Alexa McDonough

[Health, April 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, what we have is a Prime Minister and ministers who are all talk and no action.

Let me try the health minister.

I led my party through two elections with Liberals insisting that they alone could stop health privatization. Klein's private hospitals are still open and privatization is on the increase from British Columbia through to Nova Scotia. All the health minister can say is, “Watch me stop it”.

The Liberals continue to feign opposition to privatization while they watch it spread. Why would Canadians believe them now?

[Liberal Party of Canada, April 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

I entered federal politics because I worried about the mess that the Liberals would create and now I am bloody well fed up with the Prime Minister's refusal to clean up the mess that they have created.

The contempt for Parliament is unspeakable. Three times a democratic vote has taken place and three times Mr. Democracy has decided that he knows what is best.

What will it take for the Prime Minister to be accountable to this Parliament and to Canadians?

[Supply, April 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member for Gatineau two very direct questions. She said she likes to answer questions and she welcomes questions.

I am a bit distressed by the tone of her earlier comments, but perhaps sometimes we all get a little carried away, when she said that the only reason we find ourselves here debating this motion is because the opposition parties are trying to have some fun at the government's expense. There is nothing fun and there is nothing funny about the crisis of confidence that these scandals have created in this country. It is not good for Canada and certainly not good for democracy.

She has strenuously repeated that it would be the intention of the government to ensure that every single cent is repaid to the public purse that is found to have been ill-begotten money, money that was gained through illegal means. If she is so absolutely adamant on that point, why would she not simply agree that in order to create confidence in the public, a display of good faith, it would be a very sound measure to put that money in a trust fund. Then, if there is money that in fact was not obtained illegally, that portion of it would in fact be returned to the Liberal Party or whomever.

Second, I would like to ask the member for Gatineau if she would elaborate on comments that were attributed to her today in the Toronto Star about how the problem with these alleged kickbacks, and corruption among advertising firms and the Liberal Party in Quebec is a tale about men, by men. Her colleague actually went on to say, and I am not asking her to comment on her colleague's comment, that this brings to the fore the need for more women to be elected. There is considerable research, domestically and internationally, that this very often does significantly cause a decline in the level of corruption.

[Supply, April 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for Repentigny for his remarks. I have to say to the previous Liberal intervener that I do not know how he can accuse the ultra-conservatives and the separatists of trying to search for an excuse to call an election. The excuse has been dished up by Liberal misdeeds and Liberal corruption and it is Canadians who are wanting answers to these questions.

I have a question around the trust fund proposal that is at the heart of the motion we are debating today. I am wondering if the Bloc Québécois has looked at the disgraceful example of political corruption that took place in my beloved province of Nova Scotia, I am sorry to say, largely at the hands of Liberals.

I am talking of provincial Liberals in this case. There were ill-gotten gains to the Liberal Party of the day, and in fact, it was also found to be the case that the Conservative Party, governing in a previous time, had also actually succeeded at this. These gains came through a labyrinth of relationships among big corporations in the distillery and brewery industry, the respective parties and the government of the day. They ripped off a great deal of public money which in fact ended up in trust funds. To this very day, even though people were found guilty of fraud, of bribery and of influence peddling, the money that ended up in a trust fund in the possession of the Liberal Party still to this day funds Liberal Party elections--

[Supply, April 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the member for, as usual, bringing his superb legal skills and knowledge to bear on the very serious issues that are before us. He has spoken ever so clearly as to why we as politicians and parliamentarians have to be prepared to meet a higher standard of public conduct than is normally thought to be required of the average person and the average institution. Such is the nature of holding public office.

I have a question that arises out of the member's reference to the 2005 global corruption report, which shows that Canada has descended, almost tumbled, from fourth to 11th place in terms of being clear of major corruption. Canada was in 11th place actually before the shocking revelations of the systematic corruption that is eating away at the Liberal Party and destroying the credibility of the government.

We know that corruption can cost governments and countries. It can even cost people their lives in some instances. I wonder if the member might speak more directly to what it is costing in terms of the confidence in our democratic system, costing in terms of the democratic processes that go to the very heart of our--

[Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, April 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I find it disappointing in the extreme that if no government member was prepared to enter the debate further and time was available that they would not be willing to allow some questions and comments.

The question I would have asked the member from Kenora who just presented his comments is why he insists upon viewing the problem that our students face, with crippling debt and skyrocketing tuitions, as a problem that should be characterized, as he did, as students who borrow from the taxpayer and then do not adequately honour their debts.

That absolutely sums up what is so utterly and totally bankrupt, both financially and morally, about the Liberal government's approach to post-secondary education funding, in particular to supporting students and making it possible for them to pay their tuition.

Any modern industrial society that does not understand that post-secondary education is an investment in the future is doomed to be a society that lives up to its potential, never mind being able to compete with all the other industrial nations that do invest. In fact most OECD countries have tuition free post-secondary education systems because they understand the value. They understand the difference between a loan from the taxpayers and an investment.

I want to thank all members who participated in the debate. I do not have time to review all of the comments but I want to thank my colleagues, the member for Skeena and the member for Windsor West who, I think, are the two youngest members of our caucus, but am not sure about that. They understand perhaps better than some of us who have been around a little longer how really serious this problem is for their generation and the students coming along behind. They are at that stage in their life when they are busy getting on with it and when they see others coming along behind them who find that they are crippled with debt, they understand what it means.

Students are forced to drop out of school or are not able to attend a college and university in the first place. If they do get there, the quality of their educational experience is eroded because they have to struggle with part time jobs in order to put food on the table. In this day and age, imagine what a commentary this is on how pathetic the government's commitment is to post-secondary education funding when students have to spend time organizing food banks on college and university campuses these days.

It was disappointing, after listening carefully, to hear the comments made by government members.

Before I get into that, I also appreciate the fact that both of the other opposition parties definitely understood the severity and the magnitude of the problem that faces today's post-secondary education students. I welcomed their indication that they were prepared to vote to see that this bill goes before committee.

I want to use my final moment to plead with government members to say that this is not a bill that pretends to solve all the problems. It does not propose a comprehensive solution to what has been 13 years of problems created by the government by the systematic erosion of funding and the failure, even in the most recent budget, to return post-secondary core funding to the level that it was in 1993 when the Liberals came to office.

Of course the bill would not solve all the problems. It deals with a very narrow particular problem, a problem of last resort for students who say that they do not know what else to do but to declare bankruptcy under the terrible financial circumstances they find themselves in.

They turn to that and find they are actively and aggressively discriminated against by a perverse change in the law introduced by the government in 1998 because it said that students were going bankrupt left, right and centre. Would one not think that would have been the canary in the mine syndrome to tell the government it should stop heaping the debt on students, which causes them to have to contemplate bankruptcy.

I know my time is up, but I plead with government members to send this to committee so we can improve upon it. It is not cast in stone. We have indicated that we are prepared to look at some flexibility, not to say it is absolutely two years or nothing. We can look--

[Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, April 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am not trying to get around the rules. I am just saying that if nobody else wants to ask the previous speaker any questions, I would like to do so and then move to wrap up if I have the consent of the House to do that.

[Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, April 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to make closing remarks, but I was wondering, in view of the fact that there are five more minutes, if I could ask the hon. member who just spoke a couple of questions. Would that be in order?

[Committees of the House, April 4th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I want to go back to the member again. He simply did not answer the question. I know he has the right not to answer the question, but I wonder if he could please address the question.

He chose to reiterate what the minister has said, which is to explore options for compensation, but that is not my question. My question is about whether he now holds the view, as has clearly been the position of the Krever inquiry and as has clearly been the view of the health committee in bringing forward this recommendation for the second time, that those who have been excluded in the pre-1986 period and post-1990 period should in fact be compensated equally in regard to the compensation provided for those from 1986 to 1990.

He did not address the question of whether he holds the view that yes, he supports the recommendation of the health committee in that regard. The minister did not make this clear. Or is he taking the view that it will depend upon whether there is enough money in the fund? Because of course it is our responsibility as parliamentarians to ensure that the funds are forthcoming, and one would think that on the government side there would be even more responsibility felt and undertaken.

If there are insufficient funds in the existing compensation fund that has been set up in a trust to ensure adequate compensation for those in the pre-1986 and post-1990 period, then it is our responsibility to find the funds and ensure that they are available. Is it his view that they should be compensated equally to the others if there is enough money? Or is it his view that they should be compensated equally to the others and if there is not sufficient money in the fund we need to figure out how to access the funds and ensure that they are available?

[Committees of the House, April 4th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the Liberal member's comments and I have a very specific question to put.

After hearing the member say that the negotiation process was in place and that we should take a hands off position and let it take its course, I wonder if it is his view that those who have been excluded from the hepatitis C compensation package to date, namely those infected before 1986 or after 1990, should under any and all circumstances receive compensation.

In other words, is it his view that they should receive compensation as of entitlement in the same manner as those who have now been recognized for compensation who were infected between 1986 and 1990, or is it his view that whether they are included or at what level of support they are included should depend upon what is found to be left over in the fund as a surplus?

In other words, should they be compensated because it is the fair and right thing to do and on the basis of evident need, or is it his view, as seems to be the view of the parliamentary secretary, that it will depend on how much money is left over? Could the member please clarify which is the case?