House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2004, with 33% of the vote.
Supply February 8th, 2000
Madam Speaker, maybe there was no vote bank for the Liberals. They have been telling voters to vote and support them and they will reward them. There were no rewards given because there were no votes for the Liberals.
I think these programs are working as slush funds. Maybe there was no way of buying votes in that riding.
Supply February 8th, 2000
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to answer this question because it shows the ignorance and arrogance on the government bench. It shows that the Liberal government has no vision and is so weak that it cannot see what is happening on the national scene.
I ask the hon. member to go a bank and withdraw money without signing a withdrawal slip. Can he get money from the bank? Can the cashier give him any cash without him signing the withdrawal slip? How can the government withdraw the taxpayers' money? This money belongs to the taxpayers.
The government has to be accountable for this money, every dollar and cent. How can millions of dollars be given to Liberal friends or to some other business without having a paper trail or any application on file?
This motion is very much needed because it will demand accountability from the government. We will demand the resignation of the minister who first tried to cover-up the issue, who then misled the House, who then denied all responsibility and who then went into a damage control mode. It is shameful.
Supply February 8th, 2000
Madam Speaker, after the thorough, thoughtful and to the point speech by my hon. colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to speak on the Reform Party's supply day motion expressing our deep concern and the outrage of many Canadians over the gross mismanagement of grants and contributions by the Department of Human Resources Development totalling more than $1 billion annually, which is not a typo but $1 billion annually, and our lack of confidence in the minister.
We on this side of the House will take this opportunity to let Canadians know that we endorse the doctrine of ministerial responsibility, something that is sorely lacking under the current Liberal administration.
Today is the second day of the sitting of the House in the new year. On New Year's Eve, which I spent with my constituents in Cloverdale, everyone was excited as we moved from the past millennium to this millennium. I looked through the eyes of my constituents, and all Canadians, to their dreams. Canadians were dreaming of the government of the day building a strong and wide bridge over which all Canadians would cross from the previous millennium to this millennium.
In the new millennium their dreams are that their taxes will be reduced, that jobs will be created, that there will be no brain drain. We are hoping that the government will return the billions it has cut from health care and education.
They are dreaming of pension reform, policies that strengthen families and family values that are respected. Their are dreaming of a criminal justice system that will serve the needs of the victims not the criminals. They are dreaming of a federation that will be based on equality and democratic principles that will be followed in federal institutions. They want accountability in government and they we want the government to listen to the people. These are their dreams.
This weak Liberal government has no political will and no vision. Rather than fulfilling those dreams, we have unfortunately come back to the House in the new millennium confronted with the biggest boondoggle yet. This billion dollar boondoggle shows us that maybe every federal department is being mismanaged. It seems to be a systemic problem.
With only 1% of the grant moneys spent by HRDC being examined, we have discovered a great deal of mismanagement.
I will not repeat the facts, percentages and figures reported in the audit because my colleagues have already highlighted them. I will give some examples to the House to show the kinds of cases we are talking about. In one case, a sponsor submitted a $60,000 proposal but received $150,000. After verification, the sponsor indicated that only $30,061 should have been claimed.
In another case, out of the $50,547 in verified claims for one file, more than half of that money was the salary of two persons during the first three weeks of the project.
Another example shows that a firm was paid $150,000 out of which $30,000 was used for overhead expenses with no accompanying explanation. There was no business plan, just two pages of description; no feasibility study and no rationale on the file for recommending it. The project's length was extended and the grant increased to $420,000 with no clear explanation.
There are numerous examples. In the Prime Minister's own riding, where most of the money went, the job creation rate was negative. Bankruptcies were filed after receiving the grant money.
Hundreds of businesses disproportionately located in the hometowns of Liberal cabinet ministers received government grants without anyone checking where the money went. In some cases, out of those 459 examined, the grateful recipients did not even fill out any application forms.
The problem does not stop there. The worst is yet to come. This is only the tip of the iceberg.
The transitional jobs fund name was changed to Canadian jobs fund. I suggest to my Liberal friends that they should change the name again to the Liberal slush fund and amalgamate all the slush funds from other organizations so that they can pork-barrel and use this slush fund for buying votes as they do.
In April 1998, I questioned the minister responsible for CIDA on the lack of accountability in spending of CIDA's industrial co-operation program called CIDA Inc. Out of that $815 million, half of that money was spent in Quebec. This taxpayer money was given out without follow-up processes to monitor how the money was spent. The question is not where the money was spent but how the money was given out. Canadians do not get money for feasibility studies from the banks.
The audit commissioned by CIDA Inc. concluded that the benefits were overestimated and that information on projects and companies were incomplete and inaccurate. The minister could not account for CIDA Inc. funds to the tune of almost one billion dollars. The audit also identified other serious problems, including the fact that 33% of the money was allocated to just 7% of companies that applied.
The auditor general's office prodded CIDA to conduct a follow-up audit last year and the depressing results were quietly released just before Christmas.
The 1999 version of the audit showed that the problems at CIDA Inc. were not only continuing but in many cases had become worse. In more than 33% of the cases, money was paid out even though mandatory reports were not filed at all. No reports were filed on 10% of the projects and 33% of the money went to only 4.4% of the companies that applied. This was worse than the 1997 audit results.
The lack of proper accounting at both CIDA Inc. and HRDC, and many other government departments, like Western Economic Diversification or ACOA, is part of a much larger problem of billions of dollars being spent each year on grants and contributions.
There are charges of political interference from the top down, interference from government cabinet ministers, including the Prime Minister. Incidentally, the former minister of CIDA was also the former minister of HRDC.
No one has assumed responsibility for these boondoggles even though they are backed up by the audit and the cases number in the dozens. The amounts involved are huge.
The head of the civil service has refused to take responsibility for his bureaucrats. In turn, the human resources minister has refused to take responsibility for him. The Prime Minister, in turn, has refused to take responsibility for her. The former minister of HRDC has blatantly refused to assume the responsibility. Why can they not take responsibility rather than cover up and engage in damage control?
Now we hear that the government has issued gag orders to government officials so that they cannot share the information with opposition members.
I have a private member's bill in the House, which I will be introducing soon, concerning whistle blower legislation. If that was in place these problems would probably have been prevented because the government's weaknesses, the corruption and mismanagement of those funds, would have surfaced.
There are many questions that remain unanswered. Canadians want to know if the Liberals will admit that these grants are political slush funds to buy voters with their own money. They also want to know if the previous HRD minister will admit that he knew about the missing money and, if he did, why he did nothing about it when he was in office.
There are many other questions. Will the Prime Minister take any action? He has always campaigned that he would show responsibility in government.
Agriculture December 17th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, hardly any farmers qualified for the government's recent aid package. The government has not protected them against foreign subsidies that are killing family farms in Canada. Today the environment minister will announce new endangered species legislation.
How can Canadians believe that the government is going to protect farmers from losses under this new law when it has not protected our farmers from foreign subsidies?
Points Of Order December 16th, 1999
Yes, Mr. Speaker. In the spirit of the holiday season, if the House gives its consent I would move that the first report of the Standing Joint Committee of Scrutiny of Regulations, presented to the House earlier last week, be concurred in.
Points Of Order December 16th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I am sure all hon. members in the House in the last couple of days before the year ends believe the House should run more efficiently and we should look through the lens of issues rather than the lens of political stripes.
I bring to the attention of the House an incident that occurred at the scrutiny of regulations committee. This is a very unique and important joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate. On Friday of last week I tabled a report and then I asked for unanimous consent to move concurrence in the report. The report was not concurred in because I could not get unanimous consent.
Today the committee meeting could not be held simply because we could not proceed with a reduced quorum. As a result the budget could not be approved and during this holiday season the salaries of legal counsel who are employees of the committee could not be approved.
When we ask for unanimous consent it should not create a situation where unanimous consent is refused because it is one against the other. Some members of the House feel they have different motives or different objectives. I seek some advice from the Chair on how to resolve the issue.
Petitions December 16th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I present 12 petitions with about 400 signatures of concerned Canadians, mostly from the riding of Surrey Central.
The petitioners feel that the illegal immigrants who arrived off the coast of Vancouver are causing undue hardship for honest, bona fide refugees.
They maintain that our immigration laws encourage international people smugglers to target Canada. They call on parliament to enact immediate changes to Canada's immigration laws governing refugees. They want to provide for the deportation of those who are obviously and flagrantly abusing the system.
The petitioners want legislation that requires refugee claimants to demonstrate through identification documentation, rather than by other means, that they are fleeing general and political prosecution, or they would face immediate deportation.
Petitions December 16th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I submit four petitions containing about 230 signatures of concerned Canadians, mostly from my riding of Surrey Central.
The petitioners call on parliament to oppose any amendments to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or any other federal legislation that would provide for the exclusion of a reference to the supremacy of God.
Petitions December 16th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present a petition with 300 signatures of concerned Canadians.
The petitioners draw to the attention of the House the discrimination they declare is caused by Canada's old age security system. They say that the act discriminates against seniors from certain countries.
They therefore call on parliament to grant old age security benefits to all seniors over the age of 65 years, irrespective of the country of origin.
An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference December 14th, 1999
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In the spirit of the holiday season, I would like to point out that the good people of Surrey Central will very much appreciate the gesture by the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader on my question of privilege. I am counting on the parliamentary secretary to put the glasses on issues rather than on political stripe and to try to help me. I appreciate that.