Monte Solberg

[Privilege, December 1st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I simply want to point out very quickly that oftentimes opposition parties do issue minority reports. I was being very frank with the chairman of the finance committee when I made that statement. I did not suggest for a second that opposition members should not be allowed to see the majority report. Even if we do issue a minority report, Mr. Speaker, certainly it would be nice to be able to see the majority report so that if we wish to amend what we are proposing we can do that but that was not allowed.

The second point I wish to make very briefly is that I trust, Mr. Speaker, you will look into the very serious matter of who leaked this document and that it will be made very public so that we can get to the bottom of this. I do believe that it besmirches the whole reputation of the committee system when that sort of thing happens in Parliament.

[Privilege, December 1st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, on the same question of privilege, I want to confirm that what I saw of how the finance committee conducted itself with respect to sharing information with members of the opposition exactly reflects what the member said.

When I confirmed to the chairman of the finance committee that we would probably be bringing in a minority report, we were told that we would have to have that minority report in by last Wednesday without seeing the majority report. We never had a chance to even see the report but had to put in a minority report.

To add insult to injury, the next day we read about the government's report in the newspapers. It could only have been leaked from one place, the government. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, it has really jaundiced my opinion of how the government operates its committees. I do believe that this is a breach of the hon. member's privileges and those of all opposition members who sit on the finance committee.

I hope that the Speaker will very seriously consider what the hon. member is saying. I really do confirm his concerns. I hope that the government takes what it has done extraordinarily seriously because I believe it has caused quite a rift between government and opposition members.

[Privilege, December 1st, 1997]

Yes, it is.

[Committees Of The House, December 1st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to respond to the government report. The Reform Party minority report is appended to the government report on the prebudget hearings. In that report we point out that Canadians across the country, from coast to coast, universally do not accept the government's 50:50 spending promise. They do not accept that we need to spend ever more money. In fact, there is a tremendous emphasis on paying down debt and reducing taxes.

I believe that reflects what the Reform Party has heard in consultations across the country and that is reflected in its minority report which is appended to the government report.

[The Economy, December 1st, 1997]

That is hardly a balanced approach, Mr. Speaker. They offered 29 new spending initiatives in the throne speech.

As usual Canadian people are a way ahead of the government. They understand how vulnerable we are with this $600 billion debt. They understand that rising interest costs will eat the heart out of social programs and remove our ability to start to reduce taxes.

Will the government make a firm commitment today to devote at least half of all surpluses to debt reduction?

[The Economy, December 1st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians from coast to coast are demanding that the government get off its shop-until-you-drop spending fixation in favour of debt reduction.

In fact, the hon. member for Hillsborough found out that 79% of his constituents favour lower debt, lower taxes, and only 21% favour an increase in spending, and that is in hard-pressed Prince Edward Island.

Will the government listen to the hon. member for Hillsborough and all Canadians and start to move forcibly in the direction of reducing debt? That is what Canadians want.

[Access To Information Act, December 1st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, when I came into the House today I did not intend to speak on this particular matter. However it is an important bill and I feel compelled to stand and rebut some of the things my colleagues across the way are saying.

I would first point out to my hon. friend that Canada Post is a monopoly. That is its biggest competitive advantage. I do not think any of the competitors of Canada Post are going to be able to succeed in somehow imperilling the ability of Canada Post to get by when it is a monopoly. In fact the hon. member said it would reduce service. Well I point out that we have no service today. We have a postal strike and that is because there is a monopoly in Canada Post. I thought it was important to point that out.

I want to speak to Bill C-216 from the perspective of a westerner. I note that one of the things Bill C-216 would do would be to open up the Canadian Wheat Board to an access to information request. I cannot say how important that is to western producers today.

As members and many Canadians across the country know, right now in western Canada there is great dissatisfaction with the Canadian Wheat Board on a number of fronts. One of the ones that is most important is that producers in the west do not know for sure that they are getting the best possible price for their grain. Yesterday when I was in my hometown I saw a bumper sticker on a truck which read “We want the Canadian Wheat Board to be subject to access to information requests”. That is very reasonable.

What we need to point out here is that farmers who grow their own wheat do not have the ability ultimately to find out how much the wheat board is selling that grain for, whether or not it is getting the best possible price. It is impossible for them to determine that. I would argue that when we are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars, when we are talking about the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of people, they should as a basic right know what is going on with their grain and what is happening in terms of the price they are getting for it.

I strongly support this legislation, Bill C-216. I urge all members to consider supporting it. It does after all bring accountability to crown corporations at a time when, I would argue, unfortunately politicians are held in fairly low regard partially because it seems as if we try to protect our own interests.

One way to ensure that we do not do that is to open all the crown corporations up to access to information legislation so that Canadians can scrutinize these things. The auditor general can scrutinize them. Right now he does not have the ability to do that in some cases. Then we could ensure that money that is being spent on behalf of Canadians is being spent wisely and in their interests.

[Petitions, November 24th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the final petition calls upon Parliament to enact legislation to wind down the Canada pension plan while protecting the pensions of current seniors and that Canadians contribute to mandatory RRSPs of their own choosing.

[Petitions, November 24th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, another petition calls upon parliament to affirm the duty of parents to responsibly raise their children according to their own conscience and beliefs and to retain section 43 in Canada's Criminal Code as it is currently worded.

[Petitions, November 24th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I present a petition from the people of Medicine Hat calling upon parliament to affirm its commitment to a triple E Senate and immediately move to permit the election of senators by the people of the province of Alberta.