Garry Breitkreuz

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, October 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe what we have just heard from the Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. He lives in Prince Edward Island. He knows that the Canadian Wheat Board applies only to the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba and does not allow the people in those provinces to market their grain freely. He knows that he does not have to comply with the wheat board yet he sits there defending it.

He probably does not even know what the initial price of wheat is right now that the wheat board is handing out. That is why we have a farm income crisis on the prairies. It is about time this government started to listen because it is a very serious problem. It is because grain prices are so low and farmers do not have the choice.

As I sit here and listen to the debate in the House in Private Members' Business, one thing occurs to me. Probably what is being debated after hours in the House of Commons is more important to the people of Canada than the bills that are being introduced by this government all day long. Private Members' Business probably addresses some of the key concerns that Canadians have. This is one of those concerns. There are major concerns out there with regard to the Canadian Wheat Board.

Why do we need to have more transparency? A free, open and democratic society needs to have transparency in its institutions, especially if an institution is a monopoly. If we have a government granted monopoly and we expect people to comply with it willingly, that monopoly, that organization, the Canadian Wheat Board, needs to have the confidence of the people who must comply with the monopoly powers of that agency. That is why this whole discussion is so important.

There are many reports that the Canadian Wheat Board is dumping grain on the international market into the U.S., that it is selling grain below its competitors on the Minneapolis Stock Exchange. We have no way of knowing if those reports are true. That is why we need someone who can go into the books and report to the farmers who must comply with that agency as to whether or not that accusation is true.

Whether we like the agency or not, we still need to have that transparency. Without that, it is going to have serious problems.

I took the amendments to Bill C-4, the Canadian Wheat Board Act brought forth by this government to the farmers in my riding. I took a survey and used several different instruments to find out what farmers thought. One of the things I found was that over 80% of the farmers in my riding, and this is probably representative of farmers in the three prairie provinces, supported the idea that is being proposed here, that the auditor general be allowed to look at the books. Yet that government over there is defending this abhorrent situation.

It is time the people of Canada came to the rescue of farmers and helped them out in this situation. If over 80% of farmers want transparency and they want the auditor general to look at the books and report as to whether they are doing a good job, it is time we listened because they are forced by this government to comply.

[Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act, October 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, as I speak to this legislation, to my colleagues, parliament and the people of Canada, I will briefly outline an initiative I took awhile ago. As I describe it I will relate it to the legislation.

A couple of years ago I asked an independent lawyer for an analysis of the bills that were before the House of Commons. I requested an examination of the bills before the House to determine which pieces of legislation were taking power away from the people of Canada through their elected representatives and giving it to the bureaucracy. What bills before parliament were enhancing or reducing accountability to the people of Canada?

Members may find this very, very interesting because it relates directly to what we are doing in parliament this afternoon and the member's speech which just took place.

I put the question forward because many people were coming to me expressing concern that the government was out of control, that it was growing bigger and bigger and becoming less accountable.

As was mentioned previously, Canadians are afraid of the tax department. They are afraid of Revenue Canada. Why? Because the bureaucracy wields great power and the ordinary citizen feels quite helpless before it. It appears to extract the maximum amount of money from them without informing them of their rights or the minimum amount that would be payable. The Income Tax Act is overly complex, as we know, and it is intimidating. The key point is that Canadians would rather have a thief break into their house than deal with the tax department. People have told me that.

My point is that this bill will only make things worse. There will be less accountability. I can only support this initiative if there is a built-in structure. I would like to ask for the member's comments with regard to the proposal I am putting forward. There should be a built-in structure that protects taxpayers and those importing goods into Canada or exporting goods out of Canada.

We have to look at what happened with harmonization in eastern Canada. Has it improved efficiency? Not that I am aware of. In fact, I understand there are provinces that want to pull out of it, like Nova Scotia.

We need an agency to protect taxpayers, one that will make sure they are treated fairly and justly and not in an arbitrary manner. We need an agency that will help resolve disputes or problems with Revenue Canada. I think before we can support this bill, we have to have that agency in place. I would like to know if my colleague has any comments in that regard.

[Petitions, October 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition I am pleased to present has 311 pages of petitions with signatures of 7,644 concerned Canadians from Quebec, Ontario, Alberta, Manitoba and my home province of Saskatchewan.

For those who are keeping track that is a total of 11,918 signatures of people who are demanding better protection of property rights in federal law. These Canadians are concerned that there is no provision in the charter of rights and freedoms that prevents government from taking anything they own without compensation. They are concerned that there is nothing in the charter which restricts the government in any way from passing laws which prohibit the ownership, use and enjoyment of their private property or reduces the value of their property.

These petitioners request parliament to support my private member's bill which would strengthen the protection of property rights in federal law and which died after only one hour debate in the House.

The Liberals opposed the motion to even study the concerns of these thousands of people and it is not a lost cause as I will be reintroducing the bill.

[Petitions, October 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present 705 more pages of petitions with 16,486 more signatures of concerned citizens from seven different provinces.

About half these petitions are from the province of Quebec and the petitioners find it regrettable that they cannot find an MP in Quebec to present these petitions calling for the repeal of Bill C-68.

My constituents have asked me to keep a running total of the repeal Bill C-68 petitions I have introduced. This year I have introduced 1,509 pages with 35,321 signatures.

These petitioners request parliament to repeal Bill C-68, the Firearms Act, and redirect the hundreds of millions of tax dollars being wasted on licensing 8 million law abiding, responsible firearms owners and registering 21 million legally owned guns to real crime fighting measures. These 35,000 petitioners also provide the government with a list of higher priority criminal justice programs where these billion dollars of public money could be much better spent such as putting more police on the street and fighting organized crime and biker gangs. Many people are appalled that the RCMP is cutting back on essential services while the government has wasted $200 million more on gun registration.

[Agriculture, October 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this minister knows that the bureaucrats would have been the ones who lost the funding, not the farmers.

I cannot understand why this minister is not listening. The Saskatchewan legislature had an emergency debate yesterday. All parties passed a resolution. This minister ought to be listening to what is happening on the prairies. It is about time he got his head out of the stubble field.

The average NISA account is not even enough to pay for the fertilizer and the fuel next spring. Does the minister not recognize that there is a serious farm crisis in incomes that needs to be addressed now and not talked about?

[Agriculture, October 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I met with many farmers in the last while and they have a message for the minister of agriculture. There is a farm income crisis on the prairies. Average net farm income in Canada dropped 55% last year and will drop 50% this year. Farmers also told me that NISA and crop insurance do not cut it anymore.

Will the minister admit there is a farm income crisis on the prairies, yes or no?

[Salaries For Stay At Home Mothers And Fathers, October 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it must be abundantly obvious to everyone sitting in this House that we need more time to debate this very important issue.

I am very thankful that I have the opportunity as someone who has helped to develop Reform's family issues policy to be able to address this motion for a very brief time this morning.

I want to immediately let everybody know where I am coming from. Caring for our children is the most worthwhile and important task anyone in this country can perform. I think we all agree on this. I have been listening to the debate and we may not agree on the solution but we do agree that this issue is very important and needs to be talked about in this House.

There is one thing that I have not heard very much talk about and which needs to be discussed. Whenever we talk about developing a program such as this one, we have to first ask what the costs will be. I am talking about money but there are also justice, education, health care and social costs such as welfare that need to be factored in when we develop a program like this one.

I have studied this for quite some time. If, as we have advocated many times, we were to run this through the tax system and recognize child care in that way for those parents who wish to stay at home and take care of their children, the reduced justice costs, education costs, health care costs and social costs would more than pay for any program.

One of the things that disturbs me and actually surprises me is that members who have been talking about this have not told us what the costs would be if we simply paid out a certain sum of money for child care to the parent.

The second point I would like to make is incentive. Every time we have a government program there is going to be an incentive of some kind or another built in and that needs to be analysed. If we were to simply pay out the money through another large government program, what kind of an incentive would that give? Would a small percentage of people abuse it and have children simply for the sake of having children rather than having them because they wish to raise the next generation?

Finally, the devil is in the details. What regulations would accompany this? When the state gets involved and interferes in family affairs, problems will come down the road. We will run into problems unless parents take care of their children as they wish rather than as the state dictates.

In conclusion, the highest quality of child care is given by parents who care for their children because their motive is love. Unless that is happening, we are going to have problems. That is why we need to run this through the Income Tax Act, income splitting and so on.

Because of the importance of this issue, I would like to ask for unanimous consent to make this a votable motion so that we can debate the issue further.

[Agriculture, October 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prairie Pools reported: “In 1997 total net farm income in the prairies has dropped by 35% in Alberta, 40% in Manitoba, and 84% in Saskatchewan. Farm cash receipts for the first six months of 1998 are significantly lower than last year”.

The minister of agriculture says that current government programs are sufficient to address this looming economic crisis on the prairies. The minister is burying his head in a stubble field. Using off-farm income figures to hide from this western crisis will not protect the minister for long.

He knows the average NISA account will not adequately cover the needs of most western producers. Some farmers had to withdraw cash from their NISA accounts this year just to buy seed to plant their crops. Next year will be worse.

Is the minister going to let prairie farmers blow in the cruel winds caused in large part by almost three decades of mismanagement by Liberal governments? Do something now.

[Petitions, October 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the last petition I am pleased to present contains the signatures of 2,369 Canadians who support Motion M-33, parental rights and responsibilities, which I introduced in 1997.

The petitioners call on the government to authorize a proclamation to be issued to amend section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to recognize the fundamental right of individuals to pursue family life free from undue interference by the state and to recognize the fundamental right, responsibility and liberty of parents to direct the upbringing of their children.

[Petitions, October 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to present a petition containing 131 signatures from my constituents in Yorkton—Melville who are calling on parliament to enact Bill C-225, an act to amend the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees) Act and the Interpretation Act. The purpose of this enactment is to ensure that a marriage is void unless it is a marriage between one unmarried man and one unmarried woman.