House of Commons photoWon her last election, in 2000, with 51% of the vote.
Acoa May 9th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, he said that I listed off businesses. I would now like to list off some labour unions. It seems that the federal government would like to spread the cash around. It is not just limited to huge corporations and more government.
How about the Canadian Auto Workers? How about the New Brunswick Federation of Labour? How about the teacher associations and the teamsters. Jimmy Hoffa would be proud of that.
Why is the government handing taxpayer money out to groups that do not need it?
Acoa May 9th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, let me make it clear. What we would like to do is end the abuse and let Atlantic Canadians oversee their own situation and not send money to Ottawa. This government confiscates Canadians' money through high taxation. It assigns the money to one department. It transfers it to another department, like the Business Development Bank, then it kicks it out to companies that do not need it and calls it job creation.
Why is this government's job creation limited to bumble, fumble and boondoggle?
Acoa May 9th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, the veterans affairs minister's worst fears have been realized. ACOA has already become the Atlantic Canada overblown agency.
Let us look at who got some cash: the Royal Bank, Canada Packers, Bombardier, Irving Pulp and Paper, CP hotels, IBM, General Dynamics Corp. and McCain Foods. These are not exactly small fries.
Why is taxpayer money being used to subsidize these massively profitable corporations?
Atlantic Canada May 8th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, the minister responsible for ACOA can chuckle it up all he likes but he knows he was the very member who called it the Atlantic Canada overblown agency. I would like to know why he is defending it so much now. In fact, he forgot to mention also in his discussion a few moments ago that it is not a loan, it is a non-repayable loan. That to me equals a grant in my thesaurus.
I again ask the minister, why is it when there is a Liberal in need to win an election, we just cut the cheque when an election is going on? Who cares if it drives another business out? Who cares if the project will fail anyway? Why is it so important for this government to pay bucks for ballots?
Atlantic Canada May 8th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, meanwhile back at Clarenville, remember that the Deputy Prime Minister and the minister responsible for ACOA were two guys who voted against ACOA when it was brought in by the Tories. I am sure they had visions of this sportsplex or something like it in mind when they did.
Bren Powers was the mastermind behind this particular scheme. His longtime Liberal connections clearly paid off again; $1.2 million for a facility even though it drove competitors right out of business and ended up crashing itself less then two years after it opened.
Why is it that taxpayers should finance these boondoggles when they help nobody but Liberals?
Atlantic Canada May 8th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister meets with the Atlantic premiers today perhaps he could explain to them why he is killing jobs in their provinces.
The Clarenville regional sportsplex was a $1.2 million election time windfall in a Liberal member's riding in Newfoundland. The ACOA grant was supposed to create 40 full time long term jobs. Guess what? In two short years the centre drove a competing restaurant right out of operation. It angered most of the other business people in town. Now it is closed due to “mechanical problems”, whatever that means.
Why are taxpayers on the hook for another Liberal boondoggle?
Human Resources Development May 5th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, that is just a great quote where the auditor general talks about the immediate problem. He knows there is a long term problem here and it is simply not being addressed.
It is unbelievable how a minister of the crown can say that everything is incorporated and everything is going just fine. Her parliamentary secretary thinks everything is grand as well. I would like her to stand up in the House and address some of these pretty serious concerns as well.
Deloitte & Touche said that there was not even, and I quote, “a clear statement of what improvements and outputs it is trying to achieve”. There needs to be a clear summary plan. There is a statement that is necessary and that is not in there.
I ask the parliament secretary, where is that clear summary statement in the six point plan?
Human Resources Development May 5th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I do not think the auditor general was any more impressed with it than was Deloitte & Touche. Maybe then this minister, when she actually found out the horror of what was going on there, saw that she was totally responsible for it.
If the minister is going to make a claim, she must be prepared to back it up. The minister said that she had acted on the advice of Deloitte & Touche. We know she has not. It would be so simple to bring forward the truth.
Deloitte & Touche criticized the draft plan and there are no substantive differences between that and the final version. There is no clear underlined addressing of that in the final plan. Could the minister or her representative prove it? Read it to me. Where is it in that plan?
Human Resources Development May 5th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, the HRD minister continues to claim that she has incorporated those recommendations in her six point plan from Deloitte & Touche.
Recommendations were made by Deloitte & Touche on February 2 and the minister made the final plan public on February 6. If we compare the early version with the final version, it is pretty clear that the minister was not in any mood for any revisions. There are no substantive differences between those two reports.
Why did the minister even bother to hire outside help when she knew she was going to ignore it anyhow?
Human Resources Development May 4th, 2000
No, Mr. Speaker, we would like to move on to the future.
With that realization, and the substantive changes maybe that Deloitte & Touche talked about, this minister did not implement them and she knows it. Mr. Potts basically said that very thing, that they never even saw the final review. She did not seem to care about it because four days later, on February 6, she pretended that everything was going to be just fabulous in that department. She knew that plan had no credibility and she knew that it would fail.
Why has she told the House and Canadians that she took that advice when she knows perfectly well she did not?