Debates of Feb. 13th, 2004

Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to this bill. I find it very symbolic and very representative of the kind of stunts this government, the Liberals and this Prime Minister seem to enjoy playing. Of course, this is to be expected just before an election. Bill C-18 is basically a partisan piece of legislation that goes against the interest of Quebec and the rest of the provinces.

First, in Bill C-18, two distinct components have been combined. The first one deals with extending the current equalization program that the provinces, and Quebec in particular, do not like and have been criticizing. The second one is to approve the $2 billion that was first promised to the provinces by Jean Chrétien and then by the former finance minister and that will probably be paid by the current Prime Minister.

On the one hand, we are against the extension of the current equalization program, because it penalizes Quebec and Atlantic Canada, in particular. On the other hand, we agree with the $2 billion for health promised by Jean Chrétien. The government thinks it can fool of us by coercing us to vote in favour of a bill that would penalize Quebec and Atlantic Canada over the next fiscal year. It is not fooling anyone, not the people of Quebec and not the Bloc Quebecois.

We demand that this bill be split. While we are in favour of Bill C-18 being referred to a committee, we will be bringing forward in committee an amendment to split the bill into two very distinct parts, as I mentioned earlier. So much for the first stunt.

Second, by introducing a bill that would extend the equalization program and provide an additional $2 billion for health, as promised over and over again, the federal government would have us believe that it is being very generous and that the provinces will be the big winners here. That is not true.

In this fiscal year alone, federal transfer payments to Quebec have been cut by about 5%. That means $423 million less in Quebec's coffers, even with the $2 billion, of which Quebec will receive $472 million.

We are not stupid. The federal government is financially starving the provinces, especially Quebec. Next year, if the equalization formula is maintained and if there is no agreement to increase health care funding, transfer payments to Quebec will drop by $1.55 billion. This is unacceptable. We will not allow Ottawa to financially starve the Quebec government at the expense of Quebeckers. We will not endorse this.

Third, the federal government is making a big deal about the $2 billion it is transferring for health care but has failed to mention that this year it will save $2 billion in equalization payments. That is the federal government's strategy: to take with one hand and give with the other. The problem is that the rules are not the same when it comes to equalization or the CHST.

The CHST is based on population percentage. Equalization, however, is based on the relative wealth of the provinces. Consequently, Quebec and the Atlantic provinces lose under Bill C-18. The proof is that, this year, under the equalization program, our share of the 2002-03 amount will drop 38%. These figures bear repeating because they are evidence of this third stunt pulled by the Liberals and the federal government.

The figures I am providing are from the study by Quebec's finance minister, Mr. Séguin, who is far from being a separatist, as the Liberals say, and who should have a certain credibility in their eyes. In 2002-03, under the equalization program, Quebec received $5.315 billion. In 2003-04, the current fiscal year, it received $3.29 billion. That is a 38.1% decrease. Projections for next year are approximately $3.5 billion. Compared to 2002-03, this is a 34.1% decrease.

And now they are trying to sell us on the idea of extending the current equalization formula at the expense of Quebec's finances. This is unthinkable.

Looking at the Canada health and social transfer, we see that in 2002-03 we received $2.648 billion. In 2003-04 we received $2.58 billion, a drop of 2.6%.

This year there is of course the increase provided for in the February 2002 agreement plus the $2 billion, which means for Quebec a total of $1.647 billion. And there is $1.367 billion in other transfers. So this year Quebec will receive in federal transfer payments $8.884 billion compared to the $9.3 received in 2002-03. That is a net loss of 4.5%.

They want the Bloc Quebecois, the sole defender of the interests of Quebec in this House, to accept such a unilateral reduction in transfer payments by the government. Next year, again compared to 2002-03, according to our very conservative estimate, the losses will be in the order of 16.7%.

We therefore cannot accept the sort of stunt they are trying to pull with Bill C-18, which will, when all is said and done, penalize Quebec and the Atlantic provinces in particular, as I have said, by strangling them financially.

We can see, since the numbers are there, that the basic intent of Bill C-18 is to allow the federal government to save money. The $2 billion—which, I will remind hon. members, is $2 billion with no guarantee of repetition next year, far from it—is merely an attempt to conceal what they are doing. This is why they have put the two elements into Bill C-18. But, once again, we are not taken in, nor are the people of Quebec.

Fourth, since there has been a new prime minister, since there has been a new finance minister, they have copied the tactics of the former finance minister, now Prime Minister.

They claim the financial situation is very difficult, pointing to examples of current issues that are indeed of great concern: the mad cow crisis, which the federal government should come up with more money for, the SARS crisis, and a number of other things such as the power outage in Ontario.

The government says finances will be very tight now. It expects to have a lot of difficulty raising $2.3 billion in surpluses. What did we learn this week? From April to December, the federal government already raised $5.2 billion. The surplus will be closer to $6 billion or $7 billion, as the Bloc Quebecois predicted earlier.

Consequently, the federal government put up a show to try to relieve the pressure on the negotiations concerning equalization and health. When he met with provincial premiers, the Prime Minister said, “I will not solve the problem now. I will wait until July”.

Why will he wait until July? Because he hopes to hold his election before then. Of course, I am not convinced that, with the current events, it will be easy. However, at the time, his idea was to call an election as soon as possible and postpone the problems.

It is the same with Bill C-18. The government does not want a debate, it does not want to negotiate the equalization formula with the provinces. It is downloading, hoping that the election will be held before then.

In an attempt to cover all this, it is pretending that it is having financial problems, which is false. Not only there are surpluses, but there is $6 billion sitting in the foundations that were created by the current Prime Minister.

We know that Jacques Léonard, the former president of the Treasury Board in Quebec, did a wonderful job for the Bloc Quebecois. He showed that the federal government had increased its spending at a pace that was double that of Quebec and Ontario, and that there was a lot of waste. It is not just the sponsorship scandal; there is also a culture of waste within the federal government. If things were tightened up, we would have ample means to settle the issue and negotiate quickly.

Fifth, all this is done with one goal in mind, which is to put all the problems off until after the election. Afterwards, the government will give the bad news to Quebec and to the other provinces.

We will not be fooled. We will not play this game. We will not condone what the Liberals want to do to the provinces and to Quebec in particular, which is to put a financial stranglehold on them and not deal with the fiscal imbalance.

Nor will we condone the laxness of this government, which could easily have negotiated the new equalization rules before March 31. We will not play this game and we will not support Bill C-18.

We hope that this bill will be split and that the issue of the $2 billion for health will be addressed separately.

As I said, we will ask that the $2 billion be a recurrent amount and that the equalization program be extended before March 31 if possible, but in any case before the election.

In conclusion, we will support the referral of this bill to the Standing Committee on Finance.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-18, an act respecting equalization and authorizing the Minister of Finance to make certain payments related to health.

I listened very carefully to the parliamentary secretary's comments on introducing Bill C-18. What we heard essentially was a bit of a historical account and a somewhat clinical recitation about equalization payments and the Canada health and social transfer which is a critically important part of the Canadian fiscal regime. In a way the parliamentary secretary's comments are significant not for what was included but for what was omitted.

He expressed concern and sounded ever so committed to the federal government keeping its fiscal and moral commitment to Canadians to ensure that regardless of which province people happen to live in they will be entitled to a roughly comparable level of service in the vital areas of health, education, child care and so on.

What the parliamentary secretary failed to say despite this show of concern is that the government has been so unwilling to see it as a priority to ensure not just that equalization payments continue but that there be a fair formula for equalization payments. The government has been dragging its feet and the current regime expires at the end of March. It has had five years to negotiate a renewal agreement that would be more fair and more effective.

What we are dealing with here is a stop-gap measure. We are dealing with a bill that is necessitated because the government has not seen it as enough of a priority to work in good faith with the provinces to put in place the new formula for equalization which is desperately needed and long overdue.

We know that the provinces have been working hard and in good faith to put forward a new formula. We heard from the parliamentary secretary about how the old formula works. What he did not say is that a very specific proposal has been brokered and worked on over a period of years that is based on a 10 provinces agreement and a 10 provinces formula.

The federal government has not been willing to come to an agreement about that new improved formula. Why? Despite the expression of concern about the inadequacy and deterioration of services across this country as a result of federal policies over the last 10 years, it seems content to continue using the same formula because it saves the government money. It needs to find ways to save money no matter whether it comes out of the hides of Canadians who are the most vulnerable in this country or wherever the government can find it because we know what the government's priorities are.

When the government decides that a corporate tax cut of $4.4 billion comes first, then no wonder it is avoiding entering into a good faith agreement with the provinces that would allow the equalization funds to be more adequate and more fair.

So much for the notion that the Prime Minister can claim that it is a new, different and better government. What we see by the introduction of this bill today is simply an admission of failure. It is a revelation of how vacuous the Prime Minister's claim is that he is a Prime Minister that has a much improved working relationship with our premiers.

There is more to having an improved working relationship with our premiers than going to a football game with the boys. There is no question it is a good photo op and it is smart to come out of the starting gate saying that he is getting together with the premiers so they can just get along better.

I would not presume to speak for any premier. However, I think one could say without fear of contradiction that the vast majority of the premiers would be a lot more impressed with the supposed commitment of the new Prime Minister to work in better harmony and good faith with them if the government had moved to endorse the 10 province formula. That formula was worked on over a very long period of time. If it could be in place so that it took effect April 1 we would not need this stop-gap legislation.

Let us make no mistake about it. It is not going to be missed on Canadians why this stop-gap legislation is needed. It is needed because when it comes to the fiscal regime and equalization, the new Prime Minister and the new finance minister have behaved no differently, no more responsibly, no more in response to the need for change by the provinces than the old regime, the previous finance minister and the old prime minister. And I do not mean old in years, I mean old in terms of chronology.

I want to refer to the second part of the bill which is to deal with the $2 billion that we hear trumpeted as a great achievement of the new Prime Minister. Let us not be that easily taken in by the notion that the $2 billion desperately needed for health care was an option and the Prime Minister might have said, “We are not going to do that after all because we do not have enough money”.

We have heard all the posturing from the new Prime Minister, the new finance minister and the other cheerleaders for the new regime. They are saying that they have to be fiscally responsible, that they may not have that $2 billion that was absolutely recommended as the rock bottom measure. That was the first measure needed to begin to make up for the money that was lost, that was clawed back by the federal government, that was held back from the health and social transfer over the last several years.

There was not an option, not unless the new government, the new Prime Minister and the new finance minister wanted to engage in a massive kamikaze effort here. It is clear that health care is the number one priority of Canadians. It is clear that the loss of those dollars at the insistence of the former finance minister, who now happens to be the Prime Minister, has very severely eroded the quality of health care, particularly in have not provinces like my own, Nova Scotia, and in the other six have not provinces. It has made it very clear that the provinces have to carry the load. They have to bear the burden of the elimination of much of the federal funding for health care over the last several years.

It is not surprising that the premier of Nova Scotia has said that the $2 billion clearly is not sufficient to deal with the horrendous waiting lists for specialist services and diagnostic services. It is not sufficient to deal with the log-jam at emergency hospital rooms. It is not sufficient to deal with the damage done over the last nine years because of the former finance minister's budgets.

What is absolutely clear is that even with the $2 billion granted, it does not begin to close the Romanow gap. When the Romanow report on the future of Canada's health care was presented, it was absolutely clear that there was a need for changes to the equalization formulas. There was a need to address many of the other aspects of the health care system which had been badly damaged by the government's misplaced priorities.

In conclusion, there is no indication whatsoever with Bill C-18 that the government is seriously committed to creating a fairer, more effective equalization regime. There is no indication that the government will begin to do what is needed to put in place the kind of health care system that Romanow recommended, that was put before the Canadian people. Health care remains the number one priority for Canadians.

Auditor General's Report

[Paul Bonwick, Liberal, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to pay praise and tribute to Auditor General Sheila Fraser, and to fully support our Prime Minister for his decisive actions in response to Ms. Fraser's report.

We recognize that without doubt there are those who have abused the public trust. As elected officials, we are privileged to serve our constituents who must have unquestioned confidence in our government. I can say that this elected official is deeply disturbed by Ms. Fraser's findings, as is this entire government.

Now is the time for strong leadership in the country and Prime Minister Paul Martin has displayed tremendous leadership by taking decisive and immediate action in response to the Auditor General's report.

Indeed, last fall, one of his first actions as Prime Minister was to cancel the sponsorship program. He has accepted all the Auditor General's recommendations concerning the sponsorship program. Moreover, he has pledged to take the necessary steps to uncover what happened to ensure those who are responsible are held to account.

[The Deputy Speaker]

First, I would hesitate to interrupt a member, particularly during statements by members, but clearly, as has already been indicated earlier today, we must recognize one another by portfolio or riding names, certainly not by any other.

Government of Canada

[Reed Elley, Canadian Alliance, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons I ran for federal politics seven years ago was because I recognized that there was something seriously wrong in our democracy. Many have called it the democratic deficit, and I am not at all confident that this government has the moral fortitude to fully address this issue.

While in this House, I have witnessed far too many scandals. The billion dollar boondoggle in HRDC, the Shawinigate affair, another billion dollars or more wasted on the ill-fated gun registry, the hep C tainted blood scandal and I could go on.

Now the Auditor General has exposed perhaps the greatest scandal that this House has seen in many years. It appears that this Liberal government turned a blind eye to taxpayer money being funnelled through Liberal-friendly advertising agencies to outside groups and events. After taking their cut, they passed it on to Liberal-friendly businesses and one can only speculate where the rest of the money went from there.

The Prime Minister, who was then the minister of finance, wants us to believe that he did not know anything was going on. Canadians are not stupid. Now the Liberals have gone too far. Maybe this is the scandal that will send them packing at the next election. I can only hope so, because Canadians deserve an honest government for a change.

Safeway

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, since 1998 Canada Safeway stores have been selecting an annual charity to support as part of Safeway's “Because We Care” program. We were asked by our local Safeways to participate in this initiative by helping to provide volunteers and to help promote the fundraising activities.

This Saturday, February 14, is the “Show Your Heart” campaign where we will be on hand to support three local charities chosen by Safeway stores in my riding: Miriam Centre, a counselling centre for woman and children; Teen Stop Jeunesse, a drop in centre that offers basic needs to youth as well as adult education courses; and Jocelyne House, a local hospice for terminally ill patients.

More than 75 volunteers have agreed to support us in our efforts this coming Saturday. This confirms once again Manitoba's reputation as the volunteer capital of the world.

We thank Safeway and its employees, and we are pleased to support these charities and their organizers and volunteers who work relentlessly to improve the quality of life of citizens in our communities.

Royal Canadian Army Cadet League

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this year the Royal Canadian Army Cadet League celebrates its 125th anniversary.

In celebration of that anniversary, last week I had the honour of attending and presenting a new Canadian flag to the 2870 Royal Canadian Dragoons Army Cadet Corps in my riding of Ottawa West—Nepean at the Connaught Rifle Range, along with Commanding Officer Captain Maureen Hayes. I also conducted an inspection of the corps.

I am delighted to note that the corps aims to develop leadership, citizenship and community involvement in young people between the ages of 12 to 18.

Just before flag day, I am especially pleased to remember the presentation of the flag and to congratulate the Royal Canadian Army Cadet League for 125 years of history.

Frostbite Music Festival

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, the exciting winter warming activities in Yukon start this weekend with the Frostbite Music Festival, with fantastic talent from across Canada. This is followed shortly thereafter by the Yukon Quest, the world's longest international dog race. It goes a thousand miles from Yukon to Alaska, shortly to be followed, I hope, by a pipeline and a railroad.

We want to thank Agriculture Canada for its great work this year in helping to make this possible.

Finally, the celebrations reach a climax with the Yukon Sourdough Winter Carnival. Visit me in my traditional role as benevole at cabana a sucre.

To all members of Parliament and everyone in the gallery, they should pack their dog booties now, make their plane reservations and come to Yukon for this year's greatest winter carnival celebration.

Member for LaSalle--Émard

[Rob Anders, Canadian Alliance, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the new Prime Minister would have us forget that he was the kingpin in Jean Chrétien's game. He wants us to forget that he was responsible for over $1 billion being wasted on the gun registry. He was responsible for over $1 billion disappearing in the HRDC boondoggle. He is now responsible for over $100 million in kickbacks involving his Liberal friends in Quebec.

Are we now to believe that he had no recollection in the tainted blood scandal, no idea that his companies avoided Canadian taxes with tailor-made tax haven laws and no knowledge that Canada Steamship Lines received $161 million in corporate welfare? At best a fool, at worst a fraud. Canadians deserve better.

Innovation Programs

[Robert Lanctôt, Liberal, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the past decade has clearly demonstrated the major impact innovation can have on the strength of the economy.

When we think about innovation we often think about universities or research and development labs at large companies. However, innovation can occur in other places such as small businesses or colleges.

To showcase the innovations that might come out of these prolific sources, this government has mobilized partners and committed the necessary funds: some $3.6 million. Together with the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council and the Association of Canadian Community Colleges, an initiative was launched to help innovations get a foothold in the market.

Participating colleges could receive as much as $600,000 over three years to work with the private sector in order to market innovations quickly.

Rivière-des-Mille-Îles

[Gilles-A. Perron, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in my last householder I asked my constituents in Rivière-des-Mille-Îles for their opinion and comments on 10 hot topics. I was guided by the principle that, for the people to be sovereign, the elected representative must do what the people decide.

I must say I was pleasantly surprised at the high participation rate and I am encouraged and proud of the involvement of the people I represent. The statistics from this opinion poll are quite telling, and confirm the positions already taken by the Bloc Quebecois in this House on most issues.

I can assure the people of my riding that I will continue to represent them and strongly and faithfully defend them. I sincerely thank all those who support me in my political option.

Allow me to wish a happy birthday to my mother, who was born on Friday, February 13, 1913. Happy birthday Philomène.

Foreign Credentials

[Gurbax Malhi, Liberal, Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the current recognition and evaluation of foreign credentials is an issue that puts Canada in a unique predicament. We are a country recognized for our great resource base, multicultural population, universal respect and activities toward achieving and maintaining peace, and our highly developed infrastructure program.

It is therefore imperative that we work with the provinces and territories to see that the credentials of foreign immigrants are efficiently and fairly recognized. As a country, Canada stands to greatly benefit by the input of a world of great minds that provide a plethora of unique skills and training.

I am proud to rise today to provide my full support to see that this issue is given the support it requires. I would invite my colleagues in the House to help me communicate this message to all Canadians, as well as foreigners considering a life in Canada.

Youth Criminal Justice Act

[Chuck Cadman, Canadian Alliance, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on July 16, 2000, a 15 year old car thief ran a stop sign in Surrey and t-boned an SUV, killing 11 year old Tina Burbank. Her mother, Chrissy, and her grandparents were seriously injured. Chrissy has since founded Our Angels in Heaven, a support group for parents of children lost to violent crime.

Tina's killer was sentenced to 19 months, including six in secure custody, for criminal negligence causing death. At sentencing, Chrissy received a letter from him expressing sorrow and his desire to switch places with Tina.

Last week an 18 year old was charged with dangerous driving, flight, possession of stolen property and driving while prohibited in a case involving a stolen pickup truck. Even though he is 18, he cannot be identified. Why? Because to do so would name him as Tina Burbank's killer. So much for the crocodile tears and deterrence.

Chrissy is not surprised and holds out little hope for car thieves, because in her words, “They know nothing is going to happen to them”. Sadly, she is right because under this government's new Youth Criminal Justice Act, nothing will change. In fact it will in all likelihood get worse.

Brewing Industry

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canada' s small breweries have been winning international quality awards for years. Their product variety and quality is exceptional. Their industry has as much potential as the Canadian wine industry had 10 years ago.

In 1984 there were only two small brewers in Canada. Today, my riding of Kitchener--Waterloo alone is home to two small breweries: Brick Brewery and Lion Beer Factory, with 85 more located in large and small communities across the country. They have added 2,000 jobs to Canada's brewing industry.

To promote more jobs in this sector, I ask the government to embrace in this year's budget the finance committee's recommendation from last year that states, “To reduce the excise tax for Canadian small brewers by 60% to achieve parity with U.S. small brewers”.

Homeless

[Wendy Lill, NDP, Dartmouth, NS]

Mr. Speaker, homelessness is a national crisis in Canada, yet the attitude of the government has been to turn a blind eye.

In Dartmouth and Halifax almost 31,000, or 8% of the population, are on the brink of homelessness. A Halifax study has found many of these people are under 24 and many have disabilities.

High housing costs often mean choosing between paying the rent, buying food or getting prescriptions. Why are any of our citizens being forced to make such choices? Being homeless means thinking, “How can I get through the day?”, instead of, “How can I contribute to the society that I live in?”

These are some of our most vulnerable citizens, yet the callous attitude of the Prime Minister has been to cut the national housing program as finance minister and not appoint a secretary of state for housing.

I call on the Prime Minister to immediately put forth a national housing strategy and to devote 1% of the budget to housing.

Cégeps en spectacle

[Marcel Gagnon, Bloc, Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the 24th edition of the Cégeps en spectacle local finals at the Collège de Shawinigan has been a great success. More than 40 young people trod the boards of the auditorium, dancing, playing music, singing and juggling.

The judges, including actor Robert Brouillette, winner of the 1984 finals, were won over by three creative numbers in singing, music and dancing. Singer-songwriter-performer Lillianne Pellerin took first prize. Many volunteers contributed to the success of this cultural event, onstage and backstage, even operating the lights.

Many new talents have been discovered through this competition, including Sylvain Cossette, Denis Trudel, Jean-François Bastien. Cégeps en spectacle will continue to be a life changing and unforgettable experience for many generations of students.

Congratulations for 25 talented years of Cégeps en spectacle.

Canadian Flag

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this Sunday, February 15, is the 39th anniversary of the Canadian flag. This distinctive emblem is recognized the world over. It is a symbol of Canadian identity and a source of pride for every one of us.

On February 15, 1965, at the stroke of noon, the national flag of Canada was raised for the first time, right here on Parliament Hill. The Speaker of the Senate at that time said this:

The flag is the symbol of the nation's unity, for it, beyond any doubt, represents all the citizens of Canada without distinction of race, language, belief or opinion.

These words are just as meaningful today as they were then.

I hope that all Canadians will get together to celebrate Canada's flag on Sunday and will start planning even bigger and better celebrations for the 40th anniversary next year, on February 15, 2005.

Long live Canada.

Liberal Party of Canada

[Gerry Ritz, Canadian Alliance, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is Friday the 13th, but the Liberal Party must feel like Bill Murray in Groundhog Day . Every morning, the same headlines proclaim its faults, and everyday it stumbles into a fresh gopher hole.

The Prime Minister claims to be a fresh face, but as fast as he blames his predecessor for scandals he signed off on, he sets a speed record for invoking closure to get the same old bills back on the Order Paper.

Platitudes concerning the democratic deficit are trumped by its actions once in power; a Liberal trademark.

On this unlucky day we are again reminded of billion dollar job creation schemes that instead created bankruptcies, billion dollar gun registry schemes that instead created a safe environment for criminals, and of course, a $3 billion Kyoto environmental scheme that has no plan.

We are also reminded of how true to form it is for Liberals to say one thing: encourage more women to run for Parliament and then do the other; encourage their attack dogs to eliminate the women they do not like.

If the Prime Minister gets through this day, I would suggest he go to Hamilton, on bended knee, on Valentine's Day and make up with his former--

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Perth--Middlesex.

Stratford Festival

[Gary Schellenberger, Progressive Conservative, Perth—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday morning it was my great pleasure to sponsor a meeting concerning the Stratford Festival of Canada.

The Stratford Festival employs some 700 people and is responsible for contributing $125 million to the economy. The festival is world famous for its excellence in presenting Shakespearian classics and has taken a leadership role in offering new works illustrating the cultural mosaic of Canada.

The festival is truly a national performing arts organization. The stages at Stratford also serve to train young emerging Canadian actors and playwrights and prepare them for careers.

The federal government's matching endowment program is a very important and appreciated source of funding.

I want to thank the MPs representing multiple parties who took time out of their busy schedules to discuss this great Canadian institution.

I am proud to have the Stratford Festival of Canada located in the heart of my riding of Perth--Middlesex.

Government Contracts

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister, despite his denials, was made aware of the mismanagement of the sponsorship program two years ago in a letter that came from the Liberal Party policy chair. True to form, he did nothing. He blamed an uneasy relationship with the former prime minister. In other words, he was competing for his boss's job and it made things a little uncomfortable, causing tension.

Why was the Prime Minister's personal ambition and rush to get to 24 Sussex put ahead of taxpayers' trust?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said yesterday that the gravity of the situation began to emerge in the early part of 2002.

Mr. Maharaj's letter was written in February 2002. The Groupaction matter was referred to the Auditor General in March. She reported in May and then proceeded to her more detailed examination. Obviously that is completely consistent with what the Prime Minister described yesterday.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the more the Prime Minister claims he knew nothing, the more incompetent he looks. Was he on top of his department? Was he looking out for taxpayers' money? Or was he shamelessly working to get the prime minister's job? It appears that this political ambition, this naked ambition, took precedence over anything else.

The Liberal friendly firms that received millions of dollars in taxpayers' money were working for the Liberal Party. If the Prime Minister is serious about getting the money back, will the Liberal Party coffers pay that money back to the taxpayers and then will they go after those crooked firms?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, in the announcements the Prime Minister made on Tuesday he indicated that we have already appointed a special legal counsel for the recovery of money. The credentials of Monsieur André Gauthier are absolutely above reproach. He has the full authority to follow the money trail wherever that trail may lead.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, those promises are about as thin and flexible as Flat Mark.

Crown corporation heads may roll, according to the Prime Minister. Among those on the chopping block should be BDC President Michel Vennat, who was part of a well orchestrated smear campaign against the former president, François Beaudoin.

A Superior Court judge said Beaudoin suffered “unspeakable injustice”, and Vennat's evidence at trial was rejected.

Will the Prime Minister ensure that a public inquiry will include in the terms of reference a review of the Auberge Grand-Mère file and, in the meantime, will they fire BDC President Michel Vennat?