Martha Hall Findlay

[October 29th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, in May of this year I had asked the government member to answer certain questions about the sale of government assets.

It may set the stage if I just repeat quickly the question. I asked the Minister of Finance to comment on his promise to add $10 billion to the government books, $2 billion in the 2009-10 year alone, through the sale of assets. We had expressed at the time a particular concern that in a recession this would be a rather bad time to sell assets and it would be something akin to a fire sale.

The answer I received from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and to the Minister of National Revenue was that at present the government had no plans in that regard and had no other answer.

My question then followed on to the issue the budget, and we had supported it to get stimulus spending out, in which the government had proposed that over the course of five years it was expected there would be $10.1 billion in revenue from the sale of government assets. In the year 2009-10 alone there would be $2.3 billion in fact seen. I will stress that this is not just revenue. It has to be money that is over and above the value of assets. It is actually the book value of those assets.

I would like to ask the hon. member a several point question.

Could the member confirm that those numbers are still in fact what the government expects? Could the member confirm that in 2009-10 fiscal year the government expects to still show $2.3 billion in revenue from asset sales? Does he still believe that over the course of the next five years the number will be a total of $10.1 billion? If not, what does the government now project?

Whichever numbers the government is looking at now, what assets are the government considering to sell? I would really appreciate some detail in the list of those assets, not just a broad several departments. What is the book value of those assets, so we can have some understanding of what the government believes it may be able to see in terms of a profit earned on the sale of those assets?

[Points of Order, October 27th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. An email was sent from my office that contained a solicitation, which was improper. I stand here to personally apologize to the House for any improper use of parliamentary resources.

All of my staff and volunteers are very well aware of all of the rules, and in this case as always, they complied with those. I wish to take full responsibility personally. This was, in fact, my doing.

The email in question was originally sent properly. I decided to send a copy to my colleagues here on the Hill because, ironically, it was an invitation to my 50th birthday and I was trying to encourage multi-partisan activity. That does not excuse the impropriety of sending the email, and I hereby personally apologize.

[Points of Order, October 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport alluded to an email emanating from my office. He knows me well enough to know how strongly I feel about following the rules. My staff and volunteers in both offices are under strict instructions not to use parliamentary resources improperly. We all take this very seriously.

If the minister has evidence of any such breach, I ask him to table it. But I will also volunteer that if it did happen, it is certainly not our practice; it would have been done completely in error. I will apologize and take full personal responsibility.

[Government Advertising, October 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, if that is requiring interpretation, I will follow that interpretation.

The government is consciously breaking the rules on purpose. Logos on cheques are bad enough, but that is merely a symptom of a larger disease and that is confusing the Government of Canada with the Conservative Party.

Democracy requires an impartial government, one that uses taxpayer money to benefit taxpayers, not the Conservative Party. When will it stop?

[Government Advertising, October 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, three weeks ago I wrote a letter on behalf of all Canadians to the members of the Treasury Board noting that the government's advertising is breaking several laws: the Financial Administration Act; the Conflict of Interest Act, which is part of the Federal Accountability Act; the Conflict of Interest Code; and the party financing provisions of Elections Canada.

Three weeks ago I asked them to stop. I have had no response, no acknowledgement. When can Canadians expect an answer?

[Infrastructure, October 19th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it has become clear that the Prime Minister is incapable of apologizing for anything.

I cannot believe that the hon. member does not know the answer which does beg the conclusion that he is trying to hide something and rightly, he should be ashamed.

One hour of a Conservative Party infomercial cost Canadian taxpayers more than $100,000. I ask the hon. member this. Whose money does he think he is spending anyway?

[Infrastructure, October 19th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, there are many more examples of the Conservative government wrongly using taxpayers' money to promote the Conservative Party.

This time, could the President of the Treasury Board tell Canadians just how much of that taxpayers' money was used for a one hour long self-promotion in Cambridge that was clearly very slick and very clearly promoted the Conservative Party?

Could the President of the Treasury Board tell us just how much money was spent for that?

[Government Advertising, October 8th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, despite all of their efforts to avoid this, we are witnessing an unprecedented, massive taxpayer-paid, partisan, self-serving ad campaign that pats the government on the back. It is not only unethical, it is breaking the law, in fact several laws. This is an attempt by the Conservatives to buy Canadians with their own money, an awful lot of their own money.

We ask, when will it stop?

[Government Advertising, October 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am not exactly sure who the President of the Treasury Board thinks actually pays for government spending if it is not the Canadian taxpayers.

I am not sure which is worse, the fact that he does not have the numbers, he does not know them or he is trying to hide something. Look at the TV campaign alone. We are talking tens of millions of dollars, forty, sixty, a hundred.

Once in government, the Conservatives did away with the rules restricting ad spending and they have gone wild ever since. In 2007-08 they spent double what the previous government spent.

I challenge the minister once again to give us a number. How much has the government spent on its advertising--

[Government Advertising, October 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I tried last week to get some answers on government advertising. There were no answers and no numbers, so I will try again. I will ask the President of the Treasury Board, because after all, he is the one responsible for the spending and he should know.

How much exactly have Canadian taxpayers paid for the government's partisan, pat-itself-on-the-back advertising so far?