Grant McNally

[The Budget, January 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's comments. He asked a question in the House yesterday having to do with a Liberal scandal and mismanagement in terms of grants and contributions. He pointed out that in 1997 there was a Liberal fundraiser by the name of Pierre Corbeil who was convicted of influence peddling. This is very serious. Over the last couple of years other things have sprung up. There was the Prime Minister's intervention with the Business Development Bank. The recently departed minister of public works, Alfonso Gagliano, was involved in similar kinds of things.

How is it that Canadians are to trust the government with their hard earned tax dollars when this kind of scandalous behaviour continues by the government? I would like my colleague to comment on that.

[Committees of the House, December 13th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's speech because he pointed out many of the deficiencies in the government's budget. During his speech he touched upon the auditor general's report. During debate over the last several days government members have asked what opposition members would identify as wasteful spending. We have identified those areas in this place.

I would like to ask my colleague about the $16 billion identified by the auditor general as areas of spending that are not of high priority. Before the parliamentary secretary jumps to his feet and says that opposition parties are against x , y and z , which is the government's first line of defence, what areas would my colleague suggest be repriorized, with money put into high priority rather than low priority areas? I know he touched on it, but I would like him to elaborate on it.

[Committees of the House, December 13th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, while responding to letters from some students in my riding from Whonnock Elementary School, I noticed a comment made by a grade 5 student that fits right into my colleague's speech. The student wrote:

The issue I am concerned about is the taxes because I think that people (our parents) are paying too much money.

Even young people in our country can understand the concept of high taxation and the impact it has on families. I would not mind hearing my colleague's comment on that particular point.

[Committees of the House, December 13th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for my hon. friend. The auditor general pointed out approximately $16 billion of questionable spending on behalf of the Liberal government. Surely he would agree with me that the government could have found some areas of spending that could have been reprioritized into areas of military defence, health care and other priority areas of spending, rather than the grants and contributions that we have seen under the Minister of Human Resources Development.

Surely the member would agree with me that there must have been some room to reduce some wasteful spending. Surely he would admit that the Liberals could be looking closer at some of those areas of wasteful spending and reducing that and putting it into high priority areas. Would he agree with me on that?

[The Budget, December 12th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague about the budget that the Liberals have brought in.

Obviously it looks very much like a leadership budget. The government has given some money to the Minister of Industry to appease him. It has not cut any of the wasteful spending that has been outlined by the auditor general. We heard some huffing and puffing from the finance minister during question period today.

Would the member not agree with me that the government has lost an opportunity to cut wasteful spending on low priority items and to put it into high priority items?

[The Budget, December 11th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would not call our debates here a game. I think they are very important.

My colleague across the way mentioned infrastructure quite extensively within her comments. We have a situation where the federal government imposes a fuel tax on individuals who drive. Very little of those fuel taxes go back into the infrastructure programs for which they could be used, particularly in my home province of British Columbia. Hundreds of millions of dollars are wrung out of individuals within that province. Less than 4% of that comes back to the province in any infrastructure program.

I want to ask the hon. member a question about the distribution of the infrastructure programs. Does she agree that it is a good thing to take hundreds of millions of dollars out of one region and not put any of the money back into the region from which it has been taxed?

[The Budget, December 11th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think you might find consent if you were to seek it that we deem all private members' bills for this parliament votable.

[Competition Act, December 10th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I do believe I heard my colleague say in one part of her speech that competition is not always the answer. I wonder if she could expand on that.

Would she not agree that competition for the consumer is a good thing? When there are many opportunities for the consumer to choose, that often drives the price down which in effect is a good thing. I would like her to comment on the notion she raised in her speech, and I may be wrong but I think I heard it, that competition is not always a good thing.

[Parliament of Canada Act, December 6th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, it is very pleasant that we are debating a bill on the value of poetry. I will begin by quoting a bit of poetry. I am sure we will hear some more tonight.

What is it that matters most? Is it the busy bustling of the day to day mundane tasks That carry us morning, noon and night? Is it the grand game of gain, Whether items of allure, wealth, stature, power?

We lay waste the value of noble thoughts, noble goals. Is it not these that matter most and Love and truth, Honour and integrity, The beauty of nature and All things well and good?

Often it has been stated that arts and culture, particularly poetry, is the window to the soul of a nation. The value we attribute to poetry, to the arts, is a reflection of deeper meaning things. It is an opportunity to express ourselves in ways that we do not often take time to do in our busy lives. Often we move from one task to another without stopping to enjoy the beautiful parts of our lives, the beautiful gifts of our lives and all the opportunities we have in them. Regardless of our situation or our station in life, we all have an ability to look at things through a positive lens.

I obviously am quite supportive of the bill and the notion of having a poet laureate. As the bill states, the parliamentary poet laureate “shall write poetry especially for use in parliament on occasions of state; sponsor poetry readings; give advice to the Parliamentary Librarian regarding the library's collection and acquisitions to enrich its cultural holdings; and perform such other related duties as are requested by either Speaker or the Parliamentary Librarian”.

My colleague from St. John's West set the bar rather high on the debate earlier. Members may remember the speech he delivered in such eloquent prose. I do not dare attempt to match that lofty standard set by my hon. friend from St. John's West, but I certainly do share his enjoyment of poetry as I am sure all members do.

It is a good opportunity when there is a bill of this sort. I anticipate that there likely will be very little disagreement and lots of good poetry. In the interest of getting to the exquisite poetry that will be offered by our colleagues, I simply will conclude by saying that I support the bill, as do most members of the coalition. I am quite certain most members support this great idea.

[Aboriginal Affairs, December 6th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to enter into debate on the issue raised by my colleague from Winnipeg Centre. The motion reads:

That this House urge the government to call a full public inquiry into the death of Dudley George, fatally shot on September 6, 1995, at Ipperwash Park, during a land claims dispute related to the land, treaty and cultural rights of the Stoney Point aboriginal people.

While I do not agree with everything my colleague from the NDP mentioned, I am supportive of the notion of getting to the truth of what happened at Ipperwash, obviously a tragic event.

In September 1995 a group of unarmed aboriginals gathered at Ipperwash Park to defend an ancient cemetery and advocate other rights. In the course of that protest Mr. George was tragically shot and killed by an OPP officer. A second man, as my colleague mentioned, narrowly survived a very severe beating and others were wounded. It was not a very pleasant set of circumstances.

As a result of the incident one youth was convicted and jailed. In 1997 acting Sergeant Kenneth Deane was convicted of criminal negligence causing death for the shooting of Mr. George and received a punishment of 180 hours of community volunteer work. Many would argue that was not good enough. We cannot go back and revisit that. The process was in place and there was no dispute about that part of the incident.

Since the protest there has been a great deal of concern and a number of people have called for a full public inquiry into the incident. To date none have been conducted, either provincially or federally. In 1999 the Ontario provincial ombudsman recommended an inquiry into Ipperwash in the 1998-99 annual report.

In 1999 the United Nations human rights committee directed Canada to call an inquiry into the affair. The Canadian government answered that Ipperwash was a provincial affair. However the head of the UNHRC delegation, the current secretary of state, promised to take up the Ipperwash matter with Ontario officials, provide further information to the UNHRC and hold a press conference to air the issues raised by the committee.

To my knowledge this has not happened. Mr. George's brother has filed a lawsuit against the premier of Ontario and others for their alleged roles in Dudley George's death. There is a process in place there as well.

I would partly agree with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada that this is mainly a provincial matter although there is some overlap with federal jurisdiction. I believe others may expand on that point. The federal government does have some obligations regarding the Ipperwash affair. It has a constitutionally mandated fiduciary responsibility.

The federal government can call a public inquiry into any matter that relates to peace, order and good government. The Department of National Defence used the Stoney Point territory for more than five decades. The military withdrew from that land in 1995.

It is not our job to assign blame in this matter but it is our job in the House to bring forward issues. I reject the allegation by others in this place that motions should not be brought forward because other individuals disagree with them. We should have an open airing of many issues and we should have an opportunity to vote on them. They are important issues if they make it to the floor of the House of Commons and we should take a stand on them.

If we were to do that we would have government members supporting opposition motions, opposition members supporting government motions and everything in between. It would help to change the tone and give real importance to the notion of private members' business.

A significant number of questions have been raised regarding the events at Ipperwash. As parliamentarians we should respond when there is an issue being raised. There should be an open ability to get to the truth of the matter. Some are saying that a public inquiry is the way to go. Others argue that there has been a process in place to this point.

The public in Ontario who have concerns about this issue should bring them forward and bring them to bear with the current government. It has been called for in the provincial auditor general's report and being mainly a provincial matter should be addressed there.

It is a worthy motion. It is worth the time to debate and consider whether or not it goes ahead. People are concerned that the entire story has not unfolded. It needs to be pursued and adequate answers must be provided through some format or process.

A full hearing of facts is needed and we should not assume that we know what the motivations of people are ahead of time or why people did certain things. Let us get to the bottom of it and move on from there.