Val Meredith

[Supply, February 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the facts are that the official opposition put in an access request on the 17th and the minister released the audit report on the 19th, two days later, because she knew that it would become public anyway. She did the damage control by releasing it before we did.

[Supply, February 8th, 2000]

My colleague says cynicism and he is quite right. That is what bothers me.

We have leadership in our country which is sending the wrong message, which is showing a bad example to Canadians. I think that Canadians deserve better. I think that Canadians deserve a government which will use due diligence in managing taxpayers' money, which will respect the fact that its money comes from ordinary Canadians who are working day in and day out to raise families and to provide not only for their families but for themselves and their communities. I think that Canadians deserve to have a government which recognizes that there are people who cannot look after themselves, who need assistance, but that assistance is given on merit and not for political reasons. Canadians deserve to have a government which recognizes that politics should be separate from government; that government, when it is spending taxpayers' money, should not be making decisions based on raising election funds or gathering votes. It should be a government which spends taxpayers' money to provide programs for Canadians, programs and funds based on merit and merit only.

There may be a reason for some of these programs, but there is never a reason for bad management. There is never a reason for making decisions based on politics rather than merit. There is never a reason for having one set of rules for the minister and a different set of rules for everybody else. There is never a reason for covering up what actually happened. That is not what Canadians deserve.

Canadians deserve a government that will give the truth as it is, not as the government sees it. Canadians deserve a government that will do the right thing for the right reasons. They do not deserve a government that will hide behind the back of the Prime Minister or the skirts of the minister of HRDC. They deserve a government which will face the responsibility that was given to it by the voters of Canada to govern with integrity. Canadians deserve nothing less. Unfortunately they do not have that.

[Supply, February 8th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak in the House on the motion presented by the official opposition which holds in question the department of human resources and the minister.

The Liberals prior to the elections of 1993 and 1997 supposedly took the high road when they approached Canadian voters. I quote the Prime Minister as reported in Hansard in 1991:

I would like to tell the people of Canada that when we form the government, every minister in the cabinet that I will be presiding over will have to take full responsibility for what is going on his department. If there is any bungling in the department, nobody will be singled out. The minister will have to take the responsibility.

I also quote the Prime Minister as reported in Hansard in 1994:

There can be no substitute for responsibility at the top. I vow to you, to this House, to Canadians, that I will never abdicate that responsibility. I will never pass the buck.

I guess that leads us into the motion today and what has happened. Canadians have an expectation. Canadians are those hard working taxpayers who work long hours. They are the men, women and young adults who are starting their careers as workers. They give part of their money to the Government of Canada to spend on their behalf to provide programs for other Canadians and for themselves. They expect the government to manage the spending of their money with due diligence and to make sure that it is not wasted. Lord knows that Canadians pay enough taxes. They certainly are not looking to the government to waste it on their behalf.

The question is: What did Canadians actually get? The auditor's report is quite clear as to what they got. They got a government which takes very lightly the responsibility of managing taxpayers' money. They got a government which does not seem to understand that the money comes from the taxpayer and not some location like a tree. Canadians got a government which refuses to assume responsibility for the management of that money.

The auditor's report revealed that money had been given out but there were files which did not even have applications for the money. It revealed that there was a lack of supervision, a lack of concern as to where the money was supposed to go. There was no plan as to where the money was supposed to go. There was a real lack of management and administration. There was a lack of supervision, a lack of documentation, but, more importantly, a lack of understanding by the minister in charge of the department. She is responsible to make sure that the department manages the spending of taxpayers' money properly.

What Canadians are getting is a message from the Prime Minister and from his government that we do not have to take responsibility for our actions. That is the message the Prime Minister is sending, not only to us, but to other ministers; that they will not be held accountable for things in their departments that would represent poor decision making, bad management or lack of accountability. The Prime Minister is sending the message to his ministers that they will not ever be held accountable for the misuse or mismanagement of taxpayer money.

The message he is sending to Canadians in general is that they do not have to take responsibility for the way they report to government through government programs. They do not have to take responsibility for fudging figures or accounts, or losing documentation which may be required by Revenue Canada. How can it be all right for the department to access money or submit a report without all of the documentation but not be all right for the ordinary Canadian? Canadians are getting the message from the Prime Minister and his government that they do not have to take responsibility.

When I speak about Canadians I want to single out young Canadians who are just entering adulthood and the workforce. What kind of message are they receiving by the government's actions? What message are they entering adulthood with? That it is okay to walk away from problems? That it is okay to cover up reality, the truth? That it is okay to give out questionable information? What message are we giving to the young people who will one day sit in the House of Commons in leadership positions?

[Human Resources Development, February 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, in the minister's own words the mark was 12%, yet the 1996 Canada census shows the unemployment rate in the minister's riding of Brant at 8.4%. Statistics Canada in 1999 gave the unemployment rate of that riding as 6%.

How does the minister feel that her riding qualifies? Where does that riding get 12% unemployment?

[Human Resources Development, February 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the human resources audit uncovered an appalling pattern of mismanagement and misuse of funds, many just prior to the 1997 election. The human resources minister ignored that audit. The minister was so irresponsible and so needy of attention that she handed her own riding three-quarters of a million dollars in grants as late as November, in spite of the fact that her riding does not qualify.

She abused the granting rule, she botched $1 billion and she refuses to accept responsibility. How can Canadians possibly trust this minister?

[Human Resources Development, February 7th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources is responsible for the billion dollar bungle. The auditors gave her the news months ago, but she hoped that nobody would find out. She only made it public after a public privacy request was asked for by our party. Now that she has been caught she should do the right and honourable thing and resign her cabinet position.

[Human Resources Development, February 7th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said that everything was open but it would appear that the only thing open was the vault.

The minister is trying to blame civil servants for following cabinet orders. We know that administrators were concerned about grants to the Prime Minister's riding. We know that the minister's office overruled them. We know that the minister was briefed as early as last August about the mismanaged $1 billion. Yet for months she told the House that everything was fine.

She is the minister. She is responsible and she should resign. Will the human resources minister do the right thing and resign?

[Airlines, December 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, 16,000 Canadian Airline employees are being used as bargaining chips as Air Canada negotiates with the federal government. Air Canada apparently wants an airline industry where there are no government restrictions on its operations but plenty of restrictions on the creation of any serious competition.

What steps is the minister or his associate taking to protect the interests of the Canadian travelling public and the 16,000 Canadian Airline employees whose careers are in jeopardy?

[National Highway Policy, December 17th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order to ask a question of relevance here. If this individual is speaking on a national highway's program, I fail to see the connection.

[National Highway Policy, December 17th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Motion No. 102, presented by my hon. colleague from Cumberland—Colchester.

I appreciate the sentiment of my colleague's motion, but I really do not think it goes far enough. It views our highway system as a parochial system. Going into a new century, we have to look at what is really needed, and that is a seamless, integrated, continental transportation policy. Canada has to be a player in the development of that policy. There is no doubt that highways are a key component of this integrated transportation continental system.

I am a little concerned. Once again we have heard the parliamentary secretary speak about the studies; the years of studies that governments, provincial and federal, have been doing. I believe that Canadians want us to stop the studies. We have all the information that we need. Let us get on with improving our highway system.

Our Trans-Canada Highway is the counterpart for the American interstate highway program. The commitment that the U.S. federal government has made to its highway program is in the neighbourhood of $218 billion over six years, and it is financing the program through gas taxes.

In our country the government does not transfer the revenues that are collected through gas taxes to the transportation system, to the highway system and to the users, the people who pay the tax to the system they use.

We are talking about commercial traffic, which has increased, as my colleague has said, 300 times or 30 times or 3 times. The number is irrelevant. The system is gridlocked because of the increase in commercial traffic. It is not only commercial traffic; it is also tourist traffic. In Canada we encourage tourism. It is one of our largest industries. Tourists must be able to access those things that we are selling. There is growth in commercial traffic, there is growth in tourist traffic, and the government is studying the issue.

We need to talk about reality. Government last year collected $4.5 billion in gas tax, but it spent only $150 million on highways. That is 3% of the revenue that was generated.

Our current highway system is dilapidated and dangerous. When polled, 83% of Canadians identified safety as the number one issue when talking about the national highway system. They feel that their personal safety is at risk when they travel our national highways. That is a shame.

We only have to look at Highway 17, which is 30 miles west of Ottawa. It is part of our national highway system. It is called the killer strip because of all the fatal accidents that happen at the point where the lanes go from four to two.

In February 1997, when considering the national highway renewal strategy, the transport committee found that upgrading the system would reduce traffic fatalities by 4% and prevent an additional 2,300 personal injury accidents. If we were to transpose that into our health care system, the savings would be astronomical.

The report states that every dollar invested in safety related road improvements would save $2.70 in crash costs. That is not in health costs; that is in crash costs.

For six years the government has been talking about infrastructure, but rather than putting money into our transportation infrastructure it chose to put the money into such things as recreational facilities like bocce courts.

Now I ask, how does a bocce court give a foundation to the economic well-being of our country? It is nice to have those recreation facilities and they are needed in communities, but the priority of the federal government should not be in recreation facilities. It should be in maintaining and improving our national highway system which leads into a continental highway system and which increases our economic output and the economic stability of our country.

Highways are not just pavement. They are an integral part of our economy and the continental economy we have developed through the free trade agreement and NAFTA.

It is getting to the point where the government can no longer delay. I was at a conference in Niagara. There was great concern over the congestion in that part of Ontario that services the free trade agreement and NAFTA commerce over the Ambassador Bridge, the Peace Bridge, Fort Erie and all those areas. The gridlock that is occurring in that part of Ontario around Toronto, Sarnia and Windsor is starting to create not only hazards but delays and congestion that costs all of us consumers money.

It is also costing the environment. When trucks are lined up trying to go over a bridge or trying to get from point A to point B , they are idling and putting a lot of emissions into the air. I would think that from an environmental point of view improving our highways would certainly be advantageous.

Part of our transportation system also includes urban areas. That congestion in urban areas has to be dealt with as well. Highway 401 is one of the busiest stretches, if not the busiest highway in the world. Traffic has increased dramatically, especially the truck traffic, but the infrastructure has not increased or changed at all.

A person can now drive from Toronto to Miami and hit only 14 stoplights. Thirteen of them are in Windsor. If we could spend some energy on trying to get that flow of traffic going, I am sure the economic benefits to our country would be enormous.

The government announced in its throne speech that it was finally going to do something, but it is talking about spending the next year, 2000, talking to the various players and the provinces before it actually does anything or spends any money. That is not good enough.

It is time that the federal government sat down with provincial and municipal governments and worked out an integrated, seamless, transportation policy that includes all levels of government and the various modes of transportation. We need to think planes, trains and automobiles as well as ships and put them all into one transportation policy. We need to figure out how they can enhance each other, how they can be made more efficient and how they can operate on a continental basis rather than on a country basis.

That is why we in the official opposition are calling for the federal government to work with the provinces, the municipalities and the private sector, as well as our NAFTA partners to plan, to implement and to figure out some way of funding a seamless, integrated continental transportation system for the 21st century.