Debates of Feb. 23rd, 2000

Canada Post Corporation Act

[Gary Lunn, Reform, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to see the clock as 6.30 p.m.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to see the clock as 6.30 p.m.?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Gary Lunn, Reform, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like an answer to a question I asked in the House last Thursday. I suggested that the Prime Minister, who is the captain of his own ship, was the one who should set the standards for the HRDC grants. This goes right back to the beginning.

I also suggested that the minister had announced grants before they were approved and before the applications even existed. I did not get an answer from the Minister of Human Resources Development. In fact, her response had nothing to do with what I had asked.

So that there is no confusion or illusion on what I am asking, I will be very specific in my question today.

On March 13, 1997, $6,000 was awarded to the auberge inn in the Prime Minister's riding of Shawinigan. This money was first announced under the targeted wage subsidy program. However, for some strange reason, it was moved to the transitional jobs fund program. The hotel project owner, Mr. Pierre Thibault, claimed that he needed the money immediately and could not wait for wage subsidies.

As I mentioned in my question on February 10, the $6,000 grant was announced without any departmental paperwork. In fact, it was advertised in the Prime Minister's householder flyer of April 1997, the month that the federal election was called. There was no paperwork yet this grant was approved.

On December 16, 1999 the Reform Party revealed memos that the Prime Minister's office had no choice but to approve the grant because the Prime Minister had already “personally promised” the money to Mr. Thibault. The Prime Minister had made a promise of an HRDC grant to a man who bought the hotel that the Prime Minister had previously owned. The Prime Minister made the grant announcement at a media conference even though no paperwork had been done. The project did not even meet the regional Quebec transitional jobs fund guidelines, which ban funding for restaurant and bar positions.

I suggested in question period on February 10 that it was painfully obvious that the mess we are in today, the HRDC billion dollar boondoggle and the lack of paperwork and approvals of four projects worth billions of taxpayer dollars, was started by the captain of the ship, the Prime Minister, when grants were given to his riding of Shawinigan. He set the standard for this. He clearly pushed through grant moneys to help someone with whom he had business dealings, Mr. Thibault, and to help create so-called jobs.

I want to again ask this question. If it is the captain of the ship who sets the standards for his crew, it is painfully obvious that the mess we are in today started in Shawinigan. Is that why the Prime Minister is so desperate to keep his first mate, the minister responsible for Human Resources Development, afloat? Is the Prime Minister attempting to prop up the HRDC minister?

I suggest the buck stops at the Prime Minister's own doorstep. The Prime Minister has set the standard for the the whole bureaucracy and everything that has happened. How can he expect anything different from the rest of his cabinet? It is his example.

Is this what is going on? Is this why the Prime Minister is so desperate to protect his first mate and not do anything proactive to give back some confidence back to the Canadian taxpayers?

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member opposite on one point and disagree with him on all the others.

He is right. The Prime Minister does set the standards in this government. That is why there are more internal audits done now on the Hill than ever before in the history of the country. Why? It is in order that we improve government performance across all departments.

The programs that were audited in the internal audit of HRDC are important to Canadians because it helps thousands each year. Yet the member opposite and all the members of his party seem more interested in discrediting these programs than in seeking to improve them. That is because they do not believe in these kinds of programs.

Our government is taking responsibility for this situation and we are fixing the problem. Let us remember that it was an internal audit, part of the department's own checks and balances. It never said that money was missing and it never said that money was wasted. It can account for this money. The member will see this if he takes the time to review the lists released by the minister on February 21.

It is simply both pessimistic and cynical to assume, as do the Reformers, that Canadian employers, educational institutions and non-profit groups try to take advantage of government largesse. I have more faith in the people of Canada than he does.

These programs work. While the Reformers are keen to focus on the internal audit of administration, they conveniently ignore separate evaluations of results. These results demonstrate that the programs help Canadians. For example, a 1998 evaluation by Ekos Research Associates Inc. indicates:

The level of job creation fostered by the program is largely consistent with targets provided by sponsors in their contracts with HRDC.

The minister's remedial plan incorporates advice from the auditor general, Deloitte & Touche and the Standards Advisory Board.

HRDC is correcting its files and fixing everything it can find that is wrong.

[Inky Mark, Reform, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Mr. Speaker, prior to the Christmas break, I had the opportunity to ask the minister of agriculture about putting cash in the hands of needy farmers. Obviously, he did not say too much.

Let us be very clear that the situation in which many farmers find themselves is really not their fault. The current crisis is precipitated by two things: one, the weather, which is really out of the control of farmers; and two, the low commodity prices, which is also out of their control.

No one in the country can accuse the Canadian farmer of being inefficient. Canadian farmers are the leaders in the world on efficiency and their plight is not due to the lack of efficiency or diversification.

In my riding of Dauphin—Swan River many farmers are on the brink of going broke. A portion of them were hit with an overabundance of moisture this past spring. Many are struggling because of the poor prices they have received over the last couple of years.

We, as a country, as a farming community, cannot compete with the Europeans and Americans who support their farmers with very large subsidies. Farm subsidies today are staggering for European farmers who receive 56 cents out of every dollar. American farmers receive 39 cents out of every dollar. Canadian farmers, often accused of asking for subsidies, really receive very small subsidies. Today they receive 9 cents on the dollar.

In fact, Canadian farmers do not want a subsidy. They just want fair prices for their product.

The American president does not think twice about helping his farmers in the United States. It is unfortunate that Canada will not stand for its farmers. They are our sole source of food, which is essential to this country. What is more important than to ensure a secure supply of food?

Canadian farmers do not want a subsidy, as I have indicated. They only want a fair price for what they produce. They also want to control what they produce. The Canadian Wheat Board must change with the times and become more flexible. Today Canadian farmers are receiving 1932 wheat prices. How can we expect anyone farming in 1999-2000 to survive at 1932 cash receipts for their product? At $2.57 a bushel, farmers cannot even think of recovering the input costs for their crop, let alone try to make a living.

This past year many farmers have knocked on the doors of my constituency offices looking for solutions and asking what the federal government is going to do to help them.

There are two solutions: long term and short term. A short term solution is needed today. Many of our farmers in Manitoba will be leaving the farms if there is no short term assistance. In Manitoba there are over 24,000 farm families and many of them will be at risk. What is lacking is cash. That is what farmers need in the short term. They need help. The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food must find a vehicle to put cash into the hands of farmers before this spring.

Let us not get hung up on the long term solutions. We all know they are important, but farmers need help right now. They are crying out for help.

I advocated to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to put in place a crop acreage reduction program. This vehicle is already in place. It is called the PFRA. In fact, in the 1980s the PFRA, through a crop reduction program, took two million acres out of production and put $200 million into the hands of needy farmers. There is no reason this cannot be done again.

This farm disaster has had a large impact, not only on farmers, but also on small town Canada. As a country, do we want to decimate our rural culture? We are a country which is proud of its cultures, both urban and rural.

[Joe McGuire, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, it is abundantly clear that the federal government recognizes the importance of the agricultural sector and the significant hardships faced by farmers. This is one of the reasons for our long history of support programs and continuing efforts to help farmers.

As the hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River knows well, the federal government contributes $600 million annually for support programs such as crop insurance, NISA and companion programs. However, the severe economic problems led to numerous improvements to existing programs and the establishment of AIDA, with a federal commitment of nearly $1.1 billion for the 1998 and 1999 crop years. These measures are helping farmers cope with the current difficulties.

In contrast to the hon. member's comments, AIDA has been of benefit to thousands of farmers in the prairies and many others across the country. AIDA has already paid out nearly $500 million for the 1998 crop year alone, with roughly half of that amount going to the prairies. Further, we expect that the balance of federal-provincial AIDA funding will be spent once 1999 applications are processed.

With respect to the next two crop years, we recently announced an additional injection of $1 billion, increasing the federal government's contribution to $2.2 billion.

Hon. members may rest assured that the federal government will continue to work closely with provincial governments, and we are working closely with provincial governments to ensure that sufficient disaster assistance is provided in the most timely manner possible.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6.29 p.m.)