Alfonso Gagliano

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, September 25th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I think the standing orders and the usual practices in the House have all been complied with by the government. The Speaker made a decision and we should proceed with that decision. We should not reflect on the decision of the Speaker.

[Questions On The Order Paper, September 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the 1998-99 declined v received by region are:

Region—Declined—Received East—2—25 National—20—45 NCR—1—1 NWT—0—1 ON—21—56 Other—2—2 QC—54—221 West—3—9

The 1999-2000 declined v received by region are:

Region—Declined—Received East—14—30 National—35—66 NWT—0—1 On—27—51 Qc—212—406 West—10—22

[Housing, September 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question. It gives me the opportunity to inform the House that after question period I will be going to Fredericton to meet my colleagues, all the ministers of housing in the country. Tonight and tomorrow we will be discussing how we can improve the situation and how we can give Canadians some relief and make sure that every Canadian has decent housing.

I look forward to this meeting. It is true that we have not had a meeting in the last five years, but we are glad that we will be there to discuss these important issues.

[Public Works And Government Services, September 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should check the facts. He would realize that there was only one contract at the beginning, which was a pilot project given according to Treasury Board guidelines. All the other contracts were tendered and the best contender got the contract. We have been following Treasury Board guidelines and the public tendering process.

Last spring we had this debate in the House. I tabled a letter where we made it clear to the officials of the Canadian Information Office that anywhere in my department any contract above $25,000—

[Housing, June 12th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, this question has been discussed and debated over time with the stakeholders and with the provincial government.

The tax system is a national tax system. We cannot change the tax system every time something occurs. There are other things we can do, which we are doing to help the people who are in need.

[Housing, June 12th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is aware that we have been working with the organizations and the province of British Columbia to address this very serious issue.

CMHC has been there from the beginning, not only giving advice, but also approving loan insurance for everyone who has to do repairs but may have difficulty getting loan approval. Mortgage insurance is available.

There is a new minister in British Columbia. We are trying to see how we can work co-operatively on this issue.

[Supply, June 8th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I cannot believe I heard the hon. member say that the previous Conservative government was good in economics. It really takes courage to say that.

After nine years of trying to reduce the deficit, when the Conservatives were turfed out of office across the country, they left us with a $42 billion deficit and high unemployment. I also remember at that time that every financial institution around the world was telling us to clean up our act or they would put us into bankruptcy.

We have taken a $42 billion annual deficit and turned it into a surplus every year. Unemployment rates are at record low levels. Inflation rates are down. We are one of the leading countries of the G-7 in terms of creating wealth and economic growth.

I do not understand how the hon. member could say such a thing. He should have been here. I have been here since 1984. I lived through the Mulroney government years. Thank God, finally after nine years Canadians had the good sense to throw them out of office. They left the country in a terrible state.

[Supply, June 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is criticizing the ministerial tour. Perhaps he should speak to his colleague, the hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska

For example, in the local newspaper for the Victoriaville-Bois-Francs area, La Nouvelle , I read the following comment from September 26, 1999:

This visit to Victoriaville by Alfonso Gagliano was part of the tour the ministers are taking around Quebec, not to make announcements, not to talk election or referendum, but to take the pulse of the communities—

Again quoting, this time from the April 19, 2000 issue of La Voix de l'Est , which mentions his colleague from Shefford:

The Conservative MP for Shefford, Diane Saint-Jacques, who was in attendance, voiced her satisfaction on this exchange with the ministers. “It is”, she said, “important to get to the grass roots and to meet people where they live”.

I believe the hon. member should speak to his colleagues who are supporting these ministerial tours in Quebec so that we can inform Quebecers of these programs and the programs of the Government of Canada. At the same time, we could receive information and advice from Quebecers so that we can have programs that they really need.

[Supply, June 8th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for a very enlightening speech.

He questioned whether or not the government listens. Definitely the government listens. We had a plan to reduce the deficit by 3% of the GDP. We eliminated the deficit and now there is a surplus. Now the government has a difficulty. When it had a deficit it could tell everybody there was no money. Now that it has money everybody wants some. The government must balance it. Definitely we listen.

The CIO communications division co-ordinates the government as a whole. I remind my colleague that each department has its own responsibility in communications matters to communicate its policies and reports. I would like to reassure the hon. member that every year there will be a report and it will match what is now the system in parliament. We have a three year plan and every year we compare our reports.

Along with the President of the Treasury Board we are striving to make sure that we can evaluate and express opinions as parliamentarians on whether the policies we advance are taking place and providing the results we hoped for.

The member addressed the question of the Quebec ministerial tour. I assure the hon. member that the tour is ministerial, even though the Bloc claims otherwise. As I indicated during my speech there are no party people involved. The real objective is to communicate to Quebecers the programs of the Government of Canada.

On a daily basis we, and when I say “we” I mean Canadians, the Government of Canada and the country as a whole, are attacked by the Bloc here or by the Parti Quebecois in Quebec misinforming or saying that Canada does not work. I recall in 1995 they said the country was in bankruptcy, that Quebec should get out of Canada because it was in bankruptcy. We are not in bankruptcy. We are one of the best industrial countries in the world. We can look at economic growth and its results in terms of interest rates and inflation.

As ministers from Quebec we said that we had to inform every region of the country of what Canada was doing. That is what we are doing. Ministers in other parts of the country decided to do it. This was demanded of the CIO by the Quebec ministers. Since we wanted to go around the province we needed an organization that could do it. We are different ministers with different responsibilities but we wanted to ensure there was a follow-up and that when questions were raised they got clear answers and solutions. In the meantime we can be co-ordinated to know exactly what as a whole the Government of Canada is doing for its citizens.

That is the Quebec ministerial tour. If we would not have included it in the report, probably the member would have accused us of hiding it. We are not hiding it. We put it there because we wanted everyone to know. I hope other regions of the country continue to inform Canadians because that is what it is all about.

[Supply, June 8th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I hope I will have the same time as the hon. member.

First, I have always said that when Quebec City communicates, it informs. When Ottawa communicates, it is propaganda.

For example, in fiscal year 1999-2000, the Government of Quebec, through various departments, such as the departments of revenue, finance, treasury board and others, gave $96,000 to the Mouvement national des Québécois et Québécoises. That is legitimate. I have always said that it was legitimate to promote separation. Two referendums were held in Quebec and Quebecers said no. Is this not democratic?

Why are they allowed to talk up their option while we are obliged to say nothing and not defend our options? Where is democracy in all this?