Grant McNally

[Citizenship And Immigration, May 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, thanks for that infomercial.

A convicted heroin dealer, sentenced to eight years in prison, was granted a refugee hearing by the Supreme Court of Canada. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration could have declared this convicted heroin dealer a danger to the public. She did not. Now he may well be granted refugee status.

Does the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration believe that a convicted heroin dealer is a good candidate for refugee status in Canada?

[The Environment, May 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Sydney tar ponds is one of the worst environmental disasters in Canadian history. Residents now have toxic sludge laced with arsenic and other poisons seeping into their basements.

The Liberal government continues to do studies and reports yet fails to take action. When will the government take action to negotiate a permanent solution for the people of Frederick Street and surrounding areas?

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police, May 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals favourite yesman is up to his old tricks again. Instead of realizing the funding shortage of the RCMP in British Columbia and supporting its call for much needed funds, the member from Coquitlam has called for an audit of the RCMP.

He said yesterday he thinks that the B.C. attorney general is doing a disservice to British Columbians by telling them about the staffing shortages and that he is fear mongering by doing so. The hon. member did not stop there. He said that he would like to give the attorney general of B.C. a night course in budgeting.

In an attempt to move up a few seats from the translators booth and out of the smoking section, the member has done a great disservice to members of the RCMP in British Columbia. He has told them there is no funding crisis and that they should stop talking about it so that the public remains in the dark.

Once again he has toed the government line instead of speaking up for his constituents and members of the British Columbia RCMP. The member can be assured that come next election the residents of Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam will say no to this yesman

[Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, May 11th, 1999]

The member on the opposition side says that it should be embarrassing. Absolutely it should be embarrassing. I know that many members of the Liberal government are embarrassed by this expenditure as well. I think that as parliamentarians we are embarrassed by it. How could that possibly have happened?

This is an area of financial responsibility which falls under the direction of the Minister of Canadian Heritage. How can that minister, who says that she stands to defend women's rights, allow an expenditure of $55,000 of taxpayers' money for a pornographic video? I cannot understand it.

The premise behind my argument is that if the government wants us to trust it with taxpayers' dollars, then it had better start showing us that it is accountable.

[Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, May 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, a member on the government side says it has nothing to do with the amendments. I will say it for the third time. The premise of the government's argument on Bill C-78 is that it wants Canadians to trust it with the expenditures of these funds, which are Canadians' hard earned tax dollars. That is the premise of the government's argument for this bill. It is also the premise for rejecting the amendments that the opposition is bringing forward.

I state once again that if the government wants to seriously have the trust of Canadians, then it had better do a better job on accountability in terms of taking care of taxpayers' dollars, such as the $30 billion surplus in the pension fund that it says it is going to apply to the debt. How can we know that to be the case when we see these examples popping up over and over again of the government wasting taxpayers' dollars?

I can understand why the government would rise on points of order to try to shut down this line of debate because it is embarrassing for it. It is very embarrassing.

[Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, May 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, this is a government that tells us, under the premise of their whole argument on the bill and on these sets of amendments, to trust it with this $30 billion and it will be applied to the debt. That is what the member for Mississauga West said earlier and what other members of the government have said throughout the debate on the bill.

This is a government that wants people to trust it with the dollars they send to Ottawa but, as I have just pointed out, the dollars have been wasted. If the government wants people to believe that it is serious about applying $30 billion which is indicated in Bill C-78 and the accountability measures mentioned in the amendments that are before us—many of them brought forward by my colleague for St. Albert—it would look at these amendments.

Instead, we hear members of the government rising on points of order and trying to stop debate when things get a little dicey in terms of its record. It must defend that record because it is the government. It is our job as opposition members to point out the record of the government. If government members do not want to hear that, they do not have to be here to listen to it.

Members from the NDP, the Reform Party, the Bloc and the Progressive Conservative Party will continue to point out the government's failure in its fiscal responsibility before the people of Canada and in the House. This is a clear example of a waste of taxpayers' dollars. I would like to challenge any Liberal member from that side to stand up and defend the expenditure of $55,000 on the production of a pornographic film.

[Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, May 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had been present earlier to hear the debate he would have heard me talk about the different amendments. He wants to shut me down now so I do not embarrass the government by bringing to light this wasteful spending.

[Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, May 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of debate today in the House on Bill C-78. The opposition parties have stated some very sound arguments as to why the government should reconsider the bill and look at the amendments that are before us.

I would like to correct the record on something that was mentioned earlier by the hon. member for Mississauga West. He seemed to indicate that there were only 15 amendments before us at this stage of the bill. I believe it is well over 50 amendments.

A lot of the amendments that have been put forward by opposition parties, the Reform Party and my hon. colleague from St. Albert, have to do with accountability and the fact that the $30 billion the government is raiding in this pension grab is certainly not set up in this piece of legislation to the degree of accountability that we would like to see. I just wanted to mention that off the top.

The bill also does not give any seats on the board to those individuals who this bill directly affects. An advisory committee will be set up, but we all know what that means. When the Liberals set up an advisory committee it means we will have a little meeting group where we can raise our concerns, but none of our concerns will be listened to. Well, they may listen but they are not actually going to do anything about them. They will just let us get together and have a talk and maybe that will make us feel better. It is almost like giving us a pat on the head and sending us out the door.

If the government was serious about this, it would allow these individuals to sit on the board. That is quite obvious.

I hear members from the Tory party agreeing. Members of the opposition are in agreement that the bill is a flawed piece of legislation and that is why we had to bring forward so many amendments. Hopefully the government will listen, but alas, our requests often fall upon deaf ears.

I want to get to the premise of the government's argument for the bill. Its premise is to say “Trust us. We are the government. We'll take care of this money, the $30 billion. We'll pay down the debt”. Why in the world would we believe that given the record of the Liberal government?

I am going to point out something which I think is obvious to all people. If we are trusted to be prudent and take care of a small amount of money, in whatever our job or our responsibility is, we will then be given more responsibility to take care of a greater amount of dollars. If we are able to manage that well, then we will be given the care of more and more dollars.

If the government was doing that then perhaps we could trust it to take care of the $30 billion in the pension surplus, the clawback of that hard-earned money from those individuals who have contributed to the fund. However, I want to point out a glaring example of how the government manages dollars. It is an issue that some have touched on in the House earlier today and one which is before us in media on the front page of one of the national papers today. It has to do with how the government has mismanaged some $55,000 of taxpayers' dollars, a fairly substantial sum I would think to the average Canadian. For most people that would be the amount of their salary if they had a well paying job. Unfortunately it is not even that for many folks. Fifty-five thousand dollars is a large sum of money. It is shocking to hear where the government spent this money. The Liberal government spent $55,000 on the funding of a pornographic movie production called Bubbles Galore . The producers of this film thanked the Government of Canada on their website which is directly linked to the Government of Canada's webpage. That is unbelievable. How could this happen? The Liberal government dedicated $55,000 of taxpayers' dollars to that expenditure.

This is a government that tells us it has the best interests of Canadians at heart. This is a government that says “ Do not worry about us. Send us your tax dollars. We will cut, slash and burn health care by $20 billion”—

[Immigration, May 7th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, if the member would not take all his time working on his first line perhaps he could actually answer the question. I will try asking it again.

Today there is news that there are three consulates that have been investigated and fourteen employees have been charged with criminal offences. This is a challenge to the integrity of the immigration system. I would surely hope the member could see that.

I am going to ask a direct question and I expect an answer. Will the immigration minister or the government order an investigation of all the embassies to ensure the safety and security of Canada's visa system, yes or no?

[Immigration, May 7th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, thanks for that brief commercial message and now back to the news.

There is more news today showing that the immigration system is broken. Three Canadian consulates were investigated on charges of visa fraud and, following the investigation, fourteen of the minister's employees were charged with criminal offences. How can Canadians have faith in an immigration system like this?

Will the minister or the government order an investigation of all the embassies to ensure the safety and security of Canada's visa system?