Myron Thompson

[Gun Control, May 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the weekend edition of The Globe and Mail ran a feature story on illegal gun sales in Canada. In that article, Detective Geoffrey Francis, who headed a gun running task force in the Toronto area, stated: ``We already have good, strong laws in Canada for controlling firearms. We have to start enforcing them''.

For 18 months the minister has done nothing to enforce the laws we have. Why is the minister not enforcing the existing laws instead of creating new laws that will do absolutely no good?

[Cn Commercialization Act, May 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is about time a Liberal government realized the private sector can operate and manage a commercial enterprise far better than government can. I have been waiting a long time to hear that.

We on this side of the House support ending government involvment in the financial sinkhole of political policy that operated CN Rail. We do, however, have some concerns about the manner in which this government is turning the former government operated financial sinkhole into a commercial operation.

As members know, when government sold off the money losing Air Canada to private interests government also wrote off Air Canada debt, which caused other Canadian airlines grievous harm. The question to be asked is whether this government will have the political courage to rid taxpayers of the money losing CN without causing unjustified harm to Canadian Pacific. Will this Liberal government act fairly, or will it continue government intervention into private industry? I fear that on both counts the answer if no.

This Liberal government has already written into this legislation interventions that will severely harm CP Rail and place manacles on the new owners, if any, of CN. This government, in its usual haste to appear to do something, has allowed the taxpayers to once again bail out previous government errors.

Instead of ending government involvement in CN, this Liberal government divorced one sector of CN holdings from the other. Instead of having taxpayers bail out debt, why is this government not selling off CN real estate assets and using that money to pay down the debt? Why is government holding on to the assets instead of sparing taxpayers further pain?

This Liberal government is asking taxpayers to forgive debt that is rightly payable by CN. They ask taxpayers to once again pay for governemnt mismanagement. This governent is also asking anyone who purchases CN to be bound by rules and regulations that will hamstring its future owners.

Why is this Liberal government making as a condition of sale that the head office for future CN owners must remain in Montreal? If this condition does not or will not make good business sense, must the future owners be shackled with another political decision? If CN is to be privatized, let the new owners be free to decide what is best for the railway and its customers.

Why does the Liberal government always preach freedom of enterprise and freedom for private business to operate in the marketplace yet always place restrictions upon private enterprise? That is anything but free. This governemnt states that private industry can operate better than governemnt in the marketplace, but then this government places cost consuming measures, such as maintaining an official languages policy, on prospective purchasers. Again, we have this government stating one goal while doing everything in its power to prevent accomplishment of that goal.

Why can this government never get it right? Why can this government not understand that intervention in the freedom of the marketplace or in constituents' lives will not encourage growth and prosperity? We on this side of the House understand fully that private initiative is the best means to economic growth and wealth and that private initiative reacting to a free market-

place will create opportunity for Canadians. Unfortunately, this government cannot or will not believe that independent Canadians know what is best for a continuation of prosperity.

The members opposite continue to believe that private property owned by free citizens must have government interference to be viable. With that in mind, why is this Liberal government restricting ownership by any one sector to 15 per cent of outstanding shares? What if western grain producers and operators can afford to and wish to purchase as much of CN as they can to maintain a say in what prices will be charged to move their grain to market? What if western interests want to make certain CN will charge the price that is necessary to move the grain and make a profit but prevent outside interests from arbitrarily setting extremely high rates to ship their grain? What if these Canadian interests wish to purchase more than 15 per cent? Why can they not?

Why does this Liberal government continue to talk free enterprise but always intervene in the free market? Why does the government always put up barriers to the free movement of goods, services, and enterprise? Can it not understand that its outdated measures are holding back the future growth and the competitiveness that are required to make Canada an effective force in the world market?

Several ideas have been forthcoming that would allow hard-pressed taxpayers to recover some of their investment in CN. One idea is rationalizing the CN operation for public sale based solely on offering rolling stock, trucking, and real estate for public tender and having government retain ownership of the iron highway. Taxpayers have purchased the asphalt highways in this land. Why not allow taxpayers to keep the iron highways they have purchased?

Just as government levies a fee to use the open road, a realistic fee could be charged to all users of the iron highway. This measure will allow taxpayers to receive some return on the investment that opened this land from sea to sea. This measure has been tried and found to be viable in Great Britain. Granted, some may shout that government has no place in the iron highway, and some may point out that there are wrongs to this plan, but why does this government not allow discussion on this point? This government is quick to shout that it has consulted on many items in the agenda. Why is this government afraid to consult on this measure in the House?

Do not misunderstand my criticism, Mr. Speaker. I am a firm supporter of privatization, a firm believer that private industry can operate an enterprise far more effectively and efficiently than any government. I am a firm believer that private industry can create jobs and economic wealth far better than any government. However, there are several issues in this legislation that do not offer the best value for the dollar to Canada's hard pressed taxpayers. Make no mistake, it was tax dollars that created the CN this government now wants to pass to private ownership. I have no problem with that decision. I only have a problem with the manner in which this initiative takes place.

Taxpayers deserve maximum return for their investment. Taxpayers deserve liquidation of CN real estate assets to pay down the CN debt, which may make this sale unattractive to some purchasers. Taxpayers do not deserve to have their hard earned dollars used to rid this company of one cent of debt while any asset remains.

Taxpayers do not deserve to have a hidden agenda set by this Liberal government, such as head office location or official languages requirement, which other private enterprises can forgo, to hinder the sale to and the profitability of future owners.

I believe I have raised several issues that require answers. I believe I have pointed out to taxpayers why this government is not giving them the best value for their dollar. It is now up to the government to answer those concerns, and I challenge them to do so.

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, May 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I will spend the last two minutes repeating some of the things I said yesterday.

The main reason I will be voting against this bill is because I want to represent the people in my riding. It is difficult for people across the way to understand that, but the people in my riding say there should be no more gold plated pensions. They would like to see a pension but they would like it to be the same as what they have to accept in the private sector. That is completely fair.

Although I cannot represent other people I have spoken in about 37 ridings, most of which are Liberal ridings. I would like to express on behalf of the people in those ridings that they too would like to see their members opt out of these types of pension plans. However they know that it will not happen. There happens to be a little problem. Possibly it is greed.

I want to make sure the government will hear the people when they ask for a plan to be provided that is compatible with the private sector. The government should consider establishing a separate group, a third party of the citizenry. Let the employers decide what they should pay in the way of pensions, salaries, and a few other things.

The Reform Party is prepared to do that. If Bloc members and the Liberals would like to come aboard, we could select people from the private sector and meet together to determine what we should receive in the way of pay, pensions and so on. We would certainly go along with the idea and I would accept whatever they decide.

As a reminder to the Liberals, especially to my friend from Kingston who seems to have forgotten, he works for the people of Kingston. They do not work for him. Let them set the salary and the pension. That is the fair way of doing it.

As leaders let us set the example. Everyone in the country is required to tighten their belts, to do more with less. For heaven's sake, the least we can do is set the example by refusing the pension. We could set examples in a lot of other ways as well. We could cut totally unnecessary trips to Asia, Africa, Europe and all over the world. It would result in a saving of $1.8 million, which would help meet the needs of many people in the country who are suffering for one reason or another.

There are many things to consider. Take a look at my frame. It crawls into an economy seat every time I get on a plane. If you think that is fun, trade sizes for a day and I will let you try it. It is a sacrifice to do it and I do not mind. I will continue to do it.

All of us need to sit back and realize that we are asking Canadians to help us solve the problem created by the politicians of the past in terms of the country's debt and deficits. Let us get our act together, think of our future, think of the children we are raising and think of our grandchildren. Let us act like statesmen and forget the politics and the silliness.

[Gun Control, May 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, he is talking about something once it becomes law. I guess the real problem is that big city lawyers do not understand the word consultation.

According to the agreements consultation must take place when any legislation may have an impact on hunting and trapping activities. It seems strange to me that consultation takes place after the legislation has received second reading.

Is the minister prepared to listen to the recommendations of Yukon natives who say to stop the proceedings until the proper procedures are followed?

[Gun Control, May 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of Indian affairs.

Since the minister was instrumental in establishing a modern agreement with the natives of Yukon, why has he not insisted on consultation with the justice department in the creation of Bill C-68?

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, May 9th, 1995]

Greedy is right, the exact word. If we were to call a consultant to come into Parliament to address this group I am sure the consultant would not hesitate to say in order to set things in order, we had better start at the top and set an example.

Not a member in the House has not received a call from an old age pensioner who has said: "I do not know how I will make it. I have had another cutback and I cannot make it". I really doubt there is one member in the House that has never received a call like that. I cannot understand how any member can receive these call and say: We are doing all we can and in time things will change.

If we give ourselves pensions like these and then talk to an elderly person on the phone about what they are doing and what they are getting, we are being hypocritical. Talk about being hypocritical. Talk about being two faced. For heaven's sake, if you have a caring attitude then go to these communities, stand in front of the people on your own two feet and do what you were sent here to do. Look after the people of this country. They are expecting you to do that.

I am sure this consultant would say give up your pensions, it would be the smart thing to do. The consultant would probably say sell the aeroplanes, that would be the right thing to do. Do not go to Europe, Asia and Africa, do not need to; you can do without that. Feed the hungry; help the elderly; do your job". That is the attitude demonstrated over there of which Canadians are sick. I hope they would call an election tomorrow to demonstrate that same attitude.

I was the mayor of the town of Sundre back in the seventies. The council and I decided we would engage a group of citizens to determine what our remuneration should be. We left it in their hands. We were pleased with their decision and the community as a whole decided that is what we should receive.

I challenge the government. I challenge the Bloc Quebecois Party, the Liberal Party-I know the Reformers will be more than pleased to participate-to find a group of citizens to come to this place to determine what our salaries, our pensions and a few other things should be. After all, in case they have forgotten we work for them, let them decide.

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, May 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, during the election in 1993 I made one promise to my constituents. I promised that when I got to Ottawa I would take every opportunity to let their voice be heard. Therefore, I am pleased to have the opportunity. For all my Wild Rose friends out there in TV land or wherever they are, this is for you. My Wild Rose constituents say scrap the obnoxious, ridiculous pension plan of MPs. I agree with them wholeheartedly.

Yesterday school students from the county of Wheatland in my riding visited me. Some of my colleagues joined me and we had a great visit. I really have a hard time understanding how a member of Parliament could stand in front of a group of young people in today's times and say to them: "We have this huge debt of $550 billion. It will be $600 billion or more by the time this Parliament ends or maybe even more than that".

"Your future does not look too good. It will be very expensive to get an education because we are really in trouble financially. We are sorry about that. Probably the old age pension, the Canada pension and things of that nature which we have grown so accustomed to admiring and having in this country will be gone when you get my age, but that is just the way it goes. We really tried hard. Of course you won't mind, students", as I told them yesterday, "if I hang on to a pension, would you, that will provide me with several thousands of dollars during my old age while you will probably have nothing".

The students quickly told me how much they minded. I know that same message is loud and clear at any school. If any member wants to go to a school and has the nerve to tell the students exactly what the situation is and then turn around and tell them that he or she is well looked after, let us see how they respond back.

I have a funny feeling there are a lot of members in this Parliament that would not even dare do such a thing. That is a little too honest. That is a little too much up front.

When this Parliament first met the minister of human resources would stand up to talk about the one million children in the country living in poverty and how we had to address that. Eighteen months later, we are still talking about the one million children living in poverty. Let us give up our pensions, let us feed the hungry kids. Does that make sense? Not if you are greedy, it sure does not. If you are a greedy individual, you will accept this pension plan. We will hear the minister of human resources talk about hungry children again next year.

I received a call from an individual who works with the Children's Aid Society, a relief society. He asked if I would come to the House and encourage the members of Parliament who are flying around the country to give that up and donate the money to his children in Ottawa. They could sure use the extra few thousand dollars that is being spent.

Look at news items like: Goods news, MP junkets will not be cut. "We are going to Europe, Asia and Africa. Never mind, we are only $600 billion in the hole. We have hungry children all over Canada. Never mind, we are going to take these trips". What kind of leadership is that? Where are their hearts? Where are their minds?

[Justice, May 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in the Sunday Sun I read of the horrible death of a 20-year old woman who was shot by her estranged husband. In the same article, I read of five other women who recently died at the hands of their estranged husbands, all in the Ottawa area. Of these five, one was bludgeoned to death, two were strangled and two were knifed.

When will the Minister of Justice open his eyes and realize we have a serious problem on our hands in this country and recognize the instrument of death is not the problem?

When will the minister recognize that the cause for fear in this nation is from a very weak justice system which has lost its focus on protection of the innocent and law-abiding persons and concentrates too heavily on the criminal and his rights?

When will the minister realize Bills C-37, C-41, C-42, C-44, C-45 and C-68 are only tinkering with the seriousness of this problem and essentially solve nothing?

When will the justice minister take the bull by the horns, say enough is enough and send a clear message to the would be killers of this land. Come on, Mr. Minister, do your job and do it now.

[Young Offenders Act, April 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have received nearly 50,000 letters and I know the minister has received the same amount regarding the Young Offenders Act.

We have continually heard from this minister that crime prevention, assistance for troubled youth at risk will stop these horrible crimes. It is too late for these two elderly people.

We have been told by provincial agencies that this government talks about assistance for youth at risk but does nothing. I ask the minister: When will he become a minister of action instead of an acting minister?

[Young Offenders Act, April 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is in regard to the aforementioned horror which took place in Montreal. Two citizens were brutally, coldly and with extreme calculation bludgeoned to death by three young offenders. These murders were coldly planned homicides without remorse.

Will the justice minister assure the people of Canada by insisting that the 14 and 15-year old psychopath young offenders be tried in adult court?