John Solomon

[Privilege, November 16th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I want to rise in this House today to voice my support and my caucus' support for the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton.

Members may not know this, but the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which tabled the report which was unanimously adopted after concurrence, is composed of a majority of Liberal members of Parliament.

Also, Mr. Speaker, for your information, I provide to the members of this House the fact that not only is the majority of the committee Liberals, but that indeed the chief government whip, the deputy House leader of the government and other prominent members of Parliament from the Liberal Party who have significant responsibilities in the government are on the committee.

I am puzzled as to why the government is concerned about adopting all of these recommendations from the committee when it was the Liberal part of the committee which wholeheartedly embraced and endorsed the recommendations that were made.

As a matter of fact, the NDP member, yours truly, was the only one who had some concerns about what was in the report.

That aside, I would abide by and certainly support the initiative which took place in the House with respect to moving concurrence unanimously and adopting the report.

I stand in support of the question of privilege put forward by the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton. I believe that government members should shake their heads in bewilderment if they are opposed to this document when it was their own government that embraced it, promoted it and put it forward on the table.

I support the member's question of privilege on this issue.

[Points Of Order, November 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words on this point of order in support of the Reform member's recommendation.

First of all, this is a report that we as the House of Commons moved concurrence in last night, which we have the authority to do. Second, it is a report that was tabled from the procedure and House affairs committee of which I am a member and on which the Liberals have a majority membership. It was approved by that particular committee and tabled in this very House.

I am puzzled as to why the hon. government House leader would make reference to “artificial means” or “surreptitious means” when it came to making this particular report something that is going to be substantive and that will convert into actual rule changes. His definition of surreptitious means is that a motion was moved in the House last evening and the motion was given unanimous consent. Every single member of parliament who was in the House last night gave unanimous consent to have this particular report embraced and adopted. If the government House leader calls that surreptitious, we have a huge problem in this country because it was a democratic decision. It was nowhere near surreptitious.

What is surreptitious is when the government House leader stands in this House and attacks democracy like that from behind the cover of his cabinet post.

My view is that the report was tabled by a committee dominated by Liberal MPs. It was embraced by all MPs in that committee, of which the chief government whip is a member. We are now asking to have all of these recommendations of the report made into standard operating procedures of the House of Commons effective as soon as possible.

I would support the Reform Party's move on the basis of those particular points.

[Canadian Farmers, November 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, farmers and their families are in crisis. Why? For many reasons beyond their control. The Liberal government chopped the Crow transportation benefit while European and American governments backed their farmers by retaining and increasing agricultural supports.

American farmers receive $2.68 per bushel in wheat support, more than it sells for right now. European farmers receive $5.58 per bushel. Canadian farmers receive less than 40 cents per bushel.

Input costs have increased. Fertilizer costs are up 57%. Farm chemicals are up 63%. Pork prices have dropped 60% over the last five months alone. Net farm income has dropped 80% over the last two years.

Today the ministers of agriculture are meeting to discuss this crisis.

When the east coast fishery collapsed, emergency aid was provided. When the ice storm happened, emergency aid was provided. When the Manitoba flood occurred, emergency aid was provided.

Farming is in crisis. Now is the time to provide our farm families with emergency aid.

[Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act, November 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP present this evening vote no on this motion.

[Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act, November 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, NDP members present this evening vote no on this motion.

[Division No. 255, November 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP present will vote yes on this matter.

[Supply, November 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I went to the Council of Europe, an organization which meets quarterly in Europe. It is members of parliament from all European and eastern European countries. They have a number of committees which discuss the various issues, including economics and agriculture.

I asked the agriculture committee about three years ago what it was planning on doing with subsidizing agriculture in its countries. This was the year when the Liberal government eliminated the Crow benefit to Canada farmers. The Crow benefit was a transportation rate, a subsidy which provided producers with an opportunity to sell their products to market under the old Crow benefit.

It was eliminated by the government because it said WTO warrants the elimination of this subsidy. So it is gone. It has been gone for three years.

The Europeans told me they would never sacrifice their farmers for the U.S.A. with respect to subsidies. They also told me they have five years under WTO to address the subsidy issues. We are three years down the road and subsidies in Europe are as high as they have ever been, rightly or wrongly. We have in our country abandoned our farmers. We have no national agriculture policy.

Because the Americans and the Europeans have not sacrificed their farmers by eliminating subsidies, would the Leader of the Opposition support subsidies for our farmers now in view of the fact that there is a crisis in our farm communities?

[Petitions, November 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present a petition on behalf of Canadians who are very concerned about the multilateral agreement on investment. They are worried that this agreement, if signed, will hamper our sovereignty and will limit the social programs that we have.

Obviously they are very concerned that Donald Johnston of the OECD, who is the Canadian heading up that organization, is trying to get this agreement signed on behalf of very large multinational corporations which will negatively affect Canadians.

They are skeptical of the assurances that the MAI is dead and, therefore, are asking parliament, if the MAI is resurrected, to not sign as a country.

[Petitions, November 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce today, pursuant to Standing Order 36, a petition signed by many Canadians. In particular, it is signed by people from Bellefeuille and Montreal, Quebec; Thunder Bay, Ontario; and other places.

The petitioners are very concerned about the Liberal government's GST plans and the fact that it has broken its promise to eliminate the GST.

They also oppose the creation of the super tax collection agency, which is the privatization of something that is very near and dear to the pocketbooks of every Canadian. They are asking the Government of Canada to undertake a fair tax reform of the system.

[Agriculture, October 29th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government got suckered by Europe and the Americans at the international trade talks. They raced right home to chop farm subsidies and the Crow rate while the Europeans and Americans chopped nothing.

This government's gullibility would be laughable if the consequences were not so serious for our farmers. European parliamentarians told me there was no way they were sacrificing their farmers.

Why is this government sacrificing our farmers? Why is it hanging Canadian farmers out to dry?