Allan Kerpan

[Speech From The Throne, September 26th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, first I would like to congratulate my colleague on his maiden speech. If more members of Parliament would take to heart his words of advice we would certainly have a better institution and a far better country.

I would ask the hon. member to comment on the area of victims rights. He mentioned in his remarks the 745 hearings. Having been involved with a group of people in Saskatoon who have just recently gone through this, I do feel the tremendous amount of grief and emotion of these people, 15 to 25 years after the fact. There has been no closure.

Would the hon. member like to comment?

[Police Officers Of Canada, September 26th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, this weekend more than 4,000 police officers and their families will travel to Ottawa to pay tribute to their colleagues who have fallen in the line of duty. Every day in this country police officers sacrifice their own personal safety in order that the rest of us remain protected from the criminal acts of a few.

Unfortunately, every year some of these courageous men and women pay the ultimate price for their bravery. Even more remain permanently injured as a result of their work.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank on behalf of all Canadians the valiant, self-sacrificing efforts of the members of our nation's police forces. Our safety is very much a result of their bravery.

[Speech From The Throne, September 26th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, again as many before me have, I would like to offer my congratulations and best wishes to you and all those who will occupy the Chair through this 36th Parliament.

One of the things that the member for Crowfoot talked about in his address and also in the questions and comments is the frustration that Canadians have with our legal system. We have seen just this past summer things like the section 745 hearings for people like Clifford Olson who is a self-admitted child killer of 11 children.

I wonder if the member would like to comment on how things like the section 745 hearings have an effect on the people's frustration with the justice system.

[Member For Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, April 24th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, over the past three and half years it has been an honour for me to represent the wonderful people of my riding. I will have the dubious pleasure of being the last member of Parliament for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre.

I want to thank all the people in my riding for their support, thoughts and input. I will never forget you.

With the calling of the election I will turn my attention to my new riding of Blackstrap. I am looking forward to the challenge of meeting the current Liberal member for Saskatoon-Dundurn in what I am calling the showdown for Saskatoon.

There is no doubt that this government has a lot to answer for in the province of Saskatchewan. Its lack of action on many issues and its heavy handed approach on many others are something we will bring before the people in the next 40 days or so. It is time to pay the piper.

We have been fortunate in this country that at least every four years or so we as Canadians can and must evaluate the record of our politicians. It is high noon. The streets are quiet. Let the showdown begin.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, April 24th, 1997]

Absolutely. The member for Vegreville is smiling. He has every reason to.

It is good this piece of legislation will not pass this week. We are all assuming there will be an election call this weekend. That is also good. For those of us who come back in the 36th Parliament it is critical that we as a Parliament, not just as the government and as the opposition, work together to solve the issues in western Canada and indeed right across the country.

In the last 3.5 years I have seen very little action on major issues by the minister of agriculture. Maybe there will be a new agriculture minister in the 36th Parliament. Maybe it will be someone from a different party.

I firmly believe there is hope and a bright future for agriculture but it has to come from the grassroots up.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, April 24th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to see there are some farmers on the other side of the House. Not too long ago there was a debate on agriculture in this Chamber and there were on our side something like 15 farmers. On the other side there were something like 15 or 18 lawyers.

That is part of the problem we have. The lawyers, the bureaucrats and the politicians always tell farmers what is good for them, rather than it being the other way around. That is the root of the problem.

I want to touch on a comment which the parliamentary secretary made. He said members of the Reform Party probably would not vote for this bill regardless of what was in it. When I first heard about some of the changes with the elected directors I considered very seriously supporting the bill. I did a survey in my riding which showed very clearly that the majority of farmers would like to continue with the wheat board monopoly.

I am happy to be a member of a party in which I can vote for the wishes of my constituents without repercussions. I considered voting for Bill C-72 until I started to look at what was in the bill. At that point my thoughts changed.

I am pleased to know that this bill will not pass during the 35th Parliament. That is good. I have spoken to a lot of people and neither side is happy. The people who are on the side of a dual marketing system think the bill has not gone nearly far enough. The people on the other side, the Sask Wheat Pool, the NFU and some of those groups, think it has gone too far.

Obviously the issue is far from settled. It needs to be talked about and reworked in the 36th Parliament.

The problem in agriculture is bigger than the Canadian Wheat Board. There are a lot of other issues which need to be tied together and come to grips with in order to make agriculture a viable business going into the next century. An example that comes to mind is transportation.

We could consider what happened this past winter with the grain tie-ups in western Canada. The minister did very little to solve those problems. It is another example of where the minister has been completely lacking.

The Liberal member for Souris-Moose Mountain brought forward a private member's bill which would give more responsibility to the railways. That is good. I like that kind of thinking.

Another problem is that the government has not put in a system whereby the railways will be penalized for lack of movement and rewarded for good performance. That is something we must come to grips with.

I support the hon. member for Souris-Moose Mountain. Of course when those things happen the government accuses us of bickering and being critical of all legislation brought forward.

I would like to speak about consultation for a minute. I find it interesting that the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food set up a panel to travel the country to consult with farmers and to listen to farm groups. When the report came back it was not a good report in the minister's eyes. He did not act on the recommendations of his committee.

It reminds me of so many other committees that have taken place in this Parliament and in previous parliaments where some good thinking members go out on the road, listen to people, bring back recommendations, and the government of the day fails to act on them. Millions of dollars are spent on all kinds of reports that are put on shelves to collect dust. That is a serious problem.

As the farmers in my riding of Moose Jaw-Lake Centre and I see it, the number one concern we would like to see changed about the wheat board is that it have a fully elected board of directors. People agree that is far enough for now. We might want to get into something else later but at least we would have control over the directors. They will be accountable to us. If they do not do what we say as a majority we will get somebody else. It is very much like the House. That is good part of our system.

If on June 2 the people of Canada decide they do not agree with what the government is doing they will kick it out.

[Canada Labour Code, April 9th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to my colleague. He brought forward his ideas on how labour disruptions could occur much less often and be solved much more quickly. I agree with his ideas about final offer arbitration.

As I was listening to his speech I recalled a couple of years ago in the House at the time of the last major work disruption in grain shipments on the prairies. In my riding and province farming or agriculture is huge. It is the biggest industry in Moose Jaw-Lake Centre.

In thinking back to how the government handled the disruption at that time, I remember the government bringing in back to work legislation which the House was called back on a Sunday to pass. Since then I have been on radio shows a couple of times with the member for Saskatoon-Dundurn who accused the Reform Party of not caring about western farmers because we did not show up on a Sunday to support the back to work legislation.

First, we supported the legislation because it was the best thing we had at that time.

Second, we asked for pre-emptive legislation prior to the strike so that it could not happen. Of course the government in its wisdom saw fit not to do it.

Third, the member for Lethbridge put forward a private member's bill on final offer arbitration, which was not passed, shortly before the strike.

On three occasions the government had the opportunity to stop a major labour disruption but saw fit to do nothing and to let it run its course.

There are something like 27 unions between the farm gate and the ports. Any one of the unions or any one of the management companies could either strike or lock out its workers. Something like 54 organizations could disrupt grain movement from Saskatchewan, from the farm gate to the ports. It is unacceptable that 54 groups could tie up the whole agriculture industry. When the big boys play, the farmers pay. That always happens.

Is my colleague convinced that final offer arbitration would solve and put an end to these labour disruptions in the future?

[Grain Transportation, February 13th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is happening again. At last count there were some 46 ships waiting for grain at the west coast ports. Whenever this happens, the Canadian Wheat Board blames the railways, the railways blame the grain companies, and the minister of agriculture

does not blame anybody. All this while the farmers who are the real victims end up holding the bag. This time it is a $65 million bag.

Farmers are tired of all the finger pointing. They are not interested in who is to blame. They are interested in solving problems that affect their daily lives.

This minister has to start realizing that these grain tie-ups have to stop. Everybody loses in these situations. I often wonder how long it would take the government to act if its members' paycheques were put on hold for several months because someone decided to shut down the comptroller's office during the winter.

The taxpayers of this country pay us to find real solutions to some very real problems, yet here we are sitting back while the big boys play and farmers pay. This government should be ashamed of itself. I think we need a fresh start.

[Excise Tax Act, December 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the debate on Bill C-70 since question period and before. It occurs to me it has been a very interesting day in the House of Commons. We are faced with what I considered to be a double Liberal whammy. First, for the umpteenth time we are faced with time allocation or closure invoked by the government.

The second whammy is the HST, the BST, the GST or whatever. I will speak for a second about the speech of the member for Burlington. She had some interesting statistics I would like to discuss.

She spoke about using time allocation or closure for 12.3 per cent of the times that it could have been used. I would hardly be proud of that record. It amazes me. If the bar is set low enough it is easy to jump over it.

To talk about the debt and the deficit, the Liberal government is now claiming what a wonderful job it has done with the economy and the finances of the country. The deficit is still well over $20 billion a year. They are proud of using closure 12 per cent of the time. It blows my mind. It amazes me that anybody from any party, including my own, would ever have the gall to stand up and be proud of records like that. It just shocks me.

Let us talk for just a second about the idea of closure. After we were elected in 1993, we came to Ottawa and heard all the media stories. The Prime Minister and members of the government would stand up and say: "We are going to be different. This is going to be a new Parliament. The 35th Parliament is going to be something of which we, as parliamentarians, can be proud".

I am afraid that I have been seriously disappointed in that aspect. Yes, the first couple of months of January 1994 started with some level of decorum that probably has not been seen in this House for many years. It deteriorated rapidly.

We are seeing again on a regular basis things like closure being used in the most undemocratic fashion anyone could ever imagine. We live in Canada. I am proud to be a Canadian. I am proud to live in our democracy. By the same token, I am deeply ashamed to be part of a system at times uses the most undemocratic tactics. I

would expect to see those kinds of tactics in many other countries but those are countries that I would prefer not to live in.

To stand up in the House today and talk about using closure12 per cent of the time is something that I find unbelievable. The member for Burlington said: "Let's have an election. Let's find out what the people want". That is good. Let us have an election. I am prepared to do that. When Canadians see and understand what kind of undemocratic government we have at this point in time, they will say: "Thank you very much. We will try somebody else". I am looking forward to that day with great interest.

The member for Burlington seemed disappointed and was complaining that perhaps the opposition parties, including our party, wanted to stall the debate further. Some of these bills have great importance. She implied in her speech that it is fine to speak in debate as long as we agree with the government.

I think back to three bills in particular, Bill C-68, Bill C-33 and this bill, where the government used closure to ram the bills through as fast as it possibly could. Why did it do that?

It is because Canadians are not in favour of these types of bills. I believe that the opposition has a duty to convey in the House the thoughts of the people of Canada. That is why we did it. We do not do it to stand up here and waste time. We are very busy people. We do not need to listen to ourselves speak.

They are important bills. Bill C-68, Bill C-33 and now Bill C-70 have tremendous impact on the future of this country. It is our right and our duty to speak. That is why I was elected and why everybody else in this House was elected, to truly debate those very critical issues.

Just recently we supported the government on the Tobacco Act. We wanted to see it go through as quickly as possible. We felt that Canadians were in favour of it. We agreed with the government. We said: "Let's do this. Let's get it through". We did. It is done.

I do not think it is fair for any government member to stand up and criticize us for asking for more open, honest, democratic debate. I know I do not have much time left but for the minutes that I have left, I want to talk about the GST or the HST or the BST. I do not care what it is called. They are all one and the same.

The member for Kindersley-Lloydminster talked a few minutes ago, before question period, about the BST. He is from Saskatchewan where we all know what BS stands for. I am from Saskatchewan as well. I also know what HS could stand for. It is all one and the same, it is still a tax. I have horses on my farm and therefore I do know what HS could stand for.

A tax is a tax is a tax. One cannot get around it and it cannot be hidden. People are not stupid and they realize exactly what is going on. To call it the HST or the BST or the GST or the ABC, it is still a tax. Canadians are tired of taxes. We are taxed to death.

In question period we talked of jobs and what the high unemployment rate costs in dollars. It is difficult to put an number on it but we do know that high taxation causes unemployment. That is just a plain and simple fact of life and there is no getting around it.

I have two friends in my riding, Elwood Nelson and Keith Talbot, who are both auctioneers. Recently I was talking to them about the problems the GST causes in their business. It causes tremendous trouble. These two gentlemen generally hold farm sales where they sell pieces of equipment, tools and so on. There would be hundreds and hundreds of items at any one auction sale on a farm.

Their difficulty is determining for what each individual item has been used and whether it is a personal item or a business use item. There are hundreds of items at one auction sale and these auctioneers hold sometimes 60, 80 or 100 auction sales a year. It is impossible to determine whether that piece of equipment or that tool has been used as a personal item or for business purposes. There is a difference in how they collect the GST and submit it.

They do not have a clue and they have been led down the garden path by Revenue Canada on the GST for six years. The rules change every six months. Somebody comes in with a new idea and they change it all over again. The same thing is going to happen when the tax is harmonized. They are going to have to go back and start all over again just has they have done so many times in the past.

I think of people who run stores. Recently I asked a woman: "What do you think of the GST?" She said: "I hate it, Allan, but at least it is in. It is in my computers, in my cash register and it is done. I don't like it but I have to live with it". What is going to happen when the HST comes in, or the BST, or whatever it is called? They are going to have to change again.

Mr. Speaker, do you know who they are going to remember? They will not think about Brian Mulroney. They are going to think about the Liberal government. They are going to think about this finance minister and they are going to say: "That's the guy that did it to me this time. First it was Mulroney, now it is the finance minister". The same thing, it makes no difference.

My colleague for Prince George-Peace River gave a very fine speech in the House just before question period and he said: "Liberal, Tory, same old story". They are going to remember the people who made them change and cost them a tremendous amount of money once again.

I cannot believe this is going on. If I were a Liberal member of Parliament who is seeking re-election I would be embarrassed to go out back on the campaign trail to be asked: "What about that GST

thing"? and have to say: "Oh, we are sorry, we made a mistake". I am ready. Let us try it.

[Taxation, December 6th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, recently one of my Reform colleagues introduced a private member's bill extending the child care tax deduction. The key is that the deduction would be converted to a refundable tax credit which would benefit those parents who choose to care for their own children.

Presently a tax deduction can be received if someone else cares for your children but not if you choose to stay home and raise them yourself. As usual, the Liberal government refused to support the bill.

Its solution to helping families cope with the stresses of the nineties is to implement a national day care strategy, a new $700 million bureaucracy. I can well imagine the chaos a program like this will create for families in rural Saskatchewan and indeed in rural Canada.

We all know that an institution is no substitute for the family. In fact, in a Maclean's poll last year, 70 per cent of Canadian families said that if they had the choice they would prefer to have one parent stay home with the children.

Our children are our future and no costly bureaucracy can serve as a replacement for an economically stable and happy family.