Darrel Stinson

[Cultural Property Export And Import Act, September 25th, 1995]

I believe there is an expense allowance that we all give our leaders and the Prime Minister gets far more than anybody else. He gets a lot I understand, a whole bunch. Somehow it is written off. I do not know how, but that is the Liberal way of balancing things. The Liberals have a funny way of justifying one but not the other. It is strange but if we fall into the Disneyworld of Liberal philosophy we will find that Mickey Mouse and Goofy sit side by side. When they draw these things up it becomes a cartoon scenario the Canadian public is just about fed up with.

[Cultural Property Export And Import Act, September 25th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, concerning clothing allowances, I have not heard anybody mention the $285,000 or is it $585,000 the Prime Minister gets for his toothbrushes. As the hon. member knows, there is no clothing allowance. It is a figment of their imagination, but the Liberals are good at figments of the imagination.

[Cultural Property Export And Import Act, September 25th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, let us look at what the red book has done for Alberta or Saskatchewan. They found that if they shaved it up really fine and mixed it in with the fertilizer it helped the crops grow. The trouble is that most of the crops turned black.

It has been a great benefit for the jobs program in Ontario and Quebec. It has plugged every sewer system in the provinces.

We can now also look at what it has done for Atlantic Canada and Newfoundland. It is the only fishy thing they have left down there.

I am hoping over the course of time this does not become part of our culture and heritage that goes into our museums.

[Cultural Property Export And Import Act, September 25th, 1995]

It is a win-win situation, as a Montreal artist also says in the same article. Museums are happy to get things for free. That raises another question.

I was brought up to believe that a gift is a gift and a gift given is free. How do we get into a tax deduction situation for giving a free gift? Why do we call it a gift? Only in Liberal language would this ever be allowed. I do not know, maybe I have to look up what a gift means but it sure has changed from the time I went to school.

Back to museums which are happy to get things for free. Artists are happy because they have a bit of money in their pockets. Everybody is happy. What is not, in the words of the writer, kosher, is that a client is buying a work at below its value and getting the write off for a different amount. Still, the artist added, "I find the whole thing a little bit fishy but everybody is doing it". Doing it the Liberal way.

What is the difference between this government's taxation policy and the previous government? Nothing. It is business as usual.

The Liberals hold up the red book as a great work of art. We found out how good that work of art was in western B.C. It was in every outhouse. We found out it was only half-ply strength and you all know what happens when you use only half-ply strength.

[Cultural Property Export And Import Act, September 25th, 1995]

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. Let us look at the Gazette where it says: ``Former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney will find out this week of his approval for a tax break for donating his papers. Members of the Canadian Cultural Property Export Review Board will decide whether to accept an approval of the value of the papers which date from before Mulroney was Prime Minister in 1984''. It goes on to state that is unlikely Canadians will ever find out what the deduction is worth to him, the former Prime Minister. This appraised value of the papers is private but could eventually amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Do we not think the public has a right to know what they are paying and giving up for the so-called works of art or donated papers?

Former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau also received a tax break by declaring his papers.

In 1993-94 the archives staff under Michael Swift, assistant national archivist, completed organizing two sets of papers for Prime Minister Mulroney. The first set, which will take up to 15 metres of shelf space, covered Mulroney's time as a Montreal lawyer and businessman in the 1970s and 1980s. I do not think the Canadian taxpayers, who pay for the system, really care. If they had really cared they probably would have kept him in office, but here we go on and on.

I listened to the hon. member across the way talk about Canadian culture and heritage. Back in the late 1800s there was a gentleman who lived in Aspen Grove, British Columbia. They nicknamed him the Grey Fox. The Grey Fox is part of our history. He robbed banks and stage coaches and was one of Canada's great train robbers. Yes, I think maybe he was one of the first Liberals of the day but at least he had the common sense to use a mask. Today we see what I call

the great Canadian tax grab right off the backs of the Canadian people.

Here is a caring, sharing government and what does it do? It takes away the $100,000 capital gains for the working class because they have probably already claimed it so they no longer need it. That was the first kick. The second kick is allowing these things to go on knowing full well that working class Canadians will have to pick up any shortfall in the taxation system.

We can go on. The Gazette of March 24, 1995 states: ``Under the scheme which dates back at least 20 years, a donor buys a work of art for well below the artist's usual fee. The donor will then have the work evaluated for four or five times the amount he or she has paid for the work and then donate the piece to a gallery, museum or a registered charity and write off 100 per cent of the evaluated amount, art experts explained''.

Let us go on a little bit further: "Rolland's Art-Transit has paid Montreal artist Catherine Widgery 20 per cent of the usual price for her work. If it is $10,000 for the work, I get $2,000', she said,but they will still be allowed to claim that $10,000 if it is valued at that price".

[Cultural Property Export And Import Act, September 25th, 1995]

Misrepresent. I am afraid I cannot do that with you.

[Cultural Property Export And Import Act, September 25th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address Bill C-93 and also speak as to why I believe the amendment put forward by my colleague should go through.

Government members talk of abuse. This government has been full of abuse since it has been here. It has never stopped. They have lived off the backs of the taxpayers since day one. They have never changed. They said when they came to power how they would change things, how they would be different from the Conservatives. They are now called the con-lib party because there is no difference; they are in bed together and have been for a long time.

When the hon. member from across the way says there was no abuse in the system, let us look at what the Canadian public-

[Questions On The Order Paper, September 25th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I gave a question to the House over 17 months ago and I still have not received an answer. I would like to serve notice that I intend to transfer the question and raise the subject at the adjournment of the House.

[Indian Affairs, June 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the problem goes beyond that. The federal government was supposed to have been involved a long time ago on the signing of that road, as the minister knows.

He has also been contacted by the B.C. aboriginal affairs minister, Mr. Cashore. He was informed on April 13 this should be treated as a top priority by this minister. He has also had that request from aboriginals and from the property owners.

I know nothing comes easy to this minister. Unfortunately that is the only thing he is good at. When will he acknowledge his responsibility under the Indian act and get involved?

[Indian Affairs, June 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the road blockade beside Adams Lake still remains in place today.

Eighty-six days after it was started by the three native bands involved there have been at least two episodes of violence involving criminal charges. Last week a bridge into a provincial park was burned.

Does the minister of Indian affairs still insist he must be specifically invited by the parties involved before he will take action?