Betty Hinton

[Multiculturalism, October 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, last year the federal government gave NACSOW over $130,000. It cost Canadians another $80,000 to fund a conference where outrageous anti-American remarks were made.

We support freedom of speech. However, why does this government force taxpayers to pay for this kind of drivel?

[Multiculturalism, October 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the former president of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women said that American foreign policy is soaked in blood. Taxpayers paid $80,000 to fund the luncheon where Ms. Thobani made that speech.

Has the Prime Minister apologized to the American ambassador for sponsoring this meeting?

[Private Enterprise, October 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I recently learned of a 150 year old house in Kincardine, Ontario, that is being restored by local volunteers. By the time the house is completely restored the volunteers will have raised over $350,000 privately. They will have spent many thousands of hours working to preserve the heritage building. One board member of the non-profit heritage society doing the work said he thinks the reason behind the phenomenal success of the voluntary venture is that government is not involved.

For years the Canadian Alliance has advocated letting Canadians go about their business without government interference. The Canadian people are far better judges than any government when it comes to being creative and picking successes.

As elected members of the federal parliament it is not our job to dream up business ventures for people to pursue. It is our job to foster an environment that will allow Canadians to initiate their own endeavours without being shackled by government regulation.

[Business of Supply, October 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that I am new to the House and have had a lot of learning to do. Perhaps it is a benefit in this case because I do not consider anything the House has done to date as sacred and not able to be changed.

The initiative makes perfect sense to me. We are asking for transparency and accountability. I believe that is what the people of Canada want. Four billion dollars which is not accounted for goes to crown corporations in Canada. That makes absolutely no sense to me or to any other Canadian.

My background is in business. I have always had to be accountable. I have tried my best during the years to make sure I was fair. That is what Canada needs as well. It needs us to be fair to the Canadian people.

Government does not generate income. That is no secret. The income the government spends comes out of taxpayer dollars. It comes out of my pocket, the pockets of members and the pockets of every Canadian. Things must change, and this initiative would be a good way to start.

I had the good sense to marry an accountant, so I have not needed to do a lot of the book work that goes along with day to day things. However when it came to the office of MP that all had to change.

Probably the most interesting experience for me so far was attending an estimates meeting. I did not realize there was such a limited amount of time and so few opportunities to ask questions. I found it difficult to comprehend all the intricacies of the budget because I was not able to ask questions. The initiative would go a long way toward clearing up these things.

Anyone in my caucus will tell the House I do not follow the party line on issues I feel strongly about, so this is not about party politics or being partisan. It is about common sense. It makes perfect sense to me and to every Canadian that we should think about the way we spend Canadian tax dollars.

We are not doing that. We are spending $120 billion without any voice in the House. As members we represent people from across Canada. We have all been elected whether we sit on the opposition side of the House or the government side. We all have an obligation to make certain that money is spent properly.

I found it encouraging that both the House whip for the government and the Secretary of State for Asia-Pacific supported the initiative at the committee level. That is encouraging because it tells me this is not about partisan politics. It is about common sense and a better way to do things. We need to see the big picture in terms of where we are going, but we also need to be careful about how we proceed.

I have heard references today to the Internet. The Internet is a wonderful new tool that is available to some Canadians, though not all. The difficulty with the Internet is that while we are able to read information presented on it we do not have an explanation of it or an opportunity to ask questions.

We are talking about money here. We have come into a time when the world has turned itself upside down. We have many difficult problems to face. There are security risks we must take care of. There is a potential for a decline in revenue due to what is happening. I cannot think of a better time to take a strong and sober look at the way we do business in the House. This is important to us and we must do it.

We review every five years. There will be people in the House who will say the five year review is covered by elections. That is not quite the case. The Canadian people who fund the House can choose the person who comes here to represent them, but they do not have an opportunity or a voice to say how the money is spent. I do not see anything wrong with being accountable and transparent in our actions, especially when we are using money that comes from the pockets of Canadian taxpayers.

As I said earlier, nothing that goes on in the House is sacrosanct. We need to look at any way we can that might improve the way the House does business.

The most disappointing part for me as a new member of parliament is that if a good idea comes in front of the House, party politics quash it. When I summed it up to my children when I was talking to them about my new role, I said that when I hear a good idea I do not care where it comes from. If it makes sense I will support it.

Sometimes the attitude in the House can be summed up very easily: my dad is bigger than your dad. That is not what this is about. This is about looking after every person in Canada. It is not partisan party politics. It has to be common sense. Any time we have an opportunity as politicians to endorse accountability or transparency why would we not do so?

The reputation of politics in Canada has been tarnished. People have very little faith in their political representatives whether at the municipal, provincial or federal level.

Why? It is because we spend people's money without consulting them. We need to have an opportunity to take a good hard look at every dime we spend, stop thinking of it as found money and think of it as hard earned dollars. People are going without something in order to pay for that. If they are going to go without something in their own families where they work to earn their money and we have control over how it is spent, we had better spend it very carefully.

I will support the motion, not because it comes from my colleague the hon. member for St. Albert, but because it makes sense. I hope the House takes a different view of what is in front of it today and realizes that there was unanimous consent for it to go forward. It gives us an opportunity to ask those necessary questions and to make informed decisions.

I hope members of the House will join me today in supporting the motion. It may not be perfect, as my other colleague mentioned, but it is a pretty good first step and it is better than where we are today.

[Attack on the United States, September 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add the condolences of my constituency of Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys to all the people who have suffered so much in the last week.

I have listened carefully to the discussions today and have been able to agree with a lot of points that were made. There are also points that I do not agree with.

I have lost both parents, a sister and a child, so tragedy is no stranger to me. However what I have found happening in the last week is something that gives me courage. The worst of circumstances often bring out the best in people. We have seen evidence of that all across the country. That is heartening.

What I find disturbing in the House today is the confusion that seems to surround what is going on here. I have heard colleagues from the Bloc, the NDP and the government say that children being hungry is part of the problem.

The catalyst for hunger is war and the struggle for power, not the other way around. There are fanatical groups in the world who have taken it upon themselves to do whatever is necessary to bring their point of view across. As a result we have hungry people, but let us not confuse hungry people with the cause of their hunger. The cause of hunger is power and war, and that is what we must stop. We must do something about it in the House today.

We know that there are 50 terrorist groups operating in Canada. That is not finger pointing; that is fact. To take control over what happens in our nation and to our friends in other nations, we must put controls on that. I am hoping that as a House we will work together to make the necessary changes.

My colleague is the only member of the Muslim faith in the House. He has called for what I would call for: tolerance and respect for other people's religions. This has nothing to do with the Muslim religion; it has everything to do with the fanatical fringe. We must bear that in mind as we make these deliberations. We must make the changes that are needed to restore the sense of security of ourselves and of our nation. We need to defend what is dear to us. It is my supreme hope that we are able to do that as a team in the House.

[House Of Commons, June 13th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to be recorded as voting against the motion.

[Parliament Of Canada Act, June 6th, 2001]

Mr. Chairman, I listened very carefully today and I read the report thoroughly. There are parts of that report that I can agree with wholeheartedly. I agree completely with the abolition of the tax free portion of it. I agree with the independent body making the decision.

What I am have severe trouble with, and what was just confirmed by the House leader, is that if we choose to opt out because this is unpalatable to us, then we remain out forever more. That is ridiculous and is an unfair position to put anyone in.

I take exception to some of the things that were quoted today as well because they were inaccurate. One thing I take exception to is the fact that I can stand here and say in all honesty that I had no idea that this was coming forward. I have not been an MP for six years prior, and I did not know there had not been a raise in the last six years. It is reasonable to assume that if there has not been one in the last six years, it would come forward this year.

We also have the problem that by law it would be reviewed within the first six months of parliament. This does not come as a huge surprise to people who have been here before, but it does come as a huge surprise to myself.

I would also like to point out that some of the arguments which have been made regarding reducing it are valid arguments. I would accept a reduction. I have no difficulty with that at all. However, I do like to deal in realities and some of the things reported in the report stated that the Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association, a unionized group, paid $100,084 for the president, and that the director of Canadian affairs of the Sheet Metal Workers' International Association received $161,000 a year. Therefore, in terms of putting us on level with working people, these are working people.

I would like to see today a resolution to this that is fair, and I do not see that forthcoming. If we are going to leave people in a position where they have to make a choice between accepting this forever more, in the hope that they are going to serve for 10 or 15 more years, or opting out is a very unfair way of doing things. I really resent the way the legislation is being put forward.

If I was assured that opting out of this pay raise would allow me to opt out of other legislation, I could name them on my fingers in five seconds. My constituency would opt out of the gun legislation, the things that are sitting in front of us today about cruelty to animals and employment equity. I come from a ranching area and branding is an everyday part of life there, as is castration for animals. If I have the option, by opting out of this and I am allowed to opt out of other legislation, I will do so today.

[Health, June 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it still took six years. When someone pushes on a door and there is no resistance, they keep pushing.

Health Canada's resistance was so insignificant that the treatment centre's directors pushed their way right into trips to Las Vegas, New Zealand, Hawaii and the now famous Caribbean cruise that so embarrassed this Liberal government.

Why was there no resistance to these obvious Health Canada policy violations for six years?

[Health, June 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, we have just received a document under access to information that shows the government knew about financial irregularities at Manitoba's Sagkeeng Solvent Abuse Treatment Centre six years ago.

A 1995 Health Canada audit found over $47,000 in unsupported expenditures by the centre, which even included a $25,000 claim to lease a vehicle.

In spite of these obvious irregularities in the audit, the health minister's department continued to support and even increased funding for the centre for six more years. Why?

[Patent Act, June 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to vote no to the motion.