Debates of Feb. 8th, 2007

Textile Industry

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

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

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to have a chance to follow up on a couple of questions that I asked this week in the House.

I asked questions on successive days about the extravagant use of limousines by the Minister of Canadian Heritage while at the Juno's last year in Halifax. I received no answer on two key fronts.

There are a whole host of questions, but two key questions were never answered. Number one: Does the government consider it an extravagant use of taxpayers' money? Number two: Why were Treasury Board guidelines broken when these expenses were not posted on the website as required?

Last year Halifax was delighted to host the Juno's. In fact, Nova Scotia is one of the cultural capitals of Canada. We were delighted to have the Juno's for a number of reasons, one of which was the economic boom that it brought to Halifax. Taxpayers, however, were not aware of the extent to which the heritage minister contributed to that economic boom by the use of taxpayers' dollars.

I have the bill for the limo services that were used by the minister while she was in Halifax. It is interesting to note that she arrived on March 31 and left on April 3. On March 31, two different limousines were required. In fact, one was a mini-van and one was a limo. Apparently the mini-van was not good enough and the limo was requested. It took two orders to get her into the Delta Barrington.

Later that day she had another limo from 1:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. for three hours. That evening she required a stretch limo from 4:30 p.m. until 11:30 p.m. It was on standby, meaning it was not even used. It was just sitting there being charged to taxpayers while she was doing other stuff, some of which could have been business, some of which could have been personal.

On April 1 a sedan limo from 9:45 a.m. until 4:30 p.m. was used for seven hours. Most of that time the limo was on standby. Later that evening, a stretch limo was required from 5:30 p.m. until 11 p.m., with a half hour break, and then another limo from 11:30 p.m. to 1:30 a.m. That was hospitality night, and the minister should go to some of those.

The hotel the minister stayed at, the Delta Barrington, is exactly one-tenth of one kilometre from where the Juno's took place. The hospitalities were all in the same general area as well. The Economy Shoe Shop is a great place and one that I would recommend to many members for the artichoke dip. It is a great spot. It is where CTV had the big bash. Did the minister really need 7.5 hours of stretch limo on standby while she was inside the Economy Shoe Shop, which is less than one-tenth of one kilometre from the Metro Centre? The Metro Centre and the hotel also happen to be connected by pedway and underground tunnel. It seems a little excessive.

The next day she used a stretch limo. The day after the Juno's it says here that a stretch limo was on standby from 12 noon until 5:30 p.m. That evening, two sedan limos were required for standby for the red carpet walk event. So even when she walked, she needed limousines. It boggles the mind. After the Juno's a stretch limo was required from 11:30 p.m. until 1:30 a.m. The next morning a stretch limo took her out to the airport.

The total bill for limousines for the approximately three days that the heritage minister was in Halifax was $5,475, of which she repaid $2,000, leaving $1,000 a day for stretch limos to the taxpayer.

I notice the parliamentary secretary here. He is not the guilty party. He is probably as disgusted by this as I am. He is most likely armed with all kinds of notes about the wonderful things that the minister has done for arts and culture. It is a mirage, all these cuts that the rest of Canada knows about.

I would give him three of his four minutes to give us that stuff. That is fine. I would ask him to take one minute to answer two simple questions. Is $1,000 a day for a limousine reasonable? Why did the minister break Treasury Board guidelines, try to hide her expenses, and not post them on the website?

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise tonight because it gives me an opportunity to totally refute the member's assertion.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women followed all of the Treasury Board guidelines. In fact, I would like to take this opportunity to set the record straight.

In a one year comparison of proactive disclosure, it is clearly shown that our government takes seriously its responsibility to Canadian taxpayers.

In terms of hospitality and travel expenses, the former Liberal minister of Canadian heritage spent $182,693.96 in 2005. In 2006 the current minister's office just spent over $82,000, a difference of $100,000 more than the current minister spent. We are getting the job done at less than half the cost.

I would also remind the member opposite that it was the former Liberal heritage minister, Hélène Scherrer, who hopped on a Challenger jet, flew to Calgary, rented a limo for her jaunt to Banff where she delivered a purely partisan political attack in the middle of an election campaign, and that too was all at the taxpayers' expense. That was not bad enough. The Liberal minister decided she did not want to travel with her staffer, so she rented a car for her to get her back. Access to information requests on the cost of the Challenger trip for the Liberal minister's Banff bonanza came in at over $23,000.

In fact, when we talk about proactive disclosure, let us not forget why this policy had to be instituted in the first place. It was because of the Liberal sponsorship scandal. The current government has instituted the most sweeping accountability reforms in the history of the country because members of the party opposite could not keep their sticky fingers out of the cookie jar.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, there was not a word about the subject in question, not a word. The government talks about accountability, transparency and credibility. The World Wrestling Federation has more credibility than this bunch.

It is an outrage to Canadians regarding $1,000 a day for limousines, hiding the expense, and misleading the House of Commons. It is an affront to Canadians. It is still not on the website. I will table that from today if you want, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question. In this specific case, why the extravagance? Is $1,000 a day for a car a good expenditure? Why was it not disclosed and why was Parliament misled?

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member is not only a Liberal but apparently he has a little difficulty hearing. The $100,000 difference between the Conservative minister and the former Liberal minister apparently does not seem to register on the member's scale.

The minister said she would look into the proactive disclosure and she has. The former Liberal minister's office picked up and chose what went on the disclosure for transportation. We are a government of accountability and we are committed to disclosing all expenses of the minister.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, during question period on November 23, 2006, I asked the question as to who on the government's side was minding Manitoba. I did so because it was apparent that no one on that side was speaking up for the province and for the concerns of Manitobans. The answers that day were non-answers.

The issues on which they remain silent or absent are numerous and are hurting many Manitobans. The most notable issue is that of the Canadian Wheat Board. There is absolute silence, despite the undemocratic attacks on the Wheat Board. There is silence as many farmers, many rural communities and many families are put at risk. There is silence at the potential devastating economic impact on the city of Winnipeg, with over 2,000 jobs, a payroll of over $60 million and potential devastation at the corner of Portage and Main.

The labour market partnership agreement, $129 million, signed with the province of Manitoba for training, employment, literacy and apprenticeship for youth, aboriginals, the disabled and people at risk, was cancelled, with not a word of protest. The child care agreement, again signed with the province of Manitoba, over $150 million over five years, for 6,000 designated rural and urban spaces, already designated, already planned for, was cancelled without a word. Homelessness funding for operating costs and some for capital was cancelled.

Macdonald Youth Services, providing support for many teens at risk, has been unable to get its phone calls returned since early November. We have heard nothing on the issues of the health of Lake Winnipeg, an important recreational and economic force in the province. There has been silence on the east-west power grid and the cut to literacy. Then there is a tepid response when there was an outcry for a short term.

The court challenges program, one of the few national programs in the city of Winnipeg, was eliminated without a word of concern. Women's programs, with funding approved locally, were cancelled nationally and again not a word, silence. With the closure of the Status of Women office in Winnipeg, there was silence. With the Kelowna accord, again, there was silence.

What a difference it would have made in the lives of many Manitobans for housing, education, water and economic opportunity, but there was silence. We remain optimistic that the Public Health Agency headquarters will remain in Winnipeg, and we certainly hope so. We are hopeful that the government will ensure that the museum of human rights becomes a reality.

My question is for those on the opposite side, those who have the authority. Why do they not speak up for the province of Manitoba?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, one of the astonishing things that the Conservatives learned upon forming government in January 2006 was that our Liberal predecessors would regularly announce their support for particular projects and then refuse to sign supporting agreements and, in the rare cases when they did sign agreements, they would not allocate any funding whatsoever to fulfill them.

I will give one example. The Manitoba floodway is but one example of a shady practice of where the previous Liberal government made a promise but did not allocate the necessary funds to fulfill that promise.

In September 2005, the then Liberal Treasury Board president committed to build a full floodway in Manitoba, a project that would have cost an estimated $665 million. He announced that the Government of Canada would cover half the cost of this project, approximately $332 million. However, when we came to office and started checking the books, we found out that the federal government had only agreed to contribute $120 million, a small fraction of what it had promised publicly. In fact, the $120 million only covered the first of three phases of the floodway.

Last summer, when the second phase of the floodway was to begin, we were facing possible work shortages because no actual money was available. Despite their much publicized promise, the Liberals had not actually budgeted the remaining $213 million to bring that project to fruition.

There is some good news. I am happy that my colleague, the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, acted swiftly to come up with an additional $42 million immediately to ensure that tendering and construction would remain on schedule.

As for the remaining $170 million, I want to assure the House that, unlike the previous Liberal government, we will ensure the money is budgeted and is available.

A similar situation occurred with respect to the labour market partnership with Manitoba, another agreement signed with great pomp and ceremony but never allotted any money by the previous Liberal government.

The government is engaged in ongoing discussions with all provinces as to how to assist each with its labour market development and post-secondary training. Unlike the previous government, which would sign agreements without funding, the present Minister of Finance is in the process of serious discussions about how best to restore fiscal balance.

Since forming government in January 2006, Canada's new government has cooperated with provincial governments and private sector partners to see that projects, like the Manitoba floodway project, have the funding that was promised so we can deliver real results for real people.

That is what this government is all about. We make a promise and we deliver, instead of following the ancient practice of the previous government of making false promises that it had no intention whatsoever of keeping and for which it did not allocate a single, solitary red cent in order to honour.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his comments but it would have been nice to see a Manitoban here to respond. Again, it is part of a pattern.

The member opposite claims that moneys were not allocated. Those who were involved in the signing of the labour market partnership agreement know where that money was allocated. It was redistributed by the government, and those who were expecting it in Manitoba had it allocated and knew where it was going.

The member opposite neglected to answer the many other issues that I raised: the Wheat Board, east-west grid, Lake Winnipeg and homelessness. I ask members to come to Winnipeg on a day when it is minus 39° and see some of the things we are dealing with. When we see a $400,000 funding cut to a program and no response on the other side, no phone call returned, it is indeed time for that side to stand up for Manitoba and be there.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let us talk about those state run day care programs the hon. member alluded to. The member would like all Canadian parents who are now receiving $100 a month for every child under six to lose that money so that she and lobbyists from the day care industry can then decide how that money should be spent and then Manitobans would not have the ability to determine how to raise their own children.

The Liberal Party wants to take away the $100 choice in child care allowance that goes to every child under the age of six. Not only that, it would block the tough on crime initiatives that we are taking to clean up the streets in places like Manitoba, in places like Winnipeg, where crime is increasingly a problem and where streets are ruled by guns, gangs and thugs. The hon. member would allow that to go on.

We are acting to pass tough on crime legislation. Why are the Liberals blocking that legislation.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

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

(The House adjourned at 6:34 p.m.)