Merv Tweed

[Department of Social Development Act, June 1st, 2005]

Madam Speaker, obviously, governments have motives for everything that they do. The real issue is that the government never consulted with members of the House. It moved forward on this issue. They are operating as two individual departments now without the authority or the approval of the House and that is the issue.

Governments that act that way are irresponsible and are not representing the people and not giving us, as elected officials, the opportunity to have some input into the decisions that are made. I stated very clearly that government members put the cart before the horse. All we are saying to the government is that when it continues to do that and it continues to neglect and not listen to what members of Parliament are saying and what Canadians are saying, it does so at its own peril.

[Department of Social Development Act, June 1st, 2005]

Madam Speaker, that is the issue for all of Canada. A government's time and days here have to be numbered if it does not listen to the members who are duly elected and sent here to represent the people, and if it is not prepared to move forward and listen to what elected MPs have to say. It is very frustrating.

As frustrating as it is for us, imagine how frustrating it is for Canadians to see this happen. They elect people. They give them the responsibility to act on their behalf, and when we do as MPs, it is ignored by the government. The government, whose Prime Minister has claimed is the leader of democratic reform in this country, then turns around and totally ignores the will and wishes of not only the MPs in this House but of the Canadian public.

It is a recipe for disaster and in a lot of cases the debate that we are having on this particular issue is irrelevant. It is something that the government has chosen to move forward and do, with or without permission of the members of Parliament or without the approval of Canadians, and that, as I said earlier, is shameful.

[Department of Social Development Act, June 1st, 2005]

Madam Speaker, as I stated in my opening remarks, there is no logic. In fact, when governments are looking at trying to create benefits and savings for departments, usually they merge them. Perhaps the government could answer to this better than I, but I suspect that a promise was made to somebody that another department would be created for a member of the government.

There is no logic that I can see. In fact, we have seen so far increased costs. We have not seen a government come forward with a plan that is going to show exactly how it is going to work and cooperate in the same functions that it used to. It is very frustrating for Canadians. It is very frustrating for people who need to access the programs that are available.

We will continue to chase the government, as I suspect the member will, to ensure that the money that is being allocated to these departments is actually reaching the people it is intended to serve.

[Department of Social Development Act, June 1st, 2005]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak today on Bill C-22. I wish to advise the House that the member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar provided me with some of the information, as she sits on that committee.

Many Canadians may know, or they may not, that these programs fall under the old Human Resources and Development Canada department, or HRDC. Anyone who has followed the history of this department will certainly bear witness to the fact that institutional changes needed to be made. They were required to fix the many problems within the department as it existed. Canadians were tired of Liberal boondoggles and were demanding that business not continue as usual. The Liberals were wasting billions through the department and spending dirty money elsewhere at the time. Changes were clearly needed.

Changes were required, and while the case was never really made that a full division, split and overhaul of the department was needed, there was no question that Canadians could not afford a repeat of the boondoggles of the past. That said, I am still not sure if this legislation prevents either of those things from happening.

Normally departments are merged to save money, so one can only assume, and I think Canadians can only assume, that splitting this department will cost taxpayers unnecessarily. During a briefing on this legislation, the question was asked but never answered. Perhaps now the government has an answer. How much will these changes cost in addition to what we have had before?

Unfortunately, the Liberal government started the split long before it brought the bill to Parliament. In effect, the Liberals put the cart before the horse. As we have seen with other departments that the Liberals have split without consulting, I guess they believe it is probably better to ask for forgiveness than get permission.

I have to say that their attitude and way of doing business does not surprise me. The current government has made a habit of circumventing Parliament and has developed a reactionary approach to everything it does. Instead of being leaders and taking a proactive approach to the leadership of the nation, the Liberals continue to run around trying to put out fires by throwing money at them. While it has been proven to be an unsuccessful approach, they blindly continue.

If we were to oppose the legislation, the cost of reversing the changes already made would likely cost more than it would just to complete the split. In effect, the Liberal government has failed to consult with Parliament on the change to HRDC and the creation of social development. To that, we say shame.

Again the Prime Minister has failed to provide Parliament with an opportunity to become more involved and more relevant in the spending of government. Rather than consult us before the fact, we are simply treated as rubber stamps. So much for decreasing the democratic deficit, but then again, even if the committee had recommended alternative action, the Prime Minister has also shown he considers our work irrelevant.

I am thinking of the environment committee and its recommendation not to allow a patronage appointment of a former Winnipeg Liberal candidate to go ahead. The Prime Minister is going ahead anyway. So much for committee work.

This is unacceptable, not just because it silences the members of the House, but because it makes the people we represent irrelevant.

I have to tell Canadians that either the Prime Minister does not consult the House or, when he does, he ignores what members have to say. This was stated earlier: who said the former prime minister was the dictator?

As word spreads of the Liberal government's autocratic ways, more and more Canadians are demanding a return to the democracy for which our veterans fought. Canadians want a Parliament that can and will make binding decisions on important issues. They want their representatives to have more than just a say. They want their representatives to be involved in the decisions and have the power to influence those decisions. I could not agree more with Canadians.

If the Liberals want to improve both the way MPs work and the quality of our work, they need to come to us first, before making changes, not after.

As I said earlier, this department already exists. The minister is at the cabinet table and announcements were in the budget. Exactly what is it that we are being asked to approve in this legislation? From my side of the House, it looks like a done deal.

Before my time runs out, I want to pass along some important information that Canadians should know about. There is a website that can assist them in accessing any benefits they may be entitled to. This website lists almost every federal and provincial program there is.

To make it easier to determine what applies to an individual, there is a user friendly feature. All one has to do is answer a few questions. It will then short-list the programs that may apply. I am asking the people watching today to grab a pen because I plan to give them that website address shortly.

Before I do, I want to stress that this website address is the subject of one of the most common complaints that most MPs get from those in need. The complaint is that it is too difficult to find, apply for and access programs that already exist.

As I said, this website can be found at canadabenefits.ca. I would encourage all MPs to add it as a link to their websites to give people within their constituencies easier access. The government has a record of taxing the poor but not making it easy or accessible for the poor to get back their hard-earned money when in need. I hope, and I am sure members hope, that this website will help change that.

Social Development has a massive mandate that is guaranteed to touch every single Canadian at some point in their lives. Whether it is seniors, children, families, the disabled, volunteers or participants in the social economy, the new department will have an impact on us and on those close to us. Even if we do not need to turn to the government for assistance today, our pension plans will likely be administered by this department.

As always, we have some serious concerns that a department this large could quickly balloon out of control for this management challenged government, and we are concerned that such a large ministry will be sidetracked by new, large social initiatives. We have already seen social wings fighting over the proposed child care program.

It will take the efforts of MPs, Canadians and especially the people who work at the social development department to ensure that these radical structural changes do not fall off the rails and cost us billions again. Every dollar this government wastes on a new program is a dollar lost to a program that is already in place and quite often underfunded. As I have said before, I hope the government stays on top of the costs associated with this change to ensure they do not get out of hand.

As was pointed out earlier, this new department was born from the split of HRDC into Social Development and HRSDC, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada. The government has highlighted the strong coordination, cooperation and co-working arrangements between the two split departments, and it certainly appears to be duplication and overlap to me.

We look forward to the minister perhaps clarifying some of the reasons why the old department could not do what the new ones can or are asked to do and also how much it will save Canadians. This has been asked before, but it has yet to be answered.

I suspect the savings will not prevail. I cannot see how new letterhead, computer systems, websites and the like save anyone any money. In fact, the departments already carry a lot of overlap and duplication. Information is available on both the SD and the HRSDC websites. Yet again it begs the question of why a single department does not make sense over two. I will ask--and I will hope--the government to come up with that creative answer.

Some of my colleagues will speak to this bill also and I believe that they share the same concerns as I do for Canadians in need. The government needs to ensure timely, properly supported services to those under duress. Canadians do not want hassles, delays and excuses. They want access and they want help.

[Petitions, June 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of my constituents, mostly from Virden and Oak Lake.

The petitioners are requesting that the definition of marriage be a lifelong union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

[Supply, May 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my earlier comments, that is the problem. I believe the Canadian public believes that Gomery will report and give a full accounting. Unfortunately, we know that he cannot. We know that he is restricted by the clauses that were put into his contract. All we are asking is to let that truth come forward and that people be held accountable at the end of the day. When our children do something wrong, we try to make them accountable to make them better adults. I think it is time for the government to do the same.

[Supply, May 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day we all want to stand in the House and go back to our communities to face the people who elected us. If members can look constituents in the eye and tell them that they have done the best to bring the truth forward, not the best that satisfies members' needs or makes it easy for them to be accountable to people but actually told people the truth, that is how I believe men and women are measured and how all parliamentarians should be measured.

[Supply, May 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague who spoke before me put it the way we all feel about this topic. Canadians have looked at this and Canadians have heard the discussion around the Gomery inquiry. I believe that Canadians think that the Gomery inquiry is the answer, that Gomery will come back to the public and tell them what went wrong, who is responsible and assign that accountability to those people.

Unfortunately as time goes on and as we get further into the inquiry we find that is not the case. We are here today to bring this motion forward and ask the Canadian people and the House as it sits here today to make a decision to support that. Canadians want the Gomery commission to provide them with the answers they believe they are going to get at the end of the inquiry.

It is beyond me how a government can sit there and make millionaires of its friends and cohorts while hard-working taxpaying Canadians submit their dollars to Ottawa to spend in their best interests, providing for health and education, supplies and equipment for our armed forces. All those people have been deprived in some way because of this scandal.

Canadians will be deprived of their opportunity to get an answer. We have heard in committee after committee. We have listened to the public come forward about things that they were unable to do in the past several years on the premise that the money was not available. We know where the money went and we know to whom it went. Mr. Justice Gomery is proving that to us day in and day out.

I want to choose my words very carefully. I think the government of the day has made Canadians believe that Gomery is the final answer. We hear it every day when the minister stands to answer questions. He says, “Let Gomery do his work. Let Gomery report. Let Canadians make their decision after Gomery has reported”.

The actual clause that we are talking about here in this debate says the following:

the Commissioner be directed to perform his duties without expressing any conclusion or recommendation regarding the civil or criminal liability of any person or organization--

When I hear that and I listen to what the minister across the floor says when he is answering questions, I am getting mixed messages. I am getting a message from the government that the Liberals want to get to the bottom of this scandal. They want people to hear the answers. They want those accountable to be held accountable. Yet the government has included a clause in the judge's terms of reference that does not allow him to do that.

I think we have all had the wool pulled over our eyes if we believe that Judge Gomery is going to be able to do that, unless we pass the motion that has been put forward today.

The people of Canada deserve to know who was responsible for directing millions of dollars. They have a right to know. It is Canadian taxpayers' money. It is not Liberal government money to spend as the Liberals choose, to dole our to their friends, to fake invoices so that they can create some revenue for a group of people who then funnel it back to the Liberal Party of Canada to run elections.

We now know that this did not involve just one election. It has been the past three. Should we have fallen into an election in the last few days, who is to say, could it have been four? Who is to say, did it happen before that?

That is what this entire debate has been about. It is about accountability of government. Does the government not want the Canadian public to trust it? Do the Liberals not want Canadians to respect us all as parliamentarians, as hon. members to give them the truth as a judge would see it, to hold people accountable?

We talk about our justice system in this world and every time someone gets into a position of having to be accountable, they lower the bar, so that person does not have to be accountable for it. Canadians want that to change and they want it to change with Gomery.

As I travelled throughout my constituency last week that is the one statement that I heard over and over, “Let Gomery finish”. My constituents told me that they were convinced that he is going to give us the goods. He is going to tell us who is accountable, who should be charged, and who should be punished.

When they find out that is not his job and not his role, they are completely offended that a government would say publicly that it was its intent to get to the bottom of this. We all heard the Prime Minister give a speech on national TV that was not about anything that was of historic interest to Canadians or of value to Canadians but only to the Liberal Party. It was only said in defence of the Liberal Party.

It has been said several times and I think it is worth reiterating that this is a Liberal problem. It is not a provincial issue. It is not a Canadian issue in the sense that it has been created by other Canadians. It has been created within the Liberal Party.

As I watch the Gomery inquiry I see high ranking Liberal officials coming forward ever day and spilling their information. These are not allegations that these people are making. This is testimony. These are confessions. These are people trying to do everything they possibly can, I suspect, to point the finger across the entire lot, which I think is what is happening. I think people are starting to see that. The unfortunate part with the Gomery inquiry, the way it is set up right now, is that we will never know who would be accountable at the end of the day.

This morning I listened to a few of the comments made by the members opposite. They argued as to why it should not happen. They said that it would obstruct the RCMP investigation. It would hinder the police investigation. I do not believe there would be any danger in letting Mr. Gomery indicate responsibility. It will not hurt the RCMP. In fact, it might actually help it.

However, we have to question why clause (k) was included and was it part of the bigger picture that the government knew at the time.

The government today is claiming that changing the terms midway through the investigation would imperil the results. I do not know how it would. I have not heard anyone explain it today. I believe that allowing more tools to access the truth and report on it can only help us all get to the bottom of it and help all Canadians understand.

We have seen and we are part of history in Canada where a government has taken advantage and abused its ability through a taxation system to funnel money back into its own coffers for its own personal benefit. Personally I take offence to that. That is not why I was elected. That is not why I ran to be a part of Parliament. I ran to have people respect me and to do the right things for the right reasons. I think we see day after day that it is breaking down.

Unfortunately, I think we all suffer because of that. We have seen in history that governments that take advantage and take for granted the taxpayers of the country or the province that they represent are eventually punished, but in the same way many of the good people who put their names forward are painted and tarnished with that same brush. I personally resent that.

The motive behind bringing this motion forward is to inform Canadians who all believe that they are going to get an answer at the end of the day.

I ask the Liberal government and the members opposite to really look hard. If they really believe that the Canadian public should get the answers and the truth, they will have no problem supporting this motion. They will have no problem supporting the fact that at the end of the day Judge Gomery will report. He will name names. He will make people accountable which is what we all want as Canadians.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, May 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting. On the other side of the House we hear one member talk about the new NDP budget being 1% of the budget that was presented only a few weeks ago. What the member fails to suggest is the program spending on that side of the House has gone up almost 50% in the last 10 years, so this is on top of it.

I want to ask the member for Churchill a question. In her comments she talked about all the promises made by a government that were broken. I would like to add, and I am sure the member would agree, that it was that government that said it would eliminate the GST. It was that government that said it would tear up the NAFTA. It was that government that said, I think in red books one, two and three, it would introduce a child care program for all Canadians.

Based on the track record of the current government and its inability to fulfill the promises it already has made to Canadians, why is the member convinced that the current government will do anything with those promises which have been added outside of the first budget, or what we call the NDP budget, and not break them?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, May 19th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the member's comments. I asked a question of one of his colleagues the other day. He spoke of two things and I wonder if he might elaborate a little. He talked about infrastructure funding and also about the day care and child care program that the Liberals are presenting as a national package.

We have heard the talk in cities across Canada about the need for infrastructure. The roads are crumbling in many cities. They are in dire need of some sort of assistance and see this as a way to it. I wonder if the member knows if there is a factor or a process in which amounts of dollars may be applied to different projects.

Also, in regard to the announced child care program, can the member tell us and tell Canadians how many new child care vacancies or spaces as far as accepting children into the program is concerned would be available in his constituency?