John Solomon

[Pairing, February 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the New Democratic Party to say a few words on this Reform motion which calls for ending vote pairing. The motion also asks that we establish an absentee proxy voting system which would permit a party to cast properly authorized proxy votes of no more than 25% of its members.

As a member of the House of Commons, I am as open and embracing of new ideas as are most members in this House regardless of their party. I am always anxious to hear new ideas particularly from my colleagues in this House.

However, I do not want to give the impression that I support this motion because it has some very interesting implications. I agree with the member for Peterborough. He said that with proxy voting, members voting from a distance on issues, on amendments to acts and amendments to motions and bills would be hard pressed to know what they were voting on.

As whip of the New Democratic Party and someone who has been a member of this House for over four years, I can share the following with my colleagues. Even when members of all parties have been in the House full time during the week and have paid attention to the debates, the amendments, the motions and the committee work, they sometimes still do not have a clue what they are voting on unless their whips tell them to their faces what it is they are voting on. Sometimes there are 20 or 30 votes in the matter of an hour and a half in the House.

It is up to the leadership of the caucuses to make the decisions in co-operation with their caucuses and to advise others who were not at the meetings of how their caucus is going to vote or how their individual members might want to vote if they wish to have an independent vote from the caucus.

This proposal would further weaken and diminish the authority of the member of Parliament. It would certainly weaken and diminish the authority with which a member would be voting. I flag that issue.

I am quite surprised with the Reformers. They talk about democracy. Reform members should learn the meaning of parler, or Parliament which is a derivative of parler. It means to speak. We come as representatives of the thousands of people in our constituencies to speak in the House of Commons in Ottawa on behalf of our constituents. We are here to parler, to speak on behalf of our constituents on issues that are important to them. Voting happens to be one of the responsibilities of a member of Parliament after giving speeches or listening to the debates.

I am surprised that Reformers would want to promote democracy and the opportunity for members to have free votes while they say that the House of Commons is not important to them, that they will go back to their ridings and visit with whomever they want and not come to Ottawa to at least earn their paycheques. That diminishes democracy. It diminishes Parliament. It certainly blows into shreds their argument that they believe in democracy. Time after time the evidence shows that they believe in the contrary. The record should clearly show that.

If Reformers want to stay home in their ridings to vote, they should resign from Parliament and run for office in municipal or provincial government. They could stay in their cities, their towns or their villages or their rural areas in their provinces and they would not have to worry about coming to Ottawa. They have options if they do not like coming here. They can resign or they do not have to run next time, which I think is the option preferred by millions of Canadians for Reform members who believe in this sort of anti-democratic move.

This is just another example of the Reform Party wanting less government. Reformers do not have a great deal of respect for the institution of government. They do not believe that government works. They say to everybody in this country “Vote for me and I will prove to you that government does not work”.

In Saskatchewan we have had the evidence of the Reform Party proving to Saskatchewan people that Reform policies do not work. In 1982 a Reform style politician, Grant Devine, said the same thing as this Reform member is saying today, that they do not want to have involvement in government. “Government does not work. You vote for us, Saskatchewan people, and we will prove to you that government does not work”.

Saskatchewan people were tricked and they voted for this Reform style politician, Grant Devine. He had 10 consecutive deficit budgets in nine years. He went from a zero debt to $16 billion in debt for the one million people in the province of Saskatchewan.

Twelve of his colleagues in that government have been charged and most of them have been found guilty for criminal acts while members of the legislature. That is the Reform style kind of government.

Reformers promise less government. They say they believe in more democracy and of course they end up giving all the assets away in the objective of less government to all their friends who then take away the assets and leave the debt with the people of Saskatchewan. I am kind of surprised at this motion and why the they would promote this.

My very major concern in the New Democratic Party is that technically this motion is preceding ongoing meetings and ongoing decisions being considered by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs that the member for Peterborough ably chairs.

We are discussing the very nature of modernizing parliaments. We are looking at electronic voting and all sorts of things that would modernize our system. While modernizing, we are not looking at diminishing democracy or the role of members of Parliament. We are actually looking at enhancing the role of Parliament and making sure that Canadians have a voice in this assembly regardless of their being in Ottawa or not.

My final words are that the Reform Party also surprised me with the fact that it wants to let the government off the hook. For the record, the NDP has never supported officially the pairing of votes. To this day we continue not to support that.

We believe that if elected, members should be here, be accountable and be responsible and should be on duty like many of my colleagues here today on a Friday afternoon. I give them all credit for being here. It is an honourable thing and a very important thing to be doing.

I am surprised because the Reform Party, whose members want to hold the government accountable, now wants to allow 25% of the Liberal MPs not even to be here to ask questions. I do not think that defines democracy or more accountability.

What Reformers are doing is encouraging the stampede away from the House of Commons. They are encouraging the authority of the House of Commons to be so watered down that members may as well not come to Ottawa to vote. They may as well all vote by proxy from their various constituencies.

I am not sure if I oppose this but the arguments that I put forward I think persuade me that this recommendation by the Reform Party member is not well thought out. It is anti-democratic. It reduces the effectiveness of the House of Commons and really is another effort by the Reform Party, very supportive of Liberal policies, to provide the Liberal government with yet one more opportunity to avoid being accountable, responsible and answerable to the people of Canada.

[Banks, February 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the close and cosy relationship between the Minister of Finance, the Liberal Party and the banks is a matter of very deep concern for all Canadians. The Liberals want to look like they are standing up for consumers and small business people but the Liberals' false bravado is severely undermined by those huge donations from the banks.

In 1996 the Liberals received a quarter of a million dollars from the Bank of Montreal and the Royal Bank. Now we learn that during the last federal election the Bank of Montreal through its subsidiary Nesbitt Burns gave $1,000 each to 14 of the 28 inner cabinet members, including the Minister of Finance; that is $14,000 to Liberal cabinet candidates. The finance minister's former leadership campaign co-chair is also involved with the banks. He is running the $20 million PR campaign for the Canadian Bankers Association.

The Reform Party is promoting the foreign banks too. Why is that? It takes donations from Goldman Sachs, a good U.S. corporation.

Canadians have all these reasons not to believe the Minister of Finance and the Reform Party when they act like they really care.

[Points Of Order, February 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, during the course of question period yesterday, I was ruled out of order on a question directed to the Minister of Finance pertaining to the relationship of the Liberal Party with the banks and so on.

Part of my point of order was that I was ruled out of order with my question but the Minister of Finance was allowed to proceed with an answer to my supplementary question which was in order. I believe his answer cast aspersions on me in relation to whether or not I attended a particular committee meeting. The Speaker would not allow me to finish my point of order yesterday so today my point of order is the following.

The Minister of Finance suggested to the House that I attended or did not attend a particular meeting of a committee that I was not a member of. I think he referred to both the industry and the finance committees. I am asking the Speaker to make a judgment as to whether I have a point of order, whether the minister was in order to make reference to my attendance or non-attendance. According to Beauchesne's rules and forms this is a matter which all members are asked to cautiously guard against making reference to. I would ask the Speaker to make some judgment on this.

[Supply, February 5th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate being recognized.

I am listening with great interest to the Reform Party members, in particular the member for Lakeland who tries to rewrite history in the name of the NDP. Whenever Reformers write history on behalf of the NDP they get it dead wrong, just like many of their principles and their philosophies.

I want to set the record straight and ask the member who just gave his speech a question or two.

If the NDP had governed in the last four years, let alone being the opposition, we probably would have had a similar situation in Canada to what we had in Saskatchewan. For example, from 1971 to 1982 we had 11 consecutive balanced and surplus budgets and no debt, the lowest tax rate in the country, a free dental plan for our children 18 years of age and under, and an almost free prescription drug program. It was one of the best places in the country to live.

In 1982 the Reform cousins, the Conservatives in Saskatchewan who are now back to the Reform Party—they were Conservatives at that time—promised three things the Reform Party has promised. They promised less taxes, less government and more jobs. The people of Saskatchewan voted for Mr. Devine, the Reform Conservative in Saskatchewan, and they got less taxes, less government and more jobs not. They did not get that. They had higher taxes and increased government services. They gave away the assets. They bankrupted the province in nine years.

This Reform Party which bankrupted Saskatchewan in nine years under the Conservative banner is saying that NDPers are not very good governors. In 1991 the people of Saskatchewan kicked the bums out and re-elected an NDP government. Since 1992 there have been consecutive surplus budgets in Saskatchewan under the NDP.

What track record does the Reform Party have? It has a nine year track record in Saskatchewan of corruption, inefficiency, ineffective government, huge deficits and a 60 year debt to be paid off by the people of that province. It will take 60 years to pay off the Reform debt in Saskatchewan.

Just remember, members of the Reform Party promised less government, less taxes and more jobs. Their cousins in the Conservative Party are quite amused with the comment about how they are each fighting and bragging about “I supported the free trade agreement. I supported the GST”. They did and they are putting our country in very serious jeopardy. Ask any small business person.

I want to ask the member one question. They talk about eliminating equalization payments. The member for Dauphin—Swan River, a Reform member, does not agree with the Reform Party. He is a Reform member of Parliament and a former mayor of Dauphin, Manitoba. He says the leader of the opposition and his Reform Party have a screw loose when it comes to eliminating equalization because that is a leverage for small business and small communities in western Canada to create jobs and economic diversification.

I have a question for the member. Does he support the member for Dauphin—Swan River in his on-hands governing as mayor of the city of Dauphin before he got elected and used equalization to the benefit of the people of Dauphin? Does he agree with that member, or does he support his leader who says let's trash the west, let's trash the regions when it comes to economic diversification and eliminate equalization?

[Points Of Order, February 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order emanating from question period this afternoon.

During the course of question period I put a question to the Minister of Finance concerning the bank merger. I was citing some facts with respect to contributions made by banks to the governing party. Then I asked the question subsequent to that.

These facts came from the chief electoral officer's report of Canada outlining that the Liberal Party received substantial contributions from the bank—

[Bank Merger, February 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, what goes around comes around. Small business people, consumers and farmers are getting their next jerk by the banks. Now the finance minister is getting his leash jerked by the banks for a quarter of a million dollars.

Is that not why he will not stand up to the big banks? Just this once, why not put the banks on a short leash and stand up for Canadians?

[Bank Merger, February 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the finance minister is coming across looking pretty defensive these days. First he is caught off guard by the monster merger announcement. Then he tells us his hands are tied by the task force. Then today he accuses the NDP of being the bankers' friends.

But in fact in 1996 the Liberals took $140,000 from the Bank of Montreal and $110,000 from the Royal Bank.

Is that not why his hands are tied? How can the Liberals take these monster donations and then expect us to believe that the monster merger is not already a done deal?

[Petitions, February 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present a petition on behalf of a number of individuals from Athabasca, Lac La Biche and Edmonton, Alberta, as well as other locations.

The petitioners are concerned about the tax structure. They feel that corporate contributions to public revenue are too low and among the lowest of all the G-7 countries. They are very concerned about the individuals' share of federal revenue in terms of the taxes being paid. They are also in opposition to the harmonization of the GST which the Liberal government has put forward.

The petitioners call upon the House of Commons and the Government of Canada to undertake a fair tax reform dealing with all these issues including the high taxes on gasoline.

[Banking, February 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.

A recent CFIB survey confirms what many small businesses and farmers have been saying for years, that bank loans are too expensive and harder to get. What proof can the minister give this House that this monster merger will be better for small businesses and farmers? Or at the very least can he promise it will not make things worse?

[Petitions, December 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my pleasure to present a petition on behalf of my constituents as well as residents living in Prince Albert, Spruce Home and the communities of Old Perlican, Sibleys Cove and Red Head Cove.

The petitioners are concerned about the trend of corporate taxes declining and individual taxes increasing in respect of the federal share. They are also very concerned about the harmonized sales tax proposals of the Liberal government.

They are asking Parliament not to proceed with the Liberal HST scheme or any other plan to further reduce the remaining corporate taxes at the expense of the middle class working individuals and families. They are also asking the government to undertake a fairer tax reform so that personal consumers do not suffer even more financial insecurity and unfair costs at this time.