Paul Forseth

[Government Contracts, October 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board.

The Solicitor General has repeatedly tried to hide behind the Treasury Board guidelines to excuse his apparent payoff to friends with taxpayer money.

Has the Treasury Board given the Solicitor General, who maybe I should call the “baron of boodle” down there, a good housekeeping seal of approval about the guideline rules? The last I heard was that Treasury Board officials were still checking into it. Were the Treasury Board guidelines followed, yes or no?

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 8th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I would like my friend across the way to clarify a couple of things.

He talked a lot about the rhetoric around the debate and the vision for the future and leadership. We do not want a leadership that is foolhardy, that says we all jump off the cliff together.

When he talks about Kyoto, we want to make sure that he is honest with the public, that there is a clear distinction between pollution and climate change. I often hear them mixed up. Everybody is against pollution.

Do we have any cost benefit analysis for anything that we do and the investments that we make? To penalize behaviour through disincentive taxes, to perhaps reduce gasoline consumption, to change industrial activities or whatever would be done through some subsidies that would cost. Also, penalty taxes to shape behaviour would be tremendously disturbing to the economy, but perhaps that is what we need to do.

However, the cost of that versus the benefit has never been laid before Parliament. In fact it has never been laid before the Canadian people anywhere. We need some kind of cost benefit analysis. Canadians are prepared to dig into the issues, look at them and make a judgment, but the scenarios are being kept away from them. It is all on emotionalism. It is much like what I would describe the member was trying to promote this afternoon, that it is the patriotic thing to do, or it is the reasonable good thing to do, because it makes us feel good.

We all want to feel good about doing right for the environment, but where is the cost benefit analysis? Tell me why some of those things were even denied his caucus. When they were discussing the issue, they were kept from that caucus.

I am suggesting that we had better be very careful before we spend a lot of money which would have very little benefit for climate change, because that is what it is all about, climate change.

[Citizenship, October 4th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize our Queen's arrival today for Her official cross-Canada tour. On the occasion of the Queen's Jubilee I was pleased to receive community nominations from my riding and honour them with the Queen's Jubilee Medal for exemplary citizenship.

The following list of great Canadians have made Canada a better place. They are: Edna Anderson, Hilda Cliffe, Bill Drinkwater, Gordon Fulton, Alexandra Haussmann, Freda Hogg, Herb James, Alec Janyk, Douglas LaRoy, Peter Legge, J. Morrision McVea, Archie Miller, Noreen O'Neil, Antonio Paré, Baj Puri, Nancy Puri, Brian Smith, Gerda Suess, John Tompson, Ted Usher, Jean Buchan and F. John Blatherwick. I was honoured, on behalf of my Queen, to present the medals to many who do not usually receive recognition for making Canada the success that it is today.

We also wish to thank the Queen this day for exemplary duty in Her office that has given protection for us all.

[Speech from the Throne, October 2nd, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time.

I have represented my community in every throne speech debate since the 1993 election. The Liberal pattern has been to tantalize with messages to make Canadians feel good as offer generalities and hints of a political direction. On the surface, many of these former throne speeches have created some temporary hope for national achievement. Then subsequent administration has not fulfilled that anticipation.

I want to applaud the government for mentioning national economic fundamentals for I have always said that a strong economy is the foundation of a strong society. The government must also provide the right balance of programs for people, such as health care and education. However I wonder if some advocacy groups today will be very happy with the throne speech.

For example, in a previous throne speech in January 2001 there was given an expectation, which today we can observe was not fulfilled. Here we go again. I quote from a January 2001 commentary about a former throne speech. It says:

The speech from the throne is the signal that this government plans to ensure that all Canadians share the prosperity of Canada, and especially those people who have been shut out from the prosperity time and again.

We were particularly pleased by the emphasis on promoting a healthy democracy in which leadership can come from everyone. In the view of the National Council of Welfare, making sure that all Canadians share in Canada's riches must include the highest possible level of public participation.

That was a quote from nearly two years ago. Where are we today? What has changed for the better? The government cannot hide how poor they have been. This throne speech was just too predictable. Called “The Canada We Want”, the speech does not reflect the government we need. It is a pedestrian laundry list of intentions and largely a repeat of much of what was needed to be done. High priority items were not mentioned. Many of the points should and could have been done years earlier. This statement certainly will not inspire Canadians. They must be saying, “Is that all there is?”

The biggest cost item is the Kyoto protocol. Parliament will be forced to vote on it without any sound basis of cost. There will likely be no cost benefit analysis laid before Parliament. The government will go forward on mostly environmental goodwill and emotion looking for the votes rather than working for Canada's fundamental international interest. Is the average family better off economically this year? Do we have more participatory democracy?

We do not have that, but what we do have now, I am sad to say, is a lot of talk about legacy rather than leadership, promises rather than policy. We are no further ahead. In fact we have slipped and continue to slide on the United Nations index of nations. On the world market our dollar buys less than it ever has before. The dollar value benchmark is one that the government cannot hide from or explain. It is the world's judgment about our economy now and our future prospects. The low dollar represents the undeniable failure of the government to meet the people's needs.

Significantly, in the throne speech there is no clear ultimatum to finally fix medicare once and for all, but just more talk and deliberations with the provinces. It has always been my community promise to compliment and help the government when it appears to be going in the right direction. It is my parliamentary duty to hold the government accountable when it strays and falls short. It is also my commitment to a vision that I provide constructive alternatives and improvements for the betterment of Canada.

I oppose the throne speech and the government today because Canada can do better. I hope that I will again be elected as the official opposition vice-chair of the House Standing Committee of Government Operations and Estimates. There we anticipate breaking new ground with this committee, to greatly enhance the accountability of government spending plans and examine the efficacy of much of the spending that is statutory and does not come before Parliament each year. It is about accountability and also about doing the right things. It is what a throne speech should be all about.

Parliament needs better oversight of where most of the taxpayer money is going. We have not had that under the former finance minister since 1993. In fact he is so out of it that he even voted in a lark for the Tobin tax on an NDP motion.

That is an esoteric international socialist idea to tax international monetary flows and redistribute world income. Heaven help Canada if this rogue has his way as prime minister in view of his past performance.

His one claim to significance was even a borrowed policy from us to balance the national books. However he did not have the wherewithal for the whole package, balanced budget legislation or programmed pay down of the national debt.

Even as we as a country stand shoulder to shoulder with our allies, it is necessary that we are not diverted from protecting the Canadian way of life. We must balance national security needs with the Canadian Alliance long term agenda for building a more prosperous, inclusive and democratic society.

Regardless of the mediocre government leadership we have had, Canada is still one of the world's success stories. We enjoy prosperity and a higher quality of life compared to many on the globe. We have grown from a small agrarian people at Confederation to a complex, multicultural economic powerhouse. However we recall that we were not touched on our shores by World War II and we emerged at that time on top of the social and industrial world order. Sadly our great leadership position has been squandered since then and now we can count ourselves lucky just to remain in the G-8 of countries.

In the global knowledge economy our world position will depend upon innovation as we invest in the future of science and research and skill development. We must do better to invest in the new technology but also help young Canadians to get a head start. With a more principled government, it could be envisioned that someday our people would find a culture of freedom and inclusion. More than ever we need a skilled workforce and an innovative economy for everyone.

Innovation is the bridge between today and tomorrow; between fresh ideas and new opportunities for all Canadians. Canada must become more debt free, keep inflation and unemployment low and become more internationally competitive in tax and regulatory structure. The barriers to greatness as a nation are often ones of our own making, such as the socialist bad habits, the politics of envy and regional resentment.

What I am saying is that Canada's fall from international leadership is Canadian made. Our missed opportunities or also-ran status as a nation is a legacy of Liberal and Conservative governments. What we really need is more freedom. We need the basic freedom to move goods, capital and labour. We need the freedom to learn, through investments in education and skill development. We need the freedom to become, through participatory democracy and support for rights.

I love my country. We are a blessed nation and there is no better place to live. Indeed we are a great country but we have accomplished much, not because we have had great governments. Our achievements have not come from great political leaders. We are favoured because it is the Canadian people who have built a great society. Canadians have overcome geography. We have made cultural and language differences an advantage rather than a problem. It is the people who paid the price for peace and justice. Graves of brave Canadians around the world is the testament.

The many waves of arrivals to our shores made their contributions. First, aboriginals came in successive migrations. Then the Europeans and Asians came in many waves. We became a destination of hope and opportunity. We now have a rich cultural mix which gives us an international advantage.

However Canada remains below its potential. We are poorly led and not wisely governed. The old habit of electing either a Conservative or Liberal federal government is not good enough any more. Canadians can do better. Canada can earn its way to the top if we forsake our old ways of voting.

We must vote for our children's future, rather than old prejudice. We must vote greater democracy, rather than Liberal and Conservative special interest.

Canadians can free themselves by electing a Canadian Alliance government. Canada has everything it needs to be the best.

Our task in the next two years is to give us a government worthy of the good Canadian people. We must vote to build, rather than just to avoid risk. We must vote for achievement, rather than old loyalties. Canadians must vote to give themselves a prosperous democracy that includes everyone, where no corner of the land is left behind.

The best is yet to come for Canada. I believe that it is not overreaching to say that we can be the world leader, to make a truly peaceful and sustainable world.

[Speech from the Throne, October 2nd, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the minister a couple of very specific questions. It would certainly help our debate today in having confidence that the government is a competent manager.

He mentioned the category of foreign students and also temporary workers. It is special status when someone comes to Canada under that basis. Later on in his remarks he said that those individuals would be able to get landed status and eventually apply for citizenship. During the time individuals are here, as either foreign students or under a special contract as a temporary worker, would that time count for applying for citizenship or would they have to start once they get landed status?

My second question relates to his reference to the national lack of confidence in our refugee system. The minister talked about third safe country with the United States. Does he not have anything better to say than just “we are going to have further discussions in the fall”? I repeatedly asked the previous minister in the House about getting on with making proper security arrangements with the United States. When are we going to stop taking refugees from the U.S.A.? I understand that the claims are in the area of about 40%. Certainly we can do better than just further discussions.

Those are my two points: foreign students and temporary workers and the time limits, and also some new announcement that we are going to get on with dealing with the problem of refugees. I would appreciate his comments.

[Main Estimates, 2002-2003, June 6th, 2002]

Mr. Chairman, would the President of the Treasury Board please declare to the House as to whether the supply bill representing a planned $172.9 billion in the main estimates for the fiscal year 2002-03 is in the usual form?

[Main Estimates, 2002-03, June 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, a lot of our debate has been around transparency and having the Canadian electorate understand what is being done in its name. I am holding this huge book. It is parts 1 and 2 of government expenditure plan main estimates for 2002-03. Basically it contains the documentation of the total government plan. It says “The expenditure plan overview, the Minister of Finance budget plan of December 10, 2001 sets out the government's expenditure plan that amounts to $172.9 billion”. That is what we will be giving final approval on tonight with a few snaps of our fingers. That is how much will be put through and approved.

The way many government members have been carrying on lately, it seems as if they think it is the government's money. It is not the government's money. The government does not have any money of its own. It takes money from Canadians, stirs it around and gives a little bit of it back, some in services and some in transfers. We need to be mindful of the larger issue here of what this whole operation is tonight. What we are debating is $172.9 billion represented in the book.

I would like to ask the member if he has other plans or ideas of how what is represented colossally here can be more clearly transmitted to Canadians so they can truly appreciate what is being done in their name.

[Supply, June 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about here is a matter of proportion. Certainly we encourage free enterprise. Free enterprise is also the freedom to go broke. Without that discipline free enterprise does not work. At some point a very large firm may go bankrupt but because of its strategic relation and size in the economy, the government has to intervene and cannot let that firm go broke even though it is in the private sector and is operating that way.

It is somewhat the same nature of the proportion and size of what we are talking about here between two levels of government. Within the family it is not the federal government's money, it is the taxpayers' money. We must not let this kind of dispute become a personal matter between two camps within a political party. We are talking about the national business here and one finance minister replacing another and one person's ego over another. The nation's business is far too important to allow those things to have a play.

I draw the parallel to, at some point, the size of a company. Even though it should have the discipline to go broke if it does not operate properly or is not successful, the issue is proportion and sometimes the government has to intervene against the principle. I am also saying it is the proportion and size of what we are considering here, that it is inappropriate for the federal government to even suggest at this point that the money will be clawed back through a system of withholding payments to a province.

It is far too strategic for the national family for this to be contemplated. I am calling upon the federal government to end this dispute right now.

[Supply, June 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the motion before us today states:

That, after overpaying at least $3.3 billion to several provinces as a result of its own accounting errors, this House calls upon the government to forgive any past revenue overpayments to the provinces since retroactively clawing back these revenues would severely affect the provinces' ability to pay for healthcare, education and social services.

Our new finance minister promised to mull over the idea of payback and said he will pay closer attention to the thorny issue of more than $3 billion in overpayments by the federal government to the provinces. Our man of finance of the people's money said he has received a series of reports from the federal auditor general on what has been called the overpayment of taxes collected in the 1990s but has not yet decided what to do. Let us hope he does not forget that it is not his money. It is ultimately the taxpayers' money which the government has erred in how it gives the money back to those from whom it took the money in the first place.

Between 1993 and 1999 Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba and Ontario received more money than was apparently due them under existing formulas in redistribution of income tax revenues. Most of the $3.3 billion poorly calculated payments, about $2.8 billion, went to Ontario which has vowed it will not return the money. According to the documents the error stems from the way capital gains taxes on mutual funds were accounted for. Finally, one of the silent bean counters found something was amiss.

These acts certainly support the conclusions that I came to in past years through sitting on the House Standing Committee on Finance. The Liberals cannot manage the nation's business. The public has every cause to have low trust levels for what the government says about the state of the nation's finances and why it redistributes tax dollars the way it does.

What we are saying today is that the federal government should not punish Canadians and their provincial governments by clawing back the $3.3 billion of which it lost track. Canadians deserve better management of the public trust and they also deserve a wiser rationale for redistribution. The government must more appropriately consider how in the long term nations prosper, how more people in a society can share in that prosperity and how wealth itself is actually created and how it is so often destroyed by governments.

The federal Liberals play favourites. They use tax dollars for government business but favour contracts to their friends who happen to also donate heavily for partisan political purposes to the political party. There is supposed to be a division between partisan brand name political activity and the operations of government, which is supposed to be done on a non-partisan basis on behalf of all the people regardless of any political affiliation.

Patronage, cronyism, payola, contract bidding manipulation and insider deals of all kinds were supposed to have gone into the dustbin of history like the old bribery schemes of the Conservatives and the Liberals done in Canadian elections when we did not yet have a secret ballot on election day. The Liberals in 2002 are a disgusting throwback to a primitive political time in Canada.

The government plays favourites but in the process usually does not get good value on behalf of the taxpayer. Often the work done is substandard for the main game was the payoff for political gain rather than the work done for Canadians. Then the government plays the game of favourites among the provinces.

The finance minister stood in the House and said that he is considering working out a plan to take back what has slipped away from the government. Surprisingly however, this does not apply to Manitoba. Ottawa has agreed to cover most of the $710 million overpayment.

The Liberals want British Columbia to repay it all but they assured Manitoba that it was off the hook for most of it. The Manitoba Doer government was assured by Ottawa that the federal government will cover between 70% and 80% of the $710 million overpayment it made to that province. In an interview Manitoba finance minister Selinger said the federal government would take responsibility for the bulk of the transfer funds overpayment based on precedents and assurances.

The implication of having to return the entire overpayment would have been significant for that provincial treasury and I say every other provincial treasury as well. Certainly it would destabilize other provinces. If Manitoba had to repay the entire $710 million, it would have meant less money for health care or perhaps a delay in phasing out the education support levy, which is tacked on to property taxes. If Ottawa covers 80% of the overpayment, that would leave $142 million still in dispute.

Nevertheless, despite the promises to one province the federal government is contemplating clawing back money from many other provinces. We say the federal finance minister cannot correct it just for Manitoba. He has to correct it for everyone.

The Liberals still talk about clawbacks yet make a deal for one province. Then they take a swipe at the independent auditor general when they do not like her message. The Liberals launched a calculated campaign to discredit the auditor general to prevent her from unearthing further evidence of the corrupt way the government doles out its millions of dollars in federal contracts.

The Liberals have the gall to say that auditor general Fraser appears to lack impartiality and may be on a witch hunt against the government. The political fallout from the auditor general's reports is explosive. When political leaders go rotten, voters must take notice, wake up from their complacency and stop believing all the pabulum they are fed that everything on Parliament Hill is just okay. Some of my good friends on the Liberal backbench must be very embarrassed, yet with their votes they keep the sick system going.

The situation is clear. The government's mishandling of $1.6 million in sponsorship contracts to Montreal based Groupaction is an indictment of how badly the government manages public finances. Then we observe how far it will go to cover up the evidence.

The government's ideology is clear: abuse public trust; pay off friends; cover up the dirty deeds; and then impugn the messenger. This is an attack on more than the auditor general. It is an attack on the principle of government accountability and duty to the public.

We have to be thankful for the existence of the auditor general. In her scathing report she blasted the government for its appalling disregard for financial probity and revealed that it did not get all the service for which it paid Groupaction $1.6 million. To determine just how more widespread the poison is, she announced she will conduct a government wide audit of advertising and sponsorship programs and contracts.

It seems clear the government uses sponsorship and advertising programs to award companies that were supportive of Liberals and which funnelled political contributions to the party's coffers. That behaviour is highly unethical and is not an acceptable Canadian standard. Now the government is horrified that the auditor general has begun an investigation that could lead to evidence of corruption at the most senior levels of cabinet.

It seems clear to me that we need an independent judicial inquiry that can get at the technical evidence but also look at the political manoeuvrings and broad issues of political honesty and transparency. Financial audits cannot do that by the nature of their scales and mandates. Such an inquiry would complement the auditor general's wide scale review because it would have broader powers to subpoena witnesses, examine documents of private companies and ensure greater protection for public servants who wished to testify.

When the Liberals are shown also to be bad managers of redistribution schemes, they blame the auditor general for taking so long to catch them and then say that the receivers of their mistakes will pay the price of the government's failure. It is all so typically Liberal. It smells and it stinks. The bobbing and weaving is just so low class and repulsively gross.

The opposition is more than just the watchdog of what the government does. We offer hope. We offer an alternative and a way out of the mess. It goes beyond saying that our potential cabinet ministers have character and have real guiding principles to govern them. We also offer basic system change. We offer a new way, that while replacing the ethically challenged Liberals with ethically empowered people, the old system that offers the potential for abuse will also be changed.

The basic nature to be naughty should not be in the realm of possibility. The levers of power must also be professionalized and modernized into ethical management practice and they must be harder to reach. The answer is to change both the people and the system that tends to corruption. Good people can make good things happen. Modernization of systems can allow good people to become great.

We observe a disorderly old Liberal Party of 19th century political ethics where ministers behave as if Canada were their private sandbox in which to play. They leave a legacy of missed opportunity and a malaise of national hopelessness where it seems nothing can improve. Voters believe that probably all politicians are just the same.

What inspires me is that some day the Canadian Alliance will bring governance into the 21st century, of possibility and of bright hope. We can change the system as well as the people, and we can begin for the first time as a country to fulfill our true national potential.

[Government of Canada, May 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the last couple of weeks remind us of that old arcade game, the one where the fuzzy animal pops up from the hole and the contest is to whack him before he disappears again.

There is the Prime Minister trying to whack his problems down but they keep popping up again. One big problem comes up, he gets whacked to Denmark. Another embarrassment comes up and he gets whacked back to his former job as House leader. Another fuzzy brain pops up and he and his girlfriend get whacked to oblivion.

However, they keep popping up: a problem at a college in P.E.I., whack, and a problem with an ad contract here and another problem there, whack, whack. Still the little animals pop out of their holes while the seemingly endless and completely ineffective campaign of whacking continues.

There is only one way to stop it: Change the game and the players and do not feed the animals.