James Bezan

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, June 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the $4.6 billion that was promised in the original budget and taken out of Bill C-43 was going to be targeted toward corporate tax relief to make our industry more competitive, to create more opportunity for reinvestment and job creation. We like to throw out rhetoric as to what is meaningful, but any dollar that we can put back in the pocket of Canadians is meaningful. I will trust Canadians any day of being able to spend their money more wisely than the government. We need to give them that opportunity and put those dollars back in their hands.

We have been debating the bill for some time now along with Bill C-43 and I have not heard anything from the other side that would convince me that if Bill C-48 were so important, that the Liberals would have put it in the original budget. They have never come out and said that it is a good idea. Bill C-48 represents only one thing and that is to buy NDP votes to ensure that the Liberals stay in power. That is what it is all about.

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, June 20th, 2005]

At 20% interest, it was almost impossible. If the interest rates were at the same level as they were during the last 12 years, there would have been a surplus posted the last three or four years of the Conservative government back in 1984-85 when it came into power.

The other thing to take into consideration is that spending has gone through the roof over the last few years. Since 1999-2000 spending has increased 44.3%. That is not responsible. Sure, the government has a flood of income but we just cannot keep on spending. Let us return some of that back to the taxpayer. Let us put more of that against the debt. No, we are going to invent some more programs that are not going to be fiscally responsible and will jeopardize our status now as a nation, as the Liberal government likes to do all too often.

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, June 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the first time I voted in a federal election was in 1984 and I was more than happy to vote Conservative and replace the Liberal government of the day.

I took out my first loan in 1983 to buy some cows and the interest rate was over 22%. My father was feeling the same burden in his farming situation. Interest rates were so high in this country that no one could make a viable living. No one could start up a new business and it was choking the nation.

Then we had the chance to turn that around. It started with the Conservatives bringing in the trade agreements and the taxing regime, so that we could have a healthy economy and a healthy federal budget. As has been said--

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, June 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to speak at report stage of Bill C-48 to address a lot of the concerns that the constituents of Selkirk--Interlake and I have with this bill. The big thing is we are talking about $4.6 billion that is contained in a document that is only six pages long. The last three pages make really good reading as they are all blank. Essentially this bill gives a blank cheque to the Liberal government to do with as it pleases.

We do not want to see any more boondoggles or scandals take place in the government. One of the reasons I entered politics was to make sure that we could put an end to wasteful spending, get the biggest bang for our buck as taxpayers and defend the interests of taxpayers here in the House.

The big concern is there are a lot of great ideas laid out in two pages of spending proposals, but there is no plan to support them. We voted on Bill C-43 just last week. When that bill was tabled, it was tabled with volumes of books as a backstop, as a plan, as a way to have the checks and balances in place for the spending that the government was promising. During the spring the committees sat down and went through the budgets for the respective departments and voted on the budgetary estimates line by line. Those are the types of checks and balances that are needed to ensure that government spending is kept in place so that the taxpayers are getting the benefits and the services they have requested.

I fear that the programs and policies that are being supported in this very thin bill will open the door for more mismanagement and more boondoggles. We only need to look at things like the gun registry, the HRDC boondoggle and many other programs that have been overrun because there has not been adequate planning put in place for the spending. We have to make sure that the plans are there and that the dollars are spent wisely.

I am the associate agriculture critic for our party. One thing that concerns me is that the NDP members often come in here and say that agriculture is very important to them, but unfortunately there is not a single line in the bill that even addresses any agricultural concerns. I have to wonder what the NDP priorities are if that party is not addressing agriculture. It makes up such a crucial part of our economy here in Canada, not just rurally but the entire GDP is largely based upon our agriculture and resource sectors.

All the spending that is planned in the bill is not really very beneficial to rural Canada. I represent a very rural riding. I do not see anything in the bill that is going to help with doctor shortages in our area. I do not see anything in it that is going to help with access to federal services in rural Canada. I do not see anything in it that is going to help our farmers improve their marketplace. For those reasons, I cannot support Bill C-48.

There is a paragraph in the bill that addresses foreign aid. I think it is admirable that we would increase our foreign aid to at least 0.7% of GDP, which is a number that has been bandied about since the 1960s as the ideal mark in funding foreign aid. However, we know that currently, as was already talked about with respect to CIDA, there is a shotgun approach to foreign aid. Money is thrown all over the place, sprinkling a little here and a little there. It is not really getting to the crucial parts, the areas of importance to help those in need.

Whether we are looking at poverty or children's issues around the world, essentially we should target a few countries. We should focus our resources on a few countries to get the biggest bang for our buck to help those people who need it the most with their education and their farming activities and help them provide for themselves. Those are things that we want to address.

We are talking about throwing more money at foreign aid, but we have a real crisis here in Canada right now and that is why we need more farm aid. We have a BSE crisis that needs to be addressed more adequately. Farmers are still not getting the dollars into their pockets and we need to ensure those things are taken care of first before we start throwing more dollars into foreign field.

We have to realize what this bill is all about and what brought it about. If this bill were so important to the Liberal government, it would have been in the original budget back in February. We know that it was all about getting 19 more votes to support the government. The NDP negotiated this deal in a backroom on a napkin and this is what it came up with.

This has been traded off with some really major tax cuts that we need to see take place to create more jobs and more opportunity in this country. The $4.6 billion could have been better used to ensure we create more opportunities and a better and more competitive environment for business. We would see more jobs and, by and large, a better economy because of these tax cuts. Unfortunately, we have traded that off for votes and that is shameful.

There are a lot of things in the original budget that we could support but there is nothing in Bill C-48 that we can really dream of being brought forward and put into play. There is no accountability, no checks and balances, and nothing for agriculture. We are always quite concerned in ensuring that we address the needs of taxpayers as much as possible, so that we can go forward and put in place the services they desire. I do not see that happening here in a legitimate way.

[Natural Resources, June 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the sun is shining in Manitoba and North Dakota and it is starting to dry up. We are only a matter of days away from the opening of the Devils Lake diversion. This weekend North Dakota Governor Hoeven challenged Canada and said that if we want a sand filter as recommended by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, we should put out the $20 million to buy it.

Since the government has been unable to convince the U.S. to make a joint referral to the IJC, will it take up Governor Hoeven's challenge, work with North Dakota and protect Manitoba's waterways?

[Message from the Senate, June 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance for staying up so late to debate this issue. He must have drawn the short straw tonight and had to stay for adjournment proceedings.

He mentioned the report from Justice Gomery and I really hope that we do see that report. We must remember that former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien is exercising his legal privilege right now to have Justice Gomery removed from the inquiry.

One thing that we cannot forget is that the evidence before the commission presents a clear picture of corruption. It compels the finding that the Liberal Party at all levels exercised improper political interference and influence over the sponsorship and advertising activities of the federal government.

The parliamentary secretary made mention that the government filed 19 claims worth $40.8 million and that is just the tip of iceberg. We need to find all the money that was laid out in excessive commissions and funnelled back to the political operations of the Liberal Party. We must ensure that taxpayers get all those dollars back. We know that it is well over $100 million, as outlined in the original Auditor General's report. It is suggested to be even higher than that in the report by the auditing firm of Kroll Lindquist Avey.

I would like to take this opportunity to once again address the sponsorship scandal and how it has shaken this nation, shaken the trust that people have in the political system, and hope that we can come to a quick resolution and have an opportunity to let the electorate decide what they believe is right or wrong.

[Message from the Senate, June 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, rather than calling this the late show, we should call it the early show. For those that are watching in eastern Canada, I would say good morning and for those in western Canada, I think it is time to go to bed.

I rise to address a question that I originally raised on May 6 regarding the sponsorship program.

The Commission of Inquiry into the Sponsorship Program and Advertising Activities has painted the brush strokes on a picture of Liberal electoral corruption spanning over a decade. The hearings into the sponsorship scandal have demonstrated the mixing of the machinery of government and the political operations of the Liberal Party into one.

The Gomery evidentiary record when reviewed in its totality demonstrates a clear picture of corruption and compels a finding that the Liberal Party exercised improper political interference and influence over the sponsorship and advertising activities of the federal government.

The inescapable conclusion is that public funds were used to reward Liberal supporters, to finance the operations of the Liberal Party and particularly to assist in the Liberal Party's pre-election and election efforts in Quebec where the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party was crippled by debt.

Over the course of these hearings there were numerous admissions of guilt by many Liberal Party operatives following the testimony of Jean Brault. It must be concluded that the sponsorship program was created by and for the benefit of the Liberal Party. The ability to exercise its improper influence over the awarding of contracts by the Liberal Party began when it changed the rules for tendering government advertising contracts that virtually any bidder friendly to the Liberal Party could be chosen as a winner in these so-called competitions.

As a direct result of these activities Jean Brault funnelled over $1 million in secret contributions to the Liberal Party. Jacques Corriveau's company PluriDesign paid kickbacks to the Liberal Party and assumed the salaries of Mr. Manganiello, Mr. Philippe Zrihen and Mr. Jean Brisebois, who were Liberal Party employees.

Michel Béliveau, former director general of the Liberal Party's Quebec wing between January 1996 and the latter part of 1998, confessed that $250,000 to $300,000 in cash was requested and obtained from Mr. Corriveau.

Benoit Corbeil, former director general of the Liberal Party's Quebec wing, made specific demands of Mr. Brault in the 2000 election. Mr. Corbeil further confirmed that he received $50,000 in cash from Mr. Brault which was used for Liberal Party purposes during that election and paid to party workers.

All this came about through influence peddling and the direct interference in the contracting process by ministers and high level bureaucrats.

The amounts available to agencies as a result of sponsorship and advertising contracts demonstrate that these entities were receiving millions of dollars which could then be made available for payment back to the Liberal Party. These amounts were used to finance local riding electoral campaigns.

The demand and receipt of secret payments, benefits and services for the Liberal Party ridings from sponsorship and advertising activities permitted the Liberal Party to circumvent the strict spending limits provided by the Canada Elections Act. The use of illicit sources of such donations in effect as kickbacks from government contracts permitted the local campaigns to avoid having to raise money like everyone else, one small donor at a time.

Evidence adduced before the commission suggested that the Prime Minister's Office influenced the award of contracts to Groupe Everest. Mr. Guité stated unequivocally that the only time he had interference in advertising research, anything to do with communications, was from the Prime Minister's Office, the current Prime Minister.

As the evidence unfolded, it became clear that members of the Liberal Party, including numerous senior executives of the party, numerous senior officials of the Quebec Liberal riding association, several key political appointments within the Prime Minister's Office and other government ministries, several Liberal cabinet ministers were implicated in the sponsorship scandal.

[Natural Resources, June 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, news reports confirm today what I stated yesterday. The only reason the governor of North Dakota is delaying the opening of the Devils Lake diversion is wet weather and the high level of the Red River. When things dry up, he fully intends to open up the diversion.

The three amigos, the environment minister, the foreign affairs minister and the Treasury Board president, stated that an agreement for delay had been reached. It is just like the Liberals to take credit for the weather.

Who is telling the truth, the ministers or the Governor of North Dakota?

[Natural Resources, June 16th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, after listening to the earlier comments by the environment minister, he actually is gullible if he thinks North Dakota's decision to delay the pumping of water from Devils Lake is due to outside political pressure.

The North Dakota delay is all about the high level of the Red River Basin which makes that diversion operation outside of the project's parameters. Once the river level drops, North Dakota will start pumping contaminated water into the Red River Basin.

What is the government's plan of recourse after North Dakota starts diverting bad water into Manitoba later this summer?

[Child Care, June 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in an interview published in today's edition of the Globe and Mail , the social development minister has made a number of interesting revelations regarding the government's two tier child care plan.

In the interview the minister began by saying that he had no idea how much the government's proposed child care program will cost Canadian taxpayers. Then, despite months of telling parents his child care plan would be universally and widely accessible, the social development minister acknowledged that the Liberal plan would “never be truly universal in scope”.

With the minister now acknowledging the Liberals' child care plan is restrictive and will not address the needs of Canadian families, particularly those living in rural areas of the country, like many families in my riding of Selkirk—Interlake, I call on the government to support the Conservative Party's plan for a truly universal program, a plan that puts money directly into the hands of parents so all Canadian families can make their own child care choices.