the problem.

The problem rests more with the people. That is why I concentrated on education. I used a device to catch members' attention, to wake them up to the fact that ultimately we need to give people the tools. People themselves would be more powerful in dealing with the banks, in dealing with corporations, by using the tools that we gave them than we as the government would be.

There is a very clear ideological and philosophical divide between me and the hon. member on that point. That is where I come from on this matter. Legislation is not the answer to everything. If we push down on one, inevitably another will spring up. If we continue to regulate and continue to put pressures here and there, how does it help Canadians if we cannot at the end of the day put more money in their pockets? We do that by growing the economy, by cutting taxes, by cutting payroll taxes, areas that actually put more money in people's pockets.

The hon. member's party supports higher taxes but less money given to the credit card companies in interest rates. At the end of the day, the money is still out of Canadians' pockets. That the NDP members want to take with their left hand and give back with their even farther left hand does not help. Canadians need money in their pockets. They need it because of a productive economy. They need it to grow.

The solution, while it is great for propaganda, does absolutely nothing to help Canadians over the long term because ultimately the banks will get around it, so what is the point?

[Credit Cards, December 7th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, I am being slightly heckled so I will remind the hon. members across the way that my emphasis in this party is on the noun of the old party's name, not on the adjective, and that is why I am a part of this party.

Again, as we point out, all that wasted money that went into the gun registry should have gone to legitimate law enforcement. It should have gone legitimately to the RCMP to fight various things such as credit card fraud.

There we had a practical measure that we could have dealt with to help Canadian consumers and help tackle the high cost of credit cards, yet three parties in this House, the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc Québécois, failed on that opportunity. It was a disgrace. It was an absolute shame that instead of attacking the gun registry and dealing with the problem, just as this member here has done and members in this party and on this side of the House have done in all their various incarnations over the years, they chose instead to funnel it right back. It was a wasted opportunity to deal with all sorts of crimes.

We also must be practical. I was speaking earlier on the purpose of education and what we can do even without legislation. One thing we can do as parliamentarians, members of the public and distinguished public servants is reach out and discuss with our constituents what they can do.

I am a Conservative. I believe that government is not all powerful and all knowing. It cannot solve all problems. Problems are often solved by giving them directly into the hands of the people. I believe that the people themselves can take charge and make decisions and that society is shaped as people themselves take on their own responsibilities; that balance of freedom with responsibility forms freedom. What we can do to enhance and encourage that is increase their knowledge and their background in order to deal with issues.

In that light, with the full knowledge that there are people watching and people who will read Hansard , let me give to hon. members some suggestions of information they could put in their householders, things they could discuss when they conduct town hall meetings, as I am sure all hon. members do in their constituencies. These are practical applied purposes and points that members can get out there, regardless of partisan persuasion.

I am sure that no one in the House supports credit card fraud. One, it is the taking of unlawful assets. Two, as the old joke goes: do not steal; the government hates competition.

With those words in mind, let me give a few points for people to consider to protect themselves from credit card fraud. There are a considerable number of resources. The RCMP has a website. There are articles from the Regina Sun . There are consumer websites. There are a considerable number of websites to use, but let me give a few practical ideas that members can pass on to their constituents during their town hall meetings.

Number one is to protect that PIN, personal identification number. Do not tell anyone. That is very important.

Number two is something I always forget to do. Never leave credit cards unattended at work or school. The workplace is the number one place for thefts. Again, working in an atmosphere where the government continuously taxes, one should be reminded not to leave one's money lying around. Someone will pick it up.

Number three, people should not leave their credit cards in their cars. Cars are the second most likely place where credit cards will be stolen.

Number four, people should always check their credit cards when they are returned after a purchase.

Number five, when travelling people should make sure that their credit cards are with them, or in a safe location.

Number six, people should sign the backs of new credit cards immediately, as soon as they arrive. The reason is if there is a discrepancy, that signature will be compared with the one on any receipt given in the future. That is very important. I know of friends and family members who have forgotten to do this. It is good to remind everyone of this.

Number seven, people should make a list of all credit cards and their numbers, and keep the list at home. They should not keep the list with the credit cards, because if someone else gets hold of the credit cards, he or she will have all the information needed to use them.

Number eight, people should check their monthly statements. Mistakes can happen. No one wants to pay for a criminal's fraud. Most parents are unhappy enough when they see that their child has used the credit card without telling mom and dad about it. We definitely do not want to give criminals that opportunity

Number nine, people should never give out a credit card number over the phone unless they are dealing with a well-known company, or if they called the company first.

Those are just some practical suggestions I wanted to put on the record to help members. They are ideas for their householders, town hall meetings, et cetera, so they do not just have the theoretical, but they also have the practical.

I will sum up my points. Number one, we should more aggressively combat credit card fraud instead of wasting money on unnecessary things like the gun registry. Number two, people themselves have the greatest power to deal with it through information to fight back. My final point is that we as public servants should go out there and educate, spread the word, and give information. We are in the public eye many times in our constituencies. Let us do some good. We all know we do good through our legislation. Let us do it in some practical aspects, interacting with people on what is essentially a non-partisan issue.

[Credit Cards, December 7th, 2004]

Let me say that I speak in jest, Mr. Chair, just in case someone reading Hansard may take that in all seriousness.

In a more practical manner, what can we do to address credit card fraud? Looking at that $200 million, I think if we put more resources into combating and fighting credit card fraud we could actually deal with it to the point that we could get an economic return which would trickle down and help consumers to a certain degree.

I find it particularly interesting that all members of the House want to call it helping consumers, or helping to bring down the charges and the costs and making it more affordable and accessible for all consumers everywhere, yet in the justice committee of Parliament we had a vote the other day on whether or not to reallocate $20 million from the gun registry to the RCMP. That is $20 million. Instead of wasting this money on the gun registry by putting little stickers onto guns and losing paper files, on absolutely throwing money down the drain, and we all know that is what the gun registry is, we could have spent this money combating credit card fraud.

We could have given the police more resources, more ammunition and more tools to get out there and deal with the organized criminals that go after the poor people, the grandmothers, the students and the hard-working people who use credit cards as a means of payment, as a means to get through month to month.

Instead, the government chose to continue, with the support, if I may say so, of the Bloc Québécois and the NDP--