Grant McNally

[Supply, June 1st, 1998]

My hon. colleague would like me to name them. I do not have enough time in this brief period to name the numerous, over 30, taxes that have been applied by this government since 1993.

This government also talks about being the defender of health care which I find quite incredible. There have been over $7 billion in cuts to health care and education through the CHST.

I would also like to point out to my hon. colleague the fact that the debt repayment plan he mentioned is a contingency fund that the finance minister has said would be used only if money is available. That is not a concrete plan for debt repayment. The debt has not been decreased as my hon. colleague may have alluded to.

I would also like to ask my colleague about the $15 billion surplus. That would seem to indicate to me that the premiums are in fact too high and could be reduced. I would like to ask him a question regarding a comment made by his own finance minister when he was in opposition and said that high EI premiums are a cancer to job creation. I want to ask the hon. member if he agrees with his own finance minister. Yes or no?

[Supply, June 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to set the record straight quickly as I know there are others who would like to speak. I would like to talk to some of the information which my hon. colleague provided with regard to things such as the balanced budget, debt repayment plan and a few other things such as comments he made regarding the EI fund.

My colleague said that the government is taking credit for a balanced budget. We applaud that and we think that is very good. But we also want to make note that this was done by Canadians and the rate of taxes they have paid. There have been a number of increases in taxes made by this Liberal government. The credit should go where it is deserved and that is to Canadian taxpayers.

[Reform Party Convention, May 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this week in London, Ontario, one of Canada's most important democratic activities is taking place. Canadians from every corner of the country and from every walk of life will be gathering to discuss the state of our country and to develop innovative policy at the 1998 assembly of the Reform Party.

Assembly 98 delegates will speak freely and candidly about the problems facing their country. Unlike the Liberals, Reformers do not need to be whipped into line and smile for the cameras. Reformers take pride in speaking their minds on any issue, including an open debate on all aspects of our own party.

Reformers believe in an efficient and accountable government, and accountability starts with the individual. I invite members opposite to tune in and watch the proceedings of Assembly 98. They will see accountability, autonomy and the ingenuity that will continue to shape Canada for generations to come.

[Supply, May 14th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to another ministerial speech from the parliamentary secretary. I would like to bring up this point with him.

He mentioned the natural disasters that have occurred in the last several years across our country, in the Saguenay, in the Red River and the ice storm, and I fully support the military's role, their great efforts and their great work to help the people affected by those disasters.

However, if such a disaster were to occur in British Columbia, what would the government's response be?

This government closed CFB Chilliwack in the Fraser Valley. That base would have provided support to the greater Vancouver region if there were a natural disaster. There are over two million people in that area. The closest base has now been moved to a Liberal riding in Edmonton. What a big surprise. I cannot believe it. If there were a natural disaster in that region of the country the forces would have to go through the Rockies for 12 hours with heavy equipment to get there. If there were a natural disaster, I rather doubt that route could be taken by the forces.

The parliamentary secretary mentioned that there is a new naval base in his own riding. Surprise, surprise. I am questioning whether the government is basing these decisions on sound policy, on directions for the country, or is it more political patronage in the establishment of these facilities?

I want to hear about CFB Chilliwack and why this government chose to close that facility.

[Immigration, May 14th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in 1993 Mohamad Sharif Karimzada, a junior level Afghan diplomat, was granted refugee status in Canada. He has since been ordered deported.

High ranking UN officials and U.S. officials have spoken on his behalf. Even former president Jimmy Carter has talked to the minister about this case. The minister has a signed a waiver in her possession saying she can speak freely about this case.

Why is the minister willing to send Mr. Karimzada back to a certain death in Afghanistan?

[Information Commissioner, May 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the government House leader is obviously squirming about something. I have no idea what he is talking about.

What we are talking about is the process. Why is there not a search committee? Why not have the best person for the job? Why will he not change the process when this is the time he can get the best person for the job?

[Information Commissioner, May 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's office is looking for a new information commissioner. We have just heard an answer from the government House leader.

So far in the process there have been no advertisements, no job description, no search committee. This is supposed to be about openness and transparency.

Why is the government so focused on putting in a political appointment rather than doing a search for the best person for the job?

[Canada Labour Code, May 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to engage in the debate on Bill C-19 and the amendments before us.

I listened intently to my hon. colleague. I am in agreement with a number of the comments he made in regard to the Group No. 2 amendments that we are discussing. We are discussing important amendments to an important bill.

I would like to focus first on Motion No. 6. Procedures and scheduling problems needlessly prolong board decisions. Motion No. 6 that the Bloc has put forward relates to that. The bill streamlines the Canada Industrial Relations Board's procedures by allowing it to make decisions without oral hearings.

Often a number of briefs are presented which are quite complicated and have quite a lot of information in them. At this stage it is necessary that individuals have an opportunity to follow up on those briefs, to ask questions and to further explore through an oral hearing exactly what the information is that is being put forward. Without the opportunity to have an oral hearing and to simply rely on the written word without a chance to follow up, we do not have an opportunity to fully disclose the information available and make a good decision.

We see that in this place in our committee meetings. We receive a written brief. We go through the written brief. Witnesses come before us. We do not simply decide on the written brief. We look at all the information that is presented. Often a witness will read the brief to us and then we have an opportunity to ask the witness questions.

The same kind of situation should apply to the Canada Industrial Relations Board. It is wise to be able to follow up and ask questions on the information presented in those briefs. Without doing that, we are asking people to wade through a mountain of documents and to come to a decision without any input from the individuals who have written the information.

We need the opportunity for an oral hearing. It will help expedite some of the minor cases and will streamline the process. In the end it should save taxpayer dollars. We think that particular amendment by our colleagues in the Bloc goes too far. We need the opportunity for oral hearings.

I want to talk about Motion No. 7 which is a Reform motion, a democracy related motion. The Canada Labour Code states that the board may order a representational vote on union certification to satisfy itself that the workers want the union. Our amendment calls for the board to hold a representational vote when 35% of the employees sign cards indicating they want union certification.

This amendment ensures the wishes of the majority are upheld. We are talking about democracy and a bill that is going to put something in place that affects a great number of workers. As a member of a number of different unions I have had the opportunity to voice my concerns to my union representative and even further than that in a democratic way.

This amendment would certainly ensure that the wishes of the majority are upheld. How can we even argue that upholding the will of the majority is something that would not be a positive? Of course it is a positive and something that definitely needs to be added to the bill. That is why I speak in strong support of Motion No. 7.

In regard to Motion No. 8, there should be a vote of the majority of the members in the employers group before action is taken. Bloc Motion No. 8 would weaken the employers association. It is a common practice for a group of employers to join forces and have one agent represent them in negotiations, which only makes sense. At the same time, of course, the amendment removes the requirement that the board must satisfy itself that the employer representative is no longer qualified to act in that capacity before revoking the appointment.

The amendment being proposed by our colleagues in the Bloc provides for the automatic removal of the employer rep upon the receipt of an application from one or more of the employers in the group and the appointment of a new representative.

In terms of Motion No. 30, we support this amendment which we are bringing forward. The bill allows the Canada Industrial Relations Board to certify a union even if there is no evidence of majority support if the board believes there would have been support had it not been for the employer's unfair labour practices. The determination of what constitutes an unfair labour practice is left up to the CIRB.

I would like to go back to the issue of democracy and talk a little bit about some of my experiences as a union member. This is an important bill and changes have not been made for I believe 25 years to the act. If the government is intent on making changes, it is imperative that it make changes that are positive. In making those changes it should take the time and effort to ensure that it is a bill that is positive for both employers and employees, that it is fair, democratic and represents the wishes of the majority.

Some of the information related here in these motions under Group No. 2 are of concern. I mentioned this earlier in my speech but I would like to go back to it because it is at the crux of the issue. The most important and crucial part of the bill is democracy. Rather than go on to other points, I would like to continue to focus on the democracy aspect of Motion No. 7.

When I was a union member, on occasion situations arose where there was unrest in terms of labour negotiations, contract settlements and whatnot. Fortunately with every union I was a part of, the employer group that worked with the union was able to resolve the issues it had and was able to go on with a harmonious working relationship. A key thing in any bill having to do with labour relations is that the employee group and the employer are able to work together to solve any disputes they might have in a way that continues on that working relationship with the employee group and the employer.

In many cases we have seen friction which has affected the relationship between the employer group and the employees. If there are going to be changes to the bill, time needs to be taken in order to work out all of the amendments in all parts of the bill so that it works in a very effective way.

I will conclude by saying that democracy is very important and Motion No. 7 addresses that concern. It would allow for the views and wishes of the majority to be represented.

I thank hon. members for their attentiveness to my speech on this important bill, Bill C-19.

[Supply, May 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague's speech just before question period. I know he was a member of the Liberal government at one point. He has a great insight into the dealings and happenings in caucus. Could he elaborate in the short time he has on what he thinks the answer would be to the hep C situation we find ourselves in and the government not compensating all victims?

[Canadian Hockey Teams, May 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, our Canadian NHL teams face economic disadvantages when competing with American teams because their cities and states give them huge subsidies, allowing them to pay huge salaries to the league's biggest stars. There is certainly no disadvantage on the ice. Oh, how the mighty have fallen.

Contracts, tax breaks and subsidies are a problem for our teams but those are superseded by grit, determination and heart, demonstrated by our teams in the first round of the playoffs. There were countless heroes but none more important than the fans who provided the enthusiasm and passion driving our teams to play as champions and upset the American titans.

On behalf of the official opposition and all Canadians I want to congratulate the Edmonton Oilers, the Montreal Canadiens and the Ottawa Senators. As these David and Goliath battles proceed, Reform will even be rooting for that team called the Senators.