Garry Breitkreuz

[Excise Tax Act, December 10th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I sometimes wonder if when we have warm bodies in the House it makes any difference. I still do not think it helps anything. The government is not listening to what we have to say.

We began today's debate with one of the members opposite making some blatantly false and misleading statements. It is interesting that the Liberals continue to propagate this not just within this House but outside this House as well. They continue to make completely false statements. The member also explained that this is the best finance minister, except for the one we had in the mid-seventies who is the present Prime Minister.

If the Liberals are going to set that person up as the best finance minister we have ever had, they are saying that the deficits begun by the Liberal government, the deficits that led to our tremendous present debt were good. They are saying that the past finance minister, the present Prime Minister, who started us on the road to overspending had the right idea. I cannot accept that. To set him up as the best finance minister we have ever had is totally false and misleading. That has to be the sorriest statement I have heard in this House to date.

I made the point that approximately 30 bills have been rammed through the House. Full debate was not allowed on those which indicates this is a very undemocratic institution. The people of Canada must ask what is really going on here. Fundamental to this debate on taxes and on the GST is the question of why we need it. Why does the government need to continue raising all of this money?

I discovered an interesting coincidence. This morning I introduced the people's tax form which is a voluntary tax form that all taxpayers could return with their income tax forms every April. On the forms they could indicate to the government the programs they support and the programs they oppose. It would be an indication to the government of what the people of Canada want.

In light of the debate we are having today, would it not be interesting to include on that form a question which asks people what they would like done with the GST? Do they want it to be a hidden tax as this government is proposing? Do they want it hidden in the prices of products so when the government decides to increase the tax it will not be very visible and the government will not get all the negative publicity it hates? If the government were to ask the people of Canada, I wonder what their response would be.

I believe that Reformers are speaking up on behalf of the people of Canada. The silence of the Liberals indicates that this government does not want to debate the topic.

Each time the government raises taxes, we have already indicated in many previous speeches over the past three years that these taxes kill jobs. It is very simple. As long as people are paying more money in the form of taxes into the government coffers, they cannot spend that money on other things that create real jobs. They cannot buy goods and services which really creates a better lifestyle for all of us. Every time they send millions of dollars to Ottawa it is as if that money is put in a big black hole. It is not an effective way of producing jobs, I can guarantee that. In fact, taxes kill jobs. Studies have been done. They are out there.

Taxes also hurt families. The GST really hurts our average family in Canada. How do taxes hurt families? Forty-six per cent of the average taxpayer's income now goes to government. It has come to the point where both parents feel they have to work in order to maintain a decent standard of living. One parent works for the government when we have a tax level that is so high. It hurts families because those parents would like to be spending more time at home with their children. Studies have found that the high tax level has really hurt families.

The Liberals then turn around and appear to be compassionate. They are going to have a big program to target child poverty. Who has created the poverty? It has been these very people who now pretend that they are going to help people in some way. Reducing government programs so that we can reduce taxes should be our priority and fundamental to the entire discussion we are having here today.

If we ask Canadians, as I have done, what their priorities are in spending and what things they would oppose, we would get some very interesting answers. If the government actually listened to Canadians, it could scrap the GST because it could reduce taxes which is what has to be done.

I took a survey which has been tabled in the House along with the people's tax form bill that I introduced today. I believe the survey in my riding will not be substantially different from surveys taken across the country. What was the number one program, the sacred cow for the government, that people opposed? Official bilingualism. They felt that the government has been wasting money in this area for decades. The second thing Canadians opposed was funding for special interest groups. In my riding, the third thing they opposed was gun registration. Members may think that is just because I come from basically a rural riding, but I will tell a story.

I spoke at the University of Toronto and half of the audience were young females. It was a good cross-section of the entire population. At the beginning of my speech I took a little survey. I asked them how many thought that gun registration was a good thing and a wise way to spend our money. The vast majority of them raised their hands and said they thought it was a good idea. I then asked if they minded if I explained it to them. I told them how it was going to take quite a bit of tax money to implement and in the end people would have a piece of paper lying beside their gun. To make a long story short, by the time I was done explaining to them what it was all about, I took another survey and the exact opposite happened. There was virtually no support for this.

What happens is that if we properly inform Canadians as to what some of the programs are that this government is implementing, the support drops and they feel it is not a wise way to spend our tax

money. In fact, they would rather spend it on health care, family crisis centres and those kinds of things, not the sacred things this government is implementing.

I wish I could go on longer, but I will conclude. Let us look at the fundamental problem. The government is wasting money on so many things that are totally unnecessary and this could be scrapped if it did away with those things.

[Excise Tax Act, December 10th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, for the past three years I have been sitting here listening to debates. Of course, I have been sitting here all day listening to what has been going on. Madam Speaker, would it be out of order to make a simple request, that I stand here for 10 minutes and say nothing? Complete silence. Madam Speaker you are shaking your head. I wonder why.

If I stand here and talk for 10 minutes it makes absolutely no difference because the government does not listen. In fact the government does not listen to me as an MP and it does not listen to the people of Canada. If we had total silence and did not debate anything, if the opposition was silent, the government would continue to do what it is doing, which is to run roughshod over the desires and wishes of Canadians.

The government has invoked closure on approximately 30 bills. Each time it does that, one question seems obvious: Why? Why is it invoking closure? I have observed a pattern over the past three years I have been in the House. Each time the government does not want Canadians to know what is going on, when it does not want a topic properly debated, it invokes closure.

[People's Tax Form Act, December 10th, 1996]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-361, 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.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the people's tax form act. It is well known that the vast majority of Canadians oppose grants and handouts to business, special interest groups, bilingualism, multiculturalism, affirmative action, the CBC, the National Film Board, etc., but either the Liberals and the Tories do not listen or they just do not care.

If the government receives millions of people's tax forms filed with tax returns every year it will be difficult if not impossible for government to ignore the collective will of the majority of taxpayers. Direct democracy and the power of populism can work and even though the people's tax form is voluntary, I am convinced that millions of Canadians would use the form to send a real message to government about which programs they support and which ones they do not.

My bill also allows for the tabulation, analysis and review of the results by Parliament in time for the budget review process every fall. The people's tax form act would remove billions of dollars of unwanted, ineffective government programs and programs used purely for politically reasons.

I would also like to thank all of those who seconded my bill.

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

[Aboriginal Affairs, December 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, for two years I lived on an Indian reserve at Wollaston Lake, Saskatchewan serving as the principal of the local school. I saw the damage done by the paternalistic aboriginal policies of past Liberal and Conservative governments.

I am deeply disappointed that the Liberals are so quick to dismiss the equality alternative for aboriginal people. One national newspaper concluded that the recommendations of the royal commission would lead to "separation, both political and economic". I agree.

We should replace the Indian Act with the equality for Indians act. We should give grassroots Indian people real choices about their future. Give them the option of the system of local government they want to live in. Give them the option of owning their own land or having it held communally. Give them the option of receiving their treaty benefits directly. Give them the option of negotiating a personal compensation package in exchange for treaty entitlements.

For the past 130 years, individual aboriginal people have been denied the opportunity to see how well true equality works.

[Firearms Sunset Act, December 2nd, 1996]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-357, an act to provide for the expiry of gun control legislation that has not proven effective within five years of coming into force.

Mr. Speaker, today I am reintroducing an amended version of my firearms law sunset act which I first introduced in this House on September 28, 1995. My bill is the total opposite of Bill C-68 and the regulations tabled by the Minister of Justice last week.

Bill C-68 and any subsequent decrees issued by the minister are based on his opinion and the false hope that they will somehow improve public safety.

The reason I say my bill is the opposite of Bill C-68 is that my firearms law sunset act is based on the premise that any gun control laws passed by the government should be automatically repealed after five years unless they can pass a public safety test administered by the auditor general.

The constitutionality of Bill C-68 is being challenged in court by four provinces and two territories. They are also opting out of the unreasonable burden of administering this federal boondoggle. My bill will be supported by people and politicians in these provinces.

Bill C-68 will guarantee that gun controls are both costly and ineffective, whereas my bill will guarantee that every gun control law has to be both successful and cost effective in saving lives and reducing the criminal use of firearms. People arguing against my bill would have to argue that they support gun control even if it does not work and no matter how much it costs.

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

[Questions On The Order Paper, November 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the member knows this information should have been in the public domain and the government should have had this information before it even brought the legislation. It begs the question whether it is costing thousands and then could save millions because it could save us millions if we had this information. I really think the minister should seriously reconsider the argument he is putting forth.

[Questions On The Order Paper, November 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe it is ironic that the regulations for the new firearms act were tabled today because the question

that I have had on the Order Paper for exactly one year concerns that very matter.

On November 27, 1995, I placed Question No. 252 on the Order Paper and, in accordance with Standing Order 39(5)(a), I requested an answer within 45 days.

After 71 days Question No. 252 died on the Order Paper when the government prorogued the House.

I placed the same question on the Order Paper again when the new session opened on February 27, 1996. It was renumbered as Question No. 4. Once again I asked for a response from the government within 45 days. As of today Question No. 4 has been outstanding for 274 days. The question has been on the Order Paper for one year.

Why is it so imperative that we have an answer? The firearms regulations have been tabled. The government is pretending that they are a matter of public safety. The question that I asked was fundamental to that. It is Question No. 4 on the Order Paper. Anybody can look at it. It wants to get from the government information with regard to stolen firearms from the police and from the military. It is really fundamental to all that we are discussing here.

If they cannot safely store their firearms, if they are at risk because criminals know where to access those firearms, the very regulations which the minister is putting forth now will create that same situation but nationwide. Criminals will then know where to access those firearms. If we as common citizens place that information in the public domain, how can we possibly store them any better than the police or the military? That is why my question is so important.

In a democracy, in government as we have it in Canada today, if that information is not readily available and accurate for the public to examine, how can we possibly put forth laws which will improve public safety? How do we know those are the best laws we can have in this country?

That is why it is so imperative that I get an answer to my question. It is not a complicated question. I realize that my frustration shows by the fact that I cannot get an answer. We have to have open and accountable government. That is why I am asking for the government, as quickly as possible, to answer that question. I would even settle for a partial answer. I have appealed to the government to give me any information it has on this matter.

[Canada Elections Act, November 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the debate all day. I have a very simple question. Why did the government decide that the perceived problem of voters in the west, knowing what eastern voters have decided, could best be solved by putting the western voters at a disadvantage?

[Justice, November 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, when I was in grade 8 we studied the story of Jean Valjean, a hungry man who spent 19 years in jail for stealing a loaf of bread. Our hearts were pierced by that obvious injustice.

A similar story unfolds before us in Canada. Since July 7 Andy McMechan has sat in a Manitoba jail with murderers because he wanted a better price for his waxy barley. Liberals felt this was a crime and only the small, indefensible guys get picked on. After shopping around they found a sympathetic judge who would teach Andy a lesson and make an example of him to keep farmers in line.

This government lets child predators roam our streets and even sets murderers free. Is this Liberal justice? Is this freedom?

I introduced a property rights bill, but the Liberals would not even allow a vote on it. Do we not have freedom of contract in Canada?

The Prime Minister is afraid to challenge the atrocities in China but maybe he could look at the injustice here in Canada.

I support the Canadian Wheat Board as a marketing tool option for farmers, but surely it does not mean this. Let Andy go home for Christmas to be with his family.

[Aboriginal Peoples, November 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, back in 1969, when the present Prime Minister was the minister of Indian affairs, the Liberals had a policy based on the fundamental principle of equality. I quote: "Non-discriminatory participation of Indian people in Canadian society." If they had stayed on

the equality track maybe there would have been no Oka, no Gustafsen Lake and no Ipperwash.

When will the minister repeal the Indian Act which divides us on the basis of race and replace it with new legislation based on the principles of equality, democracy and accountability; principles that would give individual Indian people real choices about what they want done with their land and their treaty entitlements?