Deborah Grey

[Petitions, April 12th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am thrilled to see you in the chair.

There are some people in the country who are not thrilled about the fact that the British Columbia Court of Appeal did, on June 30, 1999, dismiss the appeal to reinstate subsection 4 of section 163.1 of the criminal code, making possession of child pornography illegal in British Columbia.

Possession of child pornography in B.C. is now legal because of this decision, and because the well-being and safety of children are put in jeopardy, pursuant to Standing Order 36, the petitioners are asking that parliament be recalled at the earliest possible opportunity—in fact we could probably do it today—to invoke section 33 of the charter of rights and freedoms, the notwithstanding clause, to override the B.C. court of appeal decision and reinstate subsection 4 of section 163.1 of the criminal code, making possession of child pornography illegal.

[Rcmp, April 12th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, let me say too that under the circumstances I think our RCMP are as competent as they can be, which is in spite of this government, certainly not because of it.

It is a matter of priorities. This government could protect public safety, but instead it buys fountains for Shawinigan, a high priority I am sure. We would think the government would do everything it could to protect the taxpayers who fund its very grant giveaways. It is sort of like being smart enough to guard the goose that lays the golden egg.

The auditor general, time after time, has listed serious concerns about the RCMP's ability to protect Canadians. Why is it that boondoggles are more important to this whole government than the safety of Canadian citizens?

[Rcmp, April 12th, 2000]

Perhaps with another six point plan, Mr. Speaker.

The auditor general has made many of these same complaints year after year. Canadians rely on the RCMP for a lot more than just photo ops with tourists. Millions of Canadians count on them as their only local police force. CPIC, which is the nationwide tracking program for criminals, is run by the RCMP and police forces right across the country depend on it. Law-abiding citizens are threatened because of this government's management and the lack of it.

I ask the solicitor general again, why is he and his government more concerned about pork-barrelling than policing?

[Rcmp, April 12th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, leave it to this government to run one of Canada's greatest national symbols right into the ground.

The auditor general has revealed widespread organizational and financial problems in the RCMP. These problems leave Canadians, first, vulnerable to criminal activity and, second, they threaten the security of our country, all because of mismanagement by this government.

Why is the solicitor general not following up on these serious concerns of the auditor general?

[Revenue Canada, April 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, only a Liberal could brag about that and think that it is just a terrific report.

They should be calling their department “Expenditure Canada”. Collect more in taxes this year? Well, quick, spend it as quickly as possible before the public finds out.

One applicant got a half million dollars more than he even asked for. He was told, “Do not worry about it. It is okay. It will not happen again, we promise”. Then they were told, “Keep the cash”.

That is unbelievable from the government. Why does every single day see another government boondoggle?

[Revenue Canada, April 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, maybe it is not about the loss of money. It is about the massive mismanagement of money in every single department.

According to the auditor general, revenue plays favourites with who gets access to that cash. In fact, less than 10% of companies who apply get 85% of the money.

In one case the department spent nearly 10,000 hours trying to figure out how one guy could even qualify for the cash. He ended up getting twice as much as he asked for. Now, there is a real deal.

Why is it that every time anyone in the government sees a pot of taxpayers' cash, they just cannot resist the temptation to dish it out?

[Revenue Canada, April 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is report card day today, and it ain't pretty.

The auditor general criticized mismanagement in immigration, Indian affairs, HRD and the solicitor general's office, but it was the revenue department which got first prize today.

Revenue hands out more than $2 billion, mainly to large corporations. That generates $20 million to $55 million of benefit to the Canadian economy. It is another massive boondoggle. It is hardly a deal.

Does the revenue minister think that taxpayers really enjoy having their money wasted by the very department which collects it?

[Option Canada, April 10th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, today the heritage minister talked about 100 pages of documents that came forward, but frankly those pages might just as well be blank because they have not given the information that Canadians want.

She has dodged in the House time and time again, two years ago as well as today, one very simple question that she needs to answer. What happened to the $5 million she gave to Option Canada? Where is the money?

[Option Canada, April 10th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the 100 pages of documents have not cleared up the crisis. The money is still missing and the minister knows it.

Canadians deserve an answer and to know where in the world the money is. Option Canada officials are still refusing to open their books and the minister is refusing to demand an answer from them on accountability. They refuse to answer how the money was spent.

It is $5 million worth of taxpayers' money that has vanished without a trace. Regardless of 100 pages of documents, the answer has still not come forward. Is it that the minister does not care about getting to the bottom of this or does she not know where the money went and she does not want Canadians to find out where it went?

[Option Canada, April 10th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to get the documents. Maybe it would have been good if taxpayers had got the cash back.

The grant was about boosting the no side of the referendum, as some people say, but that is not what Option Canada was about. The operations manager said, “Not a penny from the grant was spent on the no side's campaign during the referendum”. Of course that begs the question, what did the money go for? Who knows what the grant was for? Nobody knows where that money went.

For 100 pages of documents, the minister could talk about it but I would like to know why did she not track down the cash?