Stockwell Day

[Grants And Contributions, February 7th, 2001]

That is not the issue at all, Mr. Speaker. The meeting took place at Sussex Drive. The Prime Minister denied following the meeting that it had anything to do with Mr. Fu, that these investor funds would flow. Yet it is very clear now with the information received that $2.35 million began to flow from the immigrant investors fund alone.

Can the Prime Minister understand that Canadians have a right to ask whether his own involvement with the golf course, and therefore with the hotel, had anything to do with his very serious, intense involvement, and what appears to be financial gain?

[Grants And Contributions, February 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign the Prime Minister was asked whether immigrant investor funds were invested in the Auberge Grand-Mère as a result of his meeting at 24 Sussex Drive with immigrant investor Gordon Fu. The Prime Minister replied, and forgive my language, “He has not invested a damned cent in that”. That was his quote.

We have now obtained documents, which are available today, that show that in fact immigrant investors put $2.35 million into the hotel after the meeting with Mr. Fu. Will the Prime Minister try to explain this serious contradiction?

[Auditor General, February 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, that math is very scary. The Prime Minister says he has reduced spending 20% but the problems have increased. So with less money he is creating more problems.

The auditor general has some simple advice for the government: “Don't waste public money. Do nothing illegal. Act impartially, honestly and fairly”. The auditor general goes on to say that while these principles may seem self-evident, most of us would agree: “don't waste public money. Do nothing illegal. Act honestly”. Yet he goes on to say they are self-evident and not clear enough to have prevented breaches.

Would the minister responsible for HRDC tell us if she thinks these are fairly clear principles? If so, why does she not follow them?

[Auditor General, February 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, that just does not reflect reality. I am quoting the auditor general. He says that the problems are by no means exclusive to one program or to one department. He goes on to say:

It is discouraging to witness new incidents of waste and mismanagement crop up hydra-like after older ones have been discovered—

New and ongoing mismanagement. In the red books that we hear about from time to time there is a promise that the Prime Minister will hold ministers responsible for waste and mismanagement. Which ministers is he holding responsible?

[Auditor General, February 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the auditor general's latest report was tabled just minutes ago in the House. Sir, if you are looking for a good sleep tonight, I would not suggest that you read this book before retiring, retiring for the evening that is.

It says that Canadians are justifiably upset about scandals, about mismanagement and about waste. The auditor general states that things are getting worse and that he shares the frustrations of Canadians.

So do we. This is wasted and lost money that could have gone to health care. It could have gone to helping students with high debt loads. It could have gone to community agencies. It is lost forever.

The Prime Minister promised year after year that he would clean up his act. He has not. This is a mess. Why is it that way and why does he not care?

[Lumber Industry, February 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I also hope it is true because it is the position in the statement of one of his ministers. I would think that it would be true. I am surprised to hear him contradict or question one of his ministers. However, I will ask further.

Softwood lumber is one of the major trade issues and it was recently confirmed at the hearings with the U.S. trade representative. Both the trade representative and President Bush are under enormous pressure to impose countervail duties against Canada when this agreement expires.

Which of the ministers has the responsibility of telling us today the specific steps in place now to deal with countervail measures, or does anyone care?

[Lumber Industry, February 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I hope that is true, and we sincerely support the Prime Minister in his efforts to speak for Canada. We say with sincerity that we hope it goes well.

Let me quote the industry minister, “The renewal of the existing agreement will be part of the mix when we sit down at the table”. That is 100% contrary to the position of industry and labour and it is 100% contrary to the international trade minister's position. Which minister's position will the Prime Minister be representing today?

[Lumber Industry, February 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, in my remaining 10 seconds I would like to reflect on the fact that Canadian lumber exports to the U.S. are worth more than $10 billion annually and account for thousands upon thousands of jobs. On March 31 the softwood lumber agreement will expire and the lumber trade will revert to NAFTA rules.

I understand the Prime Minister will be meeting for 20 to 30 minutes with President Bush before they go for dinner. Does the minister responsible know how many minutes of that half hour will be spent fighting for the Canadian softwood lumber industry?

[Lumber Industry, February 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not mind, and I hope you will not, if I use up some of my valuable seconds to acknowledge the healthy return of my colleague, the member for Calgary Southwest.

[Agriculture, February 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, desire is a wonderful thing but action is what is required here.

Is the Prime Minister aware that farm incomes on average over the last five years have decreased up to 65% for grain farmers and the money sits on the cabinet table when it should be on the kitchen tables of the farmers?

The Prime Minister said he would do something. Will he pick up the phone, talk to the administrator of the program and tell him to get the dollars out, yes or no? Will he also release his negotiators in the area of pulling down subsidies, which are far too high, and the user fees that the government continues to charge on the backs of farmers already faced with low prices? Will the Prime Minister do these things? Will he pick up the phone and get things moving?