Roy H. Bailey

[Supply, November 22nd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I have been listening today to the comments and the back and forth dialogue across the House. Would the hon. member not admit that what we are establishing within the treaty is a brand new level of government? Never before have we had such a level of government created in Canada.

With that said, is it not possible or is it most likely that once the treaty is passed there will be 130 or more across Canada who will want to follow almost the exact wording of this treaty? The treaty is probably the most socially important piece of legislation we will face in the next century.

The member should not stand here and tell me that this is a bunch of nonsense. People from coast to coast want to know where it will go next. Will the government and this member justify six or seven treaties going on in my constituency within the next two years once this one is passed?

[Petitions, November 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to present to the House 254 pages of signatures from people from the three prairie provinces. What the petitioners are asking for is related to my private member's bill which I introduced today, which is that the federal Access to Information Act should pertain to the Canadian Wheat Board.

[Access To Information Act, November 22nd, 1999]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-329, an act to amend the Access to Information Act.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have my colleague from Yorkton—Melville second this bill.

The bill proposes to amend the Access to Information Act. Basically it would make the books and all the procedures and operations of the Canadian Wheat Board available to people who want to process the information two years after the crop year ends.

People from across western Canada have been crying for this for years.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Agriculture, November 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, AIDA-I denied over 70% of the applicants any funding whatsoever. Time is of the essence, not by the month but by the day.

Will the minister personally assure the farmers who did not qualify for AIDA-I that they will not have to wait as long for their financing and the money they deserve from AIDA-II?

[Agriculture, November 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the government through the agriculture minister has announced AIDA-II. Most farmers, all farm organizations, all farm related industries, all MPs and all Saskatchewan senators who relate to our crisis have spoken out against AIDA-I.

Does the minister realize how many farms and how many farm families have been destroyed because the government deliberately and callously said no to AIDA-I?

[The Late Alfred Pullen Gleave, November 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of Saskatchewan, members of parliament from Saskatchewan and the party that I represent, I am pleased to pay tribute to a man who not only came from Saskatchewan and made Saskatchewan people proud of his efforts, but a man who, like so many people from my province, was proud to come from that province which often suffers great adversity.

As has already been mentioned, he was a grain farmer, but his interests, like so many grain farmers, went beyond the actual farm itself. Alf wanted to do something for all of Saskatchewan. His quest and his goal was to do just that.

He served as president of the Saskatchewan Farmers' Union as well as the National Farmers' Union. He gave much of his time and provided Canada with much insight into the agricultural situation in Saskatchewan. As my hon. colleague from Regina—Qu'Appelle mentioned, he also served on many boards, sometimes in an advisory capacity. He was indeed a credit to Saskatchewan.

I bring to the House a quote of Alf's. He wrote that each generation must fight for what it wants because good things do not just happen. That statement was never more true than it is today. That is exactly why we will find a real fight going on in all of Saskatchewan, in all of the west, in the hope of saving, in many cases, fifth generation farmers from complete disaster.

Farmers who lived through the thirties did not just complain about the living conditions; they went out and did something about them. Sometimes adversity brings about strong character. That is exactly what Alf Gleave gave to Canada, to the House and to the New Democratic Party.

I am proud to have lived very close for 12 years to the seat that Alf represented in the House.

It was Alf's sincerity, courage and dedication that has made a tremendous example for people to follow that goes beyond political parties.

On behalf of my party and on behalf of all of the people in the House, I want to extend our condolences to his family and to everyone everywhere in Canada who remembered him fondly.

[Supply, October 28th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, on the basis of what I have learned in the papers prior to coming back to the House and on the basis of what I have learned from asking questions, there is an element there that says it was an unfair situation. I do not think there is any question about it. I think the general public agrees with it.

The big question that should be asked and one that only the minister can answer is whether this was necessary. If we ever get an answer to the question of whether it was necessary to change the 10% at this time, I suspect we will find that maybe the 10% was put there for an obvious reason. However, it appears that it is being changed at this time because there is an unfair situation for one of the people who are presently bidding. I do not think there is any question about that.

There is another thing I want to mention about the dominant carrier. I have great fear that without some discussion and debate in the House, we will need to have some regulatory legislation in this industry in the years ahead. If that will be the case, and I fully suspect it will be, I hope it will come to the House. I hope it does not take place as this issue has in the past.

[Supply, October 28th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would have liked to have had a pre-consultation. I think we had plenty of time before the House opened in late September. I could not see any reason for not calling together the Standing Committee on Transport. We could have had the same witnesses as we are having now. At least those people assigned from each of the political parties in the House would have had a chance to update this. We would have been able to spend more time discussing the matter with our colleagues who do not happen to be on the transport committee.

I believe the major flaw in the whole process was that the government did not see fit to ask the Standing Committee on Transport to meet as early as possible after the gates were opened.

[Supply, October 28th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if I can follow the same act. I suggest that this debate did not come to the floor of the House like the great historic transportation debates that took place in the past.

If we went back to Confederation and the years thereafter, the House and the committee spent months on the great transportation debate: The building of a railway across Canada, the national dream. The only thing in the last 100 years even comparable to that was a little bill called the national highway strategy program which was a piece of paper.

This is the big issue for this century. In the closing days of this century this will be the biggest transport issue since 1900 until the new millennium comes in. The most unfortunate thing is that the House first learned of everything that was going on through the papers. Most of what Canadians know about this great debate and the merger they learned through the papers.

I sit on the transport committee. I have enjoyed very much talking to some very key witnesses. Canadians phone me and ask if the same rules apply to everybody. They want to know if there is a level playing field. I cannot answer those questions but I have my suppositions. However, whatever happens in this great debate that will always remain in the minds of the people.

I want to congratulate my colleagues in the Bloc Party for bringing this to the floor of the House. Whether I agree with the 10% increase or not is not the issue. In the past, when we had these great transportation debates, we always brought in capital from all over the world to help us. This happened with the railway and originally with the airline industry.

What we have here is an emergency. I did not create that emergency. None of the parties on this side of the House created the emergency. It was going on. Unfortunately, the story broke when the House was not in session.

It was not only awkward for me and other members of the committee to hear statements being made when we were in our home constituencies, but two days before we arrived here I read in the paper who the new chairman of the transport committee was going to be.

I do not know if that was a charade, but we usually go through the actions of a committee meeting before making a decision as to who the chair will be. The second order of business would be to choose what topic we were going to discuss. That was pre-announced. I am not arguing about that because I think that would have happened anyway. What I am arguing about is that, unfortunately, and I am not blaming anyone, the House will never have the time, because of the urgency of this matter, to properly debate the issue.

I see the minister is here. I believe he has given us a timetable of something like November 26. Our last witness in the transport committee will appear on November 24.

Mr. Speaker, I failed to announce that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.

What was the immediate Canadian reaction? What are some of the questions? My phone lines have been busy with people asking if this is a fair procedure. The government will have to answer that. Is it a fair procedure?

The next question they ask is: Will it keep the regional airlines intact? Coming from the west, they have fallen in love with WestJet. We have received some assurances in committee that would take place but I would like to see that on paper.

The fundamental question is: If there is only one dominant domestic air carrier within Canada in the future, could it really be said that a monopoly exists given that there is a relative freedom of entry into the industry? I think that is a big question.

Provided a carrier can obtain a licence and meet the initial financial fitness test, should financial fitness be assessed on an ongoing basis? We have used the word “dominant” to replace the word “monopoly”, with the exception of some regional carriers. I submit that we will, even if it is not a necessity, go to a dominant, monopoly carrier.

I have to ask if that is really necessary at this time. I am not so concerned about where we get the money. I would suggest to my friends in the Bloc that I do not care where the money comes from for these ventures, whether it comes from Germany, France or the United States. In the history of the United States, when it developed much of its money came from Germany.

At any one time we have always had about 10% of the population of the United States. We have heard from witnesses that our major role and major profit in this industry goes south. That part does not worry me. I do not think we should have limitations. That is where I disagree with the Bloc.

I wish I was in a position today to make some guarantees about the future of the airline industry in Canada. Unfortunately, we have only had but a few weeks with just a few hours left before the decision is made. Let us hope for the travelling public, those who must use the airline, that it is a good decision and that the House will in the future be notified in plenty of time to have a debate on this great issue, as it did with the railways and other great transportation issues, on the floor of the House and in no other place.

[Supply, October 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the hon. member should happen to refer to that. If he wants to know Reform policy I can give it to him straight out. We are there when help is needed. He should not ever let anyone fool him that we will not be there to help on a fair and equitable scale.

I will get to the question by the hon. member. We are saying that if the government were to get rid of many of its taxation policies it would not have to worry about programs like this one. It would not have to tell over half the farmers in Saskatchewan that they would not get a cent. Reform policy is to look after everybody fairly, not just so that a few get money and the others do not.