Preston Manning

[Human Resources Development, March 13th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, in August the human resources department prepared a communication strategy for the minister. The aim was to manage the release of an internal audit that pointed to gross mismanagement of taxpayer dollars by the minister. The document suggested three options for releasing and communicating the results of that audit: a reactive approach, a low key approach, and a proactive approach. Each came with suggested advantages and disadvantages.

Why did the minister choose the reactive approach as outlined in that communication strategy?

[Export Development Corporation, March 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, Earth Canada has a track record of doing nothing but losing money. A fiscally responsible government agency would laugh them out of the office if they came there looking for $10 million of support, but not this government. It does not ask about the track record. It asks if Mr. Fugère or Mr. Champagne is on the board.

My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Why is it that every time we turn over a rock one of the Prime Minister's cronies crawls out from underneath it?

[Export Development Corporation, March 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the former minister of human resources development is about as enlightening on this subject as the current minister.

I wonder if there is not a better explanation for the sudden improvement in the fortunes of Earth Canada. Last year Earth Canada added to its board of directors none other than René Fugère of illegal lobbying fame and Gilles Champagne of illegal trust fund fame, the cronies of the Prime Minister. Is it the close connection between these people and the Prime Minister that got them this reception from the minister's agent?

[Export Development Corporation, March 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, this year's budget calls for taxpayers to hand over about $160 billion of our money to the government and taxpayers expect those dollars to be used wisely.

Earth Canada is a company that lost millions of dollars over the last four years but all of a sudden, despite its losing record, it gets a $10 million line of credit from the Export Development Corporation. Why would a company with a losing track record like that qualify for $10 million of federal government aid and support?

[Human Resources Development, March 1st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has been here too long. He is concerned about misuse of the rules of the House. People are concerned about the misuse of taxpayer dollars.

Let us recap. We have René Fugère, a man who claimed to be acting on behalf of the Prime Minister, under investigation for illegal lobbying. We have CITEC under investigation for misusing public funds. We have a forensic audit into a textile factory that moved from Montreal to the Prime Minister's riding without any business reason. The list goes on and on.

How can the Prime Minister continue to claim that he is only doing his job as an MP when so much of what he touches attracts the RCMP?

[Human Resources Development, March 1st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the misspending of taxpayer dollars is precisely what HRD did with our taxes.

These two or three little investigations are taking place in the Prime Minister's riding.

I suppose we should not be surprised, given how many people close to the Prime Minister are involved in manipulating the grant handling process; people like Denise Tremblay and René Fugère.

How many RCMP investigations does it take before the Prime Minister takes some responsibility?

[Human Resources Development, March 1st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, for weeks now the Prime Minister has been saying that there is nothing wrong with how the government handles grants and contributions.

However, as of today there are two RCMP investigations and a forensic audit under way in the Prime Minister's riding alone. They are not there investigating parking violations. They are investigating the misuse and misappropriation of public funds.

If the RCMP thinks there is a problem with grants and contributions, why does the Minister of Human Resources Development not?

[The Budget, February 29th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, for once the Prime Minister got it exactly right, the tax cut the Canadian people have not had.

Under any normal circumstances a billion dollar spending boondoggle would send shock waves through an institution. All departments would be called to account. The brakes would be put on future spending. Management would be changed but not in this government. Sixteen out of nineteen departments got spending increases and not one manager has been changed.

Why should Canadian taxpayers give the government one more dollar when that department mismanages—

[The Budget, February 29th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, for more than 21 years the auditor general has been warning and warning the government about misspending under grants and contributions. The Prime Minister is aware of these warnings but he chooses to ignore them.

This year an internal HRDC audit reveals more waste in the management just where? In exactly the same place. The Prime Minister's response to these warnings is to give the minister another $221 million.

Is the Prime Minister's contempt for the taxpayers so high that he did this out of spite, or did he do it so there would be more money around for the next federal election?

[The Budget, February 29th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister should have been outraged by the billion dollar boondoggle at human resources. Instead, he rewards the minister by giving her an additional $220 million of discretionary spending.

Why would the Prime Minister give a massive increase in discretionary spending to a minister who mismanages taxpayers' dollars?