Lee Morrison

[Supply, June 8th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I have a very brief comment.

I think we are making some progress in this House. I noticed the hon. member has recycled very large portions of a speech that I heard the member for Calgary Southwest giving about a year ago with the respect to the fact that of course you cannot balance the budget by tinkering, of course you cannot balance it merely by cutting fat. We know that. We still would like to see some cuts but the bottom line, as members will see, in our zero in three plan with which I hope members are familiar is that if one is ever going to get the finances of this country under control, deep substantive cuts have to be made.

[Supply, June 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, there is something I do not understand. I am really confused. If the hon. member and his party want to leave Canada, why are they so interested suddenly in the future of Canada? If the member wants to destroy our country, what importance does all this have for him?

Why should he talk about the future of Canada if he has no interest in it?

[Petitions, June 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my second petition-and I think this about the eighth of this one I have presented in the House-is from people in the Coronach district of Saskatchewan.

It says whereas under section 745 of the Criminal Code of Canada convicted murderers sentenced to life imprisonment without chance of parole for 25 years are able to apply for review after 15 years and where the murder of a Canadian citizen is a most reprehensible crime, therefore your petitioners request that Parliament repeal section 745 of the Criminal Code of Canada.

I also endorse this petition.

[Petitions, June 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 it is my honour to table two petitions from residents of my constituency of Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia.

The first one, signed by 89 residents of the rural districts of Rockglen and Vanguard, Saskatchewan, petitions the government to require Canada Post to rescind its proposed sevenfold increase in the cost of return postage on a book dispatched on interlibrary loan.

I concur with the petition, Mr. Speaker.

[Postal Services Review Act, May 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, today we are discussing the management and control of an entity which is neither fish nor fowl. In theory it is an independent crown, but because any real competition is legislatively prohibited there is little incentive to be cost effective or to provide service. Therefore, it is legitimate that the post office be subject to government oversight.

However, I do concur with the proposal of my hon. colleague, the member for Mission-Coquitlam, that this should be accomplished by the government operation's committee and not by a new, additional bureaucratic committee.

Canada Post has forgotten its basic mandate which is to provide a public service. For example, as we speak Canada Post has proposed to eliminate the special rates for inter-library loans on books and to replace them with standard parcel post rates.

Just to give the House an example of what this would mean to some of our small regional libraries in rural areas, a book which would now go out under the present rate of 53 cents per kilogram returned would have to be sent out at a cost of $2.05 per kilo each way. We are looking at an enormous increase in rates, in fact an increase that is so great that it would effectively terminate inter-library loans in rural Canada. Another rural amenity is going to disappear if this is allowed to go forward.

I have calculated that for the regional library in my constituency at Swift Current, based on its current rates of loan, the costs would increase from a current rate of about $14,000 to a rate of $103,000 a year, almost $90,000 which a small regional library obviously cannot come up with. If you do not want people in rural areas to have books then this is the way to go. Let Canada Post have its own way without any government oversight and raise these rates as it will.

It is time that we took a hard look at the way this organization operates. It says that it has to be lean and mean. Well it is mean but I do not know how lean it is because it does not have to really compete. Since it is a natural monopoly let us for heaven's sake exercise the function of a parliamentary democracy and let the government get a handle on these people.

It is an arrogant, pampered organization. It is time it was brought to heel, preferably by the government operation's committee.

[National Revenue, May 12th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, from the inception of the GST, Joe Arling's motel in Swift Current, Saskatchewan, has remitted payments as instructed in Revenue Canada's guide which states that lodging rentals for periods exceeding 30 days are GST exempt.

An auditor has now informed Mr. Arling that the exemption only applies if more than 90 per cent of the rooms are rented long term. This is not in the guide and only recently became known to Revenue Canada staff, let alone to taxpayers.

Revenue bureaucrats acknowledge that Mr. Arling tried to be compliant but maintain the ignorance of the law, even when agents of the crown provide misinformation, is no excuse. They will not consider a negotiated settlement and are determined to play hardball at any cost to the department and to my constituent.

Businessmen who do their best to serve as unpaid tax collectors do not deserve shabby treatment by unyielding bureaucrats.

This case was brought to the attention of the Minister of National Revenue two months ago, and I am still awaiting a response.

[Pearson International Airport Agreements Act, May 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, virtually everyone applauded the government when it cancelled the Pearson deal last December. With Bill C-22, the Liberals have watered down their position, so to speak. They would like to hand the minister a blank cheque with which to compensate the contracting parties, mainly, one would assume, their Liberal friends.

The Minister of Transport has said that the government will try to be reasonable and equitable with the would-be developers while negotiating their out of pocket expenses. I submit that in the interests of being reasonable and equitable with the taxpayers of Canada, not one red cent should be paid out. A group of businessmen, all of legal age and presumably of sound mind, played a risky game of political chicken and they lost. That should be the end of the matter.

Let us not forget that prior to the execution of the agreement with the T1 T2 Limited Partnership on October 7, 1993 the then Leader of the Opposition who is now the Prime Minister clearly warned the parties proceeding to conclude the privatization transaction they would do so at their own risk and that a new government would not hesitate to pass legislation to block the deal.

Going ahead under those circumstances was a dumb business decision. We should have no sympathy and the minister should keep a firm grip on our pocketbook.

I find it fascinating that while the government stands ready to pay who knows how many millions of dollars to pacify its friends, the Ministry of Transport is declining to honour commitments made by the previous government to upgrade small airports.

Last year the Hon. John Corbeil approved an expenditure of $230,000 to resurface a runway and improve lighting at the Assiniboia, Saskatchewan airport under the local commercial airport's financial assistance program.

The final agreement had not been executed when the government was defeated. On November 17, 1993 officials of Transport Canada attended a meeting in Assiniboia and presented the town council with an agreement for signature. The agreement was signed and returned to Ottawa for execution and there the matter rests. In February a functionary in the minister's office informed the mayor by telephone that the agreement was on hold and the minister's office is not returning calls on this matter.

We in the Reform Party are not asking for a costly and time consuming royal commission to deliver a report long after the cause for inquiry has been forgotten.

What we do ask is that the Standing Committee on Transport be allowed to exercise its power to subpoena witnesses from the government and private sector. The Liberals promised both open government and greater power for committees. Let us have a few weeks of hearings, find out why the government is determined under section 10(1) of its bill to hand out compensation. Let us turn over a few rocks and see if there is anything underneath them.

[Petitions, May 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have yet another petition from constituents of mine requesting that section 745 of the Criminal Code of Canada be repealed. I would like to table this pursuant to Standing Order 36. I do concur completely with the petition.

[Petitions, May 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 it is my honour to present a petition bearing 494 signatures. I understand that these signatures were collected at one point in the space of two days.

The petition states: "Whereas there is no statistical evidence that existing gun control laws have any negative effect on criminal activity; whereas existing and publicly proposed gun controls carry the potential for confiscation of lawfully owned property by law-abiding citizens; wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to turn its attention with respect to firearms control away from law-abiding citizens to the criminal element and allow the holder of a valid firearms acquisition certificate, whether or not a course or test was taken to obtain it, to renew the said certificate without the necessity of a course or test".

I concur with this petition.

[Gun Control, May 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, for 20 years I had an occupational permit to carry a handgun as a field geologist in the mountains of British Columbia. I rarely used it. I rarely carried it but as a free man, as a Canadian, I had the right to make that personal decision myself.

There are legitimate reasons for civilians to own these weapons. To some working people, including timber cruisers, prospectors, trappers, bank messengers and the like, they are tools, not toys.

Will the minister listen to the advice of his own backbenchers and thoughtfully reconsider his position?