Michael Savage

[G8 and G20 Summits, June 11th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, fake lakes, fake lighthouses, fake chairs, fake canoes, even fake ducks, but most troubling is the fake answers from the arrogant, wasteful and inefficient Conservative government.

It knows this billion dollar weekend is indefensible, outrageous and completely out of control. Even if the Conservatives know it, they hear it from their constituents and it makes them squirm in their seats.

For once, why will the government not listen to its own nervous backbenchers? At the very least, why will it not stand up and apologize to Canadians for this billion dollar boondoggle?

[June 10th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, surely one of the most laughable lines I have ever heard is that no federal government has ever done more for persons with disabilities. That is absolute hogwash. I will give a quotation since he used one.

The national director of the Canadian Association of Independent Living Centres, one of the great organizations in this country, accused the finance minister of “pork-barrel politics”.

That is absolutely true. This fund has become a political weapon, a political tool for the government to use for people with disabilities who are disproportionately poor. The government has refused to even come up with an anti-poverty strategy. It refuses to do anything for people with disabilities unless it suits its own political needs.

People with disabilities across this country need, deserve and warrant assistance but what they get from the government is wedge politics, partisan politics and nasty, pork-barrel politics. That is what people in the communities are saying. It is a disgrace to Canadian society and a disgrace for people with disabilities that they have to put up with that kind of partisan, pork-barrel politics. That is not how it should be.

[June 10th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am here to talk tonight about the enabling accessibility fund. Serious questions have been raised about the administration of this fund.

The enabling accessibility fund was announced in budget 2008 and the stated purpose of the fund is very noble. It was set up to provide funding for buildings to become accessible. Two different funds were set up, one was called major projects and the other was for smaller projects. This fund provided $45 million over two years, yet $30 million of that was to go to two projects and two projects alone, both in Conservative ridings.

As soon as this project was announced and the application criteria was set out, the disability community knew something was wrong. There were headlines in papers such as “Program 'tailor-made' to send cash to [Finance Minister's] riding: critics”. Another headline read “Critics Claim Finance Minister is in a Conflict of Interest”. The Montreal Gazette stated that the program was geared to the finance minister's riding and critics alleged that the finance minister's wife and aide on board of project stood to benefit from $45 million in funding.

Very clearly, there was a problem with this funding. Why would a fund of $45 million that had been set up for the entire country provide $30 million, or two-thirds, to two projects? As it turned out there were significant problems.

That $30 million went to two Conservative ridings, including the riding of a cabinet minister. The other $15 million was left to be allocated. The first part of that was allocated in 2008-09. Of 166 projects, 107 went to Conservative ridings. That is unbelievable. Of the total dollars allocated for a national project, 5.8% went to all the opposition ridings. There is absolutely no way that makes sense. I can see members opposite aghast at this. They cannot believe these numbers and I do not blame them. It is unbelievable.

This year we found out about the second round of funding to complete the $45 million. This time it was worse. There were a total of 169 projects and 113 of them went to Conservative ridings.

The reasons we heard for this were unbelievable. The minister stood up and asked what I am complaining about because Iona Presbyterian Church received one grant. That seems fair. One for Dartmouth--Cole Harbour in the amount of $50,000, one for the Minister of Finance in the amount of $15 million, and he asked me what I was complaining about. It is probably not a great surprise.

The Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development does not even have an accessible constituency office. We all get a budget for our constituency office. I, like most members I am sure, ensure that my office is accessible. We are dealing with constituents. But it is particularly egregious when the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development does not bother to ensure that her office is accessible. Even six years after being elected she would have had to renegotiate the lease. Then she comes back with this cockamamie story of how under the Liberals some office was not accessible.

This is the biggest abdication of responsibility one can imagine. This is a fund designed for people with disabilities. It is not a fund designed for people with disabilities in Conservative ridings. There is no way that 95% of any fund could be allocated fairly and end up in Conservative ridings. This is taking advantage of many of the most marginalized people in Canada, people with disabilities who deserve a break, who deserve an opportunity, who deserve assistance regardless of where they live. What they received is political manipulation, cronyism. It is an offence not only to the people with disabilities but an offence to all Canadians who believe in fairness.

[G8 and G20 Summits, June 9th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, it is getting absolutely bizarre. We have learned now that the Conservatives are selling off real lighthouses in Canada, including the famous Peggy's Cove lighthouse, but it is full steam ahead for fake lighthouses to guard the G20 fake lake. Real lighthouses, we do not want that. Fake lighthouses, go to the head of the line. It is like a skit out of Monty Python, except it is not funny.

Governments make choices. How can this one choose to spend billions of dollars on a weekend when child poverty rates are on the rises, people line up at food banks and people are worried about their pensions?

[G8 and G20 Summits, June 9th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians have gone from amazement, to shock, to anger over the Conservatives' billion dollar summits. There is even a contest now to name the fake lake. What would we call it? We have heard the “blue lagoon” or “lake waste” or the “excess pool”.

Given how angry Canadians are, how about we use the phrase coined by a truly great Canadian and call it the “fuddle duddle puddle”, or we could call it exactly what it is. We can call it “lake how in the hell can a country with rising poverty rates squander a billion dollars on a meeting”.

[G8 and G20 Summits, June 3rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, they were frothing with outrage over the G7 in Halifax. Of course, we know what they think of Atlantic Canadians over there. The now minister said then that the government “should have chosen a location which wouldn't cost that kind of money”. It was $28 million for everything. Now it is spending $20 million on dancers, flowers and meals alone as part of this $1 billion-plus spendapalooza in Toronto.

With poverty rates rising and food bank usage skyrocketing, how can that morally corrupt government justify over $1 billion on this summit?

[G8 and G20 Summits, June 3rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, when Halifax played host to a very successful G7 summit, it was apparently quite a bargain. The total budget for the event was $28 million, and that covered everything from staffing to printing and security.

However, a spokesperson for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation at the time thought $28 million was too costly for a summit. He said:

There are conference facilities available, I'm sure...that could have hosted an event like this without spending several million dollars

Who was that outraged spokesperson? It was none other than the current Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism.

Where is the outrage now?

[Business of Supply, June 1st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, that is almost as unbelievable as having a stimulus program and then spending $100 million to tell everybody that we are having a stimulus program. This is the kind of voodoo economics and backward style of accounting the government is becoming well known for.

This is unbelievable to Canadians. Here we are with the worst economy in the history of our country. It is the worst deficit after the Conservatives inherited the best surplus in the history of this country and now the Conservatives are saying there is no better way of spending $1 billion than to have summits in Muskoka and Toronto, both of which are great communities.

The Conservatives have to take responsibility. They changed the terms of these summits. They are the ones who have allowed the costs to escalate. They are the ones who have to take responsibility. They have to answer to the people of Canada for this billion dollar boondoggle. Canadians are throwing their hands up in the air and saying that it does not make any sense.

[Business of Supply, June 1st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned a few examples, but let me give more examples of how this $1 billion could have been used.

It could have been used to increase the post-secondary student support program funding to provide every first nations student who wanted to go to school with the funds to do so. It could have provided a $1,000 grant to 250,000 students for each year of their undergraduate degree. We could have reduced the student loan interest rate down to the government cost of borrowing.

I mentioned some of the other ones. How about forgiving the total student debt for 56,000 Canadian students? There are a lot of things.

On the disability side, the government with much fanfare has put $45 million more into enabling accessibility. It is a program that has been politically butchered by the government. The $45 million over two years to enhance buildings to make them accessible could have been multiplied by 20, 22 or 23 times to make a huge difference in this country.

We have to look at how that money could have been better spent. I think our constituents are demanding that we do that. It is the right thing to do.

[Business of Supply, June 1st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I do not have an exact number. I do not think that anybody knows the exact number, but I certainly take the member's point. Media reports are now estimating that the costs for the G8 and G20 summits could rise to over $1.2 billion. For that reason, the Auditor General has indicated that she is going to look at it.

We have heard over the last number of months about some of the infrastructure projects that have stretched not only from where the meetings are going to take place, but further out for political reasons. These improvements in infrastructure and communities are being done allegedly for the G8 and G20 meetings, but it appears they are being done purely for political reasons, entirely in keeping with how the government does business.

I do not know the exact number, but it is clear that it is over $1 billion. I suspect we will find out after the fact that it is much over $1 billion. I do not think that is something Canadians want to put up with.