Roy H. Bailey

[Supply, May 14th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the hon. member was not listening. I was not condemning the present fact finding tour.

The hon. member knows very well that I talked about the secrecy shrouded around the Somalia inquiry and the shredding of documents, that is what Canadians thought of the military. I am not condemning talking to people, listening to the rank and file and not just the officers and the politicians. You got it wrong. I did not say that and you know I did not say it.

[Supply, May 14th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from the Conservative Party for putting forth this motion. It is very deserving at this time. The House would do well to listen to what the opposition has to say concerning our military.

The major problem in this decade, particularly since 1993, has been that this government has chosen to run the military like it runs one of its departments. It has chosen to run the military with the same secrecy. If it wanted to look at one of Canada's success stories, it is when the military looked after itself and the politicians stayed out of it. But the government has not done that.

As a case in point recently, within the least year, the military had a conference in Winnipeg. The theme of the conference was efficiency and accountability. Now the auditors are being asked to look into this $2 million conference which lasted only four days. It was attended by Canada's top military officers and their guests. If that does not sound like a department of this government, nothing does. That is exactly what it is.

According to military documents obtained by my colleague, the hon. member for Lakeland, food and alcoholic drinks for the conference cost $74,000. It sounds like a department to me. Furthermore, this conference included $8,000 in tips to the staff. It sounds like a department to me. The defence minister has now confirmed that the auditors are going to examine this four day conference.

The success of any country's military and particularly that of Canada and the glorious past to which the government has been referring took place when the military ran the military. If we tried to run the RCMP like this government is trying to run the military we would have no national police force.

The Liberals since coming to office in 1993 have done nothing but tear the guts out of the military. While they talk about all the purchases, they have chopped the military budget by $3 billion.

I have talked to some of these people in the military. I congratulate my colleague from the Conservative Party who said do we ever need an ombudsman. In the military today as with this government there are a minister, deputy ministers, political hacks and all the rest of it and then at the bottom we have the real troops. That is what has been wrong with our military. The soldiers, the people in the front corps, are telling this government on every trip they make that is the problem with the military.

I do not know whether these people have read the auditor general's report, but he says the military is rusted out. It is like VIA Rail, it cannot replenish its stock. Only recently have the Liberals moved to do something about that.

I hope the committee travelling across Canada right now looking at the quality of life in the military stopped at the base in Moose Jaw. I hope the members of the committee talked to some of the people I talked to. I hope they were as shocked about the conditions in which the military families were living as I was. I hope they saw the squalor of some of the houses. I guess as long as we are going to have a department with a military being run as a political organization, that is exactly what we can expect to achieve.

On the search and rescue helicopters it took four years to end up with the same EH-101 Cormorant that the Liberals had scrapped in 1993 at a big price. It took four years for the Liberals to sign a deal with the British to buy four used submarines. It sounds like a department to me. It does not sound like the military.

We still do not have the maritime ship borne helicopters. We are told we are going to buy them. I would like to say this as a positive note and offer a suggestion to this House. Everything I have said has been positive but it will be received by members opposite as being negative. That is the problem. I just spoke the truth. I realize members opposite do not like that.

The opinion in this country of Canada's military is not negative. It is the government's handling of the military that is looked on negatively. We could do a poll on the Somalia inquiry should no one believe me. That would tell us what is thought of politics and government.

Right now we could do a lot to improve the image of the military. In the area where I live it is impossible for young people to become part of the militia because they are not encouraged and they would have too far to travel as there is no military establishment nearby. Many of the young people whose grandfathers served in the famous South Saskatchewan Regiment have to drive all the way to Regina to become part of the military.

I would encourage the Minister of National Defence to go out and sell a program with the cadets of the three branches. I truly believe that if we could sell the cadet program in our schools and in organizations within our communities, not only would that help children with a number of problems and give them something to do but it would also be a real source of recruitment into the military when the time is right. If someone enters and stays in the cadet program until they have completed high school, it may well be that they will want a career in the military. This is a program we should give serious attention to.

I hope this country is never again disgraced with the government's closing down of the Somalia inquiry. When this inquiry was going on and then was cut off it reminded me of a cat making a deposit on the pavement and trying to cover it up. You just cannot cover it up. You cannot cover up the Somalia inquiry.

The government should take some real steps, and I hope it will during this tour, to bring Canadians' image of our military up to where it once was. Our military image has really gone down. It has really fallen in the last 10 to 12 years. That is what my hon. colleague's motion is all about and that is what every member of this House and myself want to see.

My parting words are to get the military out of the politicians' back pockets and let it run as a true military force.

[Dna Identification Act, May 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, you will note that because I am going to the Senators game tonight we will have a victory over there. That is why the juggling of the order, to allow me the time to get ready so that I can help them out.

DNA evidence has been used in the courts since 1988. The question is why has it taken a full decade for the government to come up with comprehensive legislation for the collecting of DNA samples to allow peace officers and the justice system to do their jobs. The tools are widely available for the collection of DNA samples. The track record for proving convictions and for proving innocence such as the recent high profile exonerations demonstrates the validity and viability of DNA testing.

Why is the government so far behind in this technology? Why is the government going through such great lengths to limit these tools and methods of DNA collection? Should the government instead be concentrating on regulating and safeguarding the methods available? The government is concerned with the protection of the rights of the criminals. That is why the bill allows only for the collection of DNA samples after a conviction for a crime that has been committed. Too bad the government does not use the same rationale in protecting the rights of law-abiding Canadians. The government has no problem setting up a central gun registry forcing people who have not committed a crime to give private information to the government and to keep a central databank.

Why is the government willing to punish law-abiding Canadians by establishing a flawed gun registry while at the same time hindering justice by not collecting DNA when a person is charged with a crime?

The Canadian Police Association represents the frontline of our justice system. Police officers are concerned that if they have to wait until a conviction in order to collect DNA samples, they will not be able to introduce DNA evidence during trial proceedings. This would be like not using fingerprints as evidence until after the person has been convicted.

Will the government tell us what it is afraid of? Will it accept the Canadian Police Association's recommendation that DNA samples be collected when a person who has previously committed a crime is being charged with the present crime? The police are concerned that if they have to wait for the conviction before collecting a DNA sample the accused would rather skip bail or not fulfil parole conditions rather than voluntarily submitting to DNA samples being taken from him or her.

Why volunteer to give evidence which may very well convict him or her of an unsolved crime? How can the government continue to argue against the rationale that is being given by the police who know and have to work with the criminal element? Why is the government willing to listen to people protecting the rights of criminals rather than the Canadian Police Association which promotes the interest of our police men and women?

The public is already concerned with the lack of teeth in Canada's justice system. The Young Offenders Act is under public scrutiny because it sees young offenders repeating crimes. The public is concerned about criminals released on early parole because once released many are again committing crimes. If these repeat offenders knew that their DNA samples were in a central registry, would they not be less likely to commit a crime? Does it not make sense to put into place preventive measures such as an extensive DNA sample bank for future victims?

The Canadian Police Association's main philosophical objection with Bill C-3 is this. It is a fundamental disagreement over the sovereign legislative authority of parliament in originating criminal law as opposed to a judicially supreme system favoured by the department and some justices. Having responsible government taken away from a free people is a terrible thing but giving it away is surely worse.

The government was concerned about what the courts would think of this bill when it was drafting it. Rather, should the courts not be concerned about what parliament is thinking? It is parliament that makes the laws, not the courts. The job of the courts is to enforce the laws that parliament makes. If this business of second guessing each other continues, it is the legislative function of parliament that will be hindered. It is known now that parliament is being hindered by the courts.

We all have a desire to protect our families and society. This bill would provide for matching DNA samples taken from a crime scene with those samples in the DNA bank. Does it not make sense that the larger the data source of the DNA bank, the likelier a match will be found? Why not seek measures to increase the data in the DNA bank rather than limiting the tools needed by law enforcement officers?

I have two more points. One of my colleagues said that this bill is a half step. It is obvious that this bill is going to have to be amended a number of times over the next few years. In the meantime because of samples that are not taken as a result of this proposed legislation, crimes will go unsolved. There is no question about that.

Why not get the bill right the first time? Why not accept the valuable suggestions from the Canadian Police Association and the opposition so that we have a bill that works from the start rather than having to amend it in the future?

All of us are concerned about due process. All of us are concerned about privacy. None of us want to see a system of DNA registration that would hinder our individual rights. The safeguard that has been proposed is that anyone who has already been convicted of a crime when charged with another would have to provide DNA samples. This way the general law-abiding public would not be subject to undue process in the courts.

Does the government think that people who have committed crimes against society have the same privileges as those who have kept the law? It is obvious attention is not given to the independence of this House. It is not given to the innocence of the victims but rather we are determined to continue to give rights to those who have already committed a crime.

As Churchill said, give our police the tools so they can finish the job. Do not hinder them in their pursuit of doing their job of bringing criminals to trial.

[Canada Grain Act, May 11th, 1998]

I do not know, but the last I have is that it is high.

But I do know this. We have a new venture. We have a new series of crops. We have a new industry in the west. All of a sudden the thinking is that if we cannot get more compulsory aspects into it then of course that is a bad thing.

What the hon. member for Brandon—Souris is doing in bringing in these resolutions is simply saying “Let the industry, the agency and the board prove themselves. If they want to go in and take insurance, fine. Let them take it. If they do not feel it is worth it, then let them opt out”. That is how simple it is. But to demand insurance when there is no proven product is not a very good thing.

If I carry house insurance with the same company for a number of years and I find out that when I put in a claim I get zippo out of it, what am I going to do? I am going to at least change companies. Under this plan they will not have a choice; they are either in or out.

These motions deal with the insurance plan. If they can prove to the producers that it is good, then they will have them all in. If they see that it is not good, they have the right to drop out with nothing to declare. Nothing could be fairer.

When we have a new commodity group coming into being I do not understand why they want to add a compulsory element. Why do we not let the producer decide? It is his crop and his risk, so let him decide. We should not force him into a program where he may wait two or three years after his premiums have been used up to see whether it is valuable or not. If we go into this we should at least allow it to be voluntary.

Some things we need to have compulsory insurance on. All across Canada we need to have compulsory insurance on our cars. The reason for that is not so much that we may wreck our own property, but we may hurt someone else. We can all understand that type of compulsory insurance. It is not compulsory to put fire insurance on our houses and it should not be compulsory for the producers of the specialty crops to have to put insurance on those crops. Many people feel they cannot afford to do this. Therefore, to make it compulsory is not adding anything whatsoever to this industry.

Ask the western farmers if they should have this. What did the witnesses say in committee? Did they say they wanted compulsory insurance? No, they did not say that. If they did not say that, if the producers do not want it, I think we are going too far by making it mandatory.

Yes, they can have insurance. Let them enter the insurance plan, but if they do not want to stay in it then let them out. Let the thing work on its own merit. We should not have something that is compulsory and keeps going because it is run by a few, whether it is making payments or whether the producer is left to evaluate it.

[Canada Grain Act, May 11th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join in this discussion again, simply because we have something here which I believe we do not want to make compulsory.

I want to draw to the attention of my hon. friends opposite that in Saskatchewan and the three western provinces at this time those farmers who wish to contribute to research do so and it is deducted at the elevator. Those who do not wish to do so have no deductions.

I might add that it is not compulsory. There is not very much complaining; none in fact. But the number of farmers who are contributing, according to the latest information I have, is very high.

[Canada Grain Act, May 11th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, perhaps we should have a bit of a history lesson here and ask a simple question. Why are there so many special crops now being grown on the prairies? us. If members opposite do not know, we will give them a quick lesson. They are being grown because farmers want to get rid of all the regulations and restrictions that have plagued them for at least three generations. That is why they want special crops.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the minister of agriculture had a lot to say about elections. We are not talking about elections. The motions which my hon. friend put forth are not about elections. What we are talking about and what we oppose is the federal government handpicking people and putting them on an advisory board.

Virtually every time I make a trip to my constituency in the west I learn of some person who has been appointed to some board in Ottawa. Some of them have the audacity to tell me how much money they make for being appointed as advisory people to a board. That is what we are opposing. That is what the west opposes. That is what the industry opposes. That is what the canola seed people oppose. That is what the pulse people oppose. That is what the sunflower people oppose. They do not want to be regulated by this government. For some reason this government does not seem to understand that. It just does not get the message.

The message is clear and simple. The Canadian Canola Growers Association will submit two lists to the minister of agriculture. It will do the election for each special crop group. The sunflower growers will do the same thing. The people who produce the peas will do the same. The minister will then appoint to this special board according to a simple recommendation from the producer, not by election or anything costly as the parliamentary secretary said. Here is the list of names, take your choice.

But we have a problem here. It is not a problem for the producers. It is not a problem for the people who grow the flax. It is not a problem for the people into the beans. It is not a problem for them at all. The problem lies on the opposite side. It is what if they are not Liberals. That is the problem. These special people are saying they have had 50 years of government hacks telling them how to run their business. They want to give the government a group of names to pick from. That is what this and all these motions are all about.

I say the following to the people from the west who have gone into special crops. You turn around and deny these people the right to submit their names to the minister and let him choose from the names they have selected and you will be in violation of a basic principle. That principle is that party hacks have more importance than those who come from the industry. That is the bottom line. It is as clear as that. Even a kid in grade four could understand it.

I see the parliamentary secretary does not understand. He wants to talk about elections. We are not talking about expensive elections. We are asking the minister of agriculture to select the names that come from the various interest groups in order to form the special board. Nothing could be more down to earth, nothing could be more grassroots and nothing could be more democratic.

I can hear members across saying maybe that is the way we should go. Let us get out of this habit of appointing a $100,000 a year political hack, giving him this and giving him that. The canola growers will select their person for the board. I challenge anyone opposite to say that our clauses are not in keeping with the democratic principle or with what is best in agriculture.

People in the Nipawin area of Saskatchewan said they could not make any money from growing wheat. Now there is no more wheat in most of the crops there. Even in my constituency people have been telling me time and again they are going strictly to oats, that they cannot afford to grow wheat under the board and that they have a legal market in Montana.

That is exactly what we are talking about. I do not have to move more than 10 miles from my home to see people experimenting with all kinds of new crops saying they wish anything they grow would be out of the control of the government. That is exactly what they are saying.

Now we are providing an opportunity to pick advisory boards without going the political route.

Do members have the courage to do this? Do they have the courage to support this resolution? It would bring a form of democracy in advisory committees to Saskatchewan, to Manitoba and to Alberta for the first time in 50 years.

[Canada Labour Code, May 7th, 1998]

No, I am not ashamed to say that. I am very proud to say that I believe a democratic vote should be 50%-plus. Obviously the hon. member opposite does not and I hope everybody knows that. I hope everybody recognizes that when those members feel like it they decide that 35% will be control.

We in the Reform Party do not believe that. We believe they have a right to organize, to form a union and to form that union when their mandate states that 50% of them shall claim a union. However, the member does not believe that. That is too bad because that is where we stand. That is all we are asking for in this clause.

How can anyone dispute the fact that when 35% of the employees sign union cards there should be a vote to decide whether they will unionize? What is wrong with that? Obviously those members do not understand the principles of the democratic process that 50% or 51% makes the majority. They do not believe that and it is very difficult for us to understand.

However, if this government wants to pass the bill it is going to pass it anyway because it has determined that it is going to play into the hands of a very undemocratic situation. We do not believe that and that is where we differ and where we are going to continue to differ because we believe in democracy right across the board. We also believe in individual rights right across the board. We believe that a person has the right to vote on a secret ballot right across the board, but you people do not believe that. Go ahead and not believe it. That is your privilege. We are going to stay with the 50%.

[Canada Labour Code, May 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-19.

The hon. member for Ottawa Centre mentioned that Reform members all do their act together. I do not know where he has been. Four times since this session began in September I have voted against my leader. We have the right and the freedom to do so. The hon. member knows very well that he never had that choice.

One of the things that young people learn at school is how to vote. When they have a vote, they count the ballots and then they elect somebody. That happens even in the elementary grades.

I want to deal with thinking that is terribly flawed. I want to say what the rest of Canadians think at times when they are deprived of their livelihood because of unbiased or unequal thinking toward an issue.

Motion No. 7 simply says that the Canada Labour Code “may”. It does not say they have to. It does not say they will. It says that they “may”.

In serving my time in various capacities and in various positions to which I have been elected, I have never in my life been subject to the concept that a vote of fewer than 50% will make the decision. I have never been introduced to that.

I have chaired hundreds of meetings. When a board has an opportunity to vote, the motion never carries unless it has 50% approval. I have been a CEO to a board and that board never came down with a decision unless 50% of the board was in agreement.

All we are asking is that Motion No. 7 be changed to indicate that the board “shall”. We do not believe for one minute, unlike members opposite, that 35% is good enough for union certification.

When government members talk about 35% they refer to management interference. What is management interference? We have labour on one side; we have management on the other. We never hear about labour interference. It is always management interference. We think it should be a balanced situation.

Canadians think that way. Ask the people across western Canada what they think about a handful of people being able to take away their livelihood. Members opposite say it is democracy and we say it is deplorable. We do not believe that 35% constitutes a majority.

The motion states that when 35% of the people have signed cards for certification they should cast a vote. When 35% have not signed cards for certification they should also cast a vote. All we are saying is that it should be equal. However, this government does not want to do that. It does not want to deal with the realities of percentage.

In my public life, for every single call I have had from an employee about manager interference, I have had 50 calls from employees talking about union interference. However, those members never talk about that. I am pro-democracy and that is what bothers these people. They do not want to look at a balanced scheme for employment.

In our committee work on transportation it has been absolutely enlightening in the last while to listen to how the railway companies have organized and streamlined the situation in Canada. When we talk about CN double-decking out of the port of Halifax and how it can beat the competition in the United States through Chicago, it does that with the co-operation of all the different unions along the way.

However, this is what happens. What is the largest petrochemical company in Canada? Imperial Oil. It has operated all of these years, with its largest plant being in Sarnia, without a union. I have talked to Imperial's people and they tell me they are satisfied and do not want a union. Why would anyone want to tell those people they must have a union with 35%?

Unless a 50% majority shows up, it is in violation of our democratic principles. No one in this House would allow a 50% vote.

The answer is very simple. Hon. members opposite are trying to move themselves into an outdated, undemocratic process of allowing less than 50% of the people to make a decision.

[Canada Labour Code, May 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member is referring to members on this side of the House as being guys and so on. My understanding—

[Petitions, May 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from 419 people in the city of Kanata and that area. They are requesting parliament to pursue changes to the legislation that would give municipalities the right to prohibit adult entertainment parlours and broaden the restrictions of existing adult entertainment parlours to reduce the incidence of crime. These residents are opposed to an adult entertainment parlour opening in their neighbourhood. They are disappointed that supreme court rulings override community values and wishes.