Jean Chrétien

[Grants and Contributions, May 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that very much, which is why in the nine years that we have formed the government not one person, not one member of parliament and not one minister has been accused of corruption in front of any court.

They keep using that word. They know that it is part of the criminal code. It was never used because we have offered a very good government. The answer that the Minister of Finance gave a minute ago proves that the international community has a lot of confidence in the administration of this government.

[Government Expenditures, May 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, we have replied to all the questions in the House of Commons that have been asked of us, whenever there have been questions. After that people appeal to the ministers and they appear in front of committees where questions are asked by members on both sides of the House of Commons.

We have always given a reply to the Canadian people. They have been satisfied enough to ensure that this government is still in power and that the Tories are in the corner for a long time.

[Child Poverty, May 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, this government has taken very concrete action to help Canadian children and families, including our national children's agenda, $2.2 billion, and the national child benefit program. We have lengthened the parental benefits under the employment insurance program to 12 months and increased the limit on child care expenses.

In Budget 2001 we added $185 million for programs targeted at aboriginal children. We have cut taxes aimed at low and middle income Canadians. I could go on and on to prove that we have done a lot for children. However we still have a lot to do because we will never be satisfied.

[Child Poverty, May 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I see the member of parliament getting up today and asking us not to do that, yet she wrote letters to the minister recommending sponsorship in her home town. She should make up her mind about it.

The reality is this program of sponsorship has been extremely good for Canada. In 1995 Canada was drifting. We went to Quebec and told Quebecers all about Canada. Look at the result today. Even the big agencies have said that the government has acted properly and now the danger of separation is much less than it was in 1995

[Municipalities, May 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the folks over there kept telling us for months, years even, that if we transferred manpower to the provincial governments, that would be just wonderful all round.

Now, if one were to go ask the people in the regions whether they were pleased that the federal government has withdrawn in favour of the provincial government, most would say they feel that this transfer was a disaster for recipients of services.

[Municipalities, May 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the municipalities are the ones asking us to work with them. We have federal jurisdictions that clearly apply anyway; we have responsibilities which clearly apply to those who live in cities.

And since 80% of the population are city-dwellers, we are merely fulfilling our responsibilities.

[Municipalities, May 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, we are being criticized for having properly managed the affairs of this country over the past three years. During that period, we also succeeded in reducing taxes. We are doing very well because the economy is doing well.

As recently as Friday, major U.S. institutions said that Canada's situation could not be better. They have ncreased our credit rating. One of the major reasons for this is that they see the Bloc Quebecois and the threat of separation going down.

[Municipalities, May 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, many federal programs have been applied to municipalities, for a long time now. The infrastructure programs, for which municipalities are praising us, come to mind. Our problem is that provincial governments, but not municipal governments, are dragging their feet.

It is the same thing with the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which for generations has helped cities and the poor by providing affordable housing. It is since the provinces have been more involved than they were in the past that things have not been going so well in the housing sector.

[Government Expenditures, May 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, he cannot throw mud all the time.

They make accusations based on nothing all the time. We could talk about the opposition, all the flip-flops on Stornoway, for example. They all said to their electors that they would never accept a pension from the government. After the third election, they all flip-flopped to get the cash. They offered a $50,000 payment to have a seat for one of the leaders who had no seat. After that there was $800,000 paid by the taxpayers of Alberta because the then leader of the opposition made a terrible error while he was minister of--

[Government Expenditures, May 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it was the minister himself who asked the auditor general to look into that. The auditor general will report this week.

Of course we have always done that. We look at all the problems of the administration, and if somebody has done something wrong that is criminal, of course the RCMP is involved, but I will say at this moment that it is the minister himself who referred that problem to the auditor general and we will see what the auditor general has to report before coming to any conclusion.