Roy H. Bailey

[Petitions, April 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, of all the difficulties we are having at the present time and of all the many petitions, this one is becoming the most referred to petition this year. It is a petition which deals with the terminology and the permanency of the terminology of marriage.

Pursuant to Standing Order 36, this petition verifies that people throughout my constituency claim that it is the duty of parliament to ensure that marriage, as it has always been known and understood in Canada, be preserved and protected.

[Code Of Ethics, April 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House, as we finish this debate tonight, that my colleague and I are not holding any malice or prejudice. We want something that Canadians are asking for.

All of us in this House were elected to represent the people. If I did not go back often to my constituency and report to my constituents, I can imagine what their reaction would be.

When somebody has the honour of not only being elected but being appointed to the cabinet, which is an additional responsibility, we want and Canadians want that person to not only follow the code of ethics as an MP, as a cabinet minister and as someone serving in Her Majesty's government, but to also be more accountable to the people they serve.

All members of parliament are here to adhere to a code of ethics, a code that should be and is available to the public. However, the code of ethics which belongs to the executive branch, or the cabinet, is not made public. We believe that to be a disgrace.

There is a national trend around the country. School boards and businesses are publishing a code of ethics. We believe that it would be in the interest of not only the government but all Canadians to have a public code of ethics.

In the last two weeks my office was able to obtain a ministerial code of ethics from the following countries: Brazil, Germany, Israel, Japan, the United Kingdom, the United States and the European Union.

We have been asking the Prime Minister for over five years for a ministerial code of ethics. Some great democracies have made their codes of ethics public. As a matter of interest to members, many of these codes of ethics from our fellow democracies are on the Internet. However, our country is keeping company with countries like China and North Korea who do not release any information.

I suppose the question that Canadians are most often asked is the question I want to ask the Prime Minister. What about openness? If he does not want his personal ethics and honesty called into account, why does he not just release the ministerial code of ethics to the public?

In today's world one not only has to be honest but one has to appear as honest. We could do a lot of good in this country and have a better image of this institution, parliament, if indeed we had this code.

I want to quote from an article in which the Prime Minister said the following:

I respect those who disagree with decisions I have made as Prime Minister. I welcome honest debate about the policy directions set by my government. But I will never countenance unwarranted attacks upon my personal ethics and honesty.

We believe that to be a fair statement. However, in the same article the Prime Minister goes on to say:

For 36 years I have conducted myself in an honest and ethical fashion and have tried to do my best for the people of my riding.

That is an admirable statement. This Prime Minister could go down in glory. The Prime Minister could leave with real credibility when he retires by introducing a code of ethics. It would be to his honour, to the honour of Canadians and certainly to the honour of all elected officials, including myself.

He is now in the position of not only being a Prime Minister who is responsible to his constituency, but he and his government is also in a position to make a significant change in how Canadians view their government. He is in a position to make a significant change in how Canadians should want to see their cabinet.

There are two basic questions which must be asked. First, is there a separate code of ethics for the cabinet? Second, like other democracies, will the Prime Minister make that document public?

[Supply, April 13th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am not exactly the youngest member in the House. I have lived in my home province for a long time. I have never seen more of an irritant in my province, and I am sure in the other provinces, as the AIDA package that just came out.

I am keeping track of this and I will make a pronouncement right now that the agitation in the west is so great there will be more of these forms thrown in the wastepaper basket than will be returned to the government. It costs up to $500 for those who are not computer based to get the forms filled out.

In the experience of my colleague from Saskatoon—Humboldt, are his farmers as irritated as mine? I have only had two farmers admit that they filled out the forms. I wonder what will be the result in the province of Saskatchewan.

[Kosovo, April 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my learned colleague for the message he brought to the House and indeed his colleague who spoke before him.

When we hear the news, as all Canadians have, we hear mention of the Serbian army and then the Serbian police. Obviously both are involved in this conflict. It would seem to me they are involved for different reasons.

I attempted to distinguish between them and all I could gather was that the Serbian police were a specially selected, specially trained SWAT team. From the information I can get many of the atrocities are associated with the police.

If this is the case and we bring it to a conclusion, will it be more difficult to attach blame to the police rather than the military?

[Kosovo, April 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. He made one statement that really touched me when he said that war had no winners. When we take a look at the issues that were confronting us in World War I and again in World War II certainly that is true.

Would the hon. member not agree, if we bring this to a successful conclusion, that the only people who could be winners would not necessarily be the Serbs or the Kosovars who are fighting but the women, children and elderly? If we can provide them with homes again and give them their freedom, I believe they would be the only true winners who could come out of this conflict. I would like the hon. member to comment.

[Division No. 354, March 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. members who have just spoken from this side of the House. I want to invite you, Mr. Speaker, members of this House and members of the listening audience to come on a little journey and meet two people who live right in the middle of my constituency of Souris—Moose Mountain.

Dan and Louise are just past 40. They have one child in high school and two in elementary school. I want to talk about what they know at the present time and the conditions they are living with. Later I will be able to inform them of what this government is doing to them.

In the middle of my constituency is the city of Weyburn. It is the largest inland buying centre in Canada. While we in this House debate the PSAC agreement—and we will probably get into doing something which nobody on this side of the House wants to do—Dan and Louise only know one thing. They do not even know what PSAC stands for, but they do know that sitting in the bins of western Canada is $3 billion worth of wheat. They also know that the shipments were stalled for a few days because of the grain weighers.

What they do not know is why they did this. They do not know the reason this government has deliberately and consciously driven them into that act.

What they do know is that the wheat board's monopolized exports are down not 70% from what they were a year ago, indeed not 60% from what they were a year ago, but 56% from what they were a year ago.

What this young couple on the farm now knows is that with spring around the corner they cannot even turn last year's board grain into cash simply because the grain is not moving.

What this House should know, what this government should know, and what Dan and Louise know, is that at one time when they first started farming Canada's share of the wheat production for sale was 21.5%. What this government should recognize is that Canada's wheat share is going to drop to slightly below 12%.

If this government were at all sensitive to people's needs it would understand that, in the typical style of this government, it pits one group against another, rural against urban and central provinces against outer provinces. It has a mere 38% and that is how it governs.

That is what is before us now. Dan and Louise who live out there are not anti-PSAC. When this country gets to know the full story, it will be anti-government. Make no mistake about that.

Grain sales are down considerably. Farmers have not been paid for last year's crop. Dan and Louise lost $80,000 last year and it is for sure that they will be down $80,000 again this year. They do not really care, but when an opportunity comes along to move their grain they want it to be moved.

I will make another announcement that this government is insensitive to, and it cannot blame this on PSAC. When Dan and Louise go to fill their fuel tank this spring they will see a 10% increase. It has already happened. To an agricultural industry that is struggling to get by, this government sits idly by and says “We did not get much support out there anyway, so what is it to us?” It is the number one industry in our province and certainly number one in my constituency. Farmers have to enter the field this spring with a double whammy: no money for last year's sale and the prospect of paying more for fuel.

In the next few days farmers will be lining up to pick up their AIDA packages. When they apply for the government aid package they will need to come well equipped. Their wife's purse will not be large enough. It is 40 pages. I took one off the Internet and I phoned an accountant who said that he would not even complete one without a fee of somewhere between $200 and $500.

That is the insensitive part of this government. It is far worse than income tax. It is something that most farmers are simply going to throw in the air in desperation and say that it is typical Liberal style. The Liberals will hire more people to administer and figure this thing out than the farmers will get. I call that a thousand dollar lottery because farmers will not find out until summer if they are even eligible for the package.

Why is this government always part of a problem? Why does it deliberately solve the problem of 500 people who belong to the correctional service, who got through the loopholes, by saying “If somehow we can pass this bill we can cure it”, but the opposition gets mud in its face? It is very good at scheming these things.

I could tell Dan and Louise the hourly wage of the 70 PSAC members who are striking. I could tell them that this government really has not even dealt with them sincerely for 15 years. That is what they need to know. When Dan and Louise know that, they will not be angry at PSAC, they will be angry at this government.

The government exaggerates and personifies total disrespect for people who are marginal in this country. The 70 frustrated members did what they had to do and held up shipments across the west.

Certainly the farmers were angry about that. Certainly they were angry about the fact that they lost $9 million. I know one thing. I will do everything that I can, in any way possible, to make sure my constituents, who are basically farmers, understand the real reason behind that stoppage of grain. That side of the House is the reason. The problem is on that side of the House. It is not PSAC.

Farmers need to sell last year's crop before they can plant this year's crop. The government's control has done so much that farmers simply do not have any money to put their crops in. The people on the government benches do not believe that.

In the last seven land sale packages which were held in my constituency, there was not one bid. There was not one bid in some of the richest land in Saskatchewan. Part of this has to rest right on the government benches opposite. Not only that, when the government offered an aid package to which I alluded earlier, the government has made it so complicated that most of the farmers are simply going to write “return to sender” on it.

The government should listen to what the union is saying about final selection and negotiated settlement. It should listen to what every party on this side of the House is saying. The government should simply go back to binding arbitration. Everybody would be happy. We would not be forced to stand here today faced with a vote later on. We should not have to do this. If it were offered, PSAC would accept binding arbitration today.

What is the matter with the government? The government likes its Bill C-68. It keeps the people unhappy. The people are unhappy and the government can govern and that is all that matters.

Back to work legislation should never be used. It should only be used as a last resort. The government has the power to stop this back to work legislation now, this afternoon. The government has the power to call in the members and privy council and say that it will offer binding arbitration.

People across Canada, including the union, would be happy, but the government does not want it that way. The government wants back to work legislation, but it does not want Canadians to understand it. The government does not want the farmers in my constituency to understand what it is doing. The government does not want the people in Nova Scotia to understand what it is doing. The government just wants the elected few to understand, to manipulate this House and twist this country about.

The government has not bargained in good faith. Let me repeat that the government has not bargained in good faith, and we are now left with this last ditch effort.

What would Dan and Louise say to this government? “If you come west and you are looking at why you have alienated the west, you had better bring some earplugs and be prepared to sit down because the long list of complaints will keep you busy all afternoon”.

What we are about to do today is a disgrace. It is totally unnecessary, totally un-Canadian and totally against every principle of the democratic process. I hope between now and this evening the government can somehow come to its good senses.

[The Senate, March 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, members of parliament are accountable to the public and last year they received a 2% increase in their office budgets. Members of the senate who are not accountable to the public gave themselves a 6% increase this year on top of the 10% increase they gave themselves last year for a total of 16%.

The Senate has it so good that it has decided not only—

[Supply, March 4th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I would like to quickly put a question to my colleague. What we are doing here is asking that a system be set up so we can look to end this discrimination. My colleague knows very well that there are many people opposite who want to end this discrimination.

When does my colleague think the whip came down and said “no, we will vote against it” and for what reason? Can the member think of any reason they would defeat a motion that is so fundamentally clear and honest?

[Supply, March 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to hear the hon. member talk about choice. In my particular case, when our children came along, I was married to a professional teacher. She was a very professional mother. We are glad we made that choice.

Would the member not agree that the tax situation we have forces that parent not to become a professional parent and that they both have to go out and work simply because of the tax system?

I saw a cute little sign some time ago that I believe belongs on the other side of the House. I will see if my hon. colleague agrees: “A woman's place is in the home and she should go there right after work”. That is the attitude of this government. I wonder if the hon. member would agree with that.

[Supply, March 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the NDP member for her comments. I appreciated her stating very clearly that we on this side of the House have talked about this problem over and over again. The first question was that we have spent too much time talking about APEC and all of these things. Was it this side of the House that provided the fuel for all that debate? Did we bring up the debate? Where did all the fuel for the debate come from?