Garry Breitkreuz

[Committees Of The House, December 11th, 1997]

Point of order.

[Committees Of The House, December 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I do not buy the argument that was the mentality or the culture of the time and they had to go along with it.

Do not we as leaders have a responsibility to be on top of the issues, to inform ourselves properly of the consequences of our decisions in this place and to therefore lead the country in that way?

If the people of the country had been properly informed by their leadership as to the consequences of running into debt and having to pay huge interest to support the debt, they would have gone along with any cost cutting measures the government would have wanted to put in place. I have a strong faith in the common sense of the common people. If they had been informed, they would have agreed with the government that we cannot overspend.

I have consulted with my constituents. They are opposed to many government programs that we continue to support even today: all the grants and tax concessions to special interest groups and corporations and all the money that is wasted on setting up a huge bureaucracy, for example in the Indian affairs department which does not benefit the aboriginal people on the reserves. When we tell Canadians about that they support any initiative to limit them.

I do not buy the whole argument that it was the mentality of the times. We have a responsibility and we should not abrogate that responsibility.

[Petitions, December 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the second group of petitions which I would like to present also comes from Ontario.

The petitioners support the retention of section 43 of the Criminal Code, which states:

Every schoolteacher, parent or person standing in the place of a parent is justified in using force by way of correction toward a pupil or child, who is under his care, if the force does not exceed what is reasonable under the circumstances.

The petitioners believe that the removal of section 43 would strengthen the role of bureaucrats, while weakening the role of parents in determining what is in the best interest of the child. They feel that this would be a major, unjustified intrusion of the state into the realm of parental rights and responsibilities.

The petitioners request Parliament to affirm the duty of parents to responsibly raise their children according to their own conscience. They request that section 43 be retained in the Criminal Code of Canada as it is currently worded.

[Petitions, December 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to present three petitions, signed mainly by people from Ontario.

The petitioners are concerned that by ratifying and implementing the United Nations convention on the rights of the child that government bureaucrats and the courts will be legally entitled to determine what is in “the best interest of the child” rather than the parents. They fear that the Government of Canada is creating a bureaucracy to police parents and enforce the guidelines of a UN charter which has never been approved. They are concerned that it will create greater incentives for families to abdicate their parental responsibilities to the state. They are concerned that parental responsibilities will be undermined by the UN convention.

They want Parliament to support my private member's motion, M-33, which would add the protection of parental rights and responsibilities to the charter of rights and freedoms.

[An Act For The Recognition And Protection Of Human Rights And Fundamental Freedoms, December 11th, 1997]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-304, an act to amend an act for the recognition and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms and to amend the Constitution Act, 1867.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Lethbridge for seconding my bill which would guarantee everyone's right to the enjoyment of property in all federal law.

I would like to thank my independent legislative counsel for her hard work, dedication and expert legal advice in drafting such an important piece of legislation for consideration in this House.

My property rights bill amends the Canadian bill of rights and adds two new sections to the Constitution Act of 1867, thereby strengthening property rights in federal law.

If passed, my bill would specifically guarantee that every person has, first, the right to the enjoyment of their property; second, the right not to be deprived of their property unless they are given a fair hearing, paid fair, timely and impartially fixed compensation; third, the right to appeal to the courts if their property rights have been infringed upon or denied, and every person's property rights would be guaranteed in every law in Canada, unless it is expressly declared that the act shall operate notwithstanding the Canadian bill of rights and adoption of a declaration of notwithstanding would require the votes of at least two-thirds of the members of the House of Commons.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[People's Tax Form Act, November 27th, 1997]

moved that Bill C-214, an act to allow taxpayers to inform government of their views on levels and priorities for the expenditure of tax revenues and to provide for parliamentary review of the results, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, the bill I have introduced will be welcomed by all parliamentarians interested in improving their tools of representation.

A democracy functions best when people are well informed and through their representatives conduct the affairs of the country according to their will. Information must be open and available. Procedures must follow acceptable patterns. Decisions must be open and available for close scrutiny and all the information must be easily accessible.

This bill provides for one of the most important pieces of information that could be made available to government leaders to be in their hands.

People should have a mechanism by which they can tell government how they want their money spent, the levels at which they want their taxes and what their spending priorities are.

I can see the excitement building in this place as I describe this bill.

A government which is truly democratic would want to carry out the will of its people. It would not just ask for support and direction every four years, it would want to receive that support and that input on a regular basis. Look at the excitement. That is what my bill is designed to do in a very important area.

The people's tax form act, which I have introduced in the House of Commons, has wide public support. It has been around for a couple of years. People up and down this country have been able to look at it.

I only wish that we had three hours to debate this. I am sure many people would like to have input. However, we only have one hour. I only wish that the rules of the House required that all private members' bills were to be votable and I will work toward that end. That is a change which needs to be made. Otherwise we are just wasting our time.

What would Canadians think if they only had one store that they could shop at, which they were forced to shop at? What would Canadians think if money were taken out of their pay cheque for the store manager to fill the store with all the things which he thought were important, not what Canadians thought they needed? What would Canadians think if they went to the store to shop and not only could not get what they wanted, but would be forced to buy and to take the things they did not need, did not want or could not even use?

Does that sound far fetched? Not really. Any Canadian who pays taxes already shops at this store. It is called the Government of Canada. At the end of every month we have to give our money and take whatever it decides to give us without having any input into it.

The government forces Canadians to pay high taxes and give taxpayers what the government wants, not necessarily what taxpayers want or need. Pandering politicians and meddling bureaucrats often will say trust us, we know what is best for you, just keep handing over the money and be quiet.

Taxpayers do not get any choice about the programs and services the government delivers to the taxpayers, to the people of Canada. If they do not like it, they are told to vote for someone else in the next election, as if that is the only way to go.

It is time for us to change the way we do business, to democratize the system. It is time to give taxpayers more say and some choice about how their money is spent.

That is why I think the people's tax form is a tax form taxpayers would really like to fill out. Why? For starters because it is voluntary and because this is no ordinary tax form.

Taxpayers would like filling out this form because it would let taxpayers tell the government where they thing the government should spend the thousands of dollars each and every taxpayer sends in every year.

The people's tax form would let them identify the government programs and services taxpayers do not want to support with their tax dollars. Does that not make sense, Mr. Speaker? I see your excitement.

I think Canadian taxpayers would say this is the kind of schedule that should be included in every Revenue Canada tax kit. Canadian taxpayers want to send a message to Ottawa. They do not just want to send them the money.

Passing my bill into law would give Canadian taxpayers an opportunity to send Revenue Canada the people's tax form every year.

This is the essence of my people's tax form act. It proposes that government would design a form which would be included in every tax kit.

Completion of the people's tax form would be voluntary. All the forms returned to Revenue Canada would be analysed and summarized and a copy of the analysis would be sent to every MP and senator. The analysis would be tabled in both the House of Commons and the Senate.

The analysis would be automatically referred to the standing committee for review and reported back to the House. The duties of the standing committee are included in the bill, including a provision allowing the tax form to be amended.

I first heard about the idea for this people's tax form in an article in the Fraser Forum November 1995. It was written by Professor Filip Palda of the school of public administration, University of Quebec.

He wrote, and I think it is very important that I include this quotation, that every year millions of Canadians go through the agony of filling out their tax returns, their T-1s. Filling out these T-1s is painful, T-4s, whatever. It is painful because people have no sense that they control where their money is going. He suggested we add a sheet to this form that gives people that control. This sheet, which he called the people's tax form, would list the categories of government spending and invite taxpayers to decide what fraction of their tax bill should go to each category. Churches and charities call this earmarking. The people's tax form would allow citizens to earmark where they want their tax dollars to go.

The Library of Parliament examined Professor Palda's concept for me and proposed alternatives for implementing the idea. I bounced the idea off a number of other MPs and Professor Palda was kind enough to give me his comments and advice as well.

In the spring of 1996 I tested the people's tax form in my own constituency and finally sent instructions to lawyers in the House of Commons to draft a private member's bill.

On December 10, 1996, I introduced the people's tax form act. It says it is an act to allow taxpayers to inform government of their views on levels and priorities for the expenditure of tax revenues and to provide for parliamentary review of the results. That is the essence of this tax form act.

More than 500 of my constituents were kind enough to fill out and return the early version of the people's tax form act, proving that given the opportunity, taxpayers do want to have a direct say in how the federal government spends their money.

These results were very interesting but they need that mechanism and they do not have it at the present time.

Based on where they want their tax dollars directed, the top five government programs most strongly supported by my constituents were old age security, health care, justice and the RCMP, Canada pension plan, debt reduction, but also there are areas that they did not want their money to go to. The most strongly opposed areas were official bilingualism. Does that surprise you, Mr. Speaker? How about funding for special interest groups? Over 90% objected. Gun registration just did not fly. Foreign aid was not a priority. Multiculturalism was opposed by over 80%.

Maybe I should not have mentioned those results. There are interest groups in this country that are going to lobby the government to veto this bill, to not have any part of it. Is that not unfortunate?

My test of the people's tax form found support in an article in Western Report , dated May 6, 1996. It read head of the Canadian Taxpayer's Federation, now the hon. member for Calgary Southeast, said the people's tax form is a great idea, and he would like to see it adopted as an advisory measure. He went on to say, and I quote: “If the government would compile the results and then be measured against it, it would wrest control of the budget away from interest groups”. I am honoured to have had this MP second this bill when I introduced it on September 29.

My colleague's reaction was very similar to Professor Palda's. Again I quote: “When I suggest the people's tax form to my academic colleagues I get a shocked reaction: `But that's putting power directly into the hands of the people who know nothing about government. Why would you want to do that?”'.

I come back to my introduction. We live in a democracy. Surprise, surprise. Do those people not have the right to give us that kind of information? I really agree with Professor Palda when he says giving Canadians the power to directly influence government spending would create a panic in the ministries responsible for that spending and among the groups that benefit from that spending. Special interest groups could no longer ignore public opinion.

In the last four years the Liberal government has cut billions of dollars in transfers to the provinces for health and education and programs that my constituents strongly support and yet this same government spends billions on grants and handouts that my constituents strongly oppose. I suspect it is not just in my part of Saskatchewan. I suspect that opposition is across Canada.

The problem is that once the Liberal government extracts money from the taxpayers by force, then it can spend tax dollars any way it wants. Tax dollars are not the Liberals' money to do whatever they wish. All of a sudden the excitement is dying down, Mr. Speaker. What is going on?

This is the truth, though. Listen. Constituents are telling their members of Parliament what their priorities are and either the government is not listening or it does not care, or the message is not clear enough for it. How about making it a little clearer and support this tax form act and get that information into our hands.

Special interest groups, big corporations and paid lobbyist have been able to hijack the agenda and persuade politicians to give them tax dollars and implement programs that most people do not feel are high priorities. It is obvious the people want politicians to cut grants and handouts to special interest groups and big business and thereby help preserve funding for pensions, health care and law and order.

Somehow the Liberal government does not seem to be getting the message. Everybody seems to be disappearing out of here now. They just do not want to hear this. The people's tax form act will make sure the message gets through loud and clear.

Our tax system focuses only on collecting money from people and without allowing them a real say in how it is spent. The current system rewards groups that make the most noise and individuals and organizations that make the biggest donations to the political party in power, not the people who are paying the bills. We ought to listen to them.

Why should taxpayers be forced to support political programs and activities that the vast majority do not believe in? The people's tax form act will give Canadians a chance to make their priorities the government's priorities.

As I draw near to the end, I want to give some other positive spin-off benefits that we would have. It would foster debate across Canada. It would increase interest in the affairs of government. It would combat apathy. It would decrease public cynicism.

Second, if they see government wanting their opinion and listening to it, the attitude of many people that government does not care about what they think would begin to change. If they see government actively seeking information and following the direction, it would restore faith in their institutions.

Third, it may even help unity problems. That is not a stretch because people in all parts of this country feel alienated. They would again feel like they belonged. It would be a small step in the right direction.

Fourth, Canadians would find citizenship much more meaningful. They would be willing to accept more responsibilities.

I have listened to some of the objections from people in Parliament. One of the first is that common people are not capable of knowing how to best spend the money. That is not so. I detect that here in Ottawa the elite have the attitude that they know what is best for the country. The people out there know.

There is an objection that this initiative may cost too much money. It would actually save money. Will Rogers said it well: “Lord, the money we spend on government” and it's not one bit better than what we got for one-third the money 20 years ago. That is the truth.

I seek unanimous consent not to make this a votable item but to refer it to the committee for further study. There is very wide support for this initiative among the members of this House and among Canadians in general, and it is a non-partisan issue. Mr. Speaker, I would like you to ask for unanimous consent because this is supported on all sides of this House.

[Aboriginal Affairs, November 27th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is using all these nice sounding words in her speeches, like partnership and building, but they mean nothing because she does not act.

Sixty-nine of 72 reserves in Saskatchewan have members in the coalition for aboriginal accountability. While she quotes from the letter from the chiefs, these grassroots people cannot meet with her.

My question that she must answer is, why are the bureaucrats in her department shielding her from the concerns of people on the reserves?

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, November 27th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, it always intrigues me when Bloc members wax eloquent about the Canada pension plan when in fact they do not participate in it. I want to respond very briefly to the comments of the Bloc member.

The member said that there are problems with the fund. He described the demographics and so on. The point that needs to be made is that if the fund had been managed properly, demographics would not matter. I wonder if that has ever occurred to those members. Because the fund was mismanaged the money will not be available for those who are looking forward to it as some security for their retirement.

The suggestions made by the Bloc and by the NDP will not fix it. There will be more government mismanagement. They already have their greedy eyes on that money. They are telling us how we should manage it, how we should lend it out at low interest rates and so on. That is what got us into this mess in the first place. More of that will not solve the problem.

The bottom line is that the proceeds should go to those who invested the money. They should have a say in how it is done.

If people looked clearly at what we are proposing, at the whole plan and not just nit-pick at little parts of it, they would begin to realize that is the most realistic solution to our problem with the Canada pension plan. It will take many years to roll it over to the point where people have control over the funds, but that is what we need to do. That is the bottom line.

As long as it is managed by the same people in government who have been managing it up until now, and as long as those people are giving directives and appointing people to boards to manage the fund, we are still going to have the same problem.

The Bloc says there is not the appearance of justice which there should be. We do not want an appearance of justice; we want the fund managed properly so that those who expect a retirement income will get it according to the funds they invested.

I was reading some of the articles which comment on the payroll tax hike we will have. One of the commentators said to kiss 176,000 jobs goodbye. My Conservative colleagues have made the point over and over again that this increase in tax will kill jobs. The evidence is right here. We have been saying the same thing. That has to be a consideration.

For a government that claims to be compassionate, to raise taxes even further and destroy more jobs is the absolute opposite of compassion. Those people over here on the left side who are advocating this have to realize that that is going to be a tremendous job destroyer.

Seniors who retired in 1976 got over $12 for every dollar invested. Young people today who are going to retire in 2041 are going to get 59¢ for every dollar they have in the fund. It is not their fault. It is not the fault of seniors who are getting a very high return now for what they have actually put in. Nor is it the fault of the young people who are going to retire 40 years from now that they did not get a good return. It is the fault of the government that has mismanaged it. For the Bloc to say we need more of that, to only tinker with it a little bit, is not the solution. We have got to have a solution that will serve us for all time. What has been proposed here is not that solution.

I reiterate that their analysis of this is flawed because if it had been done properly in the first place, the demographics would not matter.

[Canadians, November 26th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the motion. I thank my colleague for raising the issue. I did not think I would have the opportunity to speak today, but I am doing so because this is a subject that is dear to my heart.

Before coming to parliament I was a teacher. That experience taught me a lot about society and about people. For almost 25 years I observed the things that happened in my classroom. I began to realize the classroom was a microcosm of society, a small society within a larger society.

As teachers we were given direction from those above us who thought they knew better than teachers how to handle the affairs of the classroom. From time to time we received directives telling us to make children more sensitive to students with certain characteristics.

When we tried to implement policies in the classroom to cause students to be more sensitive to other students with certain characteristics defined as ones we should be sensitive to, the result was very interesting. It created a problem for me in the classroom. I relate this story to the House because I think the same problem is being created within society.

Students began to resent each other when certain ones became specially identified. I began to have tensions within my small classroom because of the policy. I suggest the same thing is happening in Canada. Students became jealous of each other because some were singled out as having a special sensitivity.

One student asked me “Are we not all special? Don't each one of us as individuals have certain characteristics that others should be sensitive to?” I am sure you have certain characteristics, Mr. Speaker, that, if we were to become aware of them, we would all like to be sensitive to. We would treat you very carefully.

The students taught me something about people. Each person as individuals want to be respected because they are who they are. They do not want somebody from above telling them to be sensitive to people who have a certain characteristic.

When are children in classrooms the happiest? It is when we are sensitive to each and every one of them and do not divide them into groups or cause certain ones to be singled out as needing special attention.

We are important because we are individuals. We will run into trouble, and we already have, within the society when we begin to implement policies from above that cause resentments and jealousies.

If we single out certain characteristics, we have to ask about all other characteristics that define us. We have a very wide variety of characteristics, not just our ethnic background, religion or whatever defines us or that we feel is important. We have all these things. I do not think we should use those characteristics to set ourselves apart from others in society. There are many other characteristics we could use.

I want to give an example. Saskatchewan has problems that are compounding as time goes on because aboriginals have been given the right not to comply with certain laws. Those with some aboriginal blood are now claiming the same right not to obey these laws. As a result people are beginning to be concerned about their safety and the preservation of the environment.

When we create differences we run into problems, as we already have. We should not be creating particular differences and giving people special consideration in certain areas.

I lived overseas in third world countries for almost five years. In my experience I was happiest, as the children in my classroom were happiest, when I was accepted for who I was and not because I was white, bald, of a certain religious persuasion or any other external characteristic.

We are important because we are people. Each one of us has many wonderful qualities. We are each special. Government should not be trying to define or meddle in areas that can actually divide us. That is counterproductive. It could create the problem we are actually trying to solve.

We could apply the lessons I learned in the classroom to the situation of today. We need to move toward equality. Multiculturalism is fine but government should not be involved in such things. When it is involved the big policies it tries to impose on the country do not work. One size does not fit all.

We should respect each other's background. We have many wonderful things to contribute. Let us as individuals contribute and not allow the government to become involved, as it will only make more of a mess than the one we have. We need to move toward equality. That will do more to solve the problems.

[Privilege, November 26th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, when a member rises on a question of privilege and accuses another member directly of this, is there not some obligation to have her in fact at least resemble something to the truth? I find this just abhorrent.