Gary Lunn

[Supply, February 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Calgary Southeast for his riveting speech. When this member gets up to speak, he speaks with such knowledge on the subject and based on his record with the taxpayers' federation that he is obviously an authority on the subject.

It is ironic. I was speaking with good friends of mine, Troy Lanigan and Robert Pauliszyn of the taxpayers' federation, who say that we have the formula exactly right. The taxpayers' federation is agreeing with us: 50% debt reduction and 50% tax relief.

Because the other side cannot seem to get it, would the member explain to them in quite simple terms how tax relief will stimulate the economy? They do not seem to understand.

[Supply, February 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I will continue to try to participate in the debate. Leaving all the politics aside, it is fine for the government side to say that you did this in 1984, but the reality is that we are now in 1998 and taxes are choking the country, choking our youth. I hear examples of it over and over again.

I am speaking in support of the motion. I wish I had 10 minutes but I do not, so I cannot make a lot of points. However, I want to say that we must have a tax system which ensures people stay in the country and which works for all Canadians.

[Supply, February 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the leader of the Tory Party for this motion. We are on the eve of a new budget that will be coming down within a few days. This is an issue that I hope all members will take dear to their hearts. It is a very important one.

We talk about the brain drain and I hear people laugh at that. It is for real. I have to agree with the leader. I was visiting family over the weekend. In speaking with my brother-in-law, they are actively pursuing employment south of the border. These are people who were born in Canada, lived in Canada and have been here all their lives.

[Small Business Loans Act, February 16th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to observe that my friend from across the House was taking notice of Reform so much, accusing us of rhetoric, although I do not know if he is concerned.

Listening to this debate, what concerns me is that it goes back to the same old Liberal ways of doing business. Their way to solve a problem is to throw money at it. They do not think beyond the first level. They say they are going to solve this by throwing more money at it and the problem will go away.

If any party has supported small business, it is the Reform Party. We have worked very hard toward that.

The problem here is not giving more money to the small business program. It is the taxes that have been imposed on the small businesses. That is where the real problem lies.

Look at the employment insurance provisions and the taxes there. The Canada pension plan is the single largest tax grab in the history of this country. Who does it affect the most? It affects small businesses. Their premiums will go up significantly. If the tax structure were made a lot more friendly especially for small businesses starting out, they would have a much better chance of being successful.

Their idea is to throw money at them and hope that the problem goes away. We all know in that when businesses are starting out they have a very difficult time, especially in their infancy, when they are starting out, in their first year. The percentage of businesses that go under is very high.

I suggest to this government that it look at the tax structure and at providing incentives for these businesses as opposed to just throwing money at them. Too often we have seen examples of this government, how it gets itself out of messes and again it is the old spend, spend, spend.

We are very concerned on this side of the House that as we approach a balanced budget, and we know we are getting there, we may be there now, the shopping lists are coming out from all the ministers. We know they are lined up at the Prime Minister's door and this is just an example of one of them.

Yes, we have some grave concerns. Let me give a few examples of how the Liberals just throw money at problems. We have seen the Airbus scandal. How did they solve that? Pull out the cheque book and keep offering more and more until they finally accept. There is the solution.

Look at the Pacific salmon dispute on the west coast. We saw all these lawsuits coming forward and the government trying to broker a deal. Alaskans have lawsuits against Canadian fishermen to the tune of $3 million. Our government's solution is to offer them a $2.7 million settlement.

Again, just throw money at it instead of really going to the heart of the problem and trying to find the solution. It has not done anything. It is the same situation there.

Again I suggest to the members opposite that throwing another billion dollars into the small loans program may be great for a few businesses that will have access to more money, but if they have sound, viable business plans and they go to the banks, they will have no problem securing financing.

I will sum up in a few words. Do not throw money at the problem like always, look at the real problem, cutting taxes.

[European Common Market, February 16th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from South Shore for bringing the motion forward. I admit that I do not know a lot about the pinewood nematode, the beetle in the wood which is causing the ban of the export of Canadian forest products to Europe. However I would like to bring this debate to the larger picture.

I am from British Columbia. The issue of trade barriers to softwood lumber is very big as it threatens the forest industry in British Columbia. In light of that I support anything we can do to remove all trade barriers.

I thank my hon. friend opposite for his comments. He advised us that a study is under way.

I do not know if the forest industry in British Columbia right now is in a crisis situation but it is definitely moving in that direction. We constantly read in the newspapers and see on the evening news items about sawmills and forest product companies that are going under. A lot of it is due to the difficulties and challenges they face today, some of the difficulties and challenges being trade barriers and access to foreign markets.

In the last few years the forest industry in British Columbia has faced trade barriers with the United States which have had a devastating impact on the industry as a whole. The industry has had to fight to overcome those barriers. I believe the House is aware of those trade barriers.

We are moving toward globalized trade. Trade barriers are coming down. If we are to succeed as a nation with all of our forest products we will have to fight to ensure that trade barriers are eliminated and that Canada's interests are first and foremost.

Having said that, when the government considers this study I ask it to look at all potential markets. We must do everything we can do to eliminate trade barriers to ensure that our producers have access to as many markets as possible and that there are no unfair practices and scientific data that are unchallenged which we believe are incorrect and will pose threats to our forest industry.

The hon. member for South Shore quite correctly pointed out that our 69 cent dollar to the U.S. is an incentive for Americans to purchase our softwood lumber products. However it may not be that way all the time. I understand that if our currency increases by one cent it represents hundreds of millions of dollars to the Canadian forest industry alone. I believe that 85% of British Columbia's market is exported to the United States.

My colleague from Vancouver Island North, who is a professional forester, will probably be able to speak better than me on the technical aspects. However, bringing this back to the larger picture, the motion is very specific to one insect or bug that is within our softwood lumber and is causing the European ban. I am not sure of the answer.

Also I would like to ask the government when it does its study, whether with respect to the pinewood nematode this is targeted at the Christmas tree industry or where it is specifically generated. It sounds like the trade barriers are having far reaching repercussions to all of our softwood lumber. British Columbia produces a majority of softwood lumber. Does this ban also apply there? What can we do to ensure that our forestry companies have access to these markets?

I support the member for South Shore in his initiative to have a study brought forward on this. I ask to have the larger picture looked at to ensure that our forest companies have access to as many markets as possible.

[Access To Information Act, February 12th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to participate in the debate on Bill C-208, an act to amend the Access and Information Act introduced by my hon. colleague from Brampton West—Mississauga. I want to commend her for her hard work in bringing this private member's bill forward.

We in the Reform Party believe that government must be accountable to the Canadian people. For too long governments have been ignoring their constituents and, once elected, stop being accountable to the very same people who elected. The affairs of government are often done in complete secrecy.

We in the Reform Party believe that Canadians have a stake in government affairs as duly representatives and must ensure that our actions are open to public scrutiny. The Access to Information Act was introduced with just that intent, to ensure that information collected for public purposes, paid for by the taxpayers of Canada, remained accessible to them. I will speak about that in a moment and give some specific examples.

However, that has not been the case. There are numerous examples of the Liberal government taking it upon itself to decide unilaterally what is good for Canadians without talking to them. It decides what the public should know and what it should not know. The Somalia inquiry is one example. We have talked about that for a long time. The Krever inquiry is another example which was mentioned by my colleague from Alberta today.

This is an example with which I am more familiar. It is a recent example about which I have been questioning the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans over the last two weeks. I have been pushing the government to release the foreign observer reports which the minister refuses to make public. We want to know what he is hiding from the Canadian public.

These reports contain vital information pertaining to the fisheries crisis, yet the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is hiding behind the Access to Information Act, saying that he would be breaking the law if he were to release them. That is what he said, that he would be breaking the law.

I would like to read into the record the section of the act which the minister is referring to, and he has done so in writing: “Subject to this section, the head of the government institution shall refuse to disclose any record requested under this act that contains financial, commercial, scientific or technical information”, and that is what I believe he is referring to, “that is confidential information supplied to a government institution by a third party and is treated consistently in a confidential manner by a third party”. That is what he is hiding behind. Yes, it sounds pretty reasonable. I can decide what is good for the public and what should be allowed to be released.

Let me go on. Subsection 6 states: “The head of the government institution may disclose any record under this act”—and he has received lots of written requests—“or any part thereof that contains information described in paragraphs 1(b), (c) or (d)”, which is what I have just read, “if that disclosure is in the public interest”—and I do not think that is too hard to defend—“and it relates to public health, public safety or the protection of the environment”. Lo and behold, the environment is being destroyed by the offshore trawlers. It is well documented. Our resources are being depleted. Yet this minister refuses to disclose the reports.

I again commend the hon. member for bringing forward this private member's bill. Information is vital to members of public. They pay for it. They have a right to it. Yet we have a minister who wants to offer information in confidence. He continues to say “I will give it to you in an in camera session”. I want to emphasize that it is not me who wants this information, it is the public. It not only wants it, it has a right to it.

We have to move forward to make sure the public is allowed to obtain this information. Even his own colleague, the hon. member for Gander—Grand Falls, recognizes the vital importance of this information and was condemning this minister for withholding these documents from the Canadian public.

Yes, the minister has offered an in camera session. The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans is now drafting a report. We will be making recommendations to the government on the state of the east coast fisheries.

We are about to table the report. It is in its final stages. The information is overwhelming with respect to the offshore fishery. I think that will be well noted. That is why we are after this. We are after this for the interests of Canadians and fishermen. Nobody has a personal private agenda, which we have been accused of. We are here to represent the people of Canada, whose tax dollars paid to train these observers. They paid for them yet they are not allowed to see what is going on. It is absolutely appalling.

I have another example. I have a constituent who, unfortunately, is the widow of one of our military personnel, Master Corporal Rick Wheller, who was killed during a military exercise in April 1992. It was a very sad accident. For over five years since his death his widow Christina has attempted to obtain truthful answers from DND regarding the circumstances and the safety regulations. Again this has to do completely with access to information. She has made numerous requests and has been promised these reports. The reports she has received had missing pages, blanked out information, and the list goes on and on. I could go through the dates she has been there and the promises. She was promised a report last December by senior officials of the department. They will not release it. To date, she has not received this information. It is an absolute disgrace.

This widow of one of our military people wants to know what happened to her husband. It is five years later and the minister will not release the information. She still does not have it. It is an absolute disgrace.

Taxpayers want this information. It is access to information. I commend the member for introducing legislation that, if anything, will go further in making sure these records are not destroyed and are protected. We have seen incidents where they have been shredded or have gone missing. It is very important that the public has access.

Those are just a few examples. Without all the facts we are not able to provide solutions to this crisis. We are looking for solutions. We are trying to stand up for the taxpayers. We want a government that knows what is good for Canadians and their children.

Bill C-208 proposes to amend the Access to Information Act. It would provide sanctions against persons who destroy or falsify government records.

I have just given two examples of this. I have been fighting with the minister of fisheries to get a public document. He wants to stand behind the very act we are talking about. Shamefully he will not give us the information. I have spoken to many people and they all agree it is in the public interest and is destroying the environment. Now we have an act that is giving the minister discretion.

It states that the minister may. I would like to amend it further to state the minister must. Now we have an act that gives the minister of fisheries and any other minister discretion on what they would like to release.

At least this bill will ensure the information is not destroyed. I hope all my colleagues are listening. This boils down to information the public pays for and is entitled to. We should ensure that the safeguard of this information is fundamental. We should stand up and fight for people who have a right to what they pay for.

[Fisheries, February 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, let me tell the minister a few facts.

His own officials told the committee this morning that there are presently 22 foreign factory freezer trawlers off the coast of Canada. I have in my possession 21 letters from Canadian fish companies asking for these quotas which they are being denied.

Will the minister now tell us that he will not renew any foreign quotas to anyone until Canadian fishermen and Canadian plant workers are back to work?

[Fisheries, February 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans said yesterday that Canadian fishermen have access to foreign quotas. He said “It is only when they choose not to fish that the offer is made to foreign fleets”. How dare this minister accuse Canadian fishermen of choosing not to fish. He knows that is not true. Will the minister apologize to Canadian fishermen right now for his false accusations?

[Fisheries, February 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, hundreds of foreign trawlers, better known as floating fish plants, licensed by this government continue to fish in Canadian waters while our plants and fishermen sit idle.

Our fishermen want access to these foreign quotas, not TAGS II. Why does this government force thousands of Canadians on to assistance while it watches foreigners fish in our waters?

I also want to remind the minister with respect to observer reports to read the Access to Information Act because he does not have a clue what it is about.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, February 9th, 1998]

Where have I been? I have been in the House. I have written four maiden speeches and have been fully prepared at least three or four times, but the government brought closure and I was unable to make my speech.

Those in my riding watching would wonder why I would be speaking about the Canadian Wheat Board in the House as member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, especially my maiden speech. I would like it to be very meaningful and will get to it in a minute.

In all sincerity I want to speak a little about my predecessor who worked very hard. He was very well respected among all political parties in my riding, Mr. Jack Frazer. I pay tribute to Jack and to his wife, June, for the hard work and his commitment to the House for the four years preceding me.

It is an honour to stand in the House—and I have spoken a few times in question period—to represent the views of the constituents of Saanich—Gulf Islands who elected me with such an overwhelming majority and to ensure they are heard. I admit it has been a very frustrating experience for me because many times I have been silenced not only at this level but at committee as well. I have found it an incredibly frustrating experience not to be able to speak in the House and represent their views.

That brings me to the Group No. 4 amendments we are talking about today. I look at this issue as not so much the Canadian Wheat Board but what this is all about: democracy versus dictatorship and ethics.

These amendments could apply to all government ministries. That is what we are talking about. The government is proposing what it wants to call a mixed enterprise. I note that the western grain marketing panel in July 1996, after a year long study, suggested that the government needed to operate the Canadian Wheat Board like a business.

I am involved with the fisheries committee. Ironically, after touring both Atlantic Canada and western Canada, we heard exactly the same thing from some 15 to 20 communities, that government needed to operate the board like a business.

Here is what the Liberals are suggesting. We are to have an elected board. Lo and behold, what is their definition of democracy? They are going to allow 10 officials to be elected but they want to appoint five of their political hacks to the board.

More important, who are they appointing to this board and in what positions? This is what I find absolutely appalling. They are to appoint a president and a CEO to the wheat board.

With any company I know or that I have been involved with, I recognize the power and the influence these two positions have over that entire board of directors. The government is doing nothing. It is still a dictatorship. There is no democracy. That is what I find so frustrating.

I urge all members who are listening to really look at what this means. This institution, this House, represents democracy. I am here because I believe in democracy. We see troubles all over the world. They stem when a country leans toward dictatorship rather than democracy. What the government is suggesting is an absolute dictatorship and nothing less. It is going to appoint five members and the president and CEO to this board. It is going to have control of this organization. I admit I do not know a lot about it, but the farmers will have no input in the direction of where this goes. What we have is a dictatorship.

I would like this House to recognize what is going on. The last four speakers have been from one political party. The Canadian Wheat Board is probably the most influential board and the most important board to the prairie provinces. Out of this entire democracy, this whole House, who is standing up on their behalf? I do not hear anybody from the NDP. I do not hear anybody from the Tories, the Liberals or the Bloc. If anyone spoke before the last four speakers from those parties, then I will acknowledge that. When I walked into this House, the only party speaking up for these people is the Reform Party. This is a major bill affecting Canada. The next part is about ethics.

The hon. member for Prince George—Peace River has put forward this motion. He is trying to incorporate what the government has been pushing for.

The government has been pushing for all Canadian businesses and corporations to be signatories to the international code of ethics for Canadian business. That is common sense. It sounds simple. The government wants all businesses and corporations to sign on to an ethics code for Canadian businesses. Guess what? Not the Canadian Wheat Board. We have our hands in that one. Imagine if we had to have those guys live by the code. We saw all about ethics in question period today. I will not go there, I would be here all afternoon.

When it comes to ethics, the government is out the window, it has no idea. It is trying to push the private sector to have a code of ethics, but when it comes to the wheat board, no sir. That would be terrible, some of our people are there. They would never be able to abide by those rules.

Although I do not have a prepared speech, like I have had in the past, this is a very important debate. It is about democracy and it is about ethics. It is about a board that is going to affect the prairie provinces. Probably the most significant piece of legislation that affects these provinces is the Canadian Wheat Board. These people are left with a dictatorship. There have been recommendations to have it run like a corporation. The government is totally ignoring that. It is consistent with what I have observed in fisheries. We need to run it like a business, but no, it has to come under the tight control of this government. By appointing the president and CEO, the government is not willing to give that up. I think it is shameful.

The big points are democracy and ethics. I would encourage all the members in this House to have a hard look at this. I will come back later and speak on the other groups and motions.