Bryon Wilfert

[Supply, June 6th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I am allowed to make comments and that is in fact what I am doing. Since we obviously gave a lot of latitude to my friend across the way who was all over the map on everything under the sun, I thought I would stick with some real economic points.

My friend says that we should write off this overpayment and just let the provinces take the money. There are good examples of provinces giving overpayments to municipal governments in this country. What did they do? They demanded the money back and they got it back. The province of Ontario is a good example.

The member suggests, first, that we have not made a decision. We are reviewing the auditor general's comments on this. I would like to ask the hon. member, does he thinks it is prudent for us to make a decision before we have analyzed the comments of the auditor general in terms of this overpayment issue?

[Supply, June 6th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, maybe the hon. member thinks he is in a bar.

In any event I would like to indicate to him that it is appropriate to listen very carefully.

Let me point out some of the facts that the hon. gentleman across the way raised. He painted a picture of an economy in terrible shape and yet GDP growth surged by 6% in the first quarter of 2002, outpacing that of the United States. Growth was well balanced in the quarter with a solid 3.5% raise in domestic demand led by a second quarter of strong residential investment growth.

Let us look at other facts. This strength in the domestic demand was fueled by a pickup in personal income growth. We also note that it is the result of strong recent employment performance. Real exports also contributed to the strength in growth of 5.9%, reflecting resurgence in the U.S. demand for Canadian goods and services. The recent strength in the Canadian labour market continued in April with an increase of 37,000 new jobs, bringing gains in the first four months to 207,000.

[Supply, June 6th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I am not sure what the topic is today. I listened to that speech and it was all over the place. I listened and did not do any heckling like some of my colleagues on the other side apparently like to do. I listened attentively to the speech to see where the member was going with it.

In terms of the overpayment issue, it is very clear from this gentleman across the way that--

[Supply, June 4th, 2002]

Madam Chairman, I appreciate the comments of the minister. It is important to put some of these issues in perspective. When we talk about ethics, it is important to relate it to what we are doing. Being proactive is extremely important whether in government or whatever particular endeavour one is in.

It is important for colleagues to keep in mind that one thing about being proactive, whether it is a company or a government it, is getting the message out to explain what kind of services are available to the public.

I do not want to get into a yelling match with my colleagues across the way because clearly they have more experience at yelling than I have. However it is important that we talk about the fact that in getting that message out, we as a government, and particularly the minister's department, put out a brochure last year on which many of my colleagues and I have received comments from our constituents. It was called “Services for Youth”. It was guide about the type of services provided by the Government of Canada. It had nuances in different parts of the country in terms of the types of programs that might be available.

By putting this out, the Government of Canada was trying to indicate very clearly that it was here for Canadians, that it had services for them and that it wanted them to respond. People will not know what programs are available if they do not have the information. People criticize the government and say that they do not know because the government does not tell them. Therefore we are telling Canadians and Canadians have responded.

Could the minister tell us how they responded? Could the minister talk about the objectives of this publication? What were some of the outcomes that the government was looking for in terms of this guide? How much did it cost? Is there an evaluation mechanism? How do we evaluate these?

As members of parliament, when we send something out, whether it is a news letter or householder, we know the kind of response to a survey. Sometimes we know certain things will work. Sometimes they will not. Therefore it is important when we send out a publication that we are able to evaluate it and say that this has worked and it is effective but in other areas it has not worked. How do we make sure that we get value for dollar?

One thing that I think all members of the House agree with is that it is important when we are dealing with taxpayer money that we get value for the dollar. Could the minister explain that? I would appreciate it and I am sure my colleagues would as well.

[Supply, June 4th, 2002]

I am sure the House would be very interested in what this ethics program contains, how it is applied and how it is developed in ensuring that the highest ethical standards are there, keeping in mind that in any organization there are going to be some bad apples.

The fact that we have a program in place which was recognized by the Conference Board of Canada speaks volumes. I would interested to hear the minister's comments on that.

[Supply, June 4th, 2002]

Madam Chairman, we have heard a lot in the House about ethics. Ethics of course is a code of conduct, how we as individuals conduct ourselves whether in business, industry, government or in whatever profession we might be. We have heard often, I think with reckless abandonment, comments made in the House about ethics. Clearly we all learn ethics when we are very young. We learn what is right and what is wrong.

When one uses a wide brush and says that government is unethical, one is not only smearing and attacking the institution of government but also smearing and attacking the servants of government, whether they be elected officials or members of the civil service. I think we need to make that very clear.

This minister is in charge of Public Works and Government Services Canada. We have heard significant attacks on the issue of ethics in that department. I note that the Conference Board of Canada, hardly a biased organization, has recognized the minister's department as a leading edge organization for its ethics programs.

[Airport Security, May 31st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the government responded after September 11 with a security package for which $7 billion was put forth. Over $2 billion dealt with the airline industry. The minister has indicated very clearly and repeatedly in the House that he will review the charge.

In the meantime, we are seeing an expansion in the airline industry. We are seeing very positive things. Again the minister has said that he will review this charge and come before the House in the fall.

[An Act To Amend The Criminal Code (Cruelty to Animals and Firearms) and the Firearms Act, May 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the time has come to move forward on the bill and I urge hon. members, including my colleagues across the way, to listen, learn about it and support the bill.

[An Act To Amend The Criminal Code (Cruelty to Animals and Firearms) and the Firearms Act, May 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, there may be hundreds of cases in his view but I am providing him with the facts. He may not want to listen to the facts but that is up to him. We had to listen to members from that party, I would expect that they would listen to us in terms of the information.

[An Act To Amend The Criminal Code (Cruelty to Animals and Firearms) and the Firearms Act, May 10th, 2002]

My colleague across the way says that is bull.