Bryon Wilfert

[Garth Legge, February 14th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to honour one of my constituents, Reverend Garth Legge of Richmond Hill, on his being named a member of the Order of Canada.

He was honoured at the investiture ceremony on February 9, along with many other deserving Canadians. I would like to read his citation:

A man of vision and action, he is an example to follow in missionary work. He was a strong influence in the establishment of Zambia's United Church. Later, as head of the United Church of Canada's world outreach division, he championed justice and autonomy for indigenous peoples in many parts of the word. He has consistently promoted an approach in missions that is based on respect, equality and partnership.

Congratulations to Reverend Legge on being named to the Order of Canada.

[Supply, February 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to learn any bad habits from my friend across the way. There is no question that the comments we are getting from across the aisle are not in the proper context. They are saying that we are not doing anything.

We have anted up 60% for farm incomes. Gasoline pricing is not our responsibility, but competition is, and we accept that. If we are going to talk about medicare, let us put the actual figures and facts on the table, not the rhetoric.

[Supply, February 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague gave us a litany of issues, many of which he knows are not directly under federal jurisdiction. In some cases, such as gasoline, although the federal government is responsible for dealing with competition, it does not deal with the issue of pricing at the pumps.

In terms of the farm crisis, there is not one member on this side of the House who needs any lesson in dealing with that crisis. The minister has put forth dollars. Maybe you should talk to your friend, the premier of Saskatchewan, about anteing up his 40%.

Maybe you should talk about the fact that when the Government of Canada put—

[Supply, February 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is hard to stick to the facts when people over there are not listening. I have indicated that there was not $1 billion missing. I have indicated many times, both in the House and outside, that if there is $1 missing we should all be concerned about it. Clearly, on this side of the House, the minister is taking appropriate steps.

The minister responded very quickly to the call to attend the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development on Thursday. Normally, instead of 10 working days, we have the minister there on Thursday to answer questions, to put the facts on the table.

Some of my colleagues on the other side have already started to dismiss the role of the standing committee because they seem surprised that the minister, who wants transparency, openness and accountability, as everyone on this side of the House and I am sure on that side of the House would like to see, is willing to ensure that the questions which members might have—and I mean questions, not rhetoric—are put on the table. There is no question that we have to have confidence in the system.

Before the audit was released some colleagues on the other side of the House spoke about projects in their ridings as being worthy, visionary and all so important. Now they cannot wait to say “scandal”. They cannot wait to say “pork-barrelling”.

Where has this money gone? It has gone to literacy programs. It has gone to job creation programs. It has gone to programs which have benefited communities from one end of the country to the other. Yet we hear these terms being bandied about, without any interest it seems in looking for real solutions to deal with the administrative problems which are clearly unacceptable.

Rather than simply shrugging it off, we have designed a six point program. It may not be exhaustive. There may be other constructive suggestions which the committee will be able to present on Thursday to the minister.

The minister has responded already by indicating that she will provide quarterly updates on the action plan. It is important that every member of parliament be involved to ensure that the dollars my colleague across the way referred to will go to the people and the organizations which have applied, to ensure that there is accountability and to ensure that the proper paperwork has been done. It is unacceptable in this day and age for moneys to be handed out without the proper documentation.

The audit never suggested political interference. The audit never at any point suggested that there was $1 billion missing. What it indicated was that there was very sloppy bookwork. It is very clear that the six point program that is being implemented as we speak is designed to deal with this.

Let me give the House one example of the program.

To ensure that the payments are made properly, the director will have to certify the particular project. There will have to be a signed agreement. There will have to be signing authority. Payments will be advanced only when the documentation is there, and I am speaking of documentation in terms of claims, expenses and so on.

Since many members wrote letters of support for projects in their communities, at some point we all believed there was value in the projects they were touting, whether they were literacy programs, job creation programs or whatever.

Clearly the point is that we want to make sure there is confidence in the system.

I hear members opposite bandying about terms without any constructive or supportive comments as to how we might fix the problem together. They would rather attack the minister, saying that she should resign. The minister released the report, the action plan, and has made it the number one priority of her department.

No one is prepared to accept business as usual, certainly not on this side of the House. We want to ensure that we have a system which is strong and comprehensive. We must ensure that the payments are made with every i dotted and every t crossed. They must be carefully checked. All of the files which are active are being reviewed by the department and will be reported on by the end of April.

It is important that we not lose sight of the fact that these steps are being taken. The auditor general has endorsed the action plan before us. I would like to hear the comments of members opposite in regard to the action plan and the 25 recommendations which were made in the audit.

We have heard in the media and in the House about the projects that have been approved across the country, how they have benefited the various ridings. Yes, the system has broken down, but we are fixing the system to make sure it never happens in the future.

It would be folly to continue to use terms and figures which members clearly know are inappropriate. I too am restricted in the terms that I might use in the House.

At the end of the day, if we are improving the literacy skills of Canadians, if we are giving the people who have disabilities an opportunity to work, if we are giving them meaningful employment opportunities, as has been suggested by many members and organizations, we should not minimize the important role which HRDC plays in communities, and in many cases very visibly, from coast to coast to coast.

In the short term the minister is taking corrective measures to ensure that payments meet certain financial and program requirements, as well as checking for and correcting problem files. In the longer term we will look at equipping our HRDC staff with the right tools. It is important that they have the tools to do the job. We want accountability, openness and transparency. That is part of the action plan. We want to have measurable and achievable results. And we want to report back not only to the House, but to the public at large.

[Supply, February 8th, 2000]

Some of my colleagues have all the answers and are not prepared to listen.

[Supply, February 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Vancouver—Quadra.

We have an internal audit that was released by the Minister of Human Resources Development. The minister announced a six point plan to deal with this particular situation with which I do not think anyone in the House is pleased.

We hear though from the opposition terms like scandal, pork-barrelling and slush fund. We do not hear anything from the opposition about what we should be trying to do to fix the problem. How can we constructively participate in making sure that this problem does not happen again? But no, we would rather bandy about cheap terms that have little credence. We know that it was not $1 billion missing, but we continue to hear the $1 billion figure. Unfortunately, if we say something long enough we tend to believe it, which is certainly the case across the aisle.

The fact is, we have 459 projects—

[Standing Committee On Finance, December 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that a national infrastructure program is critical for the economy, for the environment and for the health of Canadians.

In 1983, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities proposed an infrastructure program involving all orders of government in the country. In 1993, the government adopted the national infrastructure program of the FCM.

Traditional infrastructure is roads, sewers, bridges and water. The announcement in the Speech from the Throne clearly indicates all three orders of government participating. Municipally driven is what I would like to see. I would like to see that we are involving all orders of government in a process by which we have at the moment basically a $40 billion deficit in infrastructure in the areas that I have just outlined. There is no question that over 125,000 direct and indirect jobs were created by the last national infrastructure program.

One of the things that varies in the proposals in the Speech from the Throne is that we actually have a blueprint for five years. We think this is critical when we look at our competition, the United States, Europe and elsewhere. I know that every member in the House benefited from the national infrastructure program. The mayors of the communities in these members' ridings, including my good friends across the way in the Reform Party, have benefited very much. There are some former mayors over there.

The program delivered both in terms of job creation and in speeding up needed infrastructure programs. I say to my hon. friend that there is no question that by involving all orders of government, we will be able to improve our economy by being able to move people, certainly through roads being reconstructed—

[Standing Committee On Finance, December 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to participate in the debate on the upcoming year 2000 budget.

Through successive budgets the government has continued to build on a strong fiscal foundation that began in 1993. At that time our economic condition was in a serious state of disrepair. We had a $42 billion deficit, high unemployment and sluggish investor confidence.

Since 1993 the government has rolled up its sleeves and presented to Canadians a clear vision of how to get things straight. Canadians understood that large deficits and an astronomical debt would cripple Canada for generations to come if we did not act, and act we did. Canadians embraced the deficit reduction strategies of the government. Together we have been able to eliminate the deficit, bring in balanced budgets and forecast further balanced budgets.

In 1998-99 Canada balanced the books for the first time since 1951-52. The government has continued to operate deficit free. For the coming millennium we will continue our prudent spending, continue to balance the books and offer Canadians further tax cuts. I can think of no greater gift to offer young people, our future generations, than a deficit free government, lower taxes and a strong economic and fiscal atmosphere that supports growth and development by continued investment in the talents of our youth.

In February 2000 the Minister of Finance will continue on this path by announcing further tax cuts for Canada. I have always been a strong advocate of calling for tax cuts. Many of my constituents want tax cuts as well. I recently conducted a survey in my riding asking constituents what they would like to see in the upcoming budget. Close to 75% of those who responded chose tax cuts and debt reduction as the top two issues that needed to be addressed in the upcoming federal budget. Continued funding for health care in Canada ranked a close third, at 70%.

I would like to share some of the direct comments of my constituents with the House today: “Lower taxes, both personal and corporate, can help to create and retain jobs in Canada. Tax cuts should focus more on lower and middle income people and families”. “I believe lower national debts are a key foundation to a stronger economy and the benefits of long term growth. Get the debt behind us and Canada can become a stronger nation”. “Continued fiscal responsibility, as already demonstrated by Mr. Martin, is required”. “Seeing as children and youth are our priority, the only responsible action in the federal budget is to make debt payment the top and only priority for surplus funds. It is not fair to the next generation to burden them with debt created by this generation”.

It is clear that Canadians know what they want. They want a fiscally responsible government which is willing to take action to end the overspending of the past and to make sure that we have cleared the slate for future generations. By getting our fiscal house in order we can concentrate on other issues. We can create an atmosphere where job creation strives and where Canadian entrepreneurs can make their mark in the global economy.

This past November the finance minister brought down his economic and fiscal update. He noted that Canada's economy has made tremendous strides. The economy is now forecast to grow by 3.6% this year, based on the average of private sector forecasts. That is a significant jump from the 2% growth rate that economists were forecasting just before last February's budget.

For the year 2000 the average growth forecast is 2.9%, again an increase over the 2.5% predicted at the time of the budget. This has brought our November 1999 unemployment rate down by 0.3 percentage points to 6.9%. That is the lowest level since August 1981.

Our future as a country is indeed bright. The government will continue its commitment to Canadians through strong, continued funding for our world renowned universal health care system. We will provide tax cuts.

We also recognize that Canada is a place for business. We have taken great strides to make this so. We recognize the value of innovation, but we know that innovation does not just happen. It requires an investment on our part. It requires infrastructure. We are committed to building a society of security and opportunity by helping Canadians to acquire education, knowledge and skills.

We will provide continued funding to help our youth reach their goals and dreams through the youth employment strategy, the Canadian opportunities strategy and the Canada education savings grant.

Finally, I want to speak briefly about another program. I fully support the joint federal-provincial-municipal infrastructure program. The Speech from the Throne committed the government to developing a five year physical infrastructure plan with the provinces and territories. It is a prime example of how governments can work together for the good of all Canadians.

I look forward with great anticipation to the next federal budget. As the first budget of our new millennium it will set a benchmark for all future budgets. It will clearly demonstrate our commitment to providing Canadians with an efficiently run, fiscally responsible government, and continued investment in the programs and services Canadians have come to expect and deserve.

[Oak Ridges Moraine, December 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, as the member of parliament for Oak Ridges, I would like to take this opportunity before the House rises to thank several people for their interest in my riding's namesake, the Oak Ridges moraine. It is a 160 kilometre stretch of rolling hills that acts as a giant sponge. It absorbs, filters and releases water and acts as the headwaters for over 30 rivers. It is the home to wildlife and rare species of plants and is a treasure in the greater Toronto area.

At the same time, it is under severe development pressures, which can see a great portion of the moraine paved over with little idea of the effect it would have.

So a big thank you to my colleagues in the GTA, in particular the member for Davenport for his statement and the member for Victoria, the Minister of the Environment, all those who attended the clean water summit of the Waterfront Regeneration Trust which focused on the moraine, the Geological Survey of Canada, and especially all the members of grassroots organizations who have given a great amount of time and energy to make sure that we recognize the importance of the Oak Ridges moraine.

[Canadian Institutes Of Health Research Act, November 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's observations. I certainly appreciate his indication that in general his party supports the legislation.

The hon. member is quite correct that if there are specific concerns he or others may have, when the bill goes to committee they will certainly be able to discuss them.

I would indicate that the CIHR was enthusiastically supported after much consultation by a wide coalition of Canadian health research partners across the country in terms of the structure.

The hon. member pointed out some very specific concerns with regard to the Prime Minister, and if I understood the member correctly, the independence of this body. This is what has been suggested after much consultation. It would seem that many of the proposals and the structure itself originated in those consultations with the research community.

No doubt there will be witnesses before the committee. If there are those in the health community who have those particular concerns, as has been suggested by my hon. colleague, they will have the opportunity to present them to the committee. I presume that if the will of the committee is such, it will make amendments in its recommendations.

It is important to note that the interim governing council to the minister worked extremely closely with the health research community. I want to stress that in terms of what we have before us today.