House of Commons Hansard #130 of the 37th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was budget.

Topics

The BudgetGovernment Orders

5:50 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Deepak Obhrai Canadian Alliance Calgary East, AB

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak to the budget. My colleagues expressed their views on the shortfall of the budget. I am the official opposition critic for international co-operation and I will restrict my remarks to international development.

The budget would commit over $1 billion over three years to international development. In the post-September 11 world there is a growing consensus that Canada must do more to promote broad trade, economic growth and the alleviation of suffering in the developing world. Under the Liberal government Canada's commitment to the developing world has dropped below our capacity to help.

Nevertheless, and I want to make this point very clear, we cannot increase Canada's capacity by spending more money. There are other means and I will allude to how we can help. Simply spending more money is not the answer to the problem.

CIDA has only had marginal success over the past 20 to 25 years. I have talked to CIDA officials and the ministers on many occasions. I asked them to name one country where CIDA had success in eliminating poverty in the last 20 to 25 years. They could not. I will tell members why in due course.

CIDA is an agency that has been the subject of criticism by the auditor general and, most important, subjected to political interference. The last occurrence alleges that CIDA funds were being diverted to the minister's campaign workers.

The minister is now involved in political turmoil due to questionable activities in her riding that have broken her trust with Canadians. She cannot go around the world any longer preaching good governance to other countries because of her own inability to hold to the high standards of her office.

We have an agency led by a minister whose credibility is in question by both Canadians and our international friends. In what kind of direction can we expect her to lead this agency? CIDA is an agency that currently receives $2.2 billion. That is not small, loose change. The budget proposes an additional $1 billion within three years.

The Canadian Alliance policy would ensure that our foreign aid met value for money criteria. The government must launch a new international development white paper process and repriorize CIDA funding before any more money is given to CIDA or to international development.

I am calling for a white paper because there are a lot of issues on the international development table that could be addressed. If these issues were addressed properly they would help third world countries alleviate poverty and would allow them the opportunity for further economic development for their citizens. Throwing money out without a proper plan will help no one.

I specifically direct the attention of members to the so-called Africa fund where $500 million has been earmarked by the Prime Minister. What will the government do with the $500 million in this trust fund? Where will it go? Who will it help? How will it help?

There is no plan. It is the Prime Minister's pet project. He is having the G-8 summit meeting in Kananaskis so he said he would put $500 million into the fund.

He told bureaucrats to go and sharpen their pencils and see how the money would be spent. There was absolutely no plan. The CIDA minister said she had done the consultation process but it was not a comprehensive plan. In looking at the white paper and the consultation process she left out many vital areas which needed to be addressed to eliminate poverty.

Two days ago there was a meeting of the foreign affairs committee. I asked CIDA officials how much money had been allocated to capacity building that everybody was talking about. The trade minister, the foreign minister, everybody was talking about capacity building. It has become a nice big buzzword because of the trade agreements. However when I asked CIDA officials how much was available for capacity building they did not have a clue. They did not know how much they had committed.

We have a problem. We have $2.2 billion being given to an agency that does not have a long term plan because it is subject to political interference. It gets a cheque but only thinks later how it will spend the money. This is why the Canadian Alliance has difficulty in agreeing to an increase in foreign aid.

The Canadian Alliance has a way to help and assist developing countries. Developing countries do not need more money. They need more opportunities. Let us open opportunities to them so they can take part, develop and bring prosperity to their citizens.

First, let us untie aid. The government should totally commit to the multilateral untying of aid to ensure value for taxpayer money. It is estimated that 25% of tied aid is totally wasted. We could save $200 million of CIDA's projects if we untied aid. Practically every other country in the world has recognized that it is a waste of taxpayer money and has untied aid in order to help. Imagine, there is $200 million out there.

Second, let us focus on fewer countries that need the most assistance and not spread it among 134 countries that receive CIDA money in small pockets, which helps nobody. Right now we are giving money to China which has an 8% growth rate and we are giving less money to sub-Saharan countries that require more money.

It is time for us to change and to focus. We must be able to identify countries in the world we assisted that have shown economic growth and could be used as role models for additional aid elsewhere. That has not happened at all.

Third, there is a need for open trade access. Wherever I travel open trade access is asked for because when we open trade access to developing countries they can do the right thing. They are then able to access trade markets, become part of the globalized world and help their citizens do business. This would trickle down to the economically poor citizenry. The most important point is that when we give government to government aid it does not trickle down to the poor people, but when we give trade access it has a trickle down effect.

Fourth, there should be enhanced response for humanitarian crises. Fifth, we should activate charity giving. Canadians should give money to those people. Canadians have the heart to give. Let them be out there assisting those countries.

The business of raising $1 billion without a plan is a total waste of money. The Canadian Alliance does not feel this is the right approach and hence that is why we oppose the increase.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

6 p.m.

Liberal

Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT

Mr. Speaker, I and I think all my colleagues are quite proud of the fact that the member opened his speech by saying that in the budget we have increased foreign aid to the poorer countries of the world by $1 billion.

He then went on to ask what country has CIDA helped, as if there was nowhere in the world that it has helped. As the Alliance critic for CIDA, for foreign aid, the member should at least accept the fact that there are some success stories. Trying to help poor countries is a useful endeavour.

I am glad the member's comments were limited to this one topic because it allows me to ask a question I have wanted to ask since September 11. If he does not answer it, perhaps another colleague will ask it again.

I received a number of letters, and I cannot imagine that every MP did not get a number of letters or e-mails, suggesting that over and above catching the terrorists, the big problem since September 11 is to work on the environment that creates poverty and terrorism. Every member must have received letters.

I would like to know what the members who have been speaking against this aid, against this help, against the root causes of poverty, are telling their constituents who write to them, who send them e-mails. What are they telling people who think this is at least part of the solution to the problems that created September 11?

The BudgetGovernment Orders

6 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Deepak Obhrai Canadian Alliance Calgary East, AB

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for asking the question because it gives me an opportunity to answer.

The member asks me where there has been success. I ask him to tell CIDA to tell me where there has been an economic success. We are not talking about giving money for AIDS or about giving money on smaller issues to address little social concerns that countries have. That is where CIDA's money has been diverted so far. That is not the economic reality of where it has lifted up countries. Perhaps he could ask CIDA to respond to me, or perhaps CIDA will respond to him and he can tell me of the countries that have had economic success.

I come from Africa. I have been there with CIDA ministers. I have travelled around the world. I do not see broad based economic prosperity out there. I do see CIDA projects. I have visited hundreds of CIDA projects around the world.

I am asking the same questions that Canadians are asking. I am afraid that Canadians will have donor fatigue if we do not show them successes. Just throwing money at the problem is not going to solve it.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Grant McNally Canadian Alliance Dewdney—Alouette, BC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague about the budget that the Liberals have brought in.

Obviously it looks very much like a leadership budget. The government has given some money to the Minister of Industry to appease him. It has not cut any of the wasteful spending that has been outlined by the auditor general. We heard some huffing and puffing from the finance minister during question period today.

Would the member not agree with me that the government has lost an opportunity to cut wasteful spending on low priority items and to put it into high priority items?

The BudgetGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Deepak Obhrai Canadian Alliance Calgary East, AB

Mr. Speaker, there is no question about it. During the debate my colleagues and the finance critic have shown that this is one of those budgets that shows a lack of leadership. There is no question about it.

There were opportunities out there, but the government declined to take those opportunities. It brought in this budget telling Canadians that it was addressing security concerns. Aside from security concerns, there are also economic concerns.

I am surprised at the Liberal government which lives and works on polls. The polls should have told the Liberals that Canadians are interested in economic development, economic stimulus. What happened? There is no prioritization and an increase in spending.

I agree with the member that the budget at the end of the day was addressed for the leadership race.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Ken Epp Canadian Alliance Elk Island, AB

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to an issue that is undoubtedly of great importance to Canadians.

The one thing we were well aware of even before September 11 was that the economy was in a decline. That did not really surprise anyone. The timing may have surprised some, but one of the facts of life is that economies are cyclical and the frequency of the cycle, as the economy goes up and down, varies from time to time based on certain factors. However it is certainly not expected that we would have a continued period of growth in our economy. There will be times of reduced rates of growth and in some cases even a shrinking in the actual size of the economy.

One of the things the budget should have done was assure Canadians and investors from outside the country that things were in good financial shape and that they could have confidence in investing, in working in this country, in hiring people and basically making the economy continue to roll. However, the government failed to do that.

For many months before the last election we were calling for a budget. I was very upset when the government brought down its budget just days before the election was called. It was called a mini budget or a fiscal update. The only reason we got the kind of tax cuts we did get was because of what I would call electoral fear. The Liberals were afraid that because my party had shown a fiscally balanced approach to putting more money in the pockets of taxpayers, that they were going to lose big time. Therefore the finance minister brought in a financial update in October last year, just prior to the budget, in order to steal our thunder, which they did. Canadians for some reason trusted them. I suggested to the people in my riding that, based on the record of the Liberals when they promised to cut the GST, I would not vote for them based on the fact that they were promising to cut taxes. A few people in my riding did vote Liberal despite my advice but, thankfully, not too many of them.

I would like to focus on the fact that tax cuts taxes are very important. It is not sufficient to merely talk about them. Mr. Speaker, I do not know if you have ever had an occasion in your life where you have been deprived of water. The one time when I was very dehydrated it did not help a bit that my friends talked to me about water. What I needed was water, not talk about it.

The government does a lot of talking about tax reductions but it does not deliver them. If we look at the pay stub of the average Canadian, by the time the increases in the CPP are factored in, the actual deductions in their pay cheques are nowhere near what the government is claiming. Furthermore, and I emphasize this, all this talk about $100 billion in tax cuts is pure garbage. I know members over there like to use this big number. If they talked about a tax cut of $20 billion per year it would not cut it. In order to make the number bigger they multiplied it by five, just arbitrarily. I do not know why they did not pick six, eight or ten years. If they would have multiplied it by 10 they could have called it a $200 billion tax break. Instead they just picked the number five.

We are talking here about annual budgets. It is not the talk that will put money into the pockets of investors and wage earners, it is the actual delivery of those tax cuts.

One of the things that has been mentioned by a number of my colleagues, and I want to repeat because it is so important, is that the $100 billion is a hugely inflated number. It really is in actual fact.

Let us say, for example, that civil servants, some of whom will perhaps listen to this speech and say that the member for Elk Island is right on this point, wanted a raise. Let us say they are civil servants who are making $50,000 a year. If we told the civil servants that we would give them $250,000, the civil servants would say that is great and they would take it, and then in very small print we would say that it would be over the next five years.

Do members see how meaningless that is? If we are talking about annual budgets, we need to give an annual number. To put into an annual budget a projection of a total over five years is just as useless as when the Liberals put in a five year projection of total money that is to be put into health care or when they talk about the infusion of money into our military. It is totally less than what they say in terms of an annual budget, but of course they like to put out this big message.

How about the actual magnitude of that rate? What would happen if we were to say to those same civil servants that we were going to cut their salaries by $10,000? The civil servants would then say that they were going on strike. We would then compromise and give them $5,000 on top of that after the cut. Quite clearly there is a huge debate now. The Liberals would argue that the civil servants got a $5,000 raise because their salaries went from $40,000 to $45,000. As a matter of fact they had a $5,000 cut because their salaries were at $50,000.

I say the same thing about these tax cuts. The fact that the Liberals are using $100,000 is just inaccurate and they ought not to be able to get away with it. There were tax increases planned. With inflation and the lack of indexation, the tax rates were to go up. The Liberals said that they would re-introduce indexation, which we in our party were really pushing for. They did it, which means that now they will not be taxing so much. The fact of the matter is that we did not get a tax cut. To use actual numbers, if the tax bill was to be $500 and now it is to be $450, as they did not collect the $500, how can they call it a tax break? It is just not accurate.

I urge all Liberal members to vote against the budget because it does not communicate a true, positive, economic outlook for Canadians.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

It being 6.15 p.m., it is my duty to put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the amendment to the amendment now before the House.

The question is on the amendment to the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment to the amendment?

The BudgetGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

All those in favour of the amendment to the amendment will please say yea.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

All those opposed will please say nay.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

The BudgetGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the amendment to the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

The BudgetGovernment Orders

6:45 p.m.

The Speaker

I declare the amendment to the amendment lost.

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

The BudgetAdjournment Proceedings

6:45 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Val Meredith Canadian Alliance South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC

Mr. Speaker, in December 1999 the transport committee tabled its report, Restructuring Canada's Airline Industry, which recommended a number of measures to ensure competition. The following spring when the government introduced its airline restructuring legislation, Bill C-26, it chose to ignore most of the committee's recommendations, especially those concerning competition in the industry.

Since Bill C-26 was introduced, four major airlines, Canadian Airlines International, Royal Aviation, CanJet and last month the number two airline, Canada 3000, have disappeared from the country's aviation scene.

There is even worse news. Our national carrier, Air Canada, which controls almost 80% of the market is in financial difficulty and there are fears that it may not survive without a government bailout.

The Minister of Transport on the other hand believes that Air Canada controls too much of this industry and is prepared to regulate the industry to reduce Air Canada's share of the market.

The government believes that Air Canada has participated in anti-competitive behaviour and has introduced amendments to the Competition Act that would severely punish predatory behaviour in the airline industry.

However this is not the end of the soap opera in Canada's aviation industry. On Monday the finance minister introduced a new tax on air travellers under the guise of user fees for aviation security. Under the government's plan, every domestic air traveller will have to pay a $24 security fee for a round trip. For international travellers the round trip cost will be $48.

For some travellers, for example passengers travelling on WestJet between Edmonton and Calgary or Vancouver and Kelowna, the $24 security fee will increase the cost of the ticket by 22%. When people fly from Vancouver to Seattle they can get a one-way ticket for as low as $110, but they will now have to pay an additional $24 for security; again a 22% increase in the total cost of the ticket. If those individuals fly from Seattle to Vancouver, they will have to pay an American security fee as well. That fee will be $2.50. That is correct. Under the American legislation, the aviation and transportation security act, the security fee is $5 for a round trip flight.

Why are Americans charged $5 for a round trip flight and Canadians charged $24 for a round trip flight? It is certainly not because Canada will receive a higher level of aviation security than the United States. No, it is because this government has never met a tax that it does not like and if it can be hidden as a stealth tax, so much the better.

What are these high security fees going to do to the struggling airline industry? The transport minister says that these fees will increase traffic flow because people will feel more secure.

I think it is clear that Canadians would have felt far more secure with a fee in the American range of $2.50 per flight; not $12. This fee is just another example of how the government and the minister have missed the boat on bringing real competition to the airline.

The minister quickly rejected Air Canada's suggestion of modified sixth freedom, instead claiming that he would regulate the industry. That should kill off the entire industry right away.

Therefore I ask the parliamentary secretary this. Why has the government ignored such committee recommendations as higher foreign ownership limits and Canada only carriers, and instead is planning to reregulate the industry?

The BudgetAdjournment Proceedings

6:50 p.m.

Chicoutimi—Le Fjord Québec

Liberal

André Harvey LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond, on behalf of the Minister of Transport, to my colleague, the hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, whom I must also thank for her work on the Standing Committee on Transport. It is, I can assure you, always a pleasure to work on that committee, because the relationships between members are good.

Over the past three months, there have been some major issues to deal with, and we have certainly not lacked work. A number of our meetings have addressed those major issues, particularly ones relating to the crisis resulting from the September 11 terrorist attacks.

My colleague is asking whether the government intends to legislate on anti-competitive acts in the delivery of domestic air services, in the interests of all Canadians. The minister's response at that time was yes, and I would like to elaborate on that.

Hon. members will recall that, in July 2000, new provisions in the Competition Act, along with new regulations, came into effect, creating a special regime for domestic air carriers. A specific offence was created for anti-competitive acts by a domestic carrier.

The regulations provide a more detailed definition of what is meant by anti-competitive acts, along with the criteria for determining them.

The amendments made to the Competition Act introduced in Bill C-26 in 2000 give the competition commissioner the power to issue temporary cease and desist orders that could put an end to actions that provoked a complaint in the time leading up to an investigation and a decision as to whether or not a case will be heard by the Competition Tribunal.

More recently, the Competition Act was examined by the House, and a number of motions to amend the act in Bill C-23, were presented to the committee last week. Two of them would make changes to the air carriers' regime.

One of the amendments would allow the competition commissioner to ask the tribunal to extend the temporary cease and desist order beyond the 80 day maximum, if the commissioner has not received all of the information necessary to allow him to determine whether or not grounds exist to make an application to the tribunal. This amendment corrects a shortcoming that was identified by the standing committee.

The second amendment allows the tribunal to impose administrative monetary penalties of up to $15 million, when ruling on a case.

These two changes are designed to demonstrate clearly that the government takes very seriously the actions that have led to complaints regarding anti-competitive acts in this country's airline industry.The changes should also prove that the government's measures will not give rise to the type of letter Air Canada sent, which led to my colleague's question.

The BudgetAdjournment Proceedings

6:55 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Val Meredith Canadian Alliance South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC

Mr. Speaker, what is clear is the government does not have a viable aviation plan.

Last week the Canadian Transportation Agency exempted British owned Air 2000 from many of the regulations prohibiting foreign airlines from flying Canadian passengers to a third country. It is expected that this charter company will be granted access to our charter business soon. Instead of permitting Canada-only carriers, which would use Canadian crews, Canadian supplies and pay Canadian taxes, the government will be giving a foreign company the right to use foreign crews to fly Canadians to a third country.

Will the parliamentary secretary please explain to thousands of Canadian aviation employees, who have recently lost their jobs, how this is a good thing?

The BudgetAdjournment Proceedings

6:55 p.m.

Liberal

André Harvey Liberal Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC

Mr. Speaker, in fact, since the outset of the crisis, the government has been objective in its contributions with respect to the major national airline partners. The policy put forward and the $160 million made available were managed fairly for all.

Obviously, the whole aspect of competition is currently under consideration by the government and the airline industry. The industry, and I am pleased to point this out to my colleague, is undergoing profound international change. This is true in Europe, it is true here and in the US. It is true everywhere.

Clearly, the government cannot manage each company individually and assume their responsibilities. The government must do everything in its power to ensure competition plays its role effectively.

I want to assure the member that the government will do all it can to ensure competition is beneficial. Both the federal government and the provinces have a role to play here.

A few weeks ago, the president of the Association québécoise des transporteurs aériens, Mr. Jenner, called on the government of Quebec to provide opportunities for assistance to the carriers through SPQs, Sociétés de placement du Québec, and Investissements Québec. The various levels of government have a substantial contribution to make.

In short, the federal government is very much attuned to what is going on in the airline industry. We are indeed facing major challenges, but the situation is the same all the world over. We have to look at events in Europe, with companies like Bosch, Ryanair and so on. A number of businesses are currently changing the roles of the airlines.

The BudgetAdjournment Proceedings

6:55 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Greg Thompson Progressive Conservative New Brunswick Southwest, NB

Mr. Speaker, I am on my feet tonight in relation to a question I put to the Minister of Health after the tabling of the auditor general's report. I was in that lock-up and had an opportunity to examine that report before question period last week. In that report the auditor general criticized the government for $16 billion in grants and contributions. Many of those grants and contributions never came to the floor of the House of Commons for approval.

I will get specifically into health care, which was the focus of my question. However, in addition to health care, just as an example to the listening public, the fuel rebate program was never approved by parliament. As an example of mismanagement, 7,500 dead people, 1,600 federal prisoners in our penitentiaries and 4,000 people living outside of Canada received fuel rebate cheques. The horror of all horrors is that 90,000 people who were entitled to these cheques did not receive them.

I went on to point out some deficiencies in the health department. For the record, the Department of Health spends $2.3 billion a year of taxpayer money. Of that $2.3 billion, $954 million is given away in grants and contributions under that section with very little scrutiny. Many of those programs have never come to the floor of the House of Commons. The auditor general has identified that as being a real problem, which it obviously is.

I just want to point out one of those programs. As many people know, the HIV-AIDS epidemic is the number one health problem in the world. In Canada many of those HIV-AIDS strategy projects were poorly managed, regardless of the dollar amount funded. I am quote from chapter 9 of the auditor general's report, page 1, which states:

Six large national projects in the Population Health Fund suffered from specific and significant problems.

This was done without the proper authority to fund projects in the prostate cancer research section.

Therefore, just about every department of government has exercised that kind of executive power of writing cheques without bringing those programs before the House of Commons. In other words, there has been no scrutiny by elected members of parliament in this place. That allows for sloppy bookkeeping and management on the part of the government.

There used to be a day when all these estimates would come to the floor of the House of Commons. The House of Commons could hold up and deny that spending by a minister. However this was done simply on a minister's signature.

Many millions of dollars are spent without that scrutiny. We are here to examine the detail. The Prime Minister of Canada has taken that power away from parliament. We are saying that hundreds of millions dollars of that $16 billion could have been better spent on programs that would benefit the Canadian people. We do not believe in wasting taxpayer money.

The BudgetAdjournment Proceedings

7 p.m.

Madawaska—Restigouche New Brunswick

Liberal

Jeannot Castonguay LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to reply to the hon. member on behalf of the Minister of Health.

In her report on certain of Health Canada's programs, the auditor general said the following:

The Branch has a good process in place to manage its grant and contribution programs and ensure that public funds are managed properly; in all three programs we examined, we found a well-established project management process and clear program guidelines.

These are the words of the auditor general in her report, and Health Canada is delighted with these comments. The Minister of Health is appreciative of the constructive opinions from the auditor general, which have enabled the department to take the necessary corrective steps in keeping with the report's recommendations.

The hon. member asks whether the Minister of Health could not use the $2 million to provide true health care in this country.

I can tell the hon. member that, without a doubt, the $2 million in question is being used for a legitimate purpose for the improvement of health care in Canada: research into the second-ranking cause of cancer deaths in men. More than 18,000 Canadian men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer this year, a total that will no doubt increase as the baby boomers reach the age group most at risk for prostate cancer.

The auditor general's concerns about this project are of a technical nature. She is not questioning the legitimacy of the project itself.

Resources have been allocated to the Vancouver Centre of Excellence for prostate cancer research. This centre, with research teams from Vancouver General Hospital and the British Columbia Cancer Agency, is world renowned for its successes in basic and clinical research.

This centre of excellence was created in response to the advice and recommendation of eminent experts who attended a national forum on prostate cancer in February of 1997. It is an integral part of the government's health research commitment in the 1999 budget.

In order to meet the highest standards of quality, the projects undertaken by the centre are submitted to a rigorous peer review process. No funding is provided for research projects until the peer review has been completed. Legitimacy is therefore not at issue, and there has been no wasting of public funds. The research work done on a major health problem is excellent.

I also would remind the member that, at her press conference on December 4, the auditor general herself said, on the subject of the examples cited in her report, that they had found nothing illegal in any of the cases.

Nevertheless, Health Canada is taking the concerns of the auditor general very seriously. The department has already reacted on a number of fronts and has prepared an action plan to follow up on all the recommendations contained in the auditor general's report.

As well as doing other things, these measures will result in tighter control over the management of grants and contributions.

Health Canada will continue to work with non government organizations, other levels of government and teaching facilities on initiatives to improve the health and well-being of Canadians and to reduce inequalities in terms of health within or between certain groups. Health Canada firmly intends to apply the highest standards of accountability to these initiatives.

The BudgetAdjournment Proceedings

7:05 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Greg Thompson Progressive Conservative New Brunswick Southwest, NB

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health is obviously in a state of denial. It is pathetic that he would give his parliamentary secretary that type of speech to read. It flies directly in the face of what was reported in an independent audit by an officer of parliament, the auditor general. I will quote specifically from the auditor general's report. Chapter 9, page 22 contains three examples. The auditor general wrote:

We reviewed 13 projects under the population health fund...six of the national projects were not eligible for funding.

In paragraph 9.76 the auditor general wrote:

Our review of the three projects funded under the prostate cancer research initiative found that the branch spent $15 million on projects, much of which was not eligible for funding.

They were not eligible. They were simply eligible because the minister signed off on them without knowing what he was doing. There was no scrutiny on the floor of the House.

To sum up, in chapter 9, page 22, paragraph 9.77, the auditor general wrote that under the enhanced fitness activities, $3.5 million over three years, none of these was eligible for funding under the program.

There I rest my case. Scrutiny of expenses has to go back to the floor of the House of Commons. Otherwise we will have this continual waste of taxpayers' money for programs that do not qualify.

The BudgetAdjournment Proceedings

7:05 p.m.

Liberal

Jeannot Castonguay Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB

Mr. Speaker, I repeat what I mentioned earlier. The auditor general stated:

The Branch has a good process in place to manage its grant and contribution programs and ensure that public funds are managed properly.

In the three grants and contributions programs audited by the auditor general, “there is a well-established project management process and clear program guidelines”.

At her press conference on December 4, the auditor general stated, referring to examples quoted in her report, “We found nothing illegal in any of the cases”.

The BudgetAdjournment Proceedings

7:10 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

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 7.10 p.m.)