Grant McNally

[Supply, June 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has been in the House since 1993, a bit longer than I, and he has seen a lot of waste in this place. He has highlighted a few of those examples. The government is in the midst of a full scale scandal and the leadership issue is going on as well.

Would he highlight for us his top two or three examples of incompetence, mismanagement or outrageous spending? Would he agree with me that the government is quickly loosing the trust of Canadians to administer their hard earned tax dollars?

[Supply, June 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. In many ways I feel for the hon. member and her colleagues. They are perhaps not directly involved in the scandal but they are affected by it. They have been tarnished because of the actions of some.

I will refer to the point I made earlier about a convicted Liberal fundraiser named Pierre Corbeil. He somehow got a list of government grant agencies and went to them to persuade them to donate to the Liberal Party. Where did he get the list? How can that be defended? I believe it is the tip of the iceberg. It is a matter of trust. The Liberal government has lost the trust of the people.

[Supply, June 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is a bit of an apples and oranges analogy. However there is another aspect to the contracts the government doles out that the hon. member did not mention: The dollars from some of them go back to the Liberal Party of Canada.

We saw in the last election that government grants are funnelled through a separate body, the Quebec Liberal Party, which decides which ones should be approved or not. It is unbelievable. Is the hon. member saying the provinces are involved in some kind of kickback to the Liberal Party? I certainly hope not. It is not true and she knows it. It is unbelievable.

The government is responsible for this error. It happened on its watch. It must take responsibility for it. The hon. member's colleague across the way said it was the previous auditor general's fault for not catching the error so the government should be absolved of responsibility. That is not right. It is absolutely false.

I appreciate that the hon. member said which way she will be voting on the motion tonight. Perhaps she will ask for repayment of the contracts that were given to Liberal friends in her home province of Quebec such as Groupaction and Groupe Everest. That would be great. We would appreciate it.

To my knowledge there has not been a police investigation into the overpayment motion we are talking about tonight. There have been police investigations into contracts given to friends of the government. When it is one or two we get alarmed and concerned, but when we cannot keep up with the list it is a sure sign the government can no longer be trusted to manage the hard earned tax dollars of the Canadian people.

[Supply, June 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca.

I want to begin my comments by refuting some of the things said by the previous speaker for the government side that my colleague was pointing out as well. We know that in this place our colleague from the government side who just spoke is able to bamboozle us with statistical analyses and rationalizations beyond the ability perhaps of any other person in this place. The bottom line is as is stated right in the motion. This is the entire issue and I will restate it for my colleague on the other side:

That, after overpaying at least $3.3 billion to several provinces as a result of its own accounting errors, this House calls upon the government to forgive any past revenue overpayments to the provinces since retroactively clawing back these revenues would severely affect the provinces' ability to pay for healthcare, education and social services.

The overpayments we are talking about are overpayments that are a direct result of the government's irresponsibility. My colleague can laugh and say what he likes but the fact is that these overpayments began in 1993. Let us have a quick history lesson.

If my memory serves me right, that is when the Liberal government took over and that is when these overpayments happened. The government is ultimately responsible for that. We have heard lots of rationalizations as to why the government should not be responsible for this and should download this back onto the provinces but the ultimate fact is that it is the federal government's responsibility. It is its error.

As we have seen in this place day after day, the government is losing the confidence not only of the House but of the people of Canada because of its mismanagement of taxpayers' dollars. We just finished a question period where we had many questions asked of the government about taxpayers' dollars going to agencies that placed ads for the government and then gave dollars to the Liberal Party of Canada on an ongoing basis. We know there are several police investigations.

I think back to 1997 when I was a new member here. I have used this example before. It is one that sticks with me because I think it highlights some of the problems that are going on with this other scandal with the Liberals. There was a rather small news story about an individual in Quebec who was a fundraiser for the Liberal Party at that time. He no longer is but at that time he was. His name is Pierre Corbeil.

Somehow he got hold of a list of individuals in Quebec that were receiving grants from the government, federal taxpayers' dollars. He was going to those individuals and asking them to donate cash dollars to the Liberal Party of Canada. They were told if they did not do so then their grants would be at risk. That individual was not only charged but he was convicted of influence peddling.

Since that time we have heard details over and over again of individuals who have been involved in these kinds of things. There have been other individuals charged and a few others convicted. The web is getting wider. Things are starting to unravel for the government in terms of its ability to have the confidence of the people.

To govern effectively one must have the trust of the people. I would submit that the government is quickly losing the trust of the people because of this mismanagement. It is not only because of mismanagement. The motion before us today simply highlights the mismanagement or incompetence of the government dealing with this particular issue sooner.

The bigger scandal of ad agencies getting government contracts and kicking back dollars to the Liberal Party went beyond mismanagement and incompetence. It went a level further. These are the kinds of things that disturb taxpayers. They disturb people who work hard and send their tax dollars to Ottawa only to seem them spent in these kinds of ways.

The government is intent on going after the provinces to get the $3.3 billion back. As others in this place have mentioned, that would have a dramatic effect on the provinces, on communities and on individuals in their everyday lives because the dollars have already been budgeted by the provinces for health care and education.

The federal government is already decreasing funding for health care and other priority areas. Why is that? Part of the reason is that it takes the hard earned tax dollars of Canadians and wastes or mismanages them on things like the Groupe Everest and Groupaction contracts. The dollars do not go to health care. They go to Liberal friends. That is unconscionable, and the government will be held to account for it.

How can the people of Canada trust the group on the other side of the House whose members tell them not to worry because they will take care of the overpayment and manage the issue? How can Canadians trust them when they say they will fix the contracting problems by looking at contracts to see if they need to be altered, changed or not given in the future? In many ways it is like the fox minding the chicken coop. These are the individuals who have been responsible for the administration of government since 1993, so how can they be trusted to handle taxpayer dollars responsibly? The case is gaining weight day by day as each new scandal rolls out on the government side.

In my province of British Columbia the softwood lumber issue is huge. My hon. colleague from Vancouver Island has been on the case for years. It has had a devastating impact on the economy of British Columbia. It is an issue the federal government has not paid enough attention to. With the provinces hurting already, the federal government's move to claw back the overpayments would magnify the impact on our communities.

In my own riding of Dewdney--Alouette there are many remanufacturers of lumber products who should not be included in the softwood lumber dispute. Even the international trade minister has said that. However they are, and they are losing their jobs because the government has not addressed the issue.

My hon. colleague from Edmonton mentioned that the government's contribution to health care has been declining. It is down to 14%. These kinds of actions have a direct effect on the people at home. There is one taxpayer, and the taxpayer is bearing the burden of the government's mismanagement and scandalous behaviour. It is hurting the taxpayer in a big way.

The Liberal caucus is divided on the issue. We know about the leadership issue which has been going on under wraps although it is now fully exposed. Some Liberal members will support the motion tonight and some will vote against it. We encourage the government to consider it thoughtfully and support it because it makes sense.

[Supply, June 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have an example of why Canadians are showing that they no longer trust the government. An individual named Pierre Corbeil who was a Liberal fundraiser somehow got hold of a list of grants in Quebec and was thrown in jail for influence peddling.

This is the kind of thing that has been going on. Is it not an example of why Canadians have lost trust in the government?

[Question No. 150, June 6th, 2002]

With regard to changes made to the list of eligible passport guarantors: ( a ) what was the rationale behind eliminating the role of a signing officer at a credit union or caisse populaire to act as a guarantor for a member; and ( b ) what supporting documentation was considered in arriving at this rationale?

[Softwood Lumber, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the government's inaction on softwood is hurting real people and real families in my riding and across British Columbia. Thanks to the government the problem will only get worse as the 27% duty now has to be paid in cash at the border.

In my own riding I recently visited Chasyn Wood Technologies in Maple Ridge which employs over 100 workers. I was moved listening to the concerns of Chasyn workers in their lunchroom about their frustration with the prospect of losing their jobs. Job losses in one sector often have a ripple effect and they could eventually devastate towns and grow to hurt the whole province.

Close to 100 Chasyn employees have signed a petition calling on the Minister for International Trade and the Prime Minister to act now. The Prime Minister must push the U.S. to consider the bigger picture and to set up a rules based trade body that works before workers and families at Chasyn and across British Columbia are thrown out of work.

I join with hard working families of British Columbia and urge the Liberal government to stop neglecting softwood and act now before more jobs are lost.

[Supply, May 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I will rebut the comment of my hon. colleague. He quoted a document from quite a long time ago from the former reform party which is now the Canadian Alliance. The Liberal government has made the EI qualification process much harder and reduced benefits to a much lower level.

I will ask the hon. member a question about softwood lumber which follows up on the comment of my hon. colleague from the NDP. There are a number of mills in my riding and a number of people who will be out of work shortly if there is no resolution to the dispute.

One thing brought to my attention when I visited a plant called Chasyn Wood Technologies was that workers get upset when told their jobs may be lost as a result of the trade dispute. Remanufacturers need to get their wood products on the open market like anyone else. Unfortunately, independent remanufacturers are being lumped in with the trade dispute. They will become uncompetitive overnight when the tariffs take effect, particularly in the first month.

Would the hon. member not agree that people in this group have been affected in a way that puts their livelihood at risk? Would he not agree that the government needs to address the issue immediately?

[Supply, May 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I would just simply say to the member opposite that this is not a knee-jerk reaction. We have been asking the government for a long term comprehensive strategy for a long time. In fact we began asking for that years ago when the softwood lumber agreement was in place. We knew it would expire and that the government would need to have a plan, and that it did not have a plan.

As a result, workers are now losing their jobs, many of them in my riding. Would he not agree with me on that point?

[Supply, May 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague from western Canada has a number of agricultural producers in his riding. I do as well in the eastern part of my riding.

However another side of the whole debate today is the softwood lumber side of the issue. I have a number of businesses in my riding that are directly affected by this, including one that I visited last week called Chasyn Wood Technologies. It has said that it wants parliament to take all measures necessary to ensure that the Canadian independent lumber remanufacturing industry was provided protection from the onerous and unreasonable duties so as not to place the Canadian independent lumber remanufacturing industry at a competitive disadvantage to either the Canadian primary industry or the U.S. remanufacturing industry.

The company went on to say that more had be done to help the Canadian independent lumber remanufacturing industry survive, not merely just to be able to keep employees and communities on extended life support. It said that a bridging mechanism, such as a loan guarantee program, was necessary for the survival of the Canadian independent lumber remanufacturing industry.

The company went on at length to talk about what needed to be done on this issue.

I was wondering if my colleague from Brandon might be able to comment on the problems we are having with protectionist policies that are directly affecting people across the country in a number of different sectors.