Charlie Penson

[International Loans, February 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I guess we should send back the $14 million in interest that we received as a result of that loan.

Does the finance minister not understand the irony of the situation of loaning money to Brazil which allowed them to subsidize their aerospace industry to the detriment of Canadian companies such as Bombardier?

Liberal bungling may have put Canada on both sides of this trade war.

Why were the Liberals so careless about protecting Canada's interests? Were they too busy playing international boy scout to remember their national responsibilities here at home?

[International Loans, February 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I questioned the logic behind the Liberal government's $500 million low interest loan to Brazil because of Brazil's policy to promote its aerospace industry with massive subsidies.

The Minister of Finance told the House that Brazil never exercised that option. However, page 33 of his department's 1999-2000 performance report states that Canada did indeed lend the money to Brazil and that Brazil paid it back along with $20 million of interest.

Was the finance minister talking about an additional loan he was making to Brazil, or would he just admit he was wrong?

[International Loans, February 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, that was the same time in those four or five years that there was a fierce fight over aerospace subsidies going on between Brazil and Canada.

I think it is an awful strange signal that the Liberal government is sending to Brazil. It talks tough about Brazil's subsidized financing of its aerospace industry, but it turns around and gives sweetheart loans to the same government. What kind of priorities does the government have? How will it deal with Brazil in the next dispute that comes up?

[International Loans, February 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada recently announced that it would fight Brazil's subsidies to its aerospace sector by using Canada's good credit rating to provide low interest loans to Bombardier's customers.

However, even that low interest loan did not compare to the one Canada provided to Brazil in 1999: $500 million at an interest rate of 4.3%. How does the Minister of Industry know that the low interest loan to Brazil did not go directly to subsidize its aerospace industry, which is in fierce competition with Bombardier?

[Government Grants, February 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it seems like the auditor general and the routine auditors will have to work overtime to keep up with the government across the way.

The fact remains that $100,000 of grant money was misused by the same two men charged in two other cases of fraud and theft. If he will not ask the RCMP to get involved, will the minister table a full accounting of this matter with a complete explanation as to the improper use of taxpayer funds? Will he table it in the House?

[Government Grants, February 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, as a result of questions we asked in the House yesterday, we now know that the industry department is demanding the $100,000 grant back from ARC. Obviously the funds were used improperly.

Can the Minister of Industry tell the House exactly what the problem was with this file? Why did the government demand this money back?

[Government Grants, February 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, that is very good news. I am glad the minister found his briefing on it.

It begs the question how did this happen. In 1998 the Canada Economic Development Agency for the regions of Quebec wrote the Prime Minister's chief of staff, Jean Pelletier, notifying him that the federal controls over the LaPrade fund in Shawinigan were being relaxed. Shortly after, A-R-C of Shawinigan used LaPrade's money improperly to leverage a $600,000 grant from Industry Canada.

What levers did the Prime Minister pull to get the grant in his riding just prior to the 1997 election? What was the role of the Prime Minister in his part of the leverage of this grant?

[Government Grants, February 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry says he needs more information on the particular subject so let me tell him a little.

In order to qualify for the Canada community investment program, one-third of the money must come from the private sector. That was not so in the case of A-R-C of Shawinigan that qualified for a $600,000 grant.

In fact, an audit last April revealed that one-third of the private sector contribution actually came from the LaPrade fund, another federally funded agency.

Industry Canada's contribution was found to be a 99% overpayment. How much money did Industry Canada put into this and how much has been recovered?

[Speech From The Throne, February 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I suggest that it was largely the Liberal government that put us in this terrible mess to begin with.

It was Brian Mulroney's government that was elected to go in and clean up the mess which had been created. The failure of the Conservative government to do that was the reason why the Reform Party and the Alliance were formed. It did not listen to the huge majority and clean up that mess.

In regard to the lawsuit, I would like to talk about Pearson and Airbus. I believe over $2 million of taxpayers' money went to pay for Mr. Mulroney's expenses when the Prime Minister and the current Minister of Health had to admit that there was no evidence to back up their accusations. They had to publicly apologize to Mr. Mulroney.

[Speech From The Throne, February 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I guess I would maintain that I do not think any employment insurance program can substitute for a job. Most people want to have a job. That is their number one criteria. I suggest that the moves the Liberal government is taking to correct the fundamentals are not good enough to allow that to happen.

For the last 30 years we have had chronic unemployment in the range of 5% to about 12%. That is going to vary. I am suggesting, and the analogy I was making, that up until about 1970 the business cycles of Canada and the United States could be charted on a graph. We could look at the two of them in good and bad times. The economic indicators were always the same. We could put them together.

It was the same with employment insurance and the unemployment rate. However, starting in the 1970s we had a divergence because we expanded the employment insurance program to become more of a social program. I do not think that was the right method because we built in a penalty for Canadian business.

I agree with the member from Winnipeg that there are many shortcomings in the employment insurance program. He raised the example of a person who has to pay into the program but cannot collect benefits. Canadian farmers are in that category as are lots of people. It should be one way or the other. If a person is not going to get benefits from the plan, he or she should be exempt from it.

Overtaxing workers and employers to build up large surplus funds for general revenue for the government to squander away on its priorities is not good enough. We need to have a true insurance program where we have dedicated revenue, not where it is going into the general revenue for governments to fritter away.