Cliff Breitkreuz

[Canada Post Corporation, November 27th, 1995]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should immediately take the required measures to privatize all operations and services of the Canada Post Corporation.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for seconding the motion.

My speech will be about 10 minutes long to allow my colleagues to also speak to private members' motion 312. I preface my remarks by stating that Canadians need and deserve an efficient postal service.

The Reform Party supports placing the ownership and control of corporations in the sector that can perform their function most cost effectively, with greatest accountability to owners and the least likelihood of incurring public debt. We believe there is overwhelming evidence that this would be the private sector in the vast majority of cases.

As far as Canada Post Corporation is concerned, the Reform Party supports free competition for the post office. There should be no restrictions on private competition in the delivery of mail, which brings me to my private members' motion. It calls for the government to take measures to privatize the operations and services of the Canada Post Corporation.

There are at least two essential considerations. First, is there any reason at all to involve government in mail delivery? Should it be completely privatized or totally deregulated? Second, if there is reason for government involvement in mail services, is the current system the best and the right way to do it?

As far as the first consideration is concerned, if our goal is simply to maximize efficiency, there is no role for government operations or subsidies here or anywhere else. If people who live in remote places find that mail is hard to send or hard to get, that is a consequence of their home being somewhere remote. If they do not like it, they should move closer to a city or area where mail service is better. Of course, I am not advocating that option.

It is normally argued that the purpose of a national mail service is to contribute to national unity by allowing everyone from sea to sea to sea to send and receive letters at a reasonable price. If this is true, there has to be some sort of government role.

The bulk of the mail is between businesses and their customers, in and around large towns and cities where deliveries can be made cheaply because the volume is so high. In a truly private world, the more remote you are the more your mail will cost. It is true that people in remote places generally are among the less wealthy and less able to afford high postal rates.

Most people, except possibly a few federal cabinet ministers, understand that free citizens do things better, cheaper and more nicely than government. Therefore we should assume that government should not become involved in any particular area and put the burden of proof on those who say it should stay involved and to explain why.

In the case of mail delivery the reason for involving government is to make sure that all Canadians from coast to coast to coast have access to mail in the interests of the national community and national unity. It is not because people think the government would do a good job of delivering the mail, even by the normal standards of bureaucracy.

However, people who think the government should ensure that everyone can get and send mail cheaply should still not want a postal monopoly. The right way to manage the mail would be to promise that anyone, anywhere can mail a letter for a certain rate, say 45 cents. The entire field of delivery would then be thrown wide open and deregulated totally, except that the government would pay for but contract out the job of making mail deliveries at 45 cents per letter to places like Inuvik, that private carriers just could not and would not service cheaply.

This would be paid for out of general revenues. Since the goal of promoting national unity is one that benefits all Canadians equally, it makes sense to ask them all to pay for it. The argument will be

made that the government would lose money on this even if it is compared with the present system. What the present system does is penalize all users of mail and all potential mail delivery servers quite heavily. It allows every Canadian to get mail, but imposes the cost disproportionately on one group and in the process damages to the Canadian economy. I suggest the damage to the Canadian economy at the hands of Canada Post is not small.

CPC is a perennial money loser, having lost money in three of the last five years, ending its most recent fiscal year with a $68.8 million loss. That amount is only a fraction of the cost to the Canadian economy by the mail monopoly. Slow delivery, private opportunities denied and lost, excessive charges for mail in big towns and cities that could be delivered for less than 45 cents and burdensome bureaucracies are some of the inefficiencies.

The real cost of Canada Post is higher than its on-book losses. Here are a few losses to consider; the $68.8 million loss which I just mentioned for 1993-94. It was $22 million higher than the company executives predicted just a year before. Some prediction and, I suppose, some executives. The books also showed a $270 million deficit even though last year CPC showed a profit in its first class mail delivery; a $282 million entry attributed to internal restructuring of some kind. That is more than five times higher than the previous year's entry. No explanation was given for what type of restructuring.

Here is another interesting phenomenon: 41.7 per cent of CPC'S volume of delivered mail is in the form of unaddressed advertising, or as Canadians so affectionately refer to it, junk mail. Here is the kicker. Junk mail generates only 5.2 per cent of CPC's total revenues, which means that nearly half of CPC's volume produces a paltry 5.2 per cent of its revenues.

To the viewers watching, I hope they are sitting down for this. It is illegal for private mail carriers to charge less than $1.29 a piece for the delivery of first class mail, which is nearly three times as high as the already exorbitant price of 45 cents a stamp charged by CPC. It is a monopoly and it is still losing money.

The government is planning to review the operations of CPC. That is really what our country needs, and the people are just dying for it, another study by this do nothing government. CPC should be privatized using the contracting out model of reform on the least subsidy basis; that is, ask for bids to deliver the mail, charge customers 45 cents and take the bid from the company that delivers to remote places as efficiently as possible. The extra cost would be taken out of general revenues as I stated earlier.

One thing is certain. CPC is pricing itself out of the business of delivering mail, especially with more and more businesses turning

to faxes and E-mail. CPC is a top down, inefficient monopoly that has no place in the emerging global economy. I urge the government to take action to allow private carriers the opportunity to be involved in mail delivery. Not only would it help to fix our ailing economy, but the Canadian people would be much better served.

[Agriculture, November 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister during the 1993 election campaign promised a producer plebiscite on marketing barley and promised he would honour that result.

Right after the election the minister of agriculture said he favours giving farmers a voice through plebiscites which are, to quote the minister "the most appropriate vehicle by which to determine what farmers' preferences are".

Why did the Prime Minister and the agriculture minister promise producers a democratic voice when it is clear they had no intention of honouring that promise?

[Agriculture, November 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the minister of agriculture has stated he will not recognize the outcome of the wheat and barley plebiscite currently taking place in the province of Alberta.

Why is the minister ignoring the democratic rights of farmers to choose how they want to market their wheat and barley for export?

[Petitions, October 25th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to present a petition signed by constituents of Yellowhead who are strongly opposed to the universal registration provision in Bill C-68. They want protected the right of law-abiding citizens to own and use recreation firearms.

They also are concerned that with Canada's serious deficit and debt problem such costly and unproven legislation should not proceed.

[Members Of Parliament Retiringallowances Act, June 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, before I comment directly on Bill C-85 I remind the House it has been almost two years since the government took over office and Canada's deficit. The problem still remains unresolved.

During the last 24 hours the deficit has increased by $100 million and in the last hour the deficit has increased by $4 million. Since I began speaking the deficit has increased by about $40,000. When I an through with my remarks on the MP pension bill the deficit will have incredibly increased by about $700,000. Our country's debt stands at over $550 billion and the government has added about $100 billion to the debt over the last couple of years.

Into this kind of deficit disaster, this spending brinkmanship, the government introduced the outrageous, incredibly rich gold plated MP pension bill which government members are reluctant to debate in the House and which they certainly will not debate outside the House or across the country.

Government members should hang their heads in shame. Every member who votes for this bill, this elitist double standard bill, should be embarrassed. When MPs who support the bill go back to their ridings, how can they look their constituents straight in the eye and tell them they deserve a pension at least twice as rich as those of their constituents? For the 74 Liberal members of Parliament presently here, the trough heavies, how can they look their constituents in the eye and tell them they deserve a pension at least four times are rich as those of their constituents?

Politicians in Ottawa have created two sets of rules, one for the ruling elite and one for regular folks. A case in point recently of a double standard is the mileage allowance increase for MPs, about 12 per cent higher than is allowed in the private sector. Politicians set themselves apart, above regular folks.

I am talking about a double standard, which is really an euphemism for hypocrisy. The ultimate hypocrisy takes shape in the MP pension plan. It was an issue during the 1993 election campaign and it will grow to a major issue in the next election.

My constituents in the Yellowhead know what the federal government is doing about the gold plated pension plan and they do not like it one bit.

Sadly, the Liberal government lacks the intestinal fortitude to do the right thing and bring MP pension into line with pension plans available in the private sector. It is a double standard. Whether the Liberals want to accept it or not, we are all regular folks, just like the people who voted for us. Dignity and respect are in order for Canadians, not double standards or double talk.

There are many things hypocritical about Bill C-85, the pension bill. It allows benefits to accrue at double the rate legally allowed in the private sector under the Income Tax Act. Senior Liberal MPs, 74 of them with more than six years of service, will retain their gold plated pension and start collecting immediately on retirement regardless of age.

Seventy-four Liberal MPs even under the provisions of the bill will still receive a pension four times richer than most other Canadians'. Freshman MPs who opt into this new plan will still be part of a pension plan twice as generous as that available for most Canadians, and they can start collecting pensions at age 55. This group of MPs will also be able to collect 75 per cent of their salary after serving 19 years in office. Most Canadians have to

work 35 years to collect a pension worth 70 per cent of their final income.

It is this kind of better than thou attitude Canadians are tired of. Average folks are being asked to tighten their belts, to pay more in the form of all kinds of taxes. MPs have created an insulated world for themselves which shields them from the financial burden regular Canadians are asked to carry.

Perhaps one of the most hypocritical elements of the MP pension plan is it allows former parliamentarians who are wealthy to continue to collect an MP pension. Seniors citizens can only dream of such a system for them. These folks have to abide by the rules set by law. Any senior 65 years of age or over who has an income exceeding $53,215 must pay 15 per cent of the excess net income up to the full amount of old age security collected. In other words, seniors who cross a certain income threshold have their old age security benefits clawed back and most people would say it is fair and reasonable.

Those members who have six or more years experience can begin to collect their MP pension immediately on leaving office regardless of age. Freshmen MPs can begin collecting their MP pensions at age 55. To top it all off, former parliamentarians who are well off are not subject to any pension clawback. For some unknown reason they are put on a pedestal and are somehow deserving of every cent because they served their country.

What about the seniors who have their OAS pensions clawed back? Many of them are veterans. Most seniors helped build this country. Surely they can claim they have contributed to their country and are deserving of every cent as well. Again it is a double standard, one the public should not and will not tolerate.

To deal with this unfairness I will be introducing a private member's bill this fall which is the basis for an Amendment No. 39 to Bill C-85. Both require all former parliamentarians whether senators or MPs to have their pensions clawed back exactly the same way many seniors have their OAS benefits clawed back. This clawback would take effect immediately once the parliamentarian begins to collect his pension regardless of age. It would apply when a former member attains employment which pays him in excess of $53,215, the exact same threshold level which applies to seniors eligible to collect OAS.

I will be the first to admit such a clawback will not save the country billions of dollars. It will save the taxpayers money in the long run. That is something every member in the House should be interested in. It will help to alleviate the widespread cynicism federal politicians encounter. It will help to restore perhaps a little confidence. This is most important. It will send a signal to the long suffering taxpayers that cuts must start with those who legislate.

Why should former Tory Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, who is independently wealthy, pocket $33,500 of taxpayers' dollars every year? That is his MP pension benefit and not one dime of it is clawed back. To add insult to Canadian taxpayers, Mulroney stands to collect an additional $50,000 per year in priministerial pension when he turns 65 in the year 2003. This is the man who brought the country to its knees. As the MP pension plan is laid out now none of that can be clawed back and after a member turns 60 it is all indexed.

Then there is millionaire Liberal Pierre Trudeau. With inflation protection he collects well over $100,000 per year from Canadian taxpayers. Here as well not one thin dime is clawed back.

We cannot forget some of our colleagues presently in the House. They will be the heavy troughers when they leave this place. The Deputy Prime Minister staunchly defends the obscene MP pension plan. It is no wonder, she would stand to collect about $34,000 per year if she retired today. That is almost $3 million by the time she reaches age 75. If on her retirement she gains meaningful employment or contracts from the ex-heritage minister certainly she should be susceptible to an MP pension clawback.

Then there is the leader of the Tory party. It appears we cannot get the rich blue blood out of the Tories. He has been extremely quiet about the ludicrous MP pension plan. I suspect it is because he stands to collect about $45,000 per year on retirement, with a total of $4.5 million, mostly taxpayers' money, until he reaches age 75. It is no wonder the Tory leader is silent about the MP pension plan.

Surely everyone would agree that on retirement the leader of the Tory party, the independents really, should be subject to an MP pension clawback if he earns over $53,000 per year in the private sector.

It is unfair to ask seniors in a certain wage category to give a portion of their pensions if former parliamentarians who fall under the same wage category do not have to give back a portion of their incredibly rich pensions.

I sincerely hope all members of this House will give careful consideration to amendment No. 39 under Bill C-85, which calls for an MP pension clawback to well off former parliamentarians. There cannot be two sets of government imposed rules, one for seniors collecting pensions and one for MPs collecting pensions. It is undemocratic, unfair, and just not right.

[National Parks, June 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, given the ethical standards set by the minister it is a wonder public servants did not ask CP for a donation to the heritage minister's dinner.

The actions of the director of mountain parks clearly violate Treasury Board guidelines and seriously compromise the heritage department's objectivity.

Will the ethics counsellor be investigating the matter or is the Prime Minister planning to handle this one personally?

[National Parks, June 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the director of the mountain parks division of the department of heritage recently accepted a Japanese junket courtesy of CP Hotels. Canadian Pacific, it turns out, has major development plans in the Jasper and Banff national parks, which come under the mountain parks division of the heritage department.

Why was a top Parks Canada official allowed to accept a nine day junket from a corporation which has direct business dealings with his division?

[Firearms Act, June 12th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, it is quite clear that the Liberal government has bitten off a lot more than it bargained for as it proceeds to ram Bill C-68 through the House.

The government contends its gun control bill will do wonders to prevent gun related crimes. The government contends that Canadians from coast to coast want Bill C-68. The government contends that the cost for tighter gun control is minimal. While the government contends, Canadians are learning the facts about gun control and the facts about gun related crimes.

Let us start with the government's premise that gun control will reduce violent crime. Statistics Canada reported in 1991 that a total of 753 homicides were committed. Two-thirds of the murderers had prior criminal records. Almost half, 46 per cent, of those homicides were committed during the perpetration of another criminal offence, and only 36 per cent of these homicides were committed with firearms, half of which were committed with handguns, which are already required to be registered. If we look further into the statistics we see that 71 per

cent of these homicides were committed by individuals who could not even legally obtain a firearm.

Despite the fact that Canadians have been required to register their handguns since 1934, gun related crime has remained relatively constant over the years. That is because those restrictions have not prevented criminals from getting handguns. Tougher gun control will merely drive up the street value of weapons, making gun smuggling more lucrative than ever.

Bill C-68 in all likelihood will actually increase the criminal element in our society instead of reducing it.

It is worth mentioning that New Zealand abandoned firearms registration in 1983 after the police there said that registration diverts police away from more important duties. In Australia more than 40 per cent of firearms have not been registered, even after decades of requirements that they do so. The justice minister would do well to look at the experiences with gun registration in other countries.

The Liberals also contend that Canadians from coast to coast want Bill C-68. The Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Bar Association, and a host of provincial governments are not in favour of the very contentious provisions of Bill C-68.

Polls show that as more people learn about Bill C-68 the support drops. That is why the government is ramming Bill C-68 through the House by invoking closure.

There is the cost of universal registration of guns. The Liberals will have Canadians believe that registration will only cost $85 million. That is totally and completely erroneous and the justice minister knows it. The government bases its cost on the premise that there are only about 6.5 million firearms which would need to be registered at a cost of $85 million. The facts speak for themselves. Why does it currently cost $82 to register a handgun and why would it be only $13 to register long guns?

In 1976 the Solicitor General of Canada estimated Canadians owned ten million firearms. Each year approximately 200,000 additional firearms are legally imported into Canada, suggesting there should now be at least 14 million guns.

A 1992 United Nations survey found that over seven million Canadians, 26 per cent, own firearms. At the same time a justice department study showed that each owner had an average of 2.7 firearms for a total of 19 million. In April 1995 the deputy commissioner of the RCMP stated that there could be as many as 25 million firearms in Canada, two and a half times the 1976 figure.

If high firearm numbers equate with high crime then the crime rate should be two and a half times higher than it was in 1976. In fact, justice department statistics show that the crime rate in all categories has been stable with only minor fluctuations over the same period. Despite the claim that gun control impacts directly on crime, neither Bill C-51, the Trudeau bill nor Campbell's Bill C-17 have had any observable affect on this trend. What is the justification for more gun laws?

The people of Yellowhead want a criminal justice system which works for them. They want tough laws to deal with young offenders and they want tough laws to deal with the criminal element. They want their property and their rights protected. They will not be punished for not registering their firearms. They want the bad guys punished.

Under this terribly misguided gun control bill those who inadvertently fail to register their firearm face a summary conviction offence which would result in, at the very least, a criminal record, and at the most it could end up in a five year jail sentence. If a person knowingly fails to register their firearm they could face a maximum of 10 years in jail. That is for law-abiding citizens, but the thugs who steal firearms face a maximum of two years in jail. What kind of country are the Liberals building for the future?

Section 99 of this ill conceived Bill C-68 puts at risk fundamental liberties handed down from the Magna Carta, going all the way back to 1215. Section 99 allows for warrantless searches to be conducted. Section 107 criminalizes non-co-operation with police. Sections 91 and 92 enforce harsh penalties for non-compliance with gun registration. All of these single out law-abiding citizens. So much for almost 800 years of judges and scholars; 800 years of jurisprudence. This firearm legislation has the potential to abrogate and trample Canadians' liberties and freedoms, not only for gun owners but non-owners as well.

I speak on behalf of the majority of my constituents when I say that the bill will do little to protect them from the criminal use of firearms. I have stacks of anti-gun control letters and scores of petitions signed by thousands of constituents who want the government to reconsider the legislation. I will quote from a couple of these. Mrs. Dorothy Harrison of Barrhead, Alberta writes: "The criminals will not register their guns and law-abiding citizens will be penalized. The present justice industry is a gold mine for lawyers and totally inadequate".

Mr. John Rae of Whitecourt, Alberta writes: "As a concerned citizen of the Yellowhead riding, I am alarmed at the number of

flaws in the gun control legislation that will turn law-abiding citizens of this country into law breakers".

This bill is more than just about firearms legislation. It is really about raw political power exercised by the state over its citizens.

If the government was really serious about reducing crime it would look at the causes of crime and the causes of urban violence. But to do so, the government would have to tackle some very holy sacred cows, sacred cows that this government along with previous governments helped to build.

[Federal Office Of Regional Development, June 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Federal Office of Regional Development covers all bases. For example, taxpayers can enjoy a beer courtesy of their $46,000 grant to a beer manufacturer. After they quaff a couple of cool ones, they can go to the Quebec City horse show and watch 20,000 of their hard earned tax dollars spent on horse jumping. Before taxpayers take in the subsidized grand finale, I suggest they go back for more libations. They will need it before they travel to Jean's World, the ultimate in taxpayer abuse.

Yes, Canada's Prime Minister has a nice little theme park going up in his riding, with $3.5 million coming right from FORD-Q. The only problem is, experts say this little pork barrel gem will cost taxpayers millions annually. I could almost swear the members across the way are a bunch of Tory hacks in Liberal clothing.

To top it all off, Liberal and Bloc members join hands and invoke closure to ensure their gold plated pension plans. Shame, shame.

[Petitions, June 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition I am pleased to present on behalf of Mr. Ken Rij of Evansburg, which is in the riding of Yellowhead.

The petitioners request that Parliament not amend a code, act, or charter in any way that would tend to indicate societal approval to include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase sexual orientation.