Cliff Breitkreuz

[Petitions, November 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to present a petition on behalf of residents of Jasper and other Canadian residents. These people pray and request that whitewater rafting continue in Jasper National Park. I am pleased to acknowledge that Pat Crowley of Jasper was instrumental in securing the signatures of 3,574 people. 061196

[Airports, October 30th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, there is a court injunction. In my books, if you break that injunction, you are breaking the law.

Since the Minister of Canadian Heritage shut down these airports there have been at least a half-dozen emergency landings. Should the casualties start to roll in, will the heritage minister take full responsibility and cough up or will she cop out?

[Airports, October 30th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, in July the federal court ruled that the Jasper and Banff airstrips should remain open. In spite of this court order, Parks Canada officials ticketed pilots for landing their planes on these airstrips.

Will the Secretary of State for Parks Canada explain to this House why his officials deliberately broke the law?

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, October 30th, 1997]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-268, an act to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act (deduction re other income).

Mr. Speaker, this enactment provides for the retiring allowance paid to former senators and members of Parliament of the House of Commons or of the spouse or child of a former member to be reduced by the same amount as would be clawed back from OAS on the basis of other income received personally or on a household basis commencing with 1998.

The clawback from a member's pension would apply whether or not the member was receiving OAS. However the amount to be clawed back would be calculated on the same basis as an OAS clawback.

I look forward to debating this bill in the House.

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

[Justice, October 23rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I have a letter from a constituent protesting the early release of sex offenders including Michael Chretien and the killer who first raped her teenage daughter and was released early even though a high risk.

Sadly the saga of Liberal justice continues. Serial child killer and rapist Clifford Olson was granted an early parole hearing this summer. Can it get worse, Mr. Speaker? You would think not, but it does.

Recently Albertans were shocked. Larry Takahashi, according to the investigating officer, raped at least 100 Edmonton women. What did he get? Life in jail, a few lashes, the noose? No, he got day passes for heaven's sake.

Canadians are pleading for the justice minister to fix the Criminal Code. Canadians are begging the solicitor general to overhaul the parole board. For God's sake, do something.

[Parks Canada, April 16th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, this Liberal government has the power to improve the safety of Canadians. In criminal law the government chooses to do little or nothing to make our streets safer. But in Parks Canada the heavy hand of the government is shutting down the Jasper airstrip, for no good reason.

The Jasper airstrip does not cost taxpayers' money. There is not one incident in the airstrip's 70-year history of environmental damage or injury to animals. However, there are many instances of the airstrip being used for emergency landings by pilots.

While door knocking in Jasper, of the scores of people I talked to, all but one wanted the airstrip to remain open.

In the future when an emergency landing is needed in Jasper, will the heritage minister accept responsibility for any personal injuries or deaths? When will the government listen to the common sense of the common people to do what is right for Jasper residents and Canadians everywhere?

[Official Languages, February 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, over 30 years ago the Liberal Pearson government changed Canada's flag and created the B and B commission. Then for years Pierre Trudeau led the onslaught of the government's divisive language legisla-

tion. One by one they were forced to succumb to linguistic engineering: the civil service, Parliament, the armed forces, crown corporations, and yes, even the RCMP.

Over the years the billions of dollars spent have added $50 billion to the federal debt, all in the guise of promoting national unity. I have not even mentioned the weekly chauffeur driven limousine service between Ottawa and Montreal for the languages commissioner, courtesy of the Canadian taxpayers.

Now the twins from Quebec are talking of granting distinct society to the separatists. My gosh, what else will they give the separatists to keep them in Canada, the rest of the country?

What this distinctly Canadian dilemma deserves is a fresh start, Reform's fresh start.

[Excise Tax Act, February 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased to participate in the debate with you in the Chair. I am sure you remember all too well how you were treated by the governing party when you stuck to your principles and was kicked out of the party. I commend you for taking that stand.

Here we are just four days back sitting in this House and we are debating some aspects of the GST. That should be good news to Canadians because by now every Canadian must know about all the promises government members made, from the Prime Minister to all the Liberal candidates who knocked on doors during the last election promising voters that if elected they would abolish, kill or scrap the GST.

Having made all those promises to do away with the GST, the government finally got around to legislation to accomplish that. Is that what we are debating? Are we debating the government's promises? Are we debating a bill that would see the end of the GST? After all that is what the promises were. No, that is not the debate, not at all.

So much for the Liberals' broken promises. Instead of debating a bill to end the GST and reduce it to the rubble heap where it belongs, we are debating the harmonization of the tax, not reducing this most reviled tax to the rubble heap, but how to harmonize the tax with the provincial sales taxes in Atlantic Canada.

Let us look for a moment at the word harmonize and then briefly examine why the government targeted Atlantic Canada specifically. Harmonize is such a nice word. It rings like music to the ears and well it should because the word has a soothing, musical connotation. But that is not all. It also implies a sense of unity, which is not something this government knows too much about, a sense of togetherness and co-operation. When applied to the GST however, harmonization means the four C's . When applied to the GST, harmonization means coercion, confusion, cost and cover-up.

Why target Atlantic Canada? Probably because it was the most vulnerable. Atlantic Canada has been dealt several serious blows by the powers residing in Ottawa. The golden triangle interests became concerned about the economic muscle and the trade activity that characterized Atlantic Canada for decades, possibly even centuries. Ottawa effectively wiped out the shipbuilding industry, which at one time was a flourishing industry; the fishing industry, and we all know about that; the sealing industry, and God knows what else. Well, I guess we do know.

Eventually Atlantic Canada will have to bear the costs of harmonization of the GST, notwithstanding the billion dollar incentive to embrace it now. But more about costs a little later if time permits.

Let us turn to the first C , coercion. Part of the harmonization plan would force businesses to hide the new harmonized sales tax, the HST, in the price of the product or service being sold. And here is the clincher. Businesses in Atlantic Canada had better be aware of this and I am sure they are. They should be well aware of this, but perhaps there are people across the country who still may not know. Here it is: Shopkeepers, businesses, people who make a mistake and sell a product without including the tax in the price would face fines, jail and hence a criminal record. And that is it. It is off to the calaboose, to the gulag for those brave souls who would reveal how much tax Canadian consumers are paying. That is right, it is off to jail, which is absolutely despicable.

Imagine this happening in a country that boasts about its freedoms, liberties and open society. While rapists and robbers can be granted absolute discharges by a judge under sections 763 and 737 of the Criminal Code, Gramps, Pops or Annie down at the cornerstore will be excluded under these sections and they will rot, will languish in jail for not including the HST in the price of a chocolate bar.

Will this government reduce our country and subject Canadians to this kind of lunacy? It is absolutely unbelievable. This reminds me of Bill C-68, the gun control bill. Criminals will possess and use their guns but farmer Jones who may forget to register his .22 or his 12 gauge will be hauled off to jail. If farmer Jones is a grain farmer and does the unthinkable, that is, he sells his wheat or barley to the Americans, then Mr. Jones faces a double whammy. Mr. Jones could be in the same fix as Mr. McMechan.

Andy McMechan did what any other owner of a product in Canada can rightfully do which is they can sell their product abroad. That is what Andy McMechan did. He also did the unthinkable. He sold his wheat to the Americans, just like a steel maker or any kind of fabricator or a cattleman or someone selling any kind of service. These people can sell their goods and services abroad, even to the Americans. But farmers cannot sell their wheat or barley abroad without first selling it to the Canadian Wheat Board and then buying it back at a greatly jacked up price. Then with a permit they can sell it abroad, even to the Americans.

Andy refused to buy back his own wheat and barley, but he did sell to the Americans. Then they came, probably at midnight or maybe just before dawn so the neighbours could not see. Government officials descended on McMechan's farm to seize his farm truck which he would not allow. Then the government officials hauled Andy off to jail without his being formally charged.

Get this. Andy McMechan languished in jail for about six months without being formally charged, but they allowed him to spend Christmas with his family. He risks losing his farm because of the coercion of the government.

Did Andy receive an apology from the government for what the government subjected him and his family to, like a former Prime Minister received? Not that I know of. Andy is an average, hard working taxpayer. The former Prime Minister even though he is out of office is still a member of this country's political elite. He received an apology, plus a cool million dollars or so. What might happen to Andy? He just might lose his farm. So much for coercion, the way it applies to the HST.

I will now speak a bit about the confusion it creates. I have to read this because it is confusing even to read about what the HST will do to Atlantic Canadians. It is probably confusing enough to have a combined provincial and federal sales tax in three of Canada's provinces, two separate sales taxes in six provinces, and only one sales tax in one province. If we need it to be more confounded, how about this.

The new HST legislation will exempt some items from the hidden tax rule and allow businesses to show both a tax inclusive price and a tax exclusive price, as long as the former is displayed. Shoppers could conceivably be faced with four different prices for the same marked down item: the original price with the tax; the original price without the tax; the sale price with the tax; and the sale price without the tax. Confusing? I should say so. It seems to me that businesses in this country are increasingly being reduced mostly as tax collectors for governments.

There is more about examples of costs. A study by the accounting firm Ernst & Young estimated that a mid-sized national chain with 50 stores in the Atlantic provinces would put up to $3 million in one time costs and up to $1.1 million a year to comply with a regional tax in price sales system. The Halifax Chamber of Commerce predicts that the harmonized sales tax will push up new house prices by 5.5 per cent as well as force municipalities to raise property taxes.

I see my time is up, but I hope I get a chance to talk a little more about this particularly agonizing piece of legislation.

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowance Act, November 22nd, 1996]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-352, an act to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowance Act (deduction re other income).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to resubmit my private member's bill.

This bill will amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowance Act by clawing back the pensions of former members of Parliament, which are largely funded, of course, by Canadian taxpayers.

The millions upon millions of dollars saved could be directed toward reducing the debt, lowering taxes of long suffering Canadians or prop up funding to health care and secondary education.

I ask all members of the House to support the bill.

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

[Royal Commission On Aboriginal Peoples, November 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples missed a golden opportunity to start Canadian Indians on a different course. Instead, the commission's recommendations amount to nothing more than forcing natives to become permanent wards of the government.

The net result would simply enlarge by $2 billion a year what already exists. This would include a bigger bureaucracy, bigger undemocratic associations, more and higher paid lawyers and consultants; in short, a much enlarged Indian industry.

Current unemployment levels on reserves are pegged at 47 per cent. More money means even less incentive which will result in greater dependency on the state. Unemployment on reserves would soar even higher if these recommendations were accepted.

The recommendations divide Canadians on the basis of race. They call for the setting up of an aboriginal house of Parliament. The more we examine the report, the more it looks like a 1950s South Africa document. When is this lunacy going to stop?