Garry Breitkreuz

[Agriculture, April 30th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is blaming everybody else because the money is not in the farmers' pockets.

The government knew a long time ago that money was needed in February. It promised the money and it broke all of its promises. The promised disaster relief that was supposed to be there has been replaced with red tape.

How can the minister say he is helping farmers when he is doing virtually nothing for western producers? Why should the farmers believe the minister's statement that cash is flowing when they have received nothing?

[Agriculture, April 30th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the agriculture minister's compensation program for farmers is as big a disaster as the economic factors that made it necessary, such as the government's high taxes. Some farmers do not have money to put in their crops. There are 100,000 farmers on the prairies alone but to date, not one red cent has gone out. How many more farmers have to go bankrupt before he acknowledges that his program is a complete disaster?

[Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, April 22nd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, if we dress up a thief in a three-piece suit and tie and put him behind a desk and elect him to office and give him a fancy title, is he still not a thief?

We have seen the unemployment insurance fund being raided by government. It should be an insurance fund, but the government has turned it into another tax to go into its general revenues. The surplus in that EI fund is supposed to be $20 billion but there is no fund. The money is not in the fund. It has been spent.

Now with Bill C-78 we have the government looking to raid the public service pensions, take the money in the fund and use it just like all other tax revenues. This is robbery.

Just because the Liberal government ministers are confiscating the money, taking the money that has been collected from civil servants and using it like any other tax money collected by government does not change the fact that it is theft. And we know what someone who commits a theft is called.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1998, April 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, as we draw to the end of this debate, it is imperative that I speak up on behalf of my constituents who are very concerned about the complexity of the Income Tax Act.

As we listen to the comments that have been made by the Liberals, we as an opposition party feel it is high time that the fundamentals be addressed. The complexity of the Income Tax Act is such that the average person can no longer fill out the forms. When people cannot understand something, they begin to lose confidence in it. That is only common sense.

What has happened with the Income Tax Act is that every year it has become more and more convoluted, more and more complex. When people fail to understand it and cannot do what the government refers to as simple forms, they think it is not fair and they would like to see something done about it. On behalf of my constituents I am pleading with the government to look at an overhaul of the Income Tax Act.

The other evening when we voted I was really torn between voting for tax reduction, that is allowing employers to give their employees bus passes without making it a taxable benefit, which would have been a way to encourage less use of individualized means of transport, or voting for a simpler tax system. That is the choice we had: voting for a tax reduction or voting for a simpler tax system. That is what it has come to and that is why we need an overhaul of it.

We need both. We need tax reduction, and the government knows it. We are losing some of our best young people who are going south of the border or to other countries. If we are to address the fundamentals of our economy, it is high time to look at serious tax reduction.

As I was listening to the questions to us from the members of the government as we were speaking on this matter, it was abundantly obvious that the bureaucracy and the government in Ottawa are not bothered by creating a complex, convoluted tax system. I would like to give a couple of examples with which I have been very familiar in the last several months.

We have had the government develop a farm compensation package for the drop in commodity prices that farmers have experienced because of the subsidies other countries are putting in place for their farmers. The government came out with a program, AIDA, the compensation package. The government said that it would be very simple and bankable. Farmers would be able to fill out the forms in a few moments, send them in, and would know exactly what they would get.

The forms we have pulled off the Internet are 50 pages long. It takes an accountant quite some time to fill it out. Farmers have to go through all kinds of calculations and measurements, and it is not very easy to do. If this is what the bureaucracy and the government regard as a simple form, they had better think twice. It is costing farmers $200, $300, $500 and up to $1,000 to fill out the forms, and then they may not even get anything.

The same is true of income tax forms. It is very costly for people to have somebody fill them out. It ends up being another tax on them that they cannot avoid because they have to hire somebody to fill out the forms.

Another thing the government has done is to go to a gun registry. I suppose the House is wondering how a gun registry fits in with this topic. It is another example of how complex things have become. One has to jump through all kinds of hoops and hurdles now to own property which one has taken for granted for many years. It does not improve public safety. It does not improve our lives in any way. It is another complex form that people have to fill out.

The government defended this registry system and the licensing system that accompanies it by saying that it is no more complex than the Income Tax Act. Let that sink in. It is bringing in more forms, more complex things to fill out, and is defending them by saying they are no more complex than the Income Tax Act. The Income Tax Act is not simple.

The question I have, and I think it is the key question as I have listened to all the debate, is why has our tax system become so complex. I listened to the defence the government has made for this complex system. The Liberals and Liberal minded politicians, which includes the Conservatives previously and the NDP, want to manipulate behaviour. They want to shape society in such a way that it will conform to their way of thinking. They will put a tax break here and cause this kind of behaviour to take place there by adjusting the tax system.

We saw it very clearly when it came to giving benefits to parents. Parents who choose to stay at home and take care of their children do not get the same tax benefits. It makes the tax system more complex, but it is a way for the government to manipulate behaviour. It gets parents to give up their children, send them to day care or whatever, rather than allow them to have equality, allow one of the parents to stay home and to do so without being penalized by the tax system. It is another example of how complex things have become and I think it is because they want to manipulate behaviour.

Look at all the things in the tax system that make it so complex. At some point it can be traced back to somebody who wanted to cause a certain kind of behaviour to take place. I would like somebody on the other side to reply to that because I am sure that is true.

We need to go to a very simple tax system. Some serious study must be done on a flatter tax system. We have to look at the province of Alberta which is doing a study now or thinking of implementing a flat tax. The federal government should do the same. The benefits from that would be enormous. People would again gain control over their lives. They would be able to direct their money.

I know the government put the question forth: “Would you like to have a tax break if you can save for your child's university education and so on”. Why have that? Why not just let parents and taxpayers figure out where they want to put their money and how they want to manage it?

We have the same problem in other areas, for example RRSPs. The government is trying to tell us exactly how to save, who to invest with and so on. All these things are ways to manipulate behaviour. We have to do some serious study on how to reduce taxes.

In my constituency farmers are grossly overtaxed. There is a real concern that many farmers are being driven off the land because they are too highly taxed.

I hope the government will get the message that we need some serious tax reductions and that the tax system needs to be overhauled and simplified. That is the message I get from my constituents for the entire month of April, at least, and throughout the year but it is not as intense as it is right now.

[Legalization Of Marijuana For Health And Medical Purposes, April 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, March 17 I asked the Minister of Justice an important question which she failed to answer, so I will ask her again. How would the justice minister like it if her face showed up on someone else's firearms licence?

That is exactly what happened to Mr. Robert Soltis of Abbotsford, B.C. He received his firearms licence from the Canadian firearms registry and it had someone else's picture on it. He has no idea whose licence his picture ended up on.

When I asked the minister about the serious breach of Mr. Soltis' privacy, the minister responded “Our firearms registry system is working quite well, thank you very much”. She went on to brag about all of the paperwork the CFC has processed. She was not bragging about the lives saved or how much public safety has been improved, but about the paper shuffled by her bureaucrats. She said that they have processed 40,000 applications for licences and registrations, issued over 17,000 registration certificate numbers and over 12,000 photo ID licences.

If I had the chance to ask another question that day I would have asked how many of the 12,000 licences issued had the right pictures on them.

Mr. Soltis wrote:

The person with my photograph on his card commits a heinous crime. The (firearms licence) as a primary piece of identification is found on the scene or the (firearms licence) data bank is accessed. Either way my photograph will be on law enforcement circulars, in newspapers and on television as the person wanted for committing the crime.

Imagine an officer attending a domestic dispute. He or she accesses the firearms registry through the computer board in the patrol car and it shows John Doe as associated to that address and he has certain firearms registered to him. But, instead of a photograph of John Doe coming up on a computer screen, it is my photograph. The officer approaches the house and encounters John Doe on the street. Not associating him to the photograph, the officer would not recognize him as a possible threat. I need not explain the possible disastrous consequences of this scenario.

Since Mr. Soltis has informed me of this blunder by the Department of Justice other law-abiding individuals have complained to me.

Mr. William Dennis Moss of Hawkestone, Ontario never applied for a firearms licence but received a firearms possession and acquisition licence that belongs to Mr. William Arthur Moss. In his letter he asks:

I feel my privacy and security have been invaded. The person pictured would, I am sure, feel the same. Who is this other William Moss who is waiting for his certificate? If he gets into trouble, the government has MY address. Would you like to be in this position?

Mr. Moss returned his bogus licence to the Ontario Provincial Police and was told about a number of similar mistakes that have been reported to them.

This is not a frivolous complaint. A firearms licence is a primary piece of identification. Have members every heard of a passport, or a social insurance card, or a health card, or a driver's licence being issued with someone else's picture on it, or being sent to the wrong person at the wrong address? Just think of the possible abuses that could occur. Yet the minister seems unconcerned or unaware of the consequences that these colossal errors made by her department could have.

Individuals who receive faulty licences will be stopped by the police. If they are in the possession of a firearm, the accuracy of their government issued licence is the only thing that will keep them out of jail. If even one law-abiding firearm owner is harassed by the police because of bureaucratic incompetence it will be inexcusable.

The key question remains. How many other mistakes like these have been made by the Department of Justice? Do we have to wait until each and every individual holder of the licence complains about the breach of privacy? How does the minister propose to find all the mistakes that have been made by her department? Will she stop—

[Gun Control, March 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, last week members of the Canadian Police Association told me that the people of Saskatchewan were losing faith in the criminal justice system.

Do you want to know how bad it is? On February 20 the Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation passed the following resolution with 84% support:

Whereas the opposition to Bill C-68 continues to grow, and whereas several provinces including Saskatchewan, have opted out of enforcement and administration of the bill, and whereas the federal government intends to use the RCMP to enforce C-68 in spite of overwhelming opposition to this legislation in Saskatchewan, Be it resolved that the Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation recommends that the Government of Saskatchewan replace the RCMP with a provincial police force that is more accountable to the people of Saskatchewan.

If respect for the law erodes, the work of the police becomes more difficult. Law-abiding gun owners in Saskatchewan are even calling the RCMP the Chrétien cops. See what stupid ineffective gun control laws do.

[Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, March 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I was hoping to get this time at the beginning of the debate to outline for the various members what is happening and how things are going.

As members know, we reverted to orders of the day today. A bill was being debated that had been supported by the majority of MPs in this House. It had been sent to committee where the Liberals and the NDP killed it. That bill was on consecutive sentencing. It was something which nine out of ten Canadians supported.

[Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, March 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, would not a much simpler solution be to gain unanimous consent to debate each group separately and then we can just move through the groups very quickly. If no one has any comments, then away we go.

[Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, March 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would hope that if we give unanimous consent it would include all of the members of the committee, all of the critics who sit on that particular committee and the official opposition party as well. Could that be included?

[Transit Passes, March 24th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, last Friday I asked the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food a question and he responded by declaring that my comments were absolutely false.

I represent my constituents in this House. My constituents call me with their problems and I raise their concerns in the House. When the minister accuses me of making false statements, he is calling my constituents liars. The minister should pay more attention to what farmers are saying about his programs than what his bureaucrats are telling him.

Last Friday I asked the minister “The disaster application forms are 40 pages long and accountants are charging farmers between $500 and $1,000 to fill them out. Why is the minister giving western grain producers more bills to pay instead of the disaster assistance they desperately need?”

My constituents are telling me that the AIDA application forms are not even available in printed form yet. I checked the Internet, found the application forms and counted the pages for myself. There are 50 pages, not 40.

I checked with a few accountants in Saskatchewan and asked them how much it was going to cost farmers to have the accountants fill out these AIDA applications. One accounting firm in Regina that does thousands of returns for farmers said the charges for filling out an AIDA application would be about the same as filling out an application for the Alberta farm disaster program. That is $500 to $1,000. Is the minister saying that his AIDA application is simpler than Alberta's?

The minister said “It is so simple. Just transfer information from one form to another”. The minister's statement is an absolute falsehood.

Here is what accountants who do thousands of returns for western grain farmers are saying. The information a farmer needs is more than just his tax return and his NISA forms. Accounting firms told me that grain tickets or permit books are needed as well as their crop insurance records and documentation to prove their level of inventory.

Producers who are not a part of NISA will have another eight pages of forms to fill out. Accountants say producers cannot use the cash basis but need to determine what their inventories were on January 1, 1998 and then again on December 31, 1998. Accountants say getting the accurate records to comply with the accrual method on the AIDA forms is going to be quite a struggle. The form asks not only how much wheat a producer has, but what grade and protein content it is.

Even when the AIDA forms are filled out, there is no way of knowing if that is how much compensation the farmer will receive. These forms are directly tied to NISA. The farmers' NISA numbers might not reflect the same numbers that the bureaucrats have.

Also the timeframe given to complete these AIDA applications in Saskatchewan is June 15. That is too short. Accountants say it will be a struggle to get all of their producers' forms filled out by that deadline.

Farmers are getting into seeding season and it is going to be extremely tough to get farmers off the tractor and into the accountant's office. In Ontario and Alberta, farmers have until July 31 to fill out their applications. Why is the federal government putting such a strict deadline on the forms coming from Saskatchewan and Manitoba?

One accountant said that these forms are extremely complicated and that it looks like a make work project for the bureaucrats in Ottawa. The whole package could have been much simpler.

Farmers are telling me that when they see the forms, they get extremely frustrated. Many wonder if it is worth taking the time to fill out the AIDA application. They feel they will not be entitled to anything anyway because of the way the program is structured.

The AIDA program does not take into account any bills or outstanding lines of credit that a farmer may have. As a result, the AIDA form is not an accurate representation of a farmer's financial situation. This final point is very key.

My final question is why did the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food create a make work project for bureaucrats and accountants instead of a simple cost effective system that the farmers were asking for.