Val Meredith

[Human Resources Development, February 25th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is the taxpayers who are concerned about where their money is being spent.

We know there was a meeting on September 2 involving a top local HRD official, the minister's own assistant and the Prime Minister's assistant. We know they met to give funding to Les Confections Saint-Élie, which had fallen 25% short of its job creation commitments as required under the TJF.

Why did the minister and the Prime Minister pressure the local HRD official to make a payment contrary to the signed TJF agreement?

[Gasoline Prices, February 24th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian truckers are facing a crisis as rising fuel costs are causing many to actually lose money every time they put their rigs on the road.

When questioned about the truckers' plight, the Prime Minister responded that it was not his problem, despite the fact that the federal government is collecting 15 cents on every litre of fuel.

Last year the federal government collected over $4.5 billion in fuel taxes, yet it only put $150 million back into Canada's highways.

Despite this massive surplus, the federal Liberals are refusing to provide any tax relief to our struggling truckers, even on a temporary basis. The Prime Minister would rather build fountains in his riding and give grants to companies like Wal-Mart and Videotron than provide tax relief for our truckers. Why? Because tax relief does not give the Liberals the opportunity for a photo-op.

Hopefully, the government will come to its senses before Canada's truckers—

[Human Resources Development, February 22nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, we could talk about lists, but I have a list here of companies that went bankrupt, $900,000, $260,000, $920,000, none of them providing any jobs.

One example is New Source Bottling run by a good Liberal from Kenora that created only 7 out of 18 jobs that it was supposed to be providing. It went belly up after it got $200,000. The list that I read from goes on and on and on.

In what way is pouring good money down the drain—

[Human Resources Development, February 22nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, apart from putting up the occasional Liberal caucus meeting, hotels in the Prime Minister's riding are more in the government grant racket than in the accommodation business. Take the Hôtel du Boisé. It received $300,000 but no investments were made and no jobs were created.

Is the Prime Minister so unaware of normal business practices, like providing services and sales, that he thinks that $300,000 was a good investment for Canadian taxpayers?

[Human Resources Development, February 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the minister can explain it however she wants but the reality is that the review, the audit, said that things were not being done properly.

The minister and her predecessors have been warned for years that things have to change. Why has this minister done nothing to prevent the billion dollar bungle that we have now?

[Human Resources Development, February 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, two years ago auditors criticized the human resources department for doling out grants for political purposes in the transitional jobs fund.

This audit exposed a $6 million forestry project in New Brunswick that they said should not have been granted. The government estimates of job creation were highly inflated and were “more political than other programming”.

This $6 million bungle has mushroomed to a $1 billion bungle. Why does the minister insist on continuing with business as usual and on giving grants for political purposes rather—

[Supply, February 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the only amazing thing I have heard from the member across the way is that if he thinks the debate that has been going on for 40 years is going to end, then I do not know what he is smoking. The bill does not clarify anything. If the member has been debating it for 40 years, then why can he or the government not come up with the number that is required to pass this legislation? After 40 years what is the magic number? What is the number?

[Supply, February 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the parliamentary secretary who is in charge of the process on the clarity bill has heard the comment and realizes the difficult position the government has put its allies in. Here we are trying to support the government in principle because we feel that clarity on this issue is required, yet the Liberal members carry on in committee in a fashion I have not seen in the seven years I have been in the House.

I have sat on six different committees and I have never seen the type of railroading that I saw when we tried to establish the principles upon which the committee would operate. The official opposition proposed a motion requesting travel. Knowing the importance of the issue and the inability of Canadians to take part in that discussion other than through the committee process, we thought it was important that the committee that has been established to look at Bill C-20 travel across the country to all regions to allow Canadians to participate in this most important debate.

For the people who are watching these proceedings, the Liberal members of the committee defeated that motion. They felt that they did not want to travel to bring this issue before Canadians. I am not sure what the Liberal members are concerned about. I am not sure what they are afraid of.

I think they owe it to Canadians to open this discussion because it concerns each and every one of us. For those who think this is only an issue between one province and the federal government, they are mistaken. This issue concerns every single Canadian. The government has put the official opposition and others who want to support it in a very difficult position by treating the committee with such disrespect.

I get the feeling that the government is reacting. We questioned the timing of Bill C-20. It appears to me even more so after the committee hearing that the government is knee-jerk reacting to a situation and for its own agenda it chose to pick this point in time to throw the bill on the table, limit discussion and hope it quickly gets through and no one will even notice it. It is very similar to the knee-jerk reaction the government had after the 1995 referendum.

Does anyone in the House remember the government's Motion No. 26? No, because it zipped through here so quickly. It is the one that recognized distinct society. How about Bill C-110? Does anyone here remember that bill? No, because it zipped through the House so quickly. It is the one that gave regional areas in the country a veto. Did Canadians get a chance to debate, to discuss, to give any attention to those issue? Absolutely not. There was not even a committee formed to discuss those very important issues.

Here we are one more time. The government is throwing in a bill at an inappropriate time to talk about an issue that it does not want to talk about with anybody other than a handful of its own people who agree with it. Canadians deserve more than that. Canadians deserve something that is much better and something that is much more democratic.

We agree with the principle and the concept of the bill. As has been said by my hon. colleagues, the official opposition brought up the issue of clarity five years ago, the need to be clear about what it means to Canada to have one of its provinces secede. We brought up the issue that there has to be clarity on what numbers are required. Whether it is 50% plus one, 65% or 75%, we have to be very clear about what the measurement is. Does the bill do it? Not really. It does not outline what a clear question is going to be and it certainly does not clearly outline what number is required.

Government members seem to take exception when we argue that 50% plus one is the accepted line. There have been two referendums on the separation of Quebec and on both occasions it was 50% plus one.

I remind the government that if the Liberals have a problem with 50% plus one, they should ask the person who wrote the Constitution Act, 1982, the repatriation of the BNA act, an individual who happens to have sat on that side of the House, why the number was not changed when there was an opportunity to do so. If 50% plus one is not acceptable, why did they not change it when they had the opportunity to do so? Why did they not state the number that would be required? The constitution is silent on this issue. There is no mention of any other number. The accepted majority around the world is 50% plus one. If the government does not like that, then it should have taken the opportunity to change it when it had the chance in 1982.

I want to go back to the issue of travelling and communicating with Canadians. I had the opportunity to participate in the British Columbia unity debate and the British Columbia unity panel. The Government of British Columbia took it upon itself when we were dealing with the Calgary declaration, the question of unity and of trying to keep the country together, to communicate with the people of its province. It did not worry about time. It did not worry about costs. It worried about communicating with the people so that the people understood what the issues were and they had a chance to give their opinion.

I took part in that and travelled to every corner of British Columbia. I listened to the people of British Columbia, not the politicians and the business community but a collection of all of those people. It gave me a much greater understanding of what being a Canadian means to each and every one of us and how important that issue is to Canadians.

We do a great disservice when we eliminate Canadians from the process that is happening today. We do not gain anything by excluding Canadians from the dialogue that is taking place. I understand even the people who are most interested in it cannot gather themselves quickly enough to appear before the committee. It is understandable when they are given one day, 24 hours notice.

This is not the kind of subject matter on which somebody can get a phone call the night before to appear before a committee the next morning. How do we expect the Canadian public to participate in this process if the people who are most interested in it cannot be prepared to speak?

I think the government has a hidden agenda and I am not sure what it is. I am not sure why the Liberals are afraid to talk to Canadians on this issue. If they really want support and do not want to face another 1995 situation where they are on one side and everybody else is on the other, if they lose the opportunity to have this communication with Canadians and understand what Canadians are feeling, then they are not going to be ready when the time comes.

The government owes it to Canadians to open up the committee process to travel and hear what Canadians have to say and how they feel. The government owes it to Canadians to give it the time that is required. I am not sure why the Liberals think it has to be finished in seven days. They sat on it for two months. This bill was introduced two months ago and a good deal of travel could have been done in that period of time. I do not know why they think they have only seven days to get it through the House. The government has used time allocation to limit debate in the House and now the committee is being shut down. Limitations are being put on the committee. I have been on six different committees and I have never seen this kind of abuse of democracy and parliamentary process in my life.

[Human Resources Development, February 16th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, since the minister's own audit said that 15% of the grants given out did not even have application forms, why should Vancouver East be the only one that requires an application form?

The 1996 census shows that only 13.2% of the families in the minister's riding of Brant were considered low income, yet her riding gets millions of dollars in job funding. By contrast, in Vancouver East, 34.9% of families are considered low income, yet this minister gives them not one single penny.

Why do the people in the minister's riding get millions of dollars but the people in Vancouver East get nothing?

[Human Resources Development, February 16th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, two weeks before the last election when the riding of Vancouver East was still in Liberal hands, it received a $500,000 job grant.

However, when the voters of Vancouver East tossed out their Liberal member of parliament, they were informed that they did not qualify for any job grant.

Could the minister tell us why this constituency qualified for job grants when it was a Liberal riding, but was told it did not qualify for job grants when it was an opposition riding?