Lynn Myers

[Agriculture, March 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday Mr. Nick Parsons from Dawson Creek, British Columbia arrived on Parliament Hill on a combine. His mission was to underscore the plight of farm families in the west. Since I still live on the family farm, I can appreciate a lot of the things he is talking about.

As usual, the Reform Party shamelessly tried to turn this into a cheap political photo opportunity instead of genuinely trying to find solutions. It is so typical of those Reformers, who they are and what they represent.

If Reform Party members were so interested, why did they not ask one question yesterday in question period? Instead, they chose not to ask even one question about this all important issue.

I am happy to report that the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the Prime Minister met with Mr. Parsons yesterday to discuss farm income policy for the future. It was a good discussion that underscored the commitment of the government to find positive and consistent solutions. Out of that dialogue I am confident that meeting along with with other MPs. will find those solutions.

[Supply, March 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member opposite talk of process, in terms of inquiry and in terms of where this whole issue should be headed. I want to remind him that an officer of the House of Commons, the auditor general, is looking at this whole process and will be reporting in the fall. We have the committee process, as was alluded to by my hon. colleague from Winnipeg. Moreover, we have the minister's commitment that four times a year she will appear before the committee to discuss all of these issues.

When I hear duplicitous comments from the Bloc opposite, it really is outrageous. It almost implies that they are not in favour of these types of grants and contributions to Quebecers and to Canadians. I would hope that is not the intent of the hon. member and his colleagues opposite.

I was interested in reading Le Soleil not so very long ago—

[Supply, March 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with some interest to the member opposite and I caught a reference to Toronto. She seemed to say it in a manner that reflected in a way that I thought was maybe inappropriate.

I wonder why Mr. Lucien Bouchard, when it came to health care money, put all kinds of dollars—I think it was upward of $1 billion—into a Toronto bank. While Quebecers were calling for good solid health care, Mr. Bouchard had money, close to $1 billion worth, in some Toronto bank.

We always have to be careful when we get into these kinds of little tugs and pulls because it really is quite duplicitous for the hon. member to say what she did.

The point I want to make is that the auditor general, who is an official and an officer of the House, will look at this whole issue and report back in the fall of this year. As vice-chairman of the public accounts committee, I worked with Denis Desautels and I know he will do a very thorough job when it comes to looking at this whole issue. He will investigate it in a very meaningful way. The HRDC committee is also doing it, as is the minister.

My question to the hon. member is why will she not protect the interests of Quebecers? Why will she not stand in her place today and say that the money that the human resources development minister has earmarked for the poor, for the disabled and for the students is money well spent in Quebec and in all parts of Canada?

[Supply, March 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed in the hon. member's assertions and I totally reject, out of hand, his comments, especially with respect to the riding of Saint-Maurice. He should be a little more careful in terms of what he says.

Instead of denigrating the constituents of that great riding, instead of denigrating, by extension, Quebecers, he should be standing in his place and celebrating the fact that the Government of Canada wants to put in place the kinds of grants and contributions that are appropriate for people who are in need. He should be celebrating that.

In direct response to his questions—and I got to the substance of this in my speech—we have the kinds of checks and balances that are in place. We have the auditor general's report, for example, which will come out in the fall. The auditor general is an officer of the House. I cannot believe the opposition is taking the kind of swipes at the auditor general that it is doing. It is outrageous.

The Auditor General of Canada, who is an officer of this House, has the prerogative to look into this whole issue, to examine it thoroughly and to bring about the kinds of recommendations that will be meaningful for Canadians. What do the Reformers do? They dismiss it out of hand and say that he is not good enough. I take exception because I work with the auditor general and I know exactly the kind of work he will do.

As for the RCMP, I was involved with the regional police for 10 years. I was chairman of the police. I know that those kinds of investigations go on all the time. For the member to stand in his place and imply that there is some kind of scandal going on here is absolutely outrageous and he should retract.

[Supply, March 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I do not need a lecture from the member opposite. I was at the table when the auditor general's report came out. I was vice-chairman at that time. I know full well what the auditor general reported. We as a committee then went into detail in terms of what we were prepared to do.

I want to point something out to the hon. member. He should really think hard, deep, fast and long about getting his facts straight. It was not the media, it was not the grandstanding opposition types, especially the member for Calgary—Nose Hill who with grandstanding kerfuffle and all kinds of outrageous statements has tried to take credit for somehow flushing the government out on this. That is incorrect, it is wrong and it is nonsense. It was the minister who came forward and through her audit and her process was able to begin correcting the problem. Instead of sitting there and fabricating those kinds of myths, members should be congratulating the minister for doing her job and doing it effectively.

[Supply, March 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it really is quite interesting to see how upset the Bloc members get. I thought they were good politicians. A good politician is able to dish it out and take it, not simply to dish it out. Tut, tut Madame. It seems to me she should develop a bit of a thicker skin.

There are two fundamental values which Canadians support when it comes to this kind of issue. We on the government side support the values of listening to Canadians and of being caring and compassionate. These values are intrinsic to the very core of Canada.

I hear the hon. Reform member caterwaul and laugh because he does not understand this. He does not understand that caring and compassion is a core Canadian value because he is a Darwinian economist. We were speaking of dogs a minute ago. He wants to let dog eat dog because he cares only about his rich friends. He does not care about people who are less fortunate and people who genuinely require our assistance. Blessfully and thankfully, we on the government side do.

We care about ordinary Canadians. We care about helping people in need. We care about the disabled. We care about students. We care about people who genuinely require our assistance. Unlike those Reformers who have cast away and left them adrift, it is clear that we on the government side will not do that and rightfully so.

[Supply, March 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talks about dogs. He is the last one who should be speaking about dogs because that party they are trying to assemble, that dog will not hunt.

[Supply, March 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, what clearly is not left outside the House is the thick skin those members should be prepared to put on. They can dish it out, but it appears they cannot take it.

I want to point out to the member for Quebec and the member for Elk Island who was bellowing across the aisle not so long ago that the auditor general is very much part of the process. Instead of getting up and parading mythology like the member for Quebec was doing a minute ago, she should know her facts.

By the way, I was vice-chair of the public accounts committee. I have worked very hard and long with Mr. Denis Desautels over the years. I know the kind of thorough work he is prepared to do. He will do it and rightfully so on behalf of the taxpayers of Canada. His report will come out in the fall. What will his report say? We do not know, but we do know that Mr. Desautels, the Auditor General of Canada, will be conducting the kind of review necessary to get to the bottom of things.

When I hear both of the members opposite, the bellowing one too, talk about the auditor general not being part of the process, I have to scratch my head because he is an integral part of the process. Instead of perpetuating that kind of mythology, the hon. member for Quebec should get her facts straight. So should the bellowing member by the way. They should make sure they know what they are talking about.

Speaking of facts, I want to point out that over and above that, the standing committee on human resources development is taking a look at all this kind of information. Why? It is trying to get to the bottom to see exactly what transpired and how. More to the point, and I think the minister has repeatedly said this time and time again over the last seven weeks, she instigated the audit. She brought it forward and she is now trying to correct it.

It is interesting. The member for Calgary—Nose Hill tries to take the lead. Other members here today, the Bloc types, by grandstanding are trying to cash in and to carve a name out for themselves. It is really shameful. What they should be doing instead is defending people who require this kind of money, people who are unemployed, people who are disabled, young people and people in areas of high unemployment.

There are areas of high unemployment in Quebec. There are areas of high unemployment in the east. There are areas of high unemployment in the west. Instead of caterwauling away and trying to stir up all kinds of ridiculous things, they should be congratulating the government and saying what a wonderful thing it is doing in the best interests of Canadians. They should be congratulating us. Instead they seem intent on distorting the facts and that is too bad.

Canadians are very smart people. They see through that kind of political posturing. They see through those kinds of political shenanigans. They see through the kind of nonsense which the Bloc is trying to promote today. Canadians see through it. Quebecers and Canadians wherever they live in this great country of ours see through the kind of shenanigans that the people opposite are trying to pretend is true. We will have no part of it and rightfully so. Canadians expect no less from the Government of Canada.

In addition to the committee taking a look at this very important issue, the minister herself has said that four times a year she is prepared to come forward with a report and make sure all of the facts are on the table in terms of what is happening. It is important to note that we have put in place the kind of safeguards that are required in this all important area.

Let me zero in on the point I believe the Bloc is missing in this very important debate. Should the government be providing these kinds of grants and contributions to constituents wherever they live in Canada? I do not know what their answer is but the way the Bloc members are talking and posturing, it would appear that their answer is no, the government does not have a role. Like the parliamentary secretary said, they are in bed with the Reformers with the right-wing agenda of trying to cut off Canadians at their knees when it comes to these important things. Canadians reject that kind of right-wing nonsense. They want absolutely no part of it.

I thought the Bloc was more progressive than that. I thought the Bloc had a better social conscience. I thought it would be more prepared to defend Quebecers and defend people who genuinely need this kind of assistance. Instead, we hear them toady behind the Reformers and the best they can come up with is a flat tax. Imagine. Even the right-wing Republicans, the wing nutty types in the United States have rejected the flat tax. Maybe Jerry Falwell, Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Bakker and a few others of their ilk—

[Supply, March 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to point out that the only scandal we are talking about today is the inability of the Bloc members to support their constituents, to support Quebecers in getting jobs and finding out the kind of money that is necessary for each of their individual ridings. That is the scandal here today and not what they are talking about.

I want to get to some of the facts. We heard the member for Quebec speak and we heard the member for Elk Island bellow across the aisle. Incidentally he is the member who is on record in Hansard as having called me a liar not so long ago. That very member is part of the Reform Party which, let me see now, was to bring a fresh start to parliament, a new way of doing business, was it not? And the member for Elk Island sits and bellows across the aisle. There he sits calling people liars.

[Supply, March 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I commend the parliamentary secretary for her very thoughtful words and the insight that she provided not only for the House but for Canadians wherever they live in our great land.

She mused a little out loud about why the Bloc and the Reformers would be so cozy, cheek to cheek in this kind of debate. It struck me that it was not so long ago that the Reformers held a convention in London, Ontario, or maybe Toronto. In any event, who was their lead speaker? It was the separatist, Mr. Biron. The lead kick-off speaker of the Reform Party of Canada was none other than Mr. Biron, a separatist from Quebec. I guess the parliamentary secretary's musing about where they are at is no secret. They are playing toe and toe, playing cheek and cheek and playing pretty cozy these days.

The member for Frontenac—Mégantic talked about scandal. Let me tell him that the only scandal is that the Bloc members and he, instead of standing up for Quebecers and getting the kind of money that is necessary for hard pressed areas in Quebec and in other places in Canada, should be defending—