Debates of Feb. 9th, 2001

Speech From The Throne

[Preston Manning, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will read to the member from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve a few paragraphs from the recent Léger poll in Quebec and then ask him a question.

The latest poll by Léger Marketing says that three-quarters of Quebec residents see themselves as Canadians and not just Quebecers. According to the poll, more than half the respondents oppose Mr. Landry's plan to have the Quebec government actually promote sovereignty. Further, only about 15% say they want to see the total independence of Quebec.

Mr. Léger added that the poll certainly shows that Quebecers do not want a referendum and do not want the government spending their money to promote sovereignty. It found that 55.3% of decided voters would vote against sovereignty, even if it were accompanied with an offer of a partnership with the rest of Canada.

On the other hand, the pollster said, there is considerable demand for change in Quebec's role in Canada, with only 20% saying they would be satisfied with the status quo. Quebecers, said the pollster, “are rejecting the two most radical options, sovereignty and the status quo”. The bottom line, said Mr. Léger, is that Quebecers “want to remain a part of Canada, even though 45% say they would vote for sovereignty. The problem is that they are not satisfied with either the status quo or with the proposal for sovereignty”.

When are the Bloc members, who profess to be democrats, going to start representing the will of a majority of Quebecers and start looking for a third way, between sovereignty and the status quo federalism of the current Prime Minister?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish a speedy recovery to my colleague, the hon. member for Calgary Southwest.

In Quebec, the popularity of the sovereignist option goes up and down. In 1993 and 1994, it went up as high as 67%. That is democracy, and we accept that.

I am the member for a riding that has been supporting Quebec sovereignty since 1970. We have always advanced our option through democratic means, and we will continue to do so. The difference between the hon. member for Calgary Southwest and me is that I think the renewal of federalism is an impossible task. The hon. member wants to be responsive to Quebec, and that is positive. I know he is a sincere man.

I hope we can count on him to recognize that Quebecers have the right to choose their own future. Sovereignty is one of the choices that can be made, and we will continue to promote this option in the most democratic ways.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Madam Chair, I want to advise you of two things. First, I will be sharing my time with the member for Gatineau. Second, and just as important, I take this opportunity to congratulate you, Madam Speaker, on your new responsibilities. I am confident, from the way you have worked in the past with colleagues from all parts of this Chamber, that you will treat us very fairly.

I am actually very glad that as we close the debate I have the opportunity to respond after listening to what has gone on since the throne speech. Before I do that, I want to take this opportunity, my first opportunity after the election, to express my gratitude and my appreciation to my constituents of Scarborough Centre, who for the third time decided, in their wisdom, to show their confidence in me through their vote and permit me to be here to carry their voice to Ottawa.

At the same time I would like to thank my campaign team and the many volunteers. I want to point out with respect to volunteers that we are celebrating the International Year of Volunteers this year. I was blessed to have volunteers from all parts of our society. It was a thrill for me to see both the young and the old participate, especially the young, who came to offer their knowledge and whatever time they had. I say a great big thank you to them.

I also say a great big thank you to my family: my wife Mary, my three children, Irene, who is now married to my new son-in-law Tony, and my sons Paul and Daniel, who participated as well. The family closeness we have gives me the opportunity to be here and speak on behalf of my constituents.

I have listened to the debate over the past little while and to question period and I am not going to go into a lot of the details of what the throne speech had to say, because we have heard it over and over again.

I want to talk a bit about what was discussed during the debate. All hon. members did not strictly focus on what was said in the debate, for example the points the throne speech brought forward in terms of what we are to do during this session and some of the programs we are to support: the youth programs, the health programs, research and innovation, et cetera.

Before the election call we went to the people of Canada and made a statement. We said that should we be re-elected these were the things we would like to do and these were the programs we would want to implement.

In my view we put our necks on the line. Canadians had clear choices to make. They knew what the Liberal team, headed by the Prime Minister, was planning to do over the next mandate. If they were not pleased with those proposals, they could have voted us out. However they chose not to do so. If anything, the results speak for themselves. They chose to return the government and the Prime Minister with an even bigger majority than we had in 1997, almost equal to the majority we had in 1993.

What does that tell us? It tells us that during our statements on programs and in debates with candidates in the election in my view there no ambiguity in what we had to say. We were telling Canadians, because it was of great concern at that time, what would happen to the system we all cherish, the system that separates us from most other countries: our national health care system.

We said that the government would stand firm to make sure that all Canadians, no matter where they find themselves, no matter in what part of the country, would be protected.

Also prior to the election we made a commitment. We had an agreement with the provinces. All the provinces came on board and agreed to the transfers that will now be implemented. I was very pleased to have had the opportunity to talk about that commitment.

I was very pleased in the last election, and I want to do it again, to turn the clock back. In order to appreciate where we are today, we have to think and realize where we came from. It was very appropriate then, and I believe it is now, to reflect back for a moment.

In 1993, when we assumed government, unfortunately we inherited a mess. The country was in a mess, sadly to say, but I am pleased to say that we have turned it around. We had a deficit of over $42 billion that was out of control. We had a debt that was rising continuously and we had no control over it.

We had an unemployment rate of 11.4% or 11.5%. The youth were discouraged, not knowing what tomorrow had in store for them. Seniors did not know whether or not their pensions were secure. The list went on.

Reference has often been made to red book one, “Creating Opportunities”. In 1993 we went to the people with that book. We put down in writing, and it was unprecedented at the time, what we intended to do should we be elected, so that people could come back to us in a year or three or five years to keep us to our promises.

One commitment which has been raised over the last week or so during the debate was the so-called GST. I take this opportunity to read from the red book, because the media clips that were picked up printed only half of a paragraph or a comment. Opposition members, as is their privilege to do so, will only say what they want to say but not complete the sentence.

I will read exactly what was said on page 22:

A Liberal government will replace the GST with a system that generates equivalent revenues, is fair to consumers and to small business, minimizes disruption to small business, and promotes federal-provincial fiscal co-operation and harmonization.

The heritage minister might have changed her position on something, but she did the honourable thing. When she was told to resign, she did so. She went back to the people, and the people at that time had an opportunity not to return her but they chose to do so.

Members from the then Reform Party, today's Alliance Party, made some provocative statements with respect to members' compensation and pensions. They said never. Last night I was watching my good friend Mike Duffy interview the Reform Party member for Medicine Hat.

[John Williams, Canadian Alliance, St. Albert, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order to point out that the Reform Party is not a party in the House. It is the Canadian Alliance. He should withdraw that reference and refer to us as the Canadian Alliance.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I withdraw what I said. The then Reform Party is today called the Alliance. I will state what I was asked during the election. The member has taken me off track what I wanted to say. Maybe I can put it on record right now.

Those members go out during the election and make statements that they are a new party. If they are prepared to say that they were then the Reform Party and have simply changed names, I could understand. I have every right to refer to what it was called then and to what it is called today. I am sure the hon. member will agree with me on that.

Nevertheless, I was referring to an interview that took place of the member for Medicine Hat last night by my good friend Mike Duffy. I appreciate Mike Duffy is an astute reporter and asks the right questions. The member for Medicine Hat had difficulty. He said that he talked to his executive committee before the election. I challenge him to read in Quorum today where it states that the executive did not know:

The president of Solberg's constituency association said Wednesday he was unhappy with the decisions of Solberg and Grey. “They've done what I call a popular politician's manoeuvre”.

It is a populace party. I am concerned right now with the talk out west that has to do with separatism. Animosity and concern exist. There is talk coming out of B.C. from the new Alberta separatist party.

That is the issue that upsets me as a Canadian. Instead of reaching out, there is a task force that will look into it. I am concerned that the task force might provoke emotions. We are trying to bring the country together, but in the end we will have done nothing but maybe split it further apart. One comment made by the 10 West Group was: Why are Canadians not like Americans?

We do not hear the state of California, Texas or New York saying they will separate, every time they get upset and do not agree with Washington. Maybe that is the difference. Maybe we should just take the word out of the Canadian vocabulary.

[Mark Assad, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, before I deal with the throne speech, I would like to thank most sincerely my constituents in Gatineau for putting their trust in me once again. I am deeply grateful for the trust they have given me in the last election. They know I am always there to serve them, no matter what their problems are. They will always be welcome, and I hope to be able to always meet their aspirations and help them with their representations.

I would like to congratulate the member for Kingston and the Islands on his being elected as Speaker of the House. It is quite an accomplishment on his part, and I have no doubt that his role in the House will be a competent one, thanks to his extensive knowledge of the procedure and the fairness of his rulings.

I would also like to congratulate the member for Ahuntsic on her being appointed Acting Speaker of the House. I know the member for Ahuntsic greatly enjoys being part of the action in the House, and I am very happy for her that she has the opportunity to serve in such a sought after position.

During the last election campaign, a number of issues were raised regarding the national capital region, particularly on the Quebec side of the Outaouais region, which I have the pleasure and the honour to represent as the member for Gatineau.

The national capital region, on the Quebec side, is the most bilingual region in Canada, and we are very proud of that. Over the years, we have played a major role in the Public Service of Canada because of our ability to speak both official languages.

With the new economy, we realize how important it is for both sides of the river to co-operate. I call it “dialogue across the river”. For several years now, we have been witnessing the astounding boom of the high tech sector all across the world, especially in Canada, in the U.S and in Europe. We have been fortunate to benefit from the development of the high tech sector in the national capital region.

We have great strengths on the Quebec side. I met with a group of high tech industry representatives and I told them I was looking for co-operation from both sides of the river to ensure continued progress and development in that sector.

This is extremely important for our young people who graduate from colleges and universities, so that they can find work in this new economy.

In the months and years to come, the region's economy will depend on the development and expansion of high tech, which is not only very important but is also creating an unprecedented prosperity level. That is why co-operation between governments on both sides of the river is so important. We have to ensure continued expansion.

This brings me to what was discussed in the last election, that is the significance of infrastructures in this region in terms of roads or bridges across the Ottawa river.

There is clearly a need for strong co-operation between both provinces and the National Capital Commission, which plays a very important role in the development of our region.

The Gréber Report provided for the building of a new bridge over the Ottawa River. The building of such a structure at a certain place has been planned for 25 years. However recently some members of the new Ottawa city council appear to be hesitating.

We are looking closely at the issue. After having planned for 25 years the building of a bridge a given corridor, we must admit that progress and politics are two different things. We want progress to continue, but we cannot have progress without planning.

In the last 25 years, something has been planned, which should be respected. If there are policy considerations, I believe it is incumbent upon us to conclude that they ought to be put aside and to think about what is best for the whole national capital region of our country.

I would like to point out that if Canadians have put their confidence in the Liberal Party, it was probably for a number of reasons. One thing that characterizes the Liberal Party of Canada is the fact that we are always conscious of the fact that there are people in difficulty in our society, and these are the weakest members of our society.

We have always tried to find solutions, such as social policies, to help them. That is what we did last fall with the rebates designed to counterbalance the higher than expected increase in the price of heating oil. This was but one of the measures we took. All this is to say that we have always been conscious of the most disadvantaged in our society.

During the campaign, we also noticed that the health issue was extremely important in the minds of people. This is why the government decided to invest massively, more than $20 billion, in our health care system, to make sure that all Canadians, regardless of social standard, have access to the medical care they need.

It is also extremely important to ensure that research continues. We know that research is forms the basis for progress in years to come. The importance of research in all areas, to allow us to position ourselves in the new world economy, can therefore not be overemphasized.

This reminds me of when the former French President François Mitterand was re-elected. At the beginning of his second mandate, someone asked him this question: “Mr. President, what do you think the most important issue of your second mandate will be?” Without hesitation, former President Mitterand replied “I wish for all French citizens to be able to have access to education and to be the best educated people in the world, or among the best”.

I am convinced that the Liberal government has as I do, the same aspirations for all Canadians, namely invest more in our education system to allow each and every Canadian to have the best advancement opportunities. This can be accomplished through education. There is no other way to succeed in this world. There is no other way to be part of the new economy. There can be no progress without the highest possible level of education.

I realize that my time is up. I thank the House for allowing me to say a few words. During the weeks and months to come, I will talk again about those important issues, not only on behalf of my riding but also on behalf of our Canadian fellow citizens.

Privilege

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Earlier today, I believe that two members of the Bloc Quebecois raised a point of order, perhaps even a question of privilege.

At that time, the Chair said it would not intervene until such time as I also had an opportunity to add a few words prior to the Chair's reaching its decision. I see that the Bloc whip is with us, and I believe he is one of the members who spoke a little while ago.

First, I want to take a moment to inform the Chair that I find it totally unacceptable that someone in the House can say that the government is under investigation when no minister of this government as far as I know, is under any investigation. I do not even know of any public servant involved in the matters in question who might be under investigation, far less that the government is under more than one investigation.

Second, if I understand correctly, the members across the way have said that it was unacceptable for me to issue a challenge to them to repeat this comment outside the House. Of course, anyone familiar with Beauchesne's knows that this is a position that has been advanced on a number of past occasions in parliament.

If the members across the way have the right to make accusations that prove false, here in the House, then I certainly have as much right to challenge them to repeat those accusations outside the House where they could be subject to the rigours of the existing justice system.

Finally, I wish to add that certain candidates of that same party on the other side of the floor made similar accusations during the election campaign. A former member of parliament from that party was served with a lawyer's letter during the campaign. From then on, he stopped repeating the accusation.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very grateful the House leader set out his point of view for us. If you will permit me, I would like, in a few minutes and without wasting the House's time, to respond or at least correct certain impressions the government House leader may have left.

First, it should be pointed out that my colleague from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve was referring to the twenty or so investigations of grants by Human Resources Development Canada. They are a matter of fact. This is not rambling. These are not gratuitous allegations. They are not wild imaginings of any sort. They are a matter of fact and have been reported in the media. This is all the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve was referring to.

That said, the government House leader can indeed get on his high horse and tell us we can say it outside. What that means and this is the basis for the question of privilege of the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, is that to say it outside implies as he mentioned earlier: repeat it outside and the government could initiate proceedings.

It means that a member could go outside—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Would the hon. member please conclude his remarks, as this is not a debate.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am arguing on the merits and not debating.

Therefore, this means, to all intents and purposes, that the government is threatening MPs with proceedings, if necessary, if it does not like what is said here in the House and could be repeated outside. That is in direct contravention of the rights and privileges of parliamentarians in this House, especially those of the opposition.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

As this question of privilege was raised while the Deputy Speaker was in the Chair, and as he has already indicated to the House his intention to return with a ruling once he has heard the government House leader, we will continue with the debate on the motion before the House at the moment.

The House resumed consideration of the motion for an address to Her Excellency the Governor General in reply to her speech at the opening of the session.

Speech From The Throne

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis-Et-Chutes-De-La-Chaudière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the speech by the Liberal member, who raised two main issues.

He referred to the throne speech, but he also talked about health and education. His speech was pretty low keyed. Anyone listening to him who does not know much about politics could have thought “This is a reasonable man. He is talking about health and education in the House of Commons”.

I know that the member represents a Quebec riding. As a Quebecer, and also as an experienced and very knowledgeable member of parliament, he should understand that he is addressing two sensitive issues. I would like to ask him a very simple question.

Is he aware that health and education are two areas under exclusive provincial jurisdiction and that Quebecers are more than a tad touchy when it comes to these issues?

When he says that education is a must to be successful in life, should he not find the fortitude, and I would appreciate an answer to this question, to say “The federal government must quickly restore its transfer payments to the provinces to the 1995 level and provide additional funds and then make up for inflation”. He could mention that. What the member seems to be saying is that his government will be interfering directly in areas under provincial jurisdiction.

Of course, I cannot really blame him because, unfortunately, the throne speech seems to indicate that there are no provincial governments in this country and that Quebec does not exist. I would like his comments on this.

[Mark Assad, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, of course, I am aware that health and education come under provincial jurisdiction.

Here is what I said: during the election, the health issue was constantly raised. Indeed, the provinces were certainly very happy to get the funds invested in this area by the federal government. The investment was a very major one for the health system, in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada.

We all know that the federal government made a huge investment in education. Universities need this money for research. I even quoted the former French president to say that, even if the area comes under provincial jurisdiction, it is extremely important not only for Quebec, but also for all provinces and all Canadians. We all live together in the same country and our purpose is to move ahead together, not separately.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I did not appreciate the answer from my Liberal colleague.

The Liberal members always refer to the last campaign. I think they have not understood, or did not want to understand, what was said during the last campaign.

We were saying that the government should restore transfer payments to the provinces for health, education and social services to the 1995 level. Right now, in 2001, that has not been done. The crumbs given by the government is money that belongs to the provinces in the first place and all the provincial ministers are asking for it.

I think they should stop repeating what they said during the campaign, as it has no connection with what was done in Canada since 1995. I would like to hear the Liberal member talk about the true facts, to hear him tell the truth.

[Mark Assad, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, rest assured that the Bloc Quebecois are not the only ones telling the truth.

I would like to say to my hon. colleague that the people of Quebec understood clearly what we said during the last election campaign, as evidenced by the fact that we gained ten seats. They understood clearly; the Bloc members are the ones who do not understand.

[Jay Hill, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from St. Albert. It is an honour and a privilege for me to rise today to give my third maiden speech.

I take the opportunity at the outset to thank my constituents, the people of Prince George—Peace River, for again entrusting me with the task of representing their interests here in the House of Commons and elsewhere. I made a pledge when I first ran in 1988 to represent my constituents to Ottawa and never to represent Ottawa to my constituents. Today I recommit to abide by that promise.

I wish I had enough time to thank the dozens of people who worked on my campaign adequately, not just in the last campaign but over four successive ones. If I were to start naming the individuals who were so instrumental in my being here today, it would take the entire 10 minutes or more.

The throne speech was a shining example of a government devoid of ideas, reticent of the realities its citizens face, and committed to doing the bare minimum in order to remain in power. That simply is not good enough. Canadians deserve more from their government and we in the Canadian Alliance are demanding it on their behalf.

At the beginning of the 37th parliament I am pleased to have been reappointed the chief opposition transportation critic. As a critic my job is not only to critique the actions and policies of the government but to provide an alternate vision for transportation to meet the economic and safety needs of Canadians.

I am not fluent in vague, so it has been very difficult for me to decipher what, if anything, of substance was contained in the throne speech. Since the government has left the entire speech open to interpretation, I will discuss the Canadian Alliance vision and its plan to meet Canada's actual transportation needs. I will not discuss rail or grain transportation, as my colleagues from Prince Albert and Selkirk—Interlake have either already done so or will do so in the near future.

There is no question that the new economy is an engine of growth for Canada. That does not mean, however, that Canada's traditional resource based industry should be abandoned in the process. The throne speech was all about the information highway and nothing about the Trans-Canada Highway.

The best way to promote innovation, growth and development in all parts of our economy is to establish an efficient transportation infrastructure system that will meet the needs of large industry, small business, e-business, agriculture and natural resource extraction.

The Internet and e-commerce require the ability to get products to the consumer faster. People go online and point and click in order to get immediate gratification, but we must be able to physically deliver products and services faster to meet the demands.

There is a commercial on television which sums up the government's approach to the new economy. The commercial shows a roomful of techies talking about their new business and all the innovative Internet functions it can perform, until one of them asks “What about delivery?” The fact that they needed to get their product to the consumer had escaped them. So too has it escaped the government.

To date the government has all but ignored our deteriorating infrastructure. Canada's highways, ports and airports are falling apart while we pay multiple levels of taxes and user fees which stuff the general revenue's piggy bank.

Taxes are an investment in society. Canadians deserve a return on their investment. They deserve safe roads and affordable air travel, and they should not have to pay more for it. I recommend that the government spend money, not new money, but reinvest the money collected from the transportation sector back into that sector.

The very thought of so-called dedicated revenues sends shivers down spines in the finance minister's office because it limits political choices the government can make about spending. The improvement of our infrastructure is vital to our future prosperity, and as such funding should be dedicated.

The United States, our greatest trading partner and competitor, is way ahead of us in this area. In 1998 the U.S. passed the transportation and equity act for the 21st century. That bill invests $217.9 billion over six years into infrastructure, a large portion of which is for roads connecting its borders to Canada and Mexico. That bill legislatively guarantees that a minimum of 90.5% of federal fuel tax receipts from each state will be returned to that state. That is foresight. That is what we need from our government.

The federal government brings in about $5 billion a year from fuel taxes and last year reinvested less than $200 million in roads. That is only 4%. The Americans spend 90%. We spend less than 5%.

NAFTA has augmented the amount of goods that cross our borders daily. It is essential that the trade corridors through which the economic lifeblood of our country flows be as efficient as possible. We must reinvest in trade corridor initiatives that will improve just in time manufacturing and the other demands of the new economy. Why was there no mention of this in the throne speech?

Recently President Clinton signed the rails to resources act aimed at creating a rail link between Alaska and the lower 48 states through Prince George. A second phase would involve a 90 kilometre tunnel under the Bering Strait. Phase one of this initiative is a tremendous opportunity for Canada, and in particular for northern British Columbia. The city of Prince George in my riding would benefit from the increased hub traffic.

I have spoken to Mayor Colin Kinsley and the Prince George city council about this prospect and they are excited about the potential for growth. Of course, the port of Prince Rupert would also benefit from the increased volume as it is presently underutilized.

The U.S. has set aside $5 million for feasibility studies. All that is required is Canada's agreement to study the project. I believe it would be a huge mistake and an enormous lost opportunity to refuse to consider the proposal.

Not only is there a vision needed for the future but a plan for fixing the mistakes of the past. When Transport Canada was still in the business of running airports, it lost upward of $300 million a year. As a result of divestiture rents collected from the 26 major airports it currently collects $220 million a year, and this will grow to half a billion dollars a year.

This profit is gathered through fuel taxes, ticket taxes, airport leases and the GST, resulting in consumers and smaller airports bearing higher costs. As operating costs and hubs increase, so too does the cost of tickets to and from smaller destinations. This has reduced the number of people able to fly and reduced the amount of tourist dollars spent in local economies. However, the airport user fees are only one of the problems facing Canada's airline industry.

Airline restructuring is creating chaos for the travelling public and is hurting the tourism industry. Government is supposed to protect consumer interests. It has had many options to avoid the present monopoly, including increasing foreign ownership limits for our airlines to better access capital. Instead it chose the wait and see approach, and what have we seen? We have seen a decline in competition, a reduction in service, lost jobs and an increase in fares.

What of the emerging airlines? The government must do all it can to ensure that the emerging airlines are unencumbered in their ability to expand while protected from predatory practices.

It was encouraging to see the announced merger of Canada 3000 and Royal Air. This is a baby step closer to creating competition in Canada. The emerging airlines are succeeding in spite of the government's policies rather than as a result of them.

One such policy, the CARS 308 issue, is indicative of the differences in approach between the government and the Canadian Alliance, and indeed of the problems inherent in the government's approach to business.

In 1995 Transport Canada began negotiating the divestiture of its regional airports. Local airport authorities feel the federal government negotiated in bad faith when it removed the most costly elements of the airport's onsite and fire rescue service.

After the vast majority of agreements were signed, ironically the government decided it was necessary once more to have onsite fire and rescue, at the airports' expense of course. The fact that the regulations do not augment the safety of travellers and will break the financial backs of some airports seems to be of little or no consequence to the minister.

Obviously I could go on at great length pointing out the failure of the throne speech as it relates to transportation. Unfortunately, as many critics in the Canadian Alliance have found, there is insufficient time to do a proper job. In the days and weeks and months to come I am sure we will be looking at these areas in greater detail.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

Madam Speaker, actually I found myself agreeing with much of what the member opposite was saying because I too believe that the federal government should be engaged in developing Canada's infrastructure. I do agree with him that we should be looking at improving the highway systems in the land, because of course it benefits all Canadians.

Will he not agree with me also that the development of roads and that kind of infrastructure is 100% a provincial responsibility, and that when the Canadian Alliance and the Bloc Quebecois say that the federal government should not intrude into areas of provincial responsibility, is there not a contradiction when he says, and I agree, that certainly the federal government should intrude in areas of provincial responsibility when it is the matter of transportation and infrastructure?

[Jay Hill, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Madam Speaker, there is no contradiction whatsoever. I have had private conversations with the hon. member, and he often cites as success, or what he deems as success, the past infrastructure programs that have been set up by the Liberal government.

We have often questioned some of the projects the government has targeted, whether it was building bocce courts or canoe museums rather than investing that money in road infrastructure or water and sewer projects. Some of it was targeted for that and rightly so.

If the member was listening to the thrust of my presentation, he would know I was saying that in the United States the vast majority of money from fuel revenues goes back to the states. Those states then decide how to spend the money on road infrastructure. I do not see a contradiction.

My party and I advocate the dedication of that revenue back to the provinces. Yes, it is primarily their responsibility, but I see no need for the federal government not to be involved at least in some form of negotiation with the provinces so that we have a truly national road system that is supported by taxation from both levels of government.

Rather than shrugging their shoulders and saying that they will continue to collect all the money from the fuel tax revenue which flows into the general revenues piggy bank and is used however they see fit, and rather than the finance minister constantly coming up with new programs in which he doles out money for photo ops for ministers, it should flow back to the provinces to be used for real infrastructure to meet the needs of all Canadians.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to what the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River had to say. I have two brief questions to ask him.

Since before the election, the federal government, through the finance minister, has not stopped taking great pride in the $125 they gave to the neediest people. It is now telling us that its generosity cost $1.3 billion.

We have known for some time that about half of that money went to people that do not pay for heating oil, to inmates and even to deceased people. Does the member not find that this government is a grand master in the art of painting a pretty picture?

Here is what I mean. As the member was saying earlier, we know that the government is collecting $10.6 billion in excise tax on gasoline. The cost of the measure it has announced is $1.3 billion.

Does the member not think that, with its surplus, the government is just pretending to be generous, seeing that it has not lowered the price of heating oil?

In my area, I still receive phone calls from elderly people saying “The price of heating oil has not gone down yet. Last year, it cost me $600. This year, it will cost me $1,200”. This means that the government is painting a bright picture.

What has it done for independent truckers with regard to the price of diesel fuel? Over the last year, there has been a 40% increase in the price of diesel fuel. I would like my colleague from the Canadian Alliance to tell me what the government should have done and what it should do, rather than painting a bright picture.

[Jay Hill, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I know my time is limited. I will try and address the questions that my hon. colleague from the Bloc raised.

Obviously, what she points out is very true. There is some very poor planning in programs that the Liberal government has brought forward. What we have advocated on this issue all along, and it was in a lot of the questions in today's question period, is that the government should be reducing the levels of taxation, thereby providing relief to all the people faced with these high heating bills and high energy costs.

One of the things the government could do immediately would be to eliminate the GST on home heating fuel. This would be generic to everyone and affect everyone's bottom line. I agree with my hon. colleague from the Bloc, there is a very poor program.

[John Williams, Canadian Alliance, St. Albert, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate. Let me also thank the constituents of St. Albert for returning me as their member of parliament. They decided not to choose John Williams from the NDP, who was also a candidate in my riding, as the candidate, but they got the other John Williams. It led to an interesting little election.

I have to compliment and thank the people who worked so hard on my election. I think of Janet Bailey, my campaign chairman, Charlie Schroeder, who was my assistant campaign chairman, and Marlene and Tom Patterson who ran my sub-office in the city of Spruce Grove.

Today, I want to focus on waste, mismanagement, incompetence and everything else that we find in government. Just before the election the auditor general tabled a report. He tabled another report this week. I will quote from the auditor general's report because these points should be on the record. Regarding the stewardship of public funds he said that they deserve increased attention. I have, as the President of the Treasury Board knows, been trying to elevate the awareness of these things to challenging the spending of this government in parliament.

I refer to pages 7 and 8 of the forward of the report of the auditor general. In that he said:

But shortcomings of the sort revealed at HRDC—vague and inconsistently applied eligibility criteria, breaches of authority, absence of appropriate control and accountability framework—are by no means exclusive to one program or one department. We observed shortcomings of a similar nature (though of a lesser magnitude) in our 1996 audit of the Canada Infrastructure Works program, our 1997 audit of The Atlantic Groundfish Strategy and our 1998 audit of grant and contributions programs at Industry Canada and the Department of Heritage.

Talking about Canadians, he went on to say:

Frankly, I share their frustration. It is discouraging to witness new incidents of waste and mismanagement crop up hydra-like after older ones have been discovered and dispatched.

In my 10 years as Auditor General, I have seen significant improvements...often under the pressure of fiscal constraints. But progress has been too slow—

It has been far too slow and seems to go on and on.

As we all know, the auditor general is retiring on March 31. He has been tabling reports for 10 years with little or no sign that the government wants to take these things seriously. For example, we had the billion dollar boondoggle at HRDC. At Heritage Canada, 19% of the files have not been subject to due diligence. A further 30% of files were rated as borderline acceptable. That is in paragraph 33.283 in chapter 33 of his report.

It just seems that the government does not care until such time as somebody points these things out and really slaps the government on the side of the head to get it to do something.

Page 3411 of his report deals with HRDC and the employment insurance fraud which has been going on for many years. For many years HRDC and CCRA officials have been aware of suspected fraudulent practices related to the false record of employment forms and no action has been taken. How can this be?

Think of social insurance numbers which were introduced back in the early sixties.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was away from the Chamber momentarily but I thought that when I left we were debating the Speech from the Throne. The debate I am hearing is on the auditor general's report. Is this relevant to the debate?

[John Williams, Canadian Alliance, St. Albert, AB]

Madam Speaker, money is always relevant and the waste and mismanagement of it is always relevant.

Let us talk about the waste and mismanagement of money that the government outlined in the throne speech, and how it is going to spend it. The problem is that it spends it with abandon, carelessly, without proper control and proper diligence. That is why I am talking about waste and mismanagement in the context of the throne speech. It is relevant and always will be.

I was talking about social insurance numbers which were introduced in the early sixties back in the days before we had sophisticated computers. We now have sophisticated programs to send cheques out to everybody.

However, back in those days an income tax number, social insurance number, was basically a file at Revenue Canada. If anyone had a file with Revenue Canada it basically meant he or she had to pay money. Now if we have file with Revenue Canada, it usually means a cheque in the mail. We talked about it this week. The Minister of Finance has sent out $125 to all people who do not qualify for the heating oil rebate, including my own son. Guess who pays the utility bill in my home? It is not him.

Concerning the social insurance numbers, one person got 76 social insurance numbers and was getting 76 child tax benefit cheques in the mail every month. The government never reviewed the management of social insurance numbers for 30 years, until the auditor general pointed it out. Then it decided that maybe it should do something about it. He does say in the report that the government is doing something, but only after 30 years.

We have treasury board which is not exempt. Let me quote what he says about the treasury board. He said:

—Treasury Board Secretariat guidelines do stress the importance of balanced reporting and the need to report lessons learned...little reference in the reports to the fairness and reliability of the performance information they contain. Very few reports mention the possibility that there may be shortcomings or problems in the data.

I think he is referring to what we call the performance reports.

Treasury board writes all these rules but it does not police them. It sends them out to the deputy ministers and departments who just say “Well, that's okay”. They do what they want because treasury board does not hold them accountable. Until such time as treasury board starts policing its own rules for departments, we will to continue to find taxpayers' money being wasted every time we turn around.

Money was wasted deliberately by the Minister of Finance. He sent out $1.3 billion of cheques out in the mail which were approved, by the way, under special warrant because parliament was not sitting. I hope the President of the Treasury Board is going to be making a report to us soon because without parliament's approval the government should not be spending any money unless it is urgent. I am not exactly sure that my son really needed that $125 right away. Some may, but there are hundreds of thousands of people who live in apartments.

Yesterday an MP told me that one of his constituents who chops his own wood got a cheque for about $600. That was for he and his family members. It did not cost him a nickel for his heating, but he got a cheque in the mail. We find these programs, at an election time, very susceptible. This should have been a better defined program. It should have been targeted to the people who really need it. We acknowledge that there are people who need it. There are people who have difficulty paying these utility bills as the rates go right through the roof because the provincial and federal governments have not properly managed the production of energy for the country.

Now the consumer has to pay for government's mistakes. The government sends out cheques but to the wrong people, and others still have a hard time. We would hope that the government would listen to Canadians and ensure that their money is well spent.

The other day I pointed out the HRDC billion dollar boondoggle. Now we have the Minister of Health and his problems with the Fontaine native health treatment centre in Manitoba. After years of knowing that there were problems, he has finally decided to have a forensic audit after $30 million went down the drain. There were cruises in the Caribbean and deputy ministers going to Hawaii courtesy of the taxpayer. Only after it became a public issue did the government say that it got caught and that it better do something about it. That is no way to run a household. It certainly is no way to run a business and by far no way to run a country.

I would hope that since we are into a new parliament and we now have a throne speech that the government will take its responsibilities seriously and ensure that if it is going to spend taxpayers' money, that it spends it wisely and well. Yesterday, the Minister of Justice yesterday said that public business is a public trust. I would hope the government will live up to that, starting today.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, I wonder if the people in St. Albert actually made a mistake and sent the wrong person to Ottawa. Perhaps they were as confused as the member for St. Albert is today.

The members opposite talked about the heating oil rebate program. We could have had people filling in forms. The members opposite love filling in forms. The people would have then had their cheques by next winter. That would have been a reasonable option according to the member.

The Alliance Party put a motion in the House just before the election calling for a reduction in the excise tax on gasoline. A comparable amount to the $1.3 billion would have been maybe a cent a litre. Of course that money would have gone to the oil companies. I assume then that when the member says there are people in need, he actually meant the oil companies because a litre of gas goes up and down a cent in one afternoon. We knew that a cent a litre would go straight to the oil companies and not to Canadians. That was the proposition the Alliance Party brought to the floor.

One of the members opposite also talked about the fact that half of the people who are getting the cheques do not need them. Eleven million Canadians are getting them, so a half of 11 million would be 5.5 million Canadians, low income Canadians who do not need heat or who do not have to pay for heat. In some other provinces they might have very generous landlords who do not pass on their costs

Could the member for St. Albert confirm to the House if he really feels the rebate should have gone to the oil companies in line with the Alliance's proposition before the election was called?