Bev Desjarlais

[Petitions, March 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have petitions from aboriginal people around my riding as well as throughout Manitoba. They call on the federal government to repeal its position of charging taxes to aboriginal students on post-secondary education funding. In spite of hearing some rumours over the weekend that this was going to be repealed, we do not have any faith in the government following through on its promises, so it is important that these petitions keep coming in.

[Air Transportation, February 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport has declared a move toward an open skies agreement with the U.S. based on a seven page document that was clearly written for, if not by, Air Canada.

The minister has no real interest in maintaining services for all Canadians. He disregards cuts to NAV CANADA's services and safety at small airports, while making opening Canada's skies to foreign carriers his priority.

Better service for all of Canada cannot be created by having foreign carriers cherry-pick the most profitable routes. His Liberal government needs to work for Canadians, not for the Americans running Canada's airlines. When--

[Supply, February 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I want to read a little section again from this wonderful pamphlet the Auditor General sent around to all of our offices and I hope a lot of Canadians will see it as well. I hope the Liberals will take the opportunity to read it, too. It states that performance auditing examines management practices, controls and reporting system that focus on results. It also states that these audits examine whether government programs are being managed with due regard for economy, efficiency and environmental impact, and with measures in place to determine their effectiveness.

Why is the government opposed to the performance auditing of these foundations that were given $9.9 billion, I believe, initially? There is still some $7 billion dollars left. Canadians, taxpayers and this Parliament all have a right to know that those programs are beneficial. “Methinks the government protests too much”. It should prove to us that we are wrong. We can handle it.

[Supply, February 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with a number of my colleague's statements. For any of us who have listened to the Auditor General's survey of the different foundations, she genuinely draws real concern for taxpayers' dollars.

In regard to the comment about the ad scandal, somewhere in my travels in the last couple of years, someone mentioned that possibly that same type of process might be happening within some of the regional funds, whether it be western diversification or ACOA, where instead of money flowing directly from them to their projects it would go through another agency which took a commission. Has the member heard anything like that over the last number of years?

[Supply, February 22nd, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from across the way who has been on top of many of these issues for a great period of time. We almost need one or two parliamentarians who are able to take something by the horns and stick to it because there are so many shenanigans that seem to take place around here that it is hard to keep on top of them all. Part of what we are doing here in supporting this motion is following through or trying to keep on top of those issues.

The Auditor General recently sent out a package to members of Parliament. It stated that one of the most important roles of Parliament is to hold the federal government to account for its use of taxpayers' dollars, and to do this effectively, parliamentarians needed objective and fact-based information about how well the government raises and spends public funds.

That is what we are here for. The Auditor General is there to review taxpayers' dollars and the expenditures of them, but if we cannot get that information, we cannot do our job. She is calling on this government to give us that information.

I always knew there were ties to Liberal connections to different appointments and a couple of Liberal colleagues were in the back grinning. There are probably Liberals out there thinking “Great, I am going to be a liberal, I am going to make money, this is how I am going to do it”. Each and every Liberal who thinks like that is talking about taking taxpayers' dollars.

I want them to remember each and every person in this country who does not have a decent roof over their head, who cannot access health care that they need because of the misuse of taxpayers' dollars and let their lives be on the their conscience.

[Supply, February 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think there should be an issue with whether or not an audit is done every year or every couple of years. The reality is that we want the Auditor General to oversee it. I heard some comments from across the way, but yes, give the Auditor General more dollars and let her do that.

When one is dealing with $1.2 billion in a foundation and there is a total of $9 billion of taxpayers' money, I do not think Canadians would object to an audit being done every year. If the Auditor General had that information from year to year, it would not involve the same timeframe each and every year because the information would be available which would make it easier to do the audit.

[Supply, February 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, there is a pessimist in me after being here year after year and dealing with the Liberal government. I know the President of the Treasury Board does not like hearing this but there is a belief that the Liberals, as my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster mentioned, are playing hide and seek with the money.

The government wants to control who is operating with the money but it does not want Parliament to have any say in the matter. There is misbelief over exactly what is happening with the money. I am not suggesting that all the people on the boards of directors or the auditing firms are criminals; I am not suggesting that for one second. The reality is that a lot Canadians think that there is underhandedness going on because the government will not let the Auditor General in. The perception is absolutely one of mistrust of the government, and rightly so.

There are a number of issues about the use of taxpayers' dollars. There is the Groupaction situation and everything we are going through with the Gomery inquiry right now. We hear of numerous appointments after election time. We have heard that 22,000 employees may possibly be moved from the national capital region for political purposes. There is no trust in the government, but there is trust in the Auditor General.

Why is the government doing it? Probably the Liberals want to have control without Parliament and taxpayers having control, and rather disgustingly so. Usually when one is talking like that, one is talking about corrupt third world governments. We hate to see that as the Government of Canada.

[Supply, February 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I will start my comments by responding to some of the comments made by the treasury board minister. He seemed to suggest that there was outside auditing of these foundations and that somehow was good because the people involved in these businesses were trustworthy.

The member from Mississauga touched on that as well, that we should automatically trust people in these types of businesses of auditing because they would never do anything wrong. Like people in lots of different businesses, we always get some who are the bad apples in the crowd. There must be in place good measures to keep tabs and keep on track with how the money should be spent.

The reason I am prefacing my further comments is because we are talking about Canadians having respect and trust for the Office of the Auditor General. Members would be hard pressed to find a Canadian who does not believe what the Auditor General says. Both the Auditor General and the Office of the Auditor General have the utmost respect of Canadians, without question.

The Liberal government does not have the respect or the trust of the Canadian people. My colleague from Burnaby has indicated that by referring to the June 28 election. There was not resounding support for the government. Canadians told the government that it had to do things better if it expected a majority government. Canadians wanted the government held to task because it was not doing the job properly.

As my colleague for Burnaby—New Westminster has mentioned, we have Liberal arrogance. He mentioned it as being old Liberal arrogance. I have been around for a while now, and I call it continuing Liberal arrogance. This arrogance has followed through year after year with little regard for Parliament and Canadians.

The government believes that somehow taxpayer dollars become the private dollars of the Liberal Party and the Liberal government. Once the money gets in, it is their money and they do with what they wish. They set up foundations here and there and appointment people to boards without any regard for the prudent spending of taxpayer dollars.

I will refer to a couple of the foundations. First, I want to read a section from the Auditor General's reports so Canadians will know some of her comments. She said:

From 1996–97 to 2003–04, the government transferred more than $9 billion to foundations—$1.2 billion in 2002–03 alone and $400 million in 2003–04 (Exhibits 4.1 and 4.2). These are up-front payments made many years in advance of need. With transfers of this magnitude, concerns about the accountability of foundations have grown. This audit examined 6 sponsoring departments...

The Auditor General's report as a whole is quite large. If individuals want, they can take sections of it and look at her comments.

With regard to the foundations, some which are mentioned in the report, she talks about money being upfront and long in advance of need. I would suggest that might be a tiny area where I might disagree. There is a lot of need out there. We have seen dollars being set aside, again with no real accountability to Canadian taxpayers as to exactly how it is flowing through. There is no real accountability to Parliament. The accountability to taxpayers comes through Parliament.

I will mention the foundations that jump out. Endowment funds are sitting with $389 million in them. There has been $10 million in grants set out. There is $48 million in interest. This is a balance of $416 million of taxpayer dollars that were supposed to do something for Canadians.

We have the Canadian Health Services Research Foundation and the Canada Health Infoway Inc. These services are needed. The dollars are not going out, interest is being collected, directors are being paid and taxpayer dollars are sitting there. Again, there is a question about exactly how the Liberal government looks at setting aside that money in budgets and how it incorporates it into different areas

I come from the Churchill riding and represent a number of first nation communities and individuals who have gone to residential schools who have tried to get claims heard for their residential school time. There have been some good stories from the residential schools, but for the most part there have been some seriously horrendous stories, such as the loss of language and culture. They are being ripped from their families as a result of the residential school process. The saddest part is we have a government, through the residential school claim process, that has spent millions of dollars on lawyers. Now it is going to spend millions of dollars on private investigators. It has paid out a pittance in comparison to what it has spent and what it has paid to residential school claimants.

I have met a number of people in my riding who are in their later years in life. They will not live much longer because they live in the most strenuous conditions that people have ever lived under as far as poverty. They do not the best housing, they have poor health and numerous others problems.

We have the Aboriginal Healing Foundation, which its intentions were very good. I review its annual report each year. It has some really good projects. I know people in my riding have made representations for funding through the Aboriginal Healing Foundation, and there have been some good projects.

However, I some I thought were rather questionable. If anyone has read the report, a project on the review the aboriginal healing fund was done. Imagine that. We set up a foundation and out of that foundation we give funds to someone to report on the aboriginal healing fund. When I know the need in the first nation communities in my riding and the healing that needs to be done, I have to question it.

The most striking area I question is this. Of all these foundations, the percentage of dollars received went toward administration costs. The fund was set up in 1998. I believe the intention of the fund was to have it run for about nine or ten years. As of this report, there is only about $13 million left. Three hundred and fifty million dollars was put into the fund. There was $86 million in interest. That did not shock me because of the first two or three years of the aboriginal healing fund, groups in my riding were saying that they had been trying to get at the fund because they wanted to do certain things. There were some really good proposals, but nobody received funding. It was absolutely unconscionable.

We wrote letters to the board of the aboriginal healing fund and questioned the government on it. Finally some of the dollars started to flow. Let me tell the House where $43 million went. It went to administration. I have a serious issue when $43 million goes to administration. We have other funds that operated with $1.2 billion and they spent $30 million on administration. The saddest part of all is first nation members throughout the country do not have access to a parliamentary oversight of those dollars. Under the aboriginal healing fund, this is not required, and that is a serious issue.

I know dollars need to be spent on administration, but there is no way that $43 million should have been spent on administration when we have the needs in the communities and urban centres as well. It is not just the first nation communities. People from the residential schools are living in the cities and towns throughout the country, and they have no oversight of the aboriginal healing fund. It is absolutely unconscionable.

[Supply, February 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned the situation with Bill C-31 and Bill C-32. We voted in the House and rejected that plan. Once again, the government wanted to move forward to split two departments, spend taxpayer dollars and have Parliament rubber stamp it. I know the opposition parties got together and voted against that.

The member drew the similarity with what has taken place with these foundations. Could the member expand a bit further on that?

[Supply, February 17th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, my colleague seemed to be supportive of the NDP's plan and the motion. Quite frankly often the government talks along those lines. The issue we have is that the Liberals have not followed through.

We now have the official implementation date of Kyoto and the government is not moving ahead with any plan.

The minister from Manitoba indicated yesterday that the failure of the federal government to have a plan is an issue. The federal Minister of the Environment said that Canada does not have a detailed plan to meet its Kyoto commitments, although it ratified Kyoto in 2002.

When the government's minister admits there is no plan, if the government members know there is a plan out there that will do the job, then the government should follow that plan. We do not have any problem with that. Go ahead and plagiarize our plan. We want to see it get into action. Plagiarize it. The government can have the copyright on it. We want to see the action. That is the problem.

People think that greenhouse gas emissions do not affect them. I represent the riding of Churchill. People are feeling it in Churchill, Manitoba. They are seeing it in the polar bear population. They are seeing issues with weights of polar bears. There is a risk that polar bears will become extinct. There is a conservation group now that is calling for the polar bear to be listed as possibly becoming extinct. If greenhouse gas emissions are not attacked aggressively now, polar bears could become extinct. The group is hoping that by calling for the polar bears to be listed in that category it will force the U.S. to get on line with the Kyoto plan.

The sad reality is we have to force our own government here in Canada to get on line and not just talk but put it into action. Why has the government not taken any action? Why would it not support this motion? We did not even give a timeline. We are saying to put the mandatory rules in place so we can get some action started to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.