Howard Hilstrom

[Supply, May 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I sure would like to comment on that. I cannot believe the NDP are going back and trying to fight the 1993 election over again, which it lost so severely. In 1997 it barely kept its status as a party in the House due to the very few numbers that were elected. Of course, in 2000 it barely survived again.

The Canadian Alliance policies were what caused it to become the official opposition in both 1997 and the year 2000. Obviously its agriculture policies were the very ones that a lot of farmers in the west wanted to see because the Alliance took every seat in the west, with the exception of one that the NDP received which has a big farm component to the electorate.

The policies of the Canadian Alliance are written down in black and white and every Canadian can read them. They say that the Alliance supports the use of safety net programs and that we call, as are the farm groups and the provinces, for a trade injury compensation program. I and members of the Canadian Alliance are the only people who have raised this in the House.

I know there the NDP asked one question last week with regard to the trade injury compensation program. I think all the member did was simply read Hansard from the days before and repeat my question. If that is the agriculture policy of NDP members and if that is the way they want to operate, it is up them. However with regard to the criticism of Canadian Alliance members, we were the one who drove this.

The Alliance members have asked over 20 questions on agriculture in the month of May. We have put forward this debate on agriculture and softwood lumber today. What do I see the NDP doing? Nothing except copying a question that I asked a long time ago.

[Supply, May 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, today the Canadian Alliance has put forward a very important supply day motion in regard to our trade relationship in particular with the United States but also in relationship to our trade around the world. Agriculture, for which I am the chief critic for the Canadian Alliance, is an area that the government has fumbled every bit as badly as it did with the softwood lumber issue.

In 1995 the government signed the Uruguay round agreement which in essence got the world moving toward reducing subsidies and developing hard and fast rules about our trade relationship with individual countries. At the time the government changed supply management and went to tariff protection as opposed to quota protection which was all ready there. In essence it started the process of selling out supply management in the country. The current WTO talks will deal with the reduction of tariffs that protect our supply management.

Even though the government professes to be protecting all sectors, primarily the Quebec and Ontario sector, it has sold them out. We note also that the Prime Minister, in speaking about imports of products from poorer third world countries, is being a little deceptive in that he professes to protect supply management by not allowing these poor countries to send any kind of supply managed product to Canada. He will allow imports of all other kinds of agriculture products but not those supply managed products, thereby depriving the poorer countries from getting ahead. I see a two-faced stand by the government.

The European Union is every bit as bad or is worse than the United States in regard to agriculture policy. Today I will deal with the U.S. farm bill but I also want the Americans to know that the European Union is twice as bad as they are when it comes to trade policy dealing with North America.

Canada obviously cannot write laws for other countries, or tell them what to do or argue with them when they are staying within the WTO rules. That is the case with the U.S. farm bill, with a couple of exceptions.

We have talked about our trade relationship and agriculture products with the United States. Since NAFTA, and even before it, Canada has been trying to establish a continental market in agriculture products between Canada, Mexico and the United States and that was moving along quite well. With the special relationship Canada has with Americans, the government should have been able to influence them more than it did. Instead we have the antagonistic results that are not in keeping with the continental market and not in keeping with the best interests of Canadian farmers.

The U.S. farm bill will give about $180 billion to U.S. farmers over the next 10 years. The U.S. secretary of agriculture stated: “The U.S. will not unilaterally disarm”.

Back in 1995 the government unilaterally disarmed our Canadian farmers by reducing subsidies to virtually zero by the year 1997. Contrast that to the written policy of Canadian Alliance. We would only reduce our subsidies in conjunction with other countries. We understand from where Secretary Veneman is coming. When subsidies are lowered, It has to be a joint process so that one country does not unilaterally disarm, resulting in farmers of that country almost starving to death and certainly living below the poverty line.

In Saskatchewan this year it is estimated that the grain farmers will only make about $13,000 net income. That is a direct result of the lack of policy and trade negotiation ability of the Liberal government.

With regard to subsidies and what Canada should be doing, the farm groups across the country, including the free market groups like the western barley growers and the western Canadian wheat growers, have called for a trade distortion compensation program which would require $1.3 billion to compensate our grain and oilseed farmers and keep them competitive with American farmers who are producing the same products. This was based on the government's own figures. The federal government is responsible for trade agreements. The federal government is responsible for coming up with a trade injury program and funding it.

I would like to point out, before the government members stand up and start talking about the action of the Canadian Alliance on agriculture, that on February 25 I asked the government how it would protect our pulse industry. We know that the U.S. farm bill includes pulse crops in its subsidy program. I of course got no answer from the minister of agriculture.

On April 18, prior to the signing of the farm bill, I once again brought up the fact that there should be discussions with Secretary Veneman about our challenges under the WTO and NAFTA, particularly if the farm bill was passed. Again there were no commitments from the government.

On May 2, I asked the minister if we would challenge the farm bill when passed. Of course, there was no answer again. This was asked again on May 6 and 21. Hansard recorded those questions when we were trying to get the government to do something.

In essence the government was very ineffective prior to the signing of the bill. Since the bill, we have not received any commitment from the government with regard to a trade injury compensation program.

The government sent three top level ministers responsible for trade, agriculture and the wheat board to Saskatoon. The farmers did not receive any promises about the program. The finance minister even listened and no comments were made that would give the farmers in the grain and oilseed sector any hope.

The country of origin labelling was added to the U.S. farm bill, in particular because the northwest terminal feedlot program was not promoted by the government. Our member for Lethbridge pointed that out quite clearly. Back in the winter he asked the government to do something about the northwest terminal feedlot program otherwise the Americans would bring the origin of labelling. What did we see? The government did nothing. We now have ended up with country of origin labelling in the U.S. farm bill which will hurt our producers.

In Manitoba we also have the problem of TB in elk. The Minister of Canadian Heritage takes care of national parks. What do we have? We found out on the weekend that the CFIA took away Manitoba's TB-free status three or four years ago and did not tell anybody. Now there is a potential trade problem. Live cattle may have to be tested in the future before being exported. What did the government do about the problem with TB in Manitoba? Nothing.

I will not go into the issue of the Canadian Wheat Board. If we had a voluntary Canadian Wheat Board, we would end up with less challenges from the United States. We would be operating according to the wishes of our Canadian farmers who want a voluntary wheat board that would work within market forces as opposed to a dictatorial government forcing farmers to market through one agency when it is against their best interest.

[Petitions, May 24th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from people in my riding and in the city of Winnipeg with regard to the creation and use of child pornography. It is being seriously condemned by these folks.

They are calling upon parliament to protect our children and to take all steps necessary to ensure that these activities involving children are outlawed.

[Government Contracts, May 24th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, if that is the way it is, why would anyone promote someone who has broken the rules and give him a new job doing the same thing? That is a question that I think the Deputy Prime Minister should answer.

American subsidies, for instance, are driving down our grain prices due to foreign subsidies. We have labelling laws that are hurting our farmers' meat markets. Pierre Tremblay again gets rewarded for handing out government pork, but farmers have to fight against the U.S. subsidies all by themselves.

Why does the Prime Minister give these patronage appointments to people who are being investigated by the auditor general and probably by the RCMP?

[Government Contracts, May 24th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, Pierre Tremblay is the former chief of staff for Alfonso Gagliano. He was one of the senior staff members cited by the auditor general for not following the rules in awarding communications contracts. He is now the vice-president of propaganda for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. He has already given contracts to this Liberal firm, this Groupe Everest, one of the advertising firms that the auditor general is looking at.

Why does the Prime Minister reward this appalling lack of regard for contract rules with a $140,000 job promotion?

[Supply, May 23rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the allegations are being made by the auditor general for the most part and the examination is being done by the auditor general and the RCMP, so we will wait to see what comes out of that. I was certainly relating the facts of what has happened up until today as well as my interpretation of what is happening.

There is another contract that is under suspicion. It is the contract that is given out under the solicitor general's office. Adult education contracts in the prisons in the western region are consistently going to Excalibur Learning Resource Centre.

The centre is believed to be owned by former employees of Correctional Service Canada. It has consistently won the contract for the Stoney Mountain federal penitentiary which is in my riding. The Evergreen School Division which has been bidding and in fact had those contracts at one time, has put in bids that have been $2.5 million lower than Excalibur's, yet Excalibur has won the contract every time.

We also have a case where Excalibur was unable to issue grade 12 certificates to students who had passed the courses, whereas Evergreen School Division could.

The question I would ask the House, the auditor general and the Prime Minister is was that contract given out fairly or was there some corruption in that, because it is former employees of the government's own department who have the contract?

The best bid, which was $2.5 million less, was by Evergreen School Division. I think Evergreen School Division was screwed out of that contract because of inside work by these government departments.

[Supply, May 23rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, as a former member of the RCMP, I am speaking with some background with regard to cheques.

If the private mansion was not really a business place, there would be no expectation that a payment was necessary. Once it was out in the public, the public works minister started to worry that maybe there was a conflict of interest and was contrary to the ethics of his Prime Minister. He figured he had to do something about this, so his family had a cheque brought forward to show that his family paid for it so there was no conflict of interest.

That would tend to address the conflict of interest if the cheque had been handled in a normal way, but it was not handled in a normal way by Mr. Boulay. It was not returned. The other thing the public works minister could have done was to bring forward evidence that the cheque was written in the proper numbering sequence in his daughter-in-law's cheque book. Those cheques beforehand would have shown when it was written. I suspect it was written in May but we will wait to see what the auditor general finds out.

If the cheque book disappears, I should warn the public works minister that the RCMP or the auditor general will still go into that bank account. They will get photocopies of both sides of that cheque. They will be able to prove when the cheque was written. We will be looking forward to that. There is no way of covering this up now. We have been asking the public works minister to fully clarify this matter. He has not provided the back of the cheque or any of the other evidence that is necessary.

It ends up with the public works minister trying to bring in another person to back up that he is being honest. This happens to be the priest, Father Savoie. They must have some reasonably close connection because Father Savoie says he cannot say anything because this is a seal of confessional in the church. Even that is not honest. A reverend from a university has said that the information the priest has in regard to this cheque is not a seal of confessional and that he can in fact explain it to the police and the auditor general. Here we have another course of dishonest conduct, in my opinion, by not having the full truth come out right away.

With this course of conduct which is enough to cause a police investigation we then have to look at what was given in return. First there was supposed to be the free stay which it turns out had to be covered up. Then there is the $77,000 worth of political contributions to the Liberal Party. When average Canadians see what I have just described, that is why they have lost all faith not in democracy, not in parliament, but in the honesty of the Prime Minister and all of the cabinet ministers.

[Supply, May 23rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian democracy is alive and well. We see it functioning here today. I have been in the House all day. I am participating in the debate concerning the morality of the cabinet members of the federal Liberal government and the examination by the auditor general into practices concerning financial activities of the government that have the taint about them not only of conflict of interest and scandal but of actual criminal activity to the point where it has been referred to the RCMP. That is why this day is so important. We are spending it on corruption and allegations of corruption in the cabinet.

The backbenchers want to keep their jobs. Like any good politician they want to get re-elected, so they are going to try, as they have been all day long, to make up excuses why it is the opposition and everyone but them who is in trouble or is corrupt and is not making this place work.

I was really amazed today that the Prime Minister stood and in essence said that the end justifies the means. I never thought I would hear a prime minister say that. He said in regard to Quebec separation that perhaps some mistakes were made. He was talking about dumping in hundreds of millions of dollars to address a problem without any guidelines. In fact cabinet ministers appear to have used that opportunity to shovel money to their friends, the people who donate to their political party.

Let us examine what the public works minister did. The public works minister was the former Francophonie minister. He was the government House leader when I came to this place in 1997. In 1998 Groupe Everest and the top political aide, Mr. Alain Pilon, launched discussions about a public advertising campaign for the 2001 Francophonie games.

Around January 15, 2002 the former House leader became the new minister of public works. Remember that he already knew the president of Groupe Everest and that they were having discussions in regard to an ad campaign for the Francophonie games.

Around March the current public works minister and his family stayed at a Quebec lakeside mansion which is owned by Mr. Claude Boulay, the president of Groupe Everest, the advertising firm. We can see the linkages coming around.

I may use in the next few minutes some terms that are used in police work. I spent 30 years as a member of the RCMP, including 16 on commercial crime, fraud, theft, influence peddling and also money laundering.

In May it became public that the public works minister and his family spent two days at the mansion. During the week around May 13 to May 20, the public works minister said that his family paid for the stay at the mansion. The pressure came on and more questions were asked by the media. Then the House resumed and the public works minister provided an affidavit that has a photocopy of the front of a cheque that was supposedly used to pay for that stay.

When looking at activity from a policeman's point of view, one looks for a course of conduct that is dishonest, or in essence is wilful blindness.

The minister by this time was starting to sweat bullets. He and his family got together, and Mr. Boulay. They were worried about what would happen with this. They said “Let us put these guys off in the House of Commons by showing them the front of the cheque. They are not smart enough to know about the back of the cheque”.

There is the first incidence of wilful blindness or attempting to obscure the facts of the case. I am not sure I am going to be using the word misleading here, just to keep things straight.

That is the first case of a wilful blindness to the facts in an effort to throw the House of Commons off the trail. If we look at the cheque, there is a high likelihood it was not written at the time the public works minister alleges it was or on the date that is shown on the cheque. If the mansion was a legitimate business, the business would have cashed the cheque right away with its normal deposits. I do not think that the mansion is a regular business. I am not sure what it was, but the--

[Supply, May 23rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the members from the government side for their great comments, casting aspersions on someone else's speech and this sort of thing. I remind the member for Mississauga West that precisely 20 questions have been asked by myself and other colleagues from the official opposition, Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, on agriculture during the month of May.

The member constantly says that nothing is being done on agriculture. Why has the member not spoken up with regard to the trade injury compensation program that Ontario farmers are calling for as a result of the U.S. farm bill? Why has he not spoken up about the tuberculosis problem in our wild elk herds? What about challenging the U.S. farm bill under the WTO and NAFTA?

These are questions that I have asked the minister of agriculture and the trade minister 20 times over the last month and received zero answers. Does the member stand by his statement that we have done nothing on agriculture or is he willing to withdraw that statement right now?

[Supply, May 23rd, 2002]

You are the extreme.