John Solomon

[Division No. 692, February 22nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, there are actually three consequential amendments. I have two more which I did not read into the record. Therefore, I move:

That Bill C-2, in Clause 359, be amended by replacing lines 39 and 40 on page 149 with the following:

“ferred to in paragraph (4)(a), it must list subject to paragraph (b.1) the names and addresses of every contributor who donated a”

The third amendment reads as follows:

That Bill C-2, in Clause 359, be amended by replacing line 15, page 149 with the following:

“period referred to in paragraph (a), subject to paragraph (b.1), their”

[Division No. 692, February 22nd, 2000]

I thank members of all political parties who have given to me their unanimous consent to amend Motion No. 113 in my name, which would in effect correct an oversight pertaining to the disclosure of political contributions. I move:

That Bill C-2, in Clause 359, be amended by adding after line 17, page 149 the following:

“(b.1) in the case of a numbered company that is a contributor referred to in paragraph (b), the name of the chief executive officer or president of that company”

Basically what it does is apply Motions Nos. 113, 114, 116, 118 and others to the criteria respecting third party political contributions and disclosure thereof.

[Division No. 692, February 22nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. To clarify the process, I have an amendment which I wanted to put with respect to Motion No. 113, which would be a consequential amendment to that motion. I have discussed this with the other parties, at least to introduce the amendment. I am wondering when I should do this. Should I do it now or at another time that would be in order?

[Credit Unions, February 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, more and more Canadians are fed up with their banks and are switching to credit unions. Now the credit union movement is taking over rural bank branches deserted by the Bank of Montreal.

Can a bank change? Apparently not. Can credit unions save the day? I am pleased to say that they have been able to save 63 jobs in rural communities across Saskatchewan by buying up 17 branches that the Bank of Montreal wanted to close, plus 17 more branches saving 53 jobs in the province of Alberta. Former customers of the Bank of Montreal in both provinces will be able to continue doing business with a financial institution in their rural communities.

I salute the important role played by co-ops and credit unions as one of the three vital engines of the economy in our country. As the vehicle of their members, rather than their shareholders, co-ops and credit unions prove every day that people can run a successful business by serving their customers instead of milking them dry.

I congratulate the credit union movement for saving jobs and financial services in rural Canada and helping to revitalize the rural way of life. Well done.

[Petitions, February 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition this morning, pursuant to Standing Order 36, on behalf of many constituents as well as people from across Canada, including Kamloops, British Columbia.

These Canadians are concerned that the Criminal Code of Canada makes it too easy for people, who have been convicted of serious crimes, such as murder, attempted murder, sexual assault and manslaughter involving imprisonment greater than five years, to obtain release from custody pending the hearing of their appeal.

The petitioners are asking the House of Commons and the Government of Canada to amend the Criminal Code of Canada to prevent persons convicted of these serious crimes from being released from custody pending the hearing of their appeal except in exceptional circumstances.

I think many Canadians would support this particular petition.

[Gasoline Prices, February 16th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, if the Liberal government believes this issue is serious, it would call in all the provinces and all the oil companies and hammer out a solution or lay down the law. Instead, the minister passes the buck.

The Bank of Canada is warning that rising energy costs can push our inflation rate over 3%, threatening everyone from families to businesses and local school boards. Energy is the underpinning of our economy.

What is the Liberal action plan to defend our economy from OPEC and to defend Canadians from the impact of record energy prices?

[Gasoline Prices, February 16th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, gasoline and diesel prices are at record levels and home heating oil has doubled. Consumers are being shafted by the OPEC cartel and the big oil companies and the Liberals do nothing about it.

Today the U.S. energy secretary ordered extra home heating oil into New England and offered emergency aid of over $250 million to help low income families pay their heating bills.

The industry minister found $20 million for millionaire hockey players, but will he do anything to help consumers being gouged by the big oil cartel, or will he allow Canadians to freeze in the dark?

[Supply, February 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Oak Ridges talked about accountability and responsibility. He said that the Liberal government should be responsible and accountable. All Canadians want from their governments is for them to be accountable and responsible to the people.

The member for Oak Ridges said: “We have to have to have confidence in the system”. We have seen a very severe attack on the integrity of the government over the last year. How can Canadians have confidence in the system, in the government, when it tries to spend $20 million a year to subsidize millionaire hockey players?

How can we have confidence in the government when it refuses to assist western grain farmers who are suffering the worst farm income crisis since the 1930s?

How can we have confidence in a government which defends the oil companies, allowing them to gouge consumers at the gasoline pumps at the highest rates in the world?

How can we have confidence in the government when medicare is in crisis and all it says is that it will look at it over the next five years?

We have a real crisis in confidence with respect to the government.

I ask the member: How can you persuade Canadians to trust your government to do the right thing in any program you administer when every single time you lay your hands on the treasury the money is misspent?

[Supply, February 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians want their government to be accountable and responsible, if nothing else. In this particular situation, with the HRDC grants, we see a government that is not responsible and, it appears, will not be accountable either.

This is an important issue and one which the leader of the opposition and the Reform Party have undertaken to bell the cat, so to speak.

Would the Leader of the Opposition give us his views on the Minister for International Trade, who was brought from Quebec by the Prime Minister as the person who would save Canada, the éminence grise who was going to do all the wonderful things to back up the Liberal Party and make our country united, the man who was put in charge of the department, and who has, in my view and I think in the view of all Canadians, been a royal American disaster?

Can the Leader of the Opposition tell us whether we should have both the Minister for International Trade and the Minister of Human Resources Development resign or just the Minister for International Trade? Also, would he support an investigation by a parliamentary committee or the RCMP into this terrible waste of taxpayers' money?

[Request For Emergency Debate, February 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is not to suggest what your decision might be, because you make the decisions and we appreciate and respect that, but energy is the underpinning of our economy. Everything we do depends upon the price of energy. Right now the price of gasoline is about 10% higher than it was when the price of oil was 25% higher.