Stephen Harper

[Queen's University, June 19th, 1996]

Just a point of clarification. Several times, Madam Speaker, you referred to Bill C-8. Is it correct that we are discussing Bill S-8?

[Excise Tax Act, June 18th, 1996]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-317, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act (small supplier carrying on a taxi business).

Mr. Speaker, today I am tabling this bill to amend the Excise Tax Act so that a small supplier carrying on a taxi business is no longer required to be registered for the purposes of the goods and services tax.

When the GST was introduced a category of suppliers was created which was exempt from registering, collecting and paying GST saving many small business owners from the regulatory burden of this abhorrent tax. Strangely, upon implementation of this tax a whole category of workers, taxi drivers, were excluded from becoming small suppliers although there had been strong indications that they would be permitted small supplier status.

I am hereby submitting this private member's bill to correct this injustice and allow these workers the same flexibility that other workers enjoy. This is but a small step on the way to freeing every business person from the regulatory burden of the GST.

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

[Airbus, June 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the minister knows the suit is also against the RCMP.

The Minister of Justice said Friday, quoting from Hansard : ``I shall report significant developments to the House when they occur''. We are obviously very concerned that the government is planning to make a settlement and pay Brian Mulroney millions, because of its incompetence, during the summer while the House is not sitting.

Will the government fulfil its commitment and make a commitment that when there are any significant developments, including an out of court settlement, it will recall the House to make sure the House can examine the deal?

[Airbus, June 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I understand from that answer that the government is not interested in an out of court settlement but will go to court.

Will the minister concede that he has said all along, as has the Prime Minister, that this is a police investigation, that the police initiated it and that the police must not be interfered with in their work? Will he concede that he should instruct his lawyers not to make an out of court deal with Brian Mulroney so the police may continue their investigation without interference from the minister or his lawyers?

[Airbus, June 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice and concerns the Airbus affair.

On Thursday past, in response to a question from the member for Fraser Valley East, the minister stated categorically: "I take responsibility for the Department of Justice. From the outset the Department of Justice has acted in an appropriate manner".

Since the minister maintains that justice officials, including Kimberley Prost, acted in an entirely appropriate fashion, will he instruct his lawyers not to make an out of court deal with Brian Mulroney and not to spend millions of taxpayer dollars?

[Airbus, June 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, of course the Minister of Justice should pass on the information to the proper authorities.

Now will he answer my question and tell us why he made additional inquiries with journalists to get more information himself?

[Airbus, June 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, that kind of hair-splitting could only be done by a lawyer.

I am citing an article in the Toronto Sun yesterday where it says that Globe and Mail managing editor Colin MacKenzie said that Rock approached parliamentary journalist Susan Delacourt for help in his behind the scenes probe of Mulroney one or two days after he first heard about allegations from another journalist.

My question is very simple. Going back to the beginning of this affair, why was the Minister of Justice conducting his own private investigation?

[Airbus, June 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I also have a question for the Minister of Justice.

The minister said in response to questions from the member for Beaver River on Wednesday: "I can tell the hon. member that no matter what may have been reported last night, there is no proposal, there is no settlement imminent and there is no discussion of payment of money". Furthermore he said: "I cannot take responsibility for what the CBC may have reported, nor can I explain why it reported what it did".

Frankly, Mr. Speaker, how can he make statements like that to the House when he knows that the day before his lawyers were discussing a settlement? How can he possibly say there is no explanation for the story, give the House that kind of information when his lawyers are sitting down and discussing a settlement?

[Election Campaign Expenditures, June 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to note the recent unanimous Alberta Court of Appeal decision striking down once again the gag law which disallows anyone other than a politician or political party to spend more than $1,000 during a federal election campaign.

Supporters of the gag law among the Liberals, NDP and PCs have argued it exists to promote a level playing field. Rubbish. Elections law in Canada is riddled with clauses designed to prop up incumbents and traditional parties. The gag law exists to keep ordinary Canadians out of political debate, especially where the traditional parties have colluded on policy as they have on the MP pension scam.

Before the government appeals this decision once again, it should remember that it is precisely such antidemocratic restrictions which are being employed under Quebec's referendum law and aimed primarily at federalist supporters.

An appeal will probably be made in spite of this Liberal hypocrisy. In the meantime we can thank the National Citizens Coalition for what is indeed a great victory for freedom in Canada.

[Taxation, June 13th, 1996]

He should cross the floor.