Grant McNally

[Business of Supply, February 21st, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Blackstrap for the very good points she made in her speech. I also congratulate my colleague from St. Albert who has been a champion of fiscal responsibility for years in this place. Although he sits in the opposition benches he will one day be on the government side. He would make a fine minister of finance. He has done well to effect the agenda in the House on fiscal matters. This is another example of that and I congratulate him on it.

There are some very good proposals outlined in the 51st report entitled “The Business of Supply: Completing the Circle of Control”. Before I address some of the recommendations outlined in the report I should like to establish why these kinds of changes are so important and so vitally necessary to be implemented.

It is becoming clear to all Canadians that this is a tired, weak, arrogant and corrupt government. The evidence is clear. Pierre Corbeil, a Liberal fundraiser, was convicted of influence peddling, of shaking down companies to cough up cash to the Liberal Party of Canada.

The Prime Minister called the head of a crown corporation to help out his friend in the Shawinigate scandal. As we know, Alfonso Gagliano was kicked out of cabinet for similar shady dealings to pressure crown corporations to help and hire his Liberal pals.

The billion dollar boondoggle of HRDC cash to Liberal pals scandal is well documented. There has been a waste of billions of dollars through poor and scandalous management. How could the government possibly expect Canadians to trust them with their hard earned money? It is clearly time for this tired, weak, arrogant and corrupt government to be swept out of office.

Some of the recommendations mentioned here as put forward by the committee are outlined under headings such as the ability to assess new program proposals at committee. That is a positive recommendation and there is a set of subrecommendations under it. There are others as well.

On the recommendations found in the report under having a higher profile for the review of the estimates, as my colleague from Blackstrap pointed out there has not been a substantive review of the estimates in the House since 1968 when I was six years old. That is absolutely unbelievable.

My colleague quoted the comments of our former clerk Robert Marleau on the House abandoning its constitutional responsibility in examining the estimates. I agree with that. It is time for change. We have to act. We have to take the issue very seriously. Billions of taxpayer hard earned dollars are spent in this place by the government with hardly a second glance. This has to change. These kinds of recommendations are positive ones. I hope they will be supported by all members of the House.

Another recommendation calls for improved support for committees, for members and for the scope of parliamentary financial review of statutory expenditures. There is a whole list of recommendations under that heading as well.

There are some recommendations on tax expenditures, loan guarantees and the accountability of ministers and deputy ministers. I will focus on these for a minute.

Not only are there good recommendations in this report, but there are suggestions that others have put forward which go beyond the recommendations within the scope of this report. I will read into the record a set of proposals that has been proposed by the democratic task force which the PC/DR coalition has put forward for debate and for input from Canadians across the country, members of opposition parties and members of the public as to many different needs for parliamentary reform.

One of the issues in that task force report which I would like to read into the record concerns the power of the purse. I want to read it directly into the record:

The granting of “Supply” to the Crown is the most fundamental prerogative of Parliament, in particular of the elected representatives in the House of Commons. Parliament has effectively lost “the power of the purse”. Its inability to monitor or control government expenditures and to hold the government accountable has been documented by Auditors-General as far back as the 1970s and as recently as December 2001. The annual Estimates of government departments are automatically referred to Standing Committees of the Commons. The Estimates are then “deemed” to have been approved by the particular Committee, whether or not the Committee has ever opened the book, spent a minute examining them or called a single minister or official to explain or account for them. “Supply Days” in the House of Commons give Opposition parties the right to choose a subject for debate, and to move no-confidence, but little attention is paid by public, media, or government to these formalities. They are no substitute for rigorous examination of ministers on their Estimates. Last June, the Commons, in a procedural shortcut, “approved” proposed expenditure of $166 billion of taxpayers' dollars in a single vote.

That is simply not acceptable. We have a proposal from the coalition which states:

Commons Rules regarding Supply must be changed. In the period March-June each year, a fixed number of hours (say, 160 hours--40 sittings @ 4 hours, Monday-Thursday, mainly in the evening) will be spent in Committee of the Whole. The Estimates of...four departments and agencies (to be determined by the Opposition) will be examined with no time limit in any one case, and the responsible ministers will be required to defend and explain their spending Estimates. This would remove any incentive for the government to pressure committees not to meet on Estimates.

That often happens. It continues:

It would leave in place the provision for committee examination of all other Estimates and Supplementary Estimates. It would require all Ministers to prepare for examination because they would not know until the last minute if they were to be summoned to Committee of the Whole on Supply. It would provide a televised proceeding in evening viewing time. It would allow many MPs to question the Minister without the Minister being able to refer questions to officials.

That is what parliamentary accountability on the estimates is all about: issues and ideas that are found in proposals like these. We are open to other suggestions as well but we think there are some institutional changes that have happened in this place over the years, perhaps not purposefully, to the point where we have not taken seriously the power of the purse.

As parliamentarians the legislative side is very important. As Mr. Marleau pointed out, the supply of the estimates needs to take on the same importance it once had in this place for that is what provides good government regardless of which party happens to sit in power on the other side of the House.

It is only when we have changed the procedures and we have put in effect non-partisan rules which give members the ability to examine in detail the costs, estimates of costs and every government expenditure that we will have truly accountable government. That is good for all of us. That is good for every party in the House and it is best for every Canadian because those tax dollars belong to the people who sent them in trust to us to spend on their behalf on priority areas.

We understand the nature of politics and different parties having different visions. We know visions change from time to time based on which government is in power, but woe to us if we do not change the procedural aspects of this place to the way they once were where every member could stand on behalf of their constituents and examine the expenditures of any government.

That is our job. We need to get back to that.That is why I think this is a proposal well worth debate in this place and well worth the support of every member from every party. Let us do it. Let us change the process for the good of our people.

[National Horse of Canada Act, February 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I seek your guidance. I know I have already spoken on the bill but I wonder if there would be consent of the House to deem the bill read a second time, referred to committee and reported without amendment. Seeing as all parties have spoken in favour of the bill, we could wrap this up and get it done in one hour here today.

[National Horse of Canada Act, February 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by acknowledging the hard work done by many people on this issue. I do not want to take up much time by adding to what has been said by my colleagues who are very knowledgeable on the facts and history of the Canadian horse. I would simply add my voice of support to the debate.

I have something I would like to read into the record from a constituent of mine who was in contact with me on this issue.

I also want to acknowledge that we have heard support from all parties in this debate so far. That is something we do not see happen very often and it is refreshing. It is always good when we can work together in a non-partisan way because that sets the tone for other things we can do together as colleagues, regardless of which party we represent.

A constituent of mine, Roxanna Salinas from my hometown of Mission in Dewdney--Alouette wrote to me. She was very pleased that we were moving forward on this debate. She said:

Personally, I too feel that Private Members' business is important. We need some “grass roots” democracy in Canada. All too often, people give up and choose not to exercise their voice as they feel they will not be listened to, and don't exercise their vote as they feel it won't make a difference. Then we end up with a government that does not represent the people.

Aside from recognizing the horses, Bill S-22 has brought people together from across the country. People from Quebec and B.C. were able to work together to focus on one objective, and there was agreement from all provinces on the use of BOTH official languages. This, in itself, is significant.

I want to congratulate my colleague from Dufferin--Peel--Wellington--Grey for his hard work on this issue. Also, I congratulate Senator Murray in the other place. I had a chance to work with him on a task force, and I know he is a hardworking senator. I appreciate his efforts not only on the task force, but also on this issue. He has worked very hard with the member and with others to bring this issue forward. I also congratulate him for his effort to shepherd this through in the Senate. Not only having the different parties in this House working together, but also having both houses working together, which we do not see happen very often either, is also an important accomplishment.

Some might wonder why we are debating this topic in the House. However this is important because it is a symbol for our country. We have heard a lot about the importance of this breed of horse and its significance to our history. We acknowledge that. In another sense, we are always looking for ways to bring people together from all parts of the country. Having the Canadian horse recognized as the national horse of Canada is a perfect opportunity to do that.

I fully and wholeheartedly support the bill, as I think most of my colleagues from the Progressive Conservative Democratic Representative Coalition would.

[Budget Implementation Act, February 8th, 2002]

Shakedown, as the Liberal member says. It was a shakedown by a Liberal fundraiser in Quebec and he was convicted. I might hazard a guess that this is the tip of the iceberg of the kinds of things that go on behind the scenes here.

We see the facade of the government when it says it is doing this or that. However another level is operating of scandal and mismanagement with the Liberal government. I make these assertions of fact because in the end how can Canadians trust the government to manage their dollars when these kinds of things go on? How can Canadians trust the government to manage the budget of the country when a Liberal fundraiser is convicted of influence peddling in the province of Quebec. As the Liberal member said, shaking down individuals for donations to the Liberal Party of Canada before they would get their grant?

Might I remind people that a government grant is taxpayer dollars, the hard earned cash that Canadians remit to the government. That money is supposed to be used wisely for services that Canadians want. That is the attitude of government members. I am sure they are just as embarrassed by this as much as members of the opposition are.

However it does not stop there. Not only was this Liberal Party fundraiser convicted of influence peddling, but there were other debacles such as the HRDC billion dollar boondoggle scandal. We are all well aware that grants were handed out, taxpayer dollars, often when applications had not been filed. Paperwork was done wrong. Grants went to Liberal ridings in disproportionate amounts. Part of the defence in the whole argument was for ministers to draw opposition members into the web. They said we were writing letters on behalf of programs also. This is part of their strategy. They draw in others as a defence mechanism to justify the mismanagement of taxpayer dollars. That is just not right.

Of course that boondoggle scandal led to the Shawinigate case. More police investigations have taken place in the Prime Minister's riding than perhaps anywhere else in the country. It is unbelievable. The Prime Minister admitted he had contacted an individual at the Business Development Bank on behalf of a constituent. He said that he was doing his job.

I guess his friend, Alfonso Gagliano, the former minister of public works, was just doing his job too when he intervened and called the head of a crown corporation on behalf a friend. Well, he is no longer with us for who knows what reason. Perhaps it could be related to that incident.

The fact is this kind of scandalous mismanagement, this kind of corruption which goes on behind the scenes on the government side is an embarrassment to the country. It is an embarrassment to members on this side and I know it is an embarrassment to many of my colleagues on the Liberal benches, and it is wearing thin.

I am running out of time and I have five more pages of information having to do with how the government has missed opportunities over and over again and how it has betrayed the trust of Canadians in ways that are unspeakable. These occurrences are too common. These are taxpayer dollars given by people to the government for it to manage.

I also mention the parallel grant process. This story broke during the 2000 election. Grants that were given out in Quebec were put through a parallel process of approval through the Quebec Liberal Party. It was the Quebec branch of the federal Liberal Party of Canada. Who could imagine such a thing? It is unbelievable. It relates to the Pierre Corbeil incident, the convicted Liberal fundraiser from Quebec.

Those kinds of things go on behind the scenes. It is because of those kinds of actions that during this debate on the budget I propose the fundamental thesis that this governing group of Liberals cannot be trusted with taxpayers' dollars. It is time for them to be thrown out of office because of their scandalous record of mismanagement.

[Budget Implementation Act, February 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to raise that and hope my colleagues will be able to hear the riveting speech on which I will continue to embark because it has to do with the missed opportunities of the Liberals during their term. We just heard numerous stories about government mismanagement, and I want to remind people of the legacy of the government.

When I was a new member, first elected in 1997, I remember a small story that started up about a Liberal fundraiser named Pierre Corbeil from Quebec. What happened with this Liberal fundraiser, and perhaps with others as well? He was convicted of influence peddling. He had lists of individuals in Quebec who were receiving government grants. Lo and behold he would knock on their doors during an election campaign, point out they were on the list for a grant and would ask for some cash for the Liberal Party of Canada.

[Budget Implementation Act, February 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join the debate on the budget implementation bill.

I will begin by acknowledging my Liberal colleague who just spoke. I think this is the first time I have ever heard a Liberal member acknowledge that CPP increases somewhat knock into the tax cuts that have been given by the government. I appreciate that candor.

At the same time, I want to talk about the legacy of the Liberal government during its reign from 1993 to today. The government has done some good things in terms of tax cuts, but it has not been enough. As the Liberal member just mentioned, the cuts taken away on the one hand have been increased with CPP contributions in other areas. The overall impact has not had the maximum effect of what real, substantial tax cuts would do in stimulating our economy.

I do want to talk about the Liberal government's missed opportunities. Throughout the early part of the Liberal government's term in power, it had to make some cuts. In recent years the country has had unprecedented growth. The Liberal government has missed the opportunities to plan for the future. It thought of as many ways as it could to spend taxpayer dollars, and I will reflect on some of that.

The growth that occurred in our economy previous to the current recession we are now in, somewhat related to September 11 but other factors as well, was in spite of the government not because of it. For years we have heard the Liberals say that the policies of the government have made things happen economically in the country.

Seeing as I have the floor, might I take this opportunity to perhaps move a motion, seconded by my colleague for Elk Island, that for the rest of this term in parliament we make all private members' bills votable? Would there be consent for that motion?

[Olympic Games, February 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituents of Dewdney--Alouette I take this opportunity to wish all of our Canadian athletes, coaches and support staff well in Salt Lake City for the 2002 Olympic Games.

Our athletes have spent years training for the opportunity to represent our country and I thank them for their dedication, perseverance and commitment. No doubt their families have made sacrifices along the way to support and assist their loved ones to reach this world class level of performance and we acknowledge and thank them as well. I especially wish Kelly Law whose home town is in Maple Ridge in my riding and her entire team well as they go for gold in women's curling.

We look forward to hearing O Canada being played many times in the next two weeks and hope to see more Canadian athletes than ever on the podium in Salt Lake City.

Regardless of the results, though, we are proud of all of our dedicated Olympians. On behalf of all of my colleagues in the House we wish Team Canada well and say “Go Canada, go”.

[Privilege, February 1st, 2002]

Madam Speaker, before I put my question I remind colleagues of the statement made by the Speaker today which, as we get close to the end of debate today, should refocus our attention on what the debate has been about. As you have instructed us, Madam Speaker, it has been about the motion before us.

The Speaker clearly said “There appears to me to be no dispute as to the facts. I believe that both the minister and other hon. members recognize that two versions of events have been presented to the House”. That is what we have been talking about today. It is what the entire motion is framed around.

The hon. member for Portage--Lisgar then moved the motion:

That the charge against the minister of defence, for making misleading statements in the House, be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

My hon. colleague used to be a member of the committee as did I. We understand the importance of matters that are brought forward to it. We understand the importance of allowing all hon. members, in the context of the debate before us today and without straying from the facts, to put their comments on record about procedure, process and the relevance of entertaining this type of debate. It is entirely necessary to debate and put our comments to the committee so it may as part of its deliberations be able to reflect on what we have said in the House.

I have heard today from government members that this is some kind of sidetrack issue--

[Privilege, February 1st, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I certainly clearly laid out my position. I asked him once and I will ask him again: Does he agree with what I laid out before the members in the House? It is a simple question. Does he agree with what I just laid out? Yes or no.

[Privilege, February 1st, 2002]

Madam Speaker, obviously the debate would have ended sooner if the member had not chosen to stand and say the same things over and over again, as he accuses opposition members of doing.

Leadership starts at the top. I want to say that I support this motion. I appreciate that you have kept us on track, Madam Speaker, because it is a very important ruling. I have been here five years and I have not seen this happen before, whereby a minister's direct actions have been questioned. I do hope the committee gets to the bottom of it.

However, certainly in parliamentary tradition in this place, in previous times a minister simply would have stepped aside with these kinds of serious allegations being brought forward, thereby stopping this whole procedure from even needing to go forward. I am wondering if the member would agree with that.