Monte Solberg

[Taxation, May 13th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the preceding has been a paid political announcement.

We know from Statistics Canada that family incomes have fallen in the last few years in a way we have not seen since the Great Depression. We also know that federal revenues are way up in a way we have never seen.

When is the finance minister going to bring in sweeping tax relief, not the puny tax cuts he brought in with the budget? When it comes to tax cuts, size really does matter.

[Brain Drain, May 13th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, when a government drains our best and brightest from our workforce, it drains our future, our promise and our prosperity as a nation. Right now we have an entire generation of economic refugees fleeing our borders, a generation driven away by high taxes.

These are the brain drain facts. Over the last seven years, work visas to the U.S. have increased tenfold. There has been a 20% increase in Canadian doctors and nurses leaving for the states since 1985. Last year the University of Waterloo had 120 U.S. companies recruiting its graduates, four times more than in 1995. One-third of its co-op computer grads are hired away by Microsoft each year.

The fact is we are subsidizing American jobs with Canadian education. What we really need is to create an environment that lets our graduates stay here at home. For us in Canada this means lower taxes.

[Dna Identification Act, May 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise again to address the motion in Group No. 3. My friends across the way were hoping I was finished but sadly for them and for me too, I guess, we are not finished yet.

I will touch on two issues and just remind members why we are supporting the motion by the NDP member. The reasons are twofold. We are concerned about the privacy aspect. As I pointed out before question period, there are concerns among the public in an age when technology has become so prevalent that if the government through the DNA databank were to receive a piece of information, a DNA sample, somehow it will become public and could be used in other ways the public would be very concerned about.

That is a very legitimate concern. Many Canadians are concerned that the government already has too much information about them. If we are to ensure that this very useful tool is given to police for use in stopping legitimate criminals, we must ensure the public's concerns are allayed. The best way to do that in this case, other than using due diligence when this DNA databank is set up, is to put in place very stiff penalties so that if people misuse the information they will face very severe consequences.

That is why we are very pleased to support the Group No. 3 motion that would place a maximum five year penalty on anybody who misuses the data. We are supportive of it. I believe the original legislation has a two year penalty.

When I read through the bill from cover to cover, as I often do before I turn in for the evening, that aspect concerned me. I was happy to see this amendment come forward. Reformers will stand in support of the motion.

We believe the DNA databank is a good idea. We want it. We think it is important for the police to have it, but we need to ensure legitimate concerns are dealt with. We think this is one way we could deal with this concern and therefore will support this motion.

[Dna Identification Act, May 11th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to the Group No. 3 motions of Bill C-3, an act that would bring about a DNA database.

There are two key issues we need to address here. One is the issue of privacy and the other is the issue of deterrence. My friend from Prince George—Peace River talked a little about this.

I think it is very important that whatever system is put in place people know their privacy is ensured. As finance critic for the official opposition, I could say how many times we have had people come forward to say how very concerned they are with respect to the information they have to give to banks and to government organizations.

People want to know that information will not be misused. That is a pretty important consideration. I think a lot of people are concerned in a day and age where technology has become all encompassing.

Giving information to one person may mean that it is spread out, that everybody has access to it everywhere. It is a very legitimate concern. I support the hon. member's motion to put in place some big penalties to ensure that if people misuse this information they will face a very severe penalty, up to five years in prison.

I support this absolutely because knowledge is power. I think we need to ensure whatever system is set up that we have the right deterrents in place to guarantee that the information will not be misused.

I support what the hon. member has brought forward as a motion in Group No. 3. I think it is a good idea. We need to support it.

[Canada Grain Act, May 11th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the chance to rise and speak to Group No. 2 but also to rebut what the parliamentary secretary has said.

I will begin with something he said a minute ago. He suggested that if the insurance plan was voluntary, some farmers might not actually become a part of it because they did not know about it. That suggests the parliamentary secretary takes a pretty dim view of the ability of farmers to run their own affairs.

Obviously farmers run extraordinarily complex operations when they run a farm. They make hundreds of thousands, even millions of dollars of decisions every year. Is the parliamentary secretary suggesting that perhaps they might forget to plant their crops in the spring? Maybe we should have someone from the government come out and plant their crops for them. Or maybe they would forget to take off their crops in the fall. Maybe we should have somebody come out and take their crops off for them as well.

What the parliamentary secretary is suggesting is ridiculous, that farmers would not know about it, that they are just too dumb. That is what he is suggesting. I disagree with that. It is ridiculous.

Earlier I heard the parliamentary secretary say that I had misspoken when I suggested that all of the members of the special crops advisory committee should be appointed and that the government was not proposing to appoint some producers. Indeed that is correct. I have with me Bill C-26 which would amend the Canada Grain Act. The member is correct. In fact the situation would be that if there are nine members on the board, a majority of them would be chosen by the government and the others would come from elsewhere.

I simply point out that under the plan that is being proposed by the official opposition all of those nine positions would come from producer groups. The parliamentary secretary is suggesting that the government would still retain the power to choose a bunch of unelected hacks, political patronage appointees, for some of these positions. We say that is wrong. We say all nine positions should be filled by the producers. I do not think that is radical. I think it makes sense. That is what the witnesses told the committee and the member knows it.

He also knows that Canadians are democrats. They want to have their representatives on these boards which are supposed to represent their interests. That is just common sense.

Although the member was quite correct in pointing out where I had misspoken, I think he was true to the letter of what I was saying if not the spirit. That is where he was wrong.

I want to touch on the voluntary check-off idea for a moment. Reformers moved this in committee. It is now being moved by Conservatives at report stage. We agree with it. We agree with the idea of a voluntary check-off. The idea of having a mandatory check-off I know producers disagree with.

I have heard it from producers in my riding. They told me as much. They want the voluntary option. They do not like the idea of the government holding on to their money until the end of the year and then getting it back in some way, shape or form. They like the voluntary option.

I remind my friends across the way, if they wonder how this will go over with people, of what happened when the cable industry proposed to do the same thing with cable television, this idea of negative option billing. It went over like a lead balloon. There was a virtual revolt because consumers want to have the choice. Consumer sovereignty, what a novel idea. It should be the same thing in Bill C-26 but the government always wants to have its own way. It always takes the attitude that it knows better. It does not know better.

Why not give people the option? Why not let it be voluntary? What is wrong with that? Why not have the voluntary option? We know that the groups that appeared before the committee almost to a person said they wanted the voluntary option. What is so wrong with that? Why not listen to what people are saying? Why hold hearings if no one listens to what people are saying? I think that is fair. I think it makes sense.

Unfortunately the government has missed the whole idea behind the point of having witnesses appear before a committee. It is to get some guidance on how these things are supposed to work. Remember that the witnesses are the people who are affected. They have a stake in it. They have their whole livelihood in this so why would they not be the ones who are best suited to make those choices, to make those judgments? Why is the government not listening to the real experts? That is what it should be doing.

We disagree with the whole idea of the government's having the sole ability to pick whomever it wants to sit on this board, some of them of course would be producers but again it could go ahead and pick only producers with the right political credentials and some of them would be people who would probably be political appointments, probably defeated Liberal MPs from the prairies, of which there are many after the last election.

They have a lot to choose from, a big slate this time, even though some have already been scooped up into other patronage positions so perhaps they would have to serve in two patronage positions at once, I do not know.

Second, we disagree with the idea of the mandatory check-off. Not only do producers not want it, it is contrary to the whole idea of consumer sovereignty. I remind the government that if it is going to have witnesses, and a bunch of them tell it what to do, listen to them. Hello in there, listen to them. That is what people want. They want to have their testimony listened to and abided by, especially when they speak more or less with one voice.

[Canada Grain Act, May 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my friend mentions the freshwater fish association. We know what happened with the Freshwater Fish Marketing Board. A former Liberal member who had absolutely nothing to do with fishing in his past life, except he had gone fishing once or twice, was appointed head of the marketing board. He had absolutely no clue what it was about, but he picked up a $100,000 a year job because he was a former Liberal MP. Now he runs it, I am sure to the chagrin of producers in that industry.

The government is to take that same sullied formula and apply it to the special crops advisory board. It is absolutely ridiculous and completely contrary to all the advice it received from the agriculture committee. The government in its defence sets up an elaborate make believe scheme in which it suggests that Reformers are proposing to elect people. It is not true.

All we are saying is that these specialty crops groups can at their annual general meeting get together and maybe have a little election among themselves. They can say that they think Bill, for example, has done a good job in the past and put forward his name, as well as Larry and Myra. They will be the names they submit. Maybe the minister will choose one of them. Maybe he can even check their Liberal credentials to find out if they are good Liberals, and if they are they can end up on the advisory board.

I do not think that is radical. It makes a lot of sense to have representation of the people whose money is going into this thing on the board. That is exactly what the witnesses are asking. I can say from personal experience that producers of speciality crops are very upset with the idea of more regulation.

I come from a Medicine Hat riding where there is a lot of irrigation. As a result people grow a lot of high value specialty crops. People in my riding grow beans, sunflowers and all kinds of crops including spearmint. They have told me they do not want to deal with the board any more. They are tired of dealing with the board. When they have an option they get out of wheat because if they deal with wheat they have to go through the board. They are going into specialty crops and are trying to make a living without interference from the government.

Whenever the government sees something going well, it seems it has to step into it or more than likely step on it and crush the life out of it. That is exactly what the government has done many times in the past.

I am speaking on behalf of my constituents when I say that the last thing we want is the federal government to bring on line some more patronage appointees to tell producers how things should be done from their perspective atop the hierarchy, when producers themselves are the ones gunning it out, supporting the board with their own money and trying to make a living. They are the ones who know how. They have a stake in it. Why is the government so afraid to let producers have a say in the whole process? It just does not make any sense.

I encourage my friends across the way to learn from the hepatitis C vote. Those backbenchers know they had absolutely zero influence on the hepatitis C vote. They were chided by their Prime Minister for having the effrontery to actually raise their voices and suggest that in the case of hepatitis C maybe the government should open its mind a bit and consider compensation.

They should understand that is exactly what the government will do with the people they appoint to the advisory board. They will do exactly what they want. Although the government loves to give the appearance that it is committed to democracy, at every instance and every opportunity it turns around and does exactly what it wants to do.

It is shameful. It is wrong but it is certainly the pattern we have seen from the government. I urge members across the way to support the motions that have been put forward by my friend from Prince George—Peace River, motions that will bring at least a hint of democracy to the legislation. I encourage members across the way to support the motions.

[Canada Grain Act, May 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to follow some of my more knowledgeable friends in the Reform Party on this debate. We are addressing Group No. 1 motions on Bill C-26, an act to amend the Canada Grain Act. In particular we are discussing a couple of issues, but the big issue is the push to ensure there is some producer representation on the special crops advisory board.

I am extraordinarily disappointed with the presentation we heard from the parliamentary secretary a few minutes ago. He suggested a very transparent tactic in my judgment. He suggested that elaborate elections will be necessary to bring about the motion my friend from Prince George—Peace River has proposed.

He is proposing only that the specialty crop producer groups be the ones who submit to the minister a list of names of people who would be excellent representatives on this special crops advisory board. The parliamentary secretary had the audacity to try to frighten people by suggesting there was to be some big elaborate election. It is not true, and the parliamentary secretary knows it. I am very disappointed he would go to those lengths to try to frighten people. It certainly does not do him or his government any credit.

Reformers are disappointed that the government once again has ignored the advice of witnesses who appeared before the agriculture committee and said they had no particular problem with the advisory board as long as they had some representation on it. They said they wanted their people to come forward. They are, after all, the people who are supporting it. It is their money that goes into supporting it through a check-off program. It is not the government's money. It is farmers' money.

Does that matter to the government? No. It knows everything. It does not need the advice of producers. Heavens no, that would be terrible. We know how the government feels about advice. We saw that in the hepatitis C debate not long ago when backbenchers had lots of advice for cabinet that was ignored. That is exactly what will happen when patronage appointments come forward to offer advice to the government on special crops. The government has complete latitude under the legislation to appoint patronage appointees to the speciality crops advisory board. That is wrong. When will the government get that through its head?

[Canada Labour Code, May 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I feel sorry for my colleagues. Obviously their conscience has been tricked. They have been stung by their own actions, and that is sad. I regret that very much but it was within their power to fix the problem instead of being cowed into voting the way they did, and I am sad for that.

Democracy is important in this place. We saw in the hepatitis C vote that the government set in stone a philosophy that is now reflected in Bill C-19 which is very regrettable.

Let us move on to Motion No. 30, an instance where the government could have stood up stronger in the name of democracy than it did, but here all kinds of conditions are placed on democracy. I do not think conditions should be placed on democracy.

Motion No. 30 deals with part of the labour code that would allow the 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 practice. Rather obviously, if the industrial relations board is concerned that there was some kind of unfair pressure being put on a particular group of workers, why would it not just ask them to hold another vote, a secret vote? Why not do that? Why not have another secret vote instead of leaving it to an appointed board to make that decision? Why not democracy? What is wrong with using democracy?

I recognize that democracy in this country is relatively new. In the modern world it is relatively new. It has only been around for about 300 years, but surely over the last 300 years we have come to be able to figure out how to utilize it in all kinds of institutions. Surely we should be able to figure out how to use it when it comes to dealing with employers and employees.

It is amazing that the government is proposing to grant to the Canada Industrial Relations Board this extraordinary arbitrary power to decide whether or not it will certify a union, irrespective of the will of the workers. That is ridiculous. That is not democracy, that is tyranny.

I point to a situation in Windsor, Ontario which occurred not that long ago. The labour relations board decided that the employer had used undue coercion on the workers and therefore overturned a vote that would have seen a union not come into being at a Wal-Mart store. Subsequent to that the employees moved for another vote to decertify that union. The initial vote was 151 to 43 not to have a union. The labour relations board said that they will have a union whether they like it or not.

That is the type of power that has been given to the industrial relations board. It is wrong. It is anti-democratic and it tells me a lot about this government. It tells me a lot about why backbenchers on the Liberal side voted against democracy, against the victims of hepatitis C and stood cowering behind their government. It think it is shameful and we will never support that type of legislation.

[Canada Labour Code, May 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today to address Bill C-19, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code. This bill has been hanging around for quite a while. I imagine the government is getting tired of hearing about it in the House of Commons and would like to have it moving forward.

Frankly the legislation is flawed. I think parties on all sides of the House have huge problems with it that I doubt very much it is going to get the speedy passage the government wants it to have.

We are addressing Group No. 2. There are a couple of specific motions I would like to address. They deal with the issue of democracy, as my friends have pointed out earlier.

Obviously in the House of Commons of all places we should be concerned about an issue like democracy. It is very ironic that we would be dealing with an issue of democracy in the wake of the hepatitis C vote here in the House of Commons.

Colleagues across the way had the chance to stand up for their constituents and exercise their democratic right in the House of Commons and actually support an opposition motion that would have provided compensation for the victims of hepatitis C who received hepatitis C because of negligence on the government's behalf. But they did not do that. They did not stand up when they could have despite the fact that many of them said they were going to do that and many of them said that they could make a difference in this place. They could have. They had the chance but they dropped the ball.

Now we see that same tenuous commitment to democracy in Bill C-19. I think that is a powerful reason to reject it.

Our party is trying to make some amendments. One of the motions we are moving is that under the current legislation 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 at least 35% of the employees sign cards calling for union certification. That is what we are proposing.

We do not want this left up to the board to make those types of decisions. We want to make sure that workers have a voice in all of this. We believe that democracy if it stands for anything should be reflected in legislation like this in a very clear way, where we state clearly that we do believe in democracy and in this particular case we want a vote on an issue of union certification.

I point out that there is no guarantee under this legislation that people will be allowed a secret ballot which I find amazing. I find it amazing that we are proposing legislation that does not guarantee people the right to a secret ballot.

In this place when we elect the Speaker we do it by secret ballot. When we are chosen as legislators we are chosen by secret ballot. There are a thousand reasons for that, not the least of which is that people have the right to decide in private so that they do not have to appear before the scrutinizing eyes of their neighbours who in some cases may try to browbeat them to vote another way, or they do not want to fear consequences from people who have power over them if they do not vote in a particular way.

That applies when we are talking about labour unions as well. To me it is a fundamental right. I cannot understand it in a country where in the charter of rights and freedoms we go to great lengths to lay out fundamental freedoms including the right to democracy. Sadly somewhere in the charter I guess we were not specific enough and did not suggest that we needed to have democracy apply at every level including when it comes to votes for labour unions.

Now we are stuck with a piece of legislation like this which is reprehensible. I am disgusted with the Liberals across the way for not fighting for workers who in some cases will be coerced into voting a particular way because if they do not vote that way they will feel pressure from people who have sway over them.

That is wrong but it is not inconsistent with the Liberals' actions on the hepatitis C vote. We heard them say over and over again “we are going to stand up to the government, we are going to vote with the victims of hepatitis C”. But when it came to the crunch did they bail out in a hurry, did they cast their principles over the side in a hurry—

[Hepatitis C, May 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, while the health minister is being coy I should remind him that people's lives are hanging in the balance. I do not see how he thinks he can get away with that.

The fact is people have been waiting for months for a decision on this. The government says the file is open, it is closed, it is open. When is it going to make its mind up and tell Canadians whether people with hepatitis C are going to get full compensation?