36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 44
CONTENTS
Tuesday, February 8, 2000
1000
| PRIVILEGE
|
| Member for Wentworth—Burlington—Speaker's Ruling
|
| The Speaker |
1005
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1010
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| ORGAN DONATION ACT
|
| Bill C-420. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Lou Sekora |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Fisheries and Oceans
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| PETITIONS
|
| Labelling on Alcoholic Beverages
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| Child Poverty
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1015
| Transgenic Foods
|
| Mr. Louis Plamondon |
| Child Poverty
|
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
| Mr. John Solomon |
| Canada Post Corporation
|
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
| Tobacco Act
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| Child Poverty
|
| Mr. John Maloney |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Mr. John Maloney |
| >Canada Pension Plan Act, R 1985, c. C-8;
|
| >Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, R 1985, c. C-17;
|
| >Defense Services Pension Continuation Act, R 1970,
|
| >Diplomatic Service, Special, Superannuation Act, R 1985,
|
| >Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act, R 1985,
|
| >Governor General's Act, R 1985, c. G-9;
|
| >Judges Act, R 1985, c. J-1;
|
| >Lieutenant Governors Superannuation Act, R 1985, c. L-8;
|
| >Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, R 1985,
|
| R, 1985, c. C-31;
|
| >Merchant Seamen Compensation Act, R 1985, c. M-6;
|
| >Old Age Security Act, R 1985, c. O-9;
|
| >Pension Act, R 1985, c. P-6;
|
| >Public Service Superannuation Act, R 1985, c. P-36;
|
| >Royal Canadian Mounted Police Pension Continuation Act, R
|
| >Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, R 1985,
|
| >Special Retirement Arrangements Acts, R 1992, c. 46
|
| >Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act, R 1985, c. S-24;
|
| >War Veterans Allowance Act, R 1985, c. W-3.
|
| >Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, R 1985, c. C-17;
|
| >Defence Services Pension Continuation Act, R 1970,
|
| >Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, R 1985,
|
| >Public Service Superannuation Act, R 1985, c. P-36;
|
| >Royal Canadian Mounted Police Pension Continuation Act, R
|
| >Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, R 1985,
|
| Mr. John Cannis |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
1020
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| SUPPLY
|
| Allotted Day—Human Resources Development
|
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Motion
|
| REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY DEBATE
|
| Gasoline Prices
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
1025
| The Deputy Speaker |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| SUPPLY
|
| Allotted Day—Human Resources Development
|
| Motion
|
| Mr. Preston Manning |
1030
1035
| Mr. John Bryden |
1040
| Mr. John Solomon |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1045
1050
| Amendment
|
1055
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1100
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1105
1110
1115
1120
| Mr. Paul Forseth |
1125
| Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1130
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1135
1140
1145
1150
1155
| Ms. Louise Hardy |
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1200
| Mr. Gérard Asselin |
1205
| Ms. Libby Davies |
1210
1215
| Mr. John Bryden |
| Mr. Paul Forseth |
1220
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1225
1230
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
1235
| Mr. Jean Dubé |
1240
1245
| Mr. Dennis J. Mills |
1250
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1255
1300
1305
| Mr. John Bryden |
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
1310
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1315
1320
| Mr. John Bryden |
1325
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
1330
1335
| Mr. René Canuel |
1340
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
1345
1350
| Mr. John Solomon |
1355
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| ELISABETH GASSER
|
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. John Duncan |
| WHITE CANE WEEK
|
| Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi |
1400
| FATHER GEORGES-HENRI LÉVESQUE
|
| Mr. Clifford Lincoln |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Larry McCormick |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
| FIGURE SKATING
|
| Mr. Bernard Patry |
| ANNE HÉBERT
|
| Mrs. Maud Debien |
1405
| CHURCHILL HEIGHTS
|
| Mr. John Cannis |
| GULF WAR SYNDROME
|
| Mr. Art Hanger |
| QUEBEC ECONOMY
|
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
| MINISTER OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
1410
| THE ECONOMY
|
| Ms. Albina Guarnieri |
| WESTERN ALIENATION
|
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
| ROBERT MUNSCH
|
| Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain |
| FOREST INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. Jim Hart |
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1415
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1420
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| BILL C-20
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
1425
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1430
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
1435
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Ms. Val Meredith |
1440
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
1445
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| ENDANGERED SPECIES
|
| Ms. Aileen Carroll |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
1450
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Jean Dubé |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Jean Dubé |
1455
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Stéphan Tremblay |
1500
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Mr. Pat Martin |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. André Bachand |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
| The Speaker |
1505
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Tabling of documents
|
| Mr. Pat Martin |
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1510
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Mr. Louis Plamondon |
| Ms. Libby Davies |
1515
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1520
| The Speaker |
1525
| PRIVILEGE
|
| Member for Mississauga West
|
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| The Speaker |
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Householders
|
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
| The Speaker |
1530
| PRIVILEGE
|
| Member for Mississauga West
|
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
| The Speaker |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| SUPPLY
|
| Allotted Day—Human Resources Development
|
| Motion
|
| Mr. Ted McWhinney |
1535
1540
| Mr. Keith Martin |
1545
1550
| Mr. Dennis Gruending |
1555
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1600
1605
| Mr. Bob Speller |
1610
| Ms. Louise Hardy |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
1615
1620
1625
1630
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
1635
| Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
| Mr. Jean Dubé |
1640
| Mr. Bob Speller |
| Ms. Val Meredith |
1645
1650
| Mr. Richard M. Harris |
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
1655
| Mr. Paul Forseth |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
1700
1705
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
1710
| Ms. Marlene Catterall |
| Mr. Bob Speller |
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
1715
1745
(Division 663)
| Amendment negatived
|
1750
1755
(Division 664)
| Motion negatived
|
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1800
| SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. John Herron |
| Motion
|
1805
1810
1815
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1820
1825
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1830
1835
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1840
1845
| Mr. John Cannis |
1850
1855
| Mr. John Herron |
1900
| PRIVACY ACT
|
| Mr. Mike Scott |
| Motion
|
1905
1910
1915
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
1920
1925
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1930
1935
| Mr. Jim Jones |
1940
| Mr. John Maloney |
1945
| Mr. Mike Scott |
1950
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| Child Care
|
| Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
1955
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 44
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, February 8, 2000
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
1000
PRIVILEGE
MEMBER FOR WENTWORTH—BURLINGTON—SPEAKER'S RULING
The Speaker: I will now deliver my ruling on the
question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Athabasca
concerning the use of his signature in support of Bill C-206, an
act to amend the Access to Information Act and to make amendments
to other acts, in the name of the hon. member for
Wentworth—Burlington.
The bill was originally introduced during the previous session,
on October 23, 1997, as Bill C-264. The member for
Wentworth—Burlington gathered over 100 signatures in support of
this bill, including the signature of the hon. member for
Athabasca.
On June 11, 1998, by unanimous consent, a different text was
substituted for the original text of Bill C-264. In the second
session this bill was reinstated on October 14, 1999, in the same
form as at prorogation.
In accordance with Standing Order 87(6) the bill, supported by
100 signatures, was placed on the order of precedence.
The complaint of the hon. member for Athabasca arises from the
use made of his signature in helping to have his revised bill
placed on the order of precedence. This support, he maintained,
was limited to Bill C-264 in its original form and the use of his
signature for any other purpose constituted “false
representation to gain unjust advantage”.
1005
[Translation]
The hon. member for Wentworth—Burlington claimed that he never
intended to mislead the House by his use of the list nor did he
feel that its use in support of Bill C-206 was illegitimate.
In his view, the signatures indicated only that the issue at
which the bill was aimed was one deserving of debate. He
further maintained that the revisions to the bill in the
previous session were, for the most part, of a technical nature
and that no one had indicated any difficulty concerning them in
the 19 months since they were placed before the House.
[English]
I point out to all hon. members that the procedure at the heart
of this issue is a relatively new one. Standing Order 87(6) came
into effect on February 1, 1999, as part of a small number of
changes to our standing orders designed to further increase the
opportunities that private members have to present their
initiatives for debate.
The first paragraph of the standing order reads as follows:
At any time after the holding of the first draw in a Session, a
Member may file with the Clerk a list containing the signatures
of one hundred Members, including at least ten Members each from
a majority of the recognized parties in the House, who support a
specific item, sponsored by the Member, eligible to be placed in
the order of precedence.
An item supported in this way is then placed in the order of
precedence provided that the member presenting it does not
already have another item there and that only one such item at
any time may be placed in the order.
As I said, this is a new procedure. The bill presented by the
hon. member for Wentworth—Burlington is only the second to have
been placed in the order of precedence pursuant to this standing
order. There are no previous rulings to which the Speaker can
turn for guidance in such a case, nor were comments made in the
House prior to the adoption of these new standing orders which
might be of assistance.
A member signing such a list does not appear to be seconding the
item, for which we have other procedures, but the exact meaning
of placing a signature on the list is not clear. Does such a
signature represent support for the content of the item, or
simply that the item be given precedence?
[Translation]
If our new procedures to increase the opportunity of members to
present their own initiatives are to be a success, we must
ensure that we proceed on the basis of a common understanding
and agreement as to how the rules governing them are to
function.
While I have my own views on these matters, it is not my role as
Speaker to impose them on the House. There does not, at first
glance, appear to have been any actions carried out other than
in good faith. However, given that important questions have
been raised about how this procedure should work, I feel that it
would be unfair to the House and to the hon. members concerned
to simply turn our backs on this problem.
[English]
I am not disposed to give a final ruling at this time. This, in
my opinion, is an issue which should be considered by the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs so that the
Speaker has guidance about how to proceed both with Bill C-206
and with future cases related to Standing Order 87(6). I would
ask the committee to give its attention to this issue as an
urgent matter.
In order to afford the committee time to examine the questions
raised concerning this matter, I am ordering, pursuant to the
power afforded me by Standing Order 94(1)(a), that Bill C-206 be
dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence. When we have
had the benefit of the committee's advice I will make a further
ruling if it is necessary at that time.
I would like to thank the hon. member for Athabasca, the hon.
member for Wentworth—Burlington, as well as the other members
who contributed to the discussion of this issue which relates to
the fundamental nature of our relations with one another in the
House.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1010
[English]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to five
petitions.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 14th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership
and associate membership of some standing committees.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in
this 14th report later this day.
* * *
ORGAN DONATION ACT
Mr. Lou Sekora (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam,
Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-420, an act to
establish a National Organ Donor Registry and to coordinate and
promote organ donation throughout Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, today I am reintroducing a private
member's bill which I tabled last fall. The purpose of this bill
is to create a national organ donor registry and to co-ordinate
and promote organ donations throughout Canada.
The bill is very important because it would provide the
opportunity to save lives by co-ordinating organ donors and needy
recipients across Canada.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
the House gives its consent, I move that the 14th report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to
the House earlier this day, be concurred in.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for the
hon. parliamentary secretary to present the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
FISHERIES AND OCEANS
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I move that the first report of the
Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, presented on
Wednesday, December 15, 1999, be concurred in, which would allow
the standing committee to travel to the west coast to discuss the
Oceans Act, the aboriginal fisheries strategy and aquaculture
studies.
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the
motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
PETITIONS
LABELLING ON ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have two petitions to present to the House today. The first is
on the subject of health warning labels on the containers of
alcoholic beverages.
The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that the
consumption of alcoholic beverages may cause health problems and
specifically that fetal alcohol syndrome and other alcohol
related birth defects are 100% preventable by avoiding alcohol
consumption during pregnancy.
The petitioners therefore call upon parliament to mandate health
warning labels on the containers of alcoholic beverages to
caution expectant mothers and others of the risks associated with
alcohol consumption.
CHILD POVERTY
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the second petition relates to child poverty.
1015
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that one in five Canadian children live in poverty, that in 1989
the House of Commons resolved to seek to achieve the end of child
poverty in Canada by the year 2000 and, furthermore, that since
1989 the number of poor children in Canada has increased.
The petitioners call upon parliament to seek to include
initiatives in the upcoming federal budget to introduce a
multi-year plan to improve the well-being of Canada's children.
[Translation]
TRANSGENIC FOODS
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to table a petition. The petitioners are
calling on parliament to quickly pass legislation making it
mandatory to label all fully or partially genetically modified
foods.
[English]
CHILD POVERTY
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
too have a petition to file on behalf of my constituents with
respect to child poverty.
The petition says that one in five children live in poverty now
in Canada. Because of the 1989 motion to eradicate child poverty
by the year 2000, it is suggested that parliament use the federal
budget of 2000 to introduce a multi-year plan to improve the
well-being of Canada's children.
The House is also aware that the hon. member for Shefford, a
Progressive Conservative member, has been very active in the
particular role on child poverty. I would love to present the
petition on behalf of my constituents.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I rise to present a
petition on behalf of residents in my riding of
Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre as well as in the communities of
Fort Qu'Appelle, Punnichy, Kamsack and Balcarres. These
residents of Canada are asking the House of Commons to address
the issue of child poverty. One in five Canadian children live
in poverty.
On November 24, 1989, the House of Commons unanimously resolved
to end child poverty in Canada by the year 2000 as a result of a
motion presented by the NDP leader at that time, Ed Broadbent.
The petitioners ask parliament to address the issue of child
poverty as quickly as the Liberal government attempted to address
the issue of helping out millionaire hockey players. They ask
parliament to use the upcoming federal budget to introduce a
multi-year plan to improve the well-being of Canada's children
rather than the Liberal government continuing to support
multimillionaires with tax breaks.
[Translation]
CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we know that
private sector postal carriers in our rural areas are denied the
right to collective bargaining.
By this petition, the petitioners are calling on parliament to
repeal section 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act
specifically so that rural postal carriers would have this
right.
[English]
TOBACCO ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to deposit a petition in support of Bill C-225.
CHILD POVERTY
Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order
36 from residents of my riding echoing some of the petitions
filed here this morning bringing to the attention of the House
that one in five Canadian children are living in poverty and that
in November 1989 parliament unanimously passed a motion to
eliminate child poverty by the year 2000. In fact it has
increased by 60%.
Therefore the petition calls upon parliament to use the federal
budget for the year 2000 to introduce a multi-year plan to
improve the well-being of Canada's children.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
following questions will be answered today: Nos. 15, 17, 20, 39,
44, 53 and 68.
.[Text]
Question No. 15—Mr. Jim Hart:
What were the operational capabilities in the statement of
requirements for the maritime helicopter that will replace the
Sea King in the following areas: (i) radius of action, (ii)
endurance, (iii) flight in icing, (iv) weapons stations,
(v) MAD, (vi) data recording, (vii) EMP/TREE, (viii)
aircraft self-protection suite and (ix) sonobuoy relay?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
The operational capabilities for the maritime helicopter are
being considered as part of the development of the overall
maritime helicopter procurement strategy. The operational
capabilities will be released when details of the overall
maritime helicopter procurement strategy are confirmed.
Question No. 17—Mr. Eric Lowther:
With respect to
spousal benefits in federal legislation: (a) please list the
types of spousal benefits under federal jurisdiction; (b) where
have such benefits been extended to same sex couples; (c) when
were these benefits extended to same sex couples; and (d)
through what means were they extended, i.e. via a court decision
or via legislation put forward by government?
Mr. John Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): (a) The question
asks about spousal benefits in federal legislation. It is
difficult to define such a term as federal legislative treatment
of spousal relationships includes direct economic benefits,
indirect economic benefits, non-economic advantages and
obligations. Listed are the major federal statutes which grant
direct economic benefits. Some statutes which grant direct
economic benefits to dependants may not be reflected in the list.
The majority of the statutes listed set out criteria for
eligibility beyond spousal status. For example, some are
available only to low income couples, others to federal
employees, and yet others provide for garnishment of wages and
pensions in the case of court ordered support.
>CANADA PENSION PLAN ACT, R 1985, C. C-8;
>CANADIAN FORCES SUPERANNUATION ACT, R 1985, C. C-17;
>DEFENSE SERVICES PENSION CONTINUATION ACT, R 1970,
C. D-3;
>DIPLOMATIC SERVICE, SPECIAL, SUPERANNUATION ACT, R 1985,
C. D-2;
Employment Insurance Act, S.C. 1996, c. 23;
>GARNISHMENT, ATTACHMENT AND PENSION DIVERSION ACT, R 1985,
C. G-2;
>GOVERNOR GENERAL'S ACT, R 1985, C. G-9;
>JUDGES ACT, R 1985, C. J-1;
>LIEUTENANT GOVERNORS SUPERANNUATION ACT, R 1985, C. L-8;
>MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT RETIRING ALLOWANCES ACT, R 1985,
C. M-5;
Merchant Navy Veteran and Civilian War-related Benefits Act,
R, 1985, C. C-31;
>MERCHANT SEAMEN COMPENSATION ACT, R 1985, C. M-6;
>OLD AGE SECURITY ACT, R 1985, C. O-9;
>PENSION ACT, R 1985, C. P-6;
Pension Benefits Division Act, S.C. 1992, c. 46 Sch. II;
>PUBLIC SERVICE SUPERANNUATION ACT, R 1985, C. P-36;
>ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE PENSION CONTINUATION ACT, R
1970, C. R-10;
>ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE SUPERANNUATION ACT, R 1985,
C. R-11;
>SPECIAL RETIREMENT ARRANGEMENTS ACTS, R 1992, C. 46
SCH. I;
>SUPPLEMENTARY RETIREMENT BENEFITS ACT, R 1985, C. S-24;
AND
>WAR VETERANS ALLOWANCE ACT, R 1985, C. W-3.
Some federal statutes such as the Income Tax Act involve
a mixture of potential benefits and obligations depending on
individual circumstance.
(b) Spousal benefits in federal legislation have been extended
to same sex couples only in respect to employment-related
pensions for federal public servants in Bill C-78, an act to
establish the Public Sector Pension Investment Board, to amend
the Public Service Superannuation Act, the Canadian Forces
Superannuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act,
the Defence Services Pension Continuation Act, the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police Pension Continuation Act, the Members of Parliament
Retiring Allowances Act and the Canada Post Corporation Act and
to make a consequential amendment to another act, which amended
the following six statutes:
>CANADIAN FORCES SUPERANNUATION ACT, R 1985, C. C-17;
>DEFENCE SERVICES PENSION CONTINUATION ACT, R 1970,
C. D-3;
>MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT RETIRING ALLOWANCES ACT, R 1985,
C. M-5;
>PUBLIC SERVICE SUPERANNUATION ACT, R 1985, C. P-36;
>ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE PENSION CONTINUATION ACT, R
1970, C. R-10; AND
>ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE SUPERANNUATION ACT, R 1985,
C. R-11.
(c) Bill C-78 received royal assent on September 14, 1999.
Other employment-related benefits were extended to federal
public service employees by the treasury board with regard to
their same sex partners under employment agreements in November
1995 for bereavement leave, family related responsibility leave
and relocation leave and in July 1996 for medical and dental
plans.
(d) As mention in (b), the changes to the federal public
service pension plans were introduced through legislation, Bill
C-78. However a series of recent court and tribunal decisions
have found generally that there must be equal treatment of
opposite-sex common law couples and same sex couples in most
instances. The government continues to believe that policy and
legislative changes should be made by parliament, but that it is
reasonable to seek the guidance of the courts on difficult legal
issues.
The major court and tribunal decisions include: The provision of
the Income Tax Act which allows employers to register pension
plans was ruled contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms in the Rosenberg decision, as it did not allow
registation of pension plans where employers chose to offer
survivor benefits to same sex partners of employees, Ontario Court of
Appeal, 1998. The decision of the Federal Court, Trial Division
in Moore and Akerstrom affirmed the decision of the Human Rights
Tribunal that the federal government must grant the same
employment benefits under collective agreements to same sex
couples as those offered to common law spouses of public service
employees, 1998. In May of 1999, two challenges before the
Pension Appeals Board to the survivor benefit provisions of the
Canada Pension Plan were conceded, Hodder and Boulais, and a
similar case was conceded before the Federal Court of Appeal in
September, Fisk, resulting in a payment of survivor benefits to
the three individuals involved. In November 1999, the Government
of Canada settled a number of cases, including White, which
involved the challenge to the voluntary quit provisions of the
Employment Insurance Act. There are a number of arbitral
decisions and decisions under provincial jurisdiction which have
also awarded benefits to same sex couples, including the recent
decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in M. v H., (May 1999).
There are many pending court cases in this area.
Question No. 20—Mr. Bill Blaikie:
With reference to the SSHRCC and its predecessor agency, the
Canada Council: (a) what funds were granted for research on
editorial projects for (i) work on men writers/scholars and
(ii) work on women writers/scholars; (b) what are the amounts
of these research grants in constant dollars for the five largest
projects by men writers/scholars and women writers/scholars,
respectively, (c) what applications for research on editorial
projects to produce the work on a writer/scholar have been
rejected in the last five years for each category and, in each
case, what was the name of the writer/scholar, the year and the
amount of the grant requested that was rejected?
Mr. John Cannis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): It is not possible for the Social Sciences and
Humanities Research Council to respond to this question because
the category editorial project is not a separately coded
category. Nor is it necessarily supplied by the researchers in
the list of key words they give for their projects. The current
corporate storage and retrieval system thus cannot provide a
reliable and comprehensive report of the funds granted under the
category editorial projects. It should be noted that the council
awards its grants through a highly selective competitive process
which considers the research, intellectual and social
significance as well as the overall excellence of the projects
submitted.
Question No. 39—Mr. Ted White:
With respect to the RCMP ownership of at least one 0.50 calibre
Browning M2 machine gun, and the ability of the RCMP to access a
number of other 0.50 calibre Browning machine guns as dictated by
operational requirements at various locations across Canada:
(a) what are the circumstances under which such weapons might
be used by the RCMP; and (b) would the RCMP in such
circumstances be fulfilling a role which would normally be carried
out by the military?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.):
With respect to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, (RCMP),
ownership of a 0.50 calibre Browning M2 machine gun, the
deployment of such weapons is as follows:
(a) It is conceivable that under certain operational conditions
the necessity to deploy weapons of this calibre will be a
requirement. Currently the 0.50 calibre machine gun capability of
the RCMP is restricted to the armoured public and police safety
vehicle program and could be deployed when there is a requirement
for the protection provided by such vehicles. Because of the
capability of this system very careful consideration will be given
to every request for deployment. It is conceivable that
additional restrictions could be imposed prior to authorization
being granted to deploy the entire system.
(b) With respect to the role of the military in Canada the RCMP
cannot comment, except to say that under the National Defence
Act, the Canadian forces could be requested to provide assistance
if the situation is beyond the capability of the police. A
situation such as a natural disaster might elicit a request for
military assistance.
The RCMP is dedicated to the safety and protection of the
Canadian public.
Question No. 44—Mr. Gerald Keddy:
With respect to the lobster and fishing licences purchased by
the government for first nations in Atlantic Canada: (a) how
many licences were purchased, and of these (i) how many were
inshore licences; (ii) how many were offshore licences; (b)
what species are covered by these licences; and (c) what bands
have been given these licences?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): (a) Licences retired: 240.
(a) (i) 240 are inshore; (ii) zero are offshore.
(b) and (c) 222 have been issued to first nations; 18 are being
retained and will be issued under future agreements with first
nations.
First Nation—Species
Annapolis Valley (2)—Herring, Scallop
Chapel Island (4)—Bluefin Tuna, Lobster, Mackerel, Squid
Eskasoni (6)—Bluefin Tuna, Groundfish, Herring, Lobster,
Mackerel (2)
Fort Folly (2)—Groundfish, Lobster
Horton (4)—Groundfish, Lobster (2), Mackerel
Kingsclear (5)—Groundfish, Herring, Lobster, Scallop, Sea
Urchin
Membertou (5)—Bluefin Tuna, Groundfish, Lobster, Mackerel,
Scallop
Millbrook (10)—Bluefin Tuna, Groundfish (2), Herring, Lobster (2)
Mackerel (2), Snow Crab, Swordfish
Native Council of Nova Scotia (13)—Lobster (3), Scallop, Hering
(2), Mackerel (2), Groundfish (2), Swordfish, Bluefin Tuna,
Gaspereau
Saint Mary's (2)—Lobster (2)
Wagmatcook (6)—Groundfish, Lobster (2), Mackerel (2),
Swordfish
Waycobah (3)—Lobster, Mackerel, Swordfish
Woodstock (3)—Herring, Lobster, Scallop
Abegweit (13)—Groundfish, Herring (2), Lobster (3), Mackerel
(2), Scallop, Squid, Clam, Swordfish, Oyster
Big cove (27)—Eel (3), Herring (6), Mackerel, Lobster (16),
Smelts
Buctouche (7)—Herring (2), Lobster (2), Mackerel, Scallop,
Smelts
Burnt Church (25)—Herring (5), Lobster (13), Mackerel (4),
Oysters (3)
Eel Ground (7)—Herring Lobster, Mackerel, Eel, Oysters,
Gaspereau, Clams
Eel River Bar (7)—Herring, Lobster (4), Mackerel, Smelts
Indian Island (9)—Groundfish, Herring, Lobster (5), Scallop,
Gaspereau
Lennox Island (20)—Herring, Lobster (5), Mackerel (5), Squid,
Oyster (4), Clams (2), Mussels (2)
Listuguj (3)—Rock Crab, Lobster (2)
Native Council of PEI (21)—Lobster (2), Swordfish, Squid, Clam,
Scallop, Groundfish, Eels, Mackerel, Oyster (12)
New Brunswick Aboriginal Peoples Council (4)—Lobster (2),
Herring, Mackerel
Pabineau (3)—Herring, Mackerel, Lobster
Pictou Landing (4)—Herring (2), Lobster (2)
Red Bank (2)—Gaspereau, Lobster
Tobique (5)—Groundfish, Herring (2), Lobster, Scallop
Question No. 53—Mr. Svend J. Robinson:
How many Kosovar refugees came to Canada since March 1999 and
how many have since returned back to Kosovo?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Since March 1999, 5,051 Kosovar refugees arrived under
the emergency humanitarian evacuation and 2,192 Kosovar refugees
arrived under the family reunification program for a total of
7,243.
1,735 Kosovar refugees have returned to Kosovo including 9
newborns who are not part of the above numbers.
Question No. 68—Mr. Leon E. Benoit:
With regard to the groups consulted by the Standing Committee on
Citizenship and Immigration in the first session of this
parliament during the period from February 27, 1998, through to
March 11, 1998: (a) which of the groups received government
issued grants and/or subsidies; (b) what was the total grant or
subsidy; (c) what was the reason for the grant or the subsidy;
and (d) which government department issued the grant or
subsidy?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): No group was consulted by the Standing Committee on
Citizenship and Immigration during the period of February 27,
1998, through to March 11, 1998.
* * *
[English]
QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
Questions Nos. 1, 21, 27 and 30 could be made orders for return,
these returns would be tabled immediately.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
.[Text]
Question No. 1—Mr. Mike Scott:
Could the government provide a list of all Chiefs in Canada and
the amount of their salaries for the following fiscal years:
(a) 1994; (b) 1995; (c) 1996; and (d) 1997?
Return tabled.
Question No. 21—Mr. Jim Pankiw:
With respect to cancer and cancer research in Canada, what has
the government determined to be: (a) the incidence and
fatality rates for breast cancer within the female population
expressed as a percentage of all Canadian women; (b) the
incidence and fatality rates for prostate cancer within the male
population expressed as a percentage of all Canadian men; (c)
the total amount of federal tax dollars put towards breast cancer
research in the last five recorded fiscal years; and (d) the
total amount of federal tax dollars put towards prostate cancer
research in the last five recorded fiscal years?
Return tabled.
Question No. 27—Mr. Peter MacKay:
With respect to Mr. Ole Ingstrup, Commissioner of the
Corrections Service Canada, will the government provide a
detailed breakdown of Mr. Ingstrup's business related travel
expenses?
Return tabled.
Question No. 30—Mr. John Reynolds:
With regard to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation
(CMHC) and the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program:
(a) how many CMHC offices administer the program across
Canada, and in what locations; (b) how many grants were
distributed by each office and in what amounts for each of the
years 1995 through 1998; (c) what was the average amount of
the grants, in dollars, awarded for each of the same years;
(d) how many applications did each office receive for each of
these years and how many of these applications received grants;
and (e) what is the current waiting list or backlog of
applications for each office administering these grants?
Return tabled.
[English]
Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
1020
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
A few minutes ago, the member for Sackville—Musquodoboit
Valley—Eastern Shore sought the unanimous consent of this House
to have the first report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries
and Oceans adopted.
I would just like to draw to your attention, since you seem not
to have heard him, that my colleague from Charlevoix clearly
indicated that he was not in agreement with the adoption of this
report.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Sackville—Musquodoboit
Valley—Eastern Shore did not seek the unanimous consent of this
House to present this motion. He proposed it. It is a motion
contained on the notice paper, of which he has already given the
House notice.
The motion was proposed and I asked if any members wanted to
use their right to take part in a debate. No one stood up and
so I put the matter to a vote and the motion was agreed to
unanimously.
If someone did say no, I did not hear it, I am sorry to say.
However, the motion in question was not a matter of unanimous
consent.
Mr. Gérard Asselin: Mr. Speaker, as a daily occurrence in this
House, when the parliamentary secretary to the government House
leader wants to table documents, he asks for unanimous consent
of the House to do so.
You did indeed ask for it, because our colleague asked for it
through you. As the Speaker, you asked “Does the parliamentary
secretary have unanimous consent?” I said no, Mr. Speaker.
An hon. member: I am a witness to that.
Mr. Gérard Asselin: Then it must not be tabled, as there was no
consent—
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The point raised by the hon.
member is right but not exactly.
The parliamentary secretary did not ask for the unanimous
consent of the House to table documents. He is entitled to do
so. He asked for the unanimous consent of the House to table a
motion for the adoption of a committee report because he did
not give notice of motion on this point. It was refused so he
could not present that motion. That is the end of it.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, I have indeed understood—and
your explanations were very useful but unnecessary—that
this motion was on the Notice Paper. I did indeed understand
that you asked whether members wanted to speak to the question.
I indeed understood that you put the motion to a vote and that
there was, apparently, from what you heard, unanimous consent.
I simply want to draw to your attention the fact that there was
not unanimous consent, since my colleague from Charlevoix said
no.
So I am asking to have today's Hansard record that there was not
unanimous consent and that the report was adopted on division.
The Deputy Speaker: That is certainly possible. I will tell the
clerk that is to be done. Everyone will no doubt agree.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.)
moved:
That this House express its concern over the gross mismanagement
of more than one billion annually in grants and contributions
from the Department of Human Resources Development, its support
for the doctrine of ministerial responsibility, and its lack of
confidence in the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Mr. David Chatters: Mr. Speaker, I
would like to inform the House that all the Reform speakers will
be splitting their time today on this motion.
* * *
REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY DEBATE
GASOLINE PRICES
The Deputy Speaker: The House has received notice of a
request for an emergency debate. It was not on my list and the
Chair apologizes to the House.
[Translation]
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I hereby request, under Standing Order 52, on behalf of
Canadians, that the House now adjourn in order to hold an
emergency debate on the dizzying increase in the price of
gasoline at the pump, of diesel and of heating oil in Canada.
The consumer has few if any ways to act.
1025
My request is intended to remedy this by giving the Government
of Canada the opportunity to take concrete action to bring costs
to some reasonable level in the short term or for a temporary
period.
I thank you, on behalf of the people of Canada, for
considering my request and giving all members of this House the
opportunity to intervene in this debate.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to have to inform the hon.
member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik that, at this point, his
motion does not meet the requirements of our standing orders.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to question
the ruling you just made regarding the request for an emergency
debate, but I have read Standing Order 52 and, given the
extremely high cost of gasoline and its very significant impact
on all Quebecers and Canadians, I absolutely cannot understand
why, at this point, you would refuse to hold an emergency
debate, in light of the importance of this issue from an
economic point of view.
If you were to decide—
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for
Berthier—Montcalm is quite knowledgeable and knows the rules of
the House very well. He knows that following a ruling from the
Chair there is no opportunity for members to ask questions
about or to question that ruling.
[English]
The Chair has made a ruling in the case of this motion for an
emergency debate. At this time the Chair has ruled it does not
meet the requirements of the standing order.
Hon. members are free to try again tomorrow or the next day or
the next. It is possible that circumstances will change and the
Chair will make a different decision on a different day, but at
this time the Chair has made a decision, the matter has been
decided, and despite enthusiasm members are free to arrange a
debate on their own if they wish to do so.
[Translation]
As we all know, we often make arrangements to have such debates
take place during the evening. The Chair is certainly always
available to hold such a debate in the House. It may be that
this evening, with the unanimous consent of the House, we could
have such a debate.
Therefore, this is not a point of order, as the ruling has
already been made. I hope everyone will accept that ruling from
the Chair.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. This is not to suggest what your decision might be,
because you make the decisions and we appreciate and
respect that, but energy is the underpinning of our economy.
Everything we do depends upon the price of energy. Right now the
price of gasoline is about 10% higher than it was when the price
of oil was 25% higher.
The Deputy Speaker: I know the hon. member could go on at
length about the price of oil. We know that energy is important
for the House as well. I can see that the House is bubbling with
energy to get on with the debate on the motion of the hon. Leader
of the Opposition, and I respectfully suggest this is where we
should go.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I will be splitting my time this morning with my
colleague, the hon. member for Calgary—Nose Hill.
1030
Our subject will be the supply motion which deplores the
mismanagement of taxpayers' dollars by the Department of Human
Resources Development and expresses our total lack of confidence
in the minister. If the motion is carried by the House, the
minister would be obliged to resign.
In the course of the debate, my colleagues and others will be
laying before the House the evidence that taxpayers' funds have
been grossly mismanaged by the minister. In my remarks, however,
I want to address violations of the principle of ministerial
accountability by the Minister of Human Resources Development,
violations which in themselves should oblige the resignation of
the minister.
There are many definitions of the principle of ministerial
accountability but one of the latest and best is contained in
Erskine May's treatise on the law of privileges, proceedings and
usages of parliament, the 22nd edition, 1997. It reads as
follows:
...the following principles should govern the conduct of
ministers of the Crown in relation to Parliament: ministers have
a duty to parliament to account, and to be held to account, for
the policies, decisions and actions of their departments and Next
Step Agencies; it is of paramount importance that ministers give
accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any
inadvertent error at the earliest possible opportunity. Ministers
who knowingly mislead Parliament will be expected to offer their
resignation to the Prime Minister;
As hon. members know, the handling of money through the
transitional jobs fund has been suspect for years. Numerous
questions have been asked concerning its administration,
particularly respecting funds allocated to the Prime Minister's
riding during the last session of the House.
As late as December of last year, inside and outside the House,
the minister repeatedly denied that there were any problems
worthy of concern. The appropriate approval processes were being
followed. No moneys flowed until the approval process was
completed. Nothing inappropriate was done. On and on she went
denying any mismanagement and constantly affirming that all was
well.
Now we discover that while the minister was making these very
statements to the House, she had on her desk a departmental audit
covering some 459 project files which revealed the following:
72% of the projects reviewed had no cashflow forecast; 46% had no
estimate of the number of participants; 25% had no description of
the activities to be supported; 25% provided no description of
the characteristics of the participants; 11% did not even have a
budget proposal; 11% had no description of expected results; 15%
did not have an application on file from the sponsor; 8 out 10
files reviewed did not show evidence of financial monitoring; 87%
of project files reviewed showed no evidence of supervision; and
97% of the files reviewed showed no evidence that anyone had
checked to see if the recipient already owed money to the
government.
This is overwhelming evidence of gross mismanagement of
taxpayers' money. However, the fact that the minister knew these
things and continually repeated and reassured the House that all
was well, is an obvious violation of the minister's obligation to
give accurate and truthful information to parliament. Because
the minister has repeatedly violated this principle, the House
should express its lack of confidence in the minister by passing
the motion and she should resign.
In enforcing the principle of ministerial accountability, it is
imperative that the House dig deeper into the root causes of
ministerial accountability for funds spent by the human resources
ministry. Here the trail leads right back to the Prime Minister
himself and the use or misuse of the transitional jobs fund.
Prior to becoming Prime Minister, the current Prime Minister
said in 1991:
When we form government, every minister in the cabinet...will
have to take full responsibility for what is going on in his
department. If there is any bungling in the department, ...the
minister will have to take responsibility.
This was a statement of ministerial accountability by the Prime
Minister but it has never been put into practice. The Prime
Minister's ability to put it into practice has been compromised
by his own conduct with respect to the use of the transitional
jobs fund in his own riding.
1035
When a transitional jobs fund grant was put into a trust fund to
help a failing company in the Prime Minister's riding and someone
eventually got $1.19 million from the suspect trust fund, which
later proved to be illegal; when that someone was Claude Gauthier
who had already purchased land from the Prime Minister's golf
course and donated $10,000 to the Prime Minister's election
campaign; when the business then being run by Gauthier got the
money and laid off all but 62 of the original 115 employees for a
net job loss of 53 jobs, all this done in the name of job
creation; when Mr. Gauthier had already received a $6 million
CIDA government contract; when another $11,000 got into the hands
of René Fugère, a man who was under RCMP investigation for doing
illegal lobbying for three other companies; when, in a memo to a
department official, one of the human resources minister's staff
instructed that the dollar amounts given to the two hotels in the
Prime Minister's riding had to be artificially inflated to “keep
the same amounts suggested by the Prime Minister during
discussions with the promoters”.
When all these things happened with human resources funds in the
Prime Minister's riding, and the Prime Minister excuses these
things and refuses to accept any responsibility, what message
does this send to other ministers, the civil service and the
public at large?
If the Prime Minister can play fast and loose with taxpayers'
money, allocated under inadequate financial guidelines for job
creation, what is to stop other ministers or MPs from doing the
same thing? What is to stop high and lower level bureaucrats
from assuming that this type of conduct and handling of federal
funds is perfectly acceptable behaviour?
Once that happens, when there is no example of financial
accountability, responsibility or integrity at the top, the fish
rots from the head down. Now the little scandal in Shawinigan
has mushroomed into a billion dollar boondoggle at human
resources.
The Prime Minister refuses to enforce the principle of
ministerial accountability in the case of the human resources
development minister. Why? Because he lacks the moral authority
to do so.
It is therefore the duty of the House to enforce ministerial
accountability in this case. It can do so by simply supporting
the motion that is before us.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I find it extremely ironic that the Leader of the Reform
Party should be calling for transparency in the government, when
his party just today and yesterday blocked a private member's
bill that would open the access to information bill and enable
members on all sides of the House to access all kinds of
information.
I wish to draw to the attention of the member who just spoke
that the government House leader of the Reform Party attacked my
private member's Bill C-206 based on false information.
Yesterday, the member for Fraser Valley said that the reason my
revised bill should be blocked was that it unfortunately excluded
polling information on the national unity file.
I will read to the member who just spoke what the bill actually
says. It says that a head of a government institution may refuse
to disclose any record requested under this act that contains
advice or a recommendation developed by or—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The Chair is
reluctant to intervene without being provoked or pushed. I am
feeling a little bit of provocation because I think the member
for Wentworth—Burlington knows the rule, which is that a
question or comment must be relevant to the speech of the member
who spoke. I must say I am having trouble understanding how the
Leader of the Opposition got into a discussion on the hon.
member's private member's bill. I hope his question or comment
will become correctly relevant to the Leader of the Opposition's
speech.
Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to say that
clause 21(1) says that opinion polls will be available under my
revised Access to Information Act.
My point is simply that when an opposition party calls for
transparency on the part of the government, which the member just
did, surely it should not try to block private members'
initiatives that bring out that very transparency.
1040
Why on the one hand is the member calling for transparency on
the part of the government and on the other blocking a private
member's bill that would bring transparency to government?
Mr. Preston Manning: Mr. Speaker, the member's comments
illustrate what is wrong with the government. The member does
not want to talk about the issue at hand. The government does
not want to talk about the issue at hand. The minister does not
want to talk about it. The issue has nothing to do with the
member's private member's bill.
The issue has everything to do with the mismanagement of a
billion dollars of taxpayers' money and the fact that the
minister stood in the House and said that all was well when an
audit was sitting on her desk saying that all was not well. That
is the issue being discussed here and not the subject being
raised by the hon. member.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, Canadians want their government to be accountable and
responsible, if nothing else. In this particular situation, with
the HRDC grants, we see a government that is not responsible and,
it appears, will not be accountable either.
This is an important issue and one which the leader of the
opposition and the Reform Party have undertaken to bell the cat,
so to speak.
Would the Leader of the Opposition give us his views on the
Minister for International Trade, who was brought from Quebec by
the Prime Minister as the person who would save Canada, the
éminence grise who was going to do all the wonderful things to
back up the Liberal Party and make our country united, the man
who was put in charge of the department, and who has, in my view
and I think in the view of all Canadians, been a royal American
disaster?
Can the Leader of the Opposition tell us whether we should have
both the Minister for International Trade and the Minister of
Human Resources Development resign or just the Minister for
International Trade? Also, would he support an investigation by
a parliamentary committee or the RCMP into this terrible waste of
taxpayers' money?
Mr. Preston Manning: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon.
member that the responsibility for this boondoggle does not stop
with the current minister. It does go back to the previous
minister of human resources. I would argue that it even goes
back to the minister for human resources before that, who is now
the foreign affairs minister but who was there when the
government set in place this type of program.
I would be quite in favour of those ministers being held
accountable for this.
In terms of an investigation, the current minister should resign
immediately. I would like to see the auditor general take a full
look at this. There are other investigations that could be
conducted and then further accountability both at the ministerial
and the bureaucrat level be determined and appropriate
disciplinary actions taken at those levels as well.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this is an important debate for Canadians because it
involves their money. This is not government money. This is the
money of Canadians and we must never forget that because
Canadians work hard for the dollars they trust us with and in
this case they have been sadly let down.
In the final analysis, we in the opposition can do our very best
in the most competent, able manner we know to hold the government
to account but in a democracy the people do rule. The people, in
the final analysis, will have to decide what messages they will
send to their elected representatives, what pressure they intend
to put on the government and what they intend to do in giving
their support to the people they want to entrust with their
money.
We know how effective people can be. We saw this recently when
the government made an extremely ill-advised effort to give $20
million to professional hockey clubs. The public outrage was so
strong that the government immediately backed down.
I would say to Canadians watching this debate that they need to
make a judgment about what they will do, what they will say and
what their attitude will be toward this situation.
The Liberals are saying that the opposition is exaggerating. Let
me read from the audit report that was produced by the
government. It is entitled “Program Integrity/Grants and
Contributions”. The first part is a misnomer, I would say. The
report is dated January 2000. I will read from page 7.
I urge Canadians to get their hands on it and read it for
themselves because I do not have time to read a lot of it.
1045
Of the 459 project files reviewed, 15% did not contain an
application. This is not the opposition making an exaggerated
statement; this is the government's own audit.
Of the remaining applications, the following elements were
missing: 72% were missing cash flow forecasts; 46% were missing
the anticipated number of participants; 25% were missing a
description of the activities to be supported; 25% were missing
the characteristics of participants or the audience; 11% were
missing a budget proposal; 11% were missing a description of
expected results. There was no documentation on internal or
external consultations in 70% of the project files reviewed.
Two-thirds of the files reviewed did not contain an analysis or
rationale for recommending or accepting the project. In 97% of
the files reviewed, there was no evidence on file that sponsors
had been checked for outstanding debts to HRDC prior to project
acceptance. In 100% of the files there were no documented
attempts made to identify debts outside of HRDC.
This is not an exaggeration by the opposition. This is the
government's own document giving these horrendous numbers,
proving government ineptitude and negligence of massive
proportions in the handling of public money.
The Prime Minister is trying to say that only 37 projects are a
problem. He said that 37 projects have some problems
representing $30 million. Let me talk about the facts. The fact
is that this audit was a representative sample of all the
projects that spend $1 billion every year of taxpayers' and
public money. If this is a representative sample, then it is not
37 projects that had some problems; it is projected upward to
cover all the projects that were studied.
From the audit, the numbers show that in 100% of the cases there
were no background checks done on what kind of money these people
might have owed to the government. There are some other
disturbing numbers too. In 87% of the cases there was no
overseeing or supervision of how the money was spent. In 80% of
the cases there was no financial checking. These numbers are so
massive they cannot be exaggerated. One cannot exaggerate 100%.
Canadians need to know that the government not only is not
acknowledging the scope of the problem, it is actually misleading
them by trying to minimize it, by trying to bring those numbers
down.
The minister has said she brought this forward because she
wanted to be transparent. Let us look at the facts. The audit
was done last summer. It is inconceivable that numbers like
this, numbers in the 80%, 90% and 100% range, would not have rung
alarm bells through the department right up to the minister's
desk and the Prime Minister's office.
If that was not the case then clearly the government is not in
charge. It does not know what is going on. It is in the dark.
It really is not in charge of our affairs because it does not
know of massive problems. That is inconceivable. That is
unbelievable. That explanation insults the intelligence of
Canadians.
The elected people who are in charge of these affairs did know
and they chose to hide that in the House. Here are some quotes
from the House.
After he was elected, the Prime Minister said on June 16, 1994,
“There can be no substitute for responsibility at the top. I
vow to you, to this House, to Canadians, that I will never
abdicate that responsibility. I will never pass the buck”.
What did he do?
This is what he is saying when these scandalous numbers come out,
“I didn't know”.
1050
Then the former minister who is now the Minister for
International Trade said on October 9, 1997 when there were
allegations that there was an exchange of grants for
contributions to the Liberal Party, “They have been approved by
the department and are based on merit all the time, so much so
that after I called the police in I asked my deputy minister, Mel
Cappe, to review the whole process in which my department was
proceeding”. This was in 1997. We were assured that everything
was under review and everything was under control, no problem.
Then the present minister on November 4, 1999 said, “Mr.
Speaker, let us be clear here. The appropriate approval process
was undertaken in this regard. The department did the due
diligence on the opportunities. The stakeholders reviewed the
information and recommended investment. No moneys flowed until
the approval process was complete”. This is when the government
knew there were massive problems that could not even be
exaggerated if one wanted to because the numbers are so bad.
We have to tell Canadians the truth about this matter. We need
to do it clearly and they have to have the facts. I would say to
Canadians listening to this that they need to make a judgment
based on the facts. The facts are in the audit. The facts are as
I have quoted. The facts were covered up.
My party requested this audit on January 17 when we found out
about it and guess what happened two days later. The minister
stepped forward two days later and said, “Because I want to be
transparent, I am releasing this audit that was done last summer
that I have known about for months because I am so honest and
transparent”. She was hiding the fact that she knew very well
that the truth was going to come out because we were going to get
the facts and we were going to make them public if she did not.
This is unacceptable. Canadians have a right to expect that
their money is going to be properly managed. They have a right
to expect that there will be no hiding of the truth, no
minimizing of the truth, that the government will step forward,
be candid with them, have full disclosure and deal with the
problem in an appropriate manner. That is not happening.
Canadians should be watching this debate. They should get the
facts and they should make a judgment about the competence and
trustworthiness of this government in managing their money,
Canadians' money, and that is the fact we must never forget.
I move:
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary—Nose
Hill has proposed an amendment which would be in order but it has
been seconded by the seconder of the original motion and
therefore is not receivable.
The hon. member for Edmonton North is pleased to second the
motion. Then I will put the motion to the House.
The question is on the amendment. Questions and comments.
1055
[Translation]
Mr. Gérard Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a
question, through you, of my colleague from the Reform Party who
has just spoken.
It is too easy for the former Minister of Human Resources
Development, the member for Papineau—Saint-Denis, to hide behind
the present Minister of Human Resources Development. I believe
the one billion dollars lost in the departmental boondoggle,
money belonging to the workers and to the unemployed who also
made contributions, is too much.
Yesterday, during oral question period, many members of all
opposition parties called for the minister to resign.
It is my personal conviction that the Prime Minister will
continue to refuse the resignation of the present minister
because he knows the responsibility is not all hers, that the
former Minister of Human Resources Development, the member for
Papineau—Saint-Denis, is also responsible.
The Prime Minister will not be able to call for the two of them
to resign either because, as we saw on television, he
trivialized the matter, saying that it was nothing serious, an
administrative error, something that happens fairly often. He
treated it as if it were just a few crumbs under the table.
Would my colleague agree to acknowledge that the primary
responsibility lies with the former Minister of Human Resources
Development, now the Minister of International Trade, and that
the present Minister of Human Resources Development inherited
this mess? Unfortunately, she too has a duty to resign, because
she misinformed the House.
The two of them must resign.
[English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, it is an accurate
observation that the former minister also bears responsibility.
This shocking mismanagement happened on his watch as well. Just
a year ago, on February 4, he said in the House in response to
one of my questions: “Mr. Speaker, I want things to be very
very clear. Officials from my department reviewed these project
applications as they do with much diligence. They review all
projects the same way. They recommended them for approval after
they met all standard eligibility criteria”.
Clearly this was not the case. The former minister knew or
ought to have known this, misled the House and also handed over
this huge mess to his successor. His successor unfortunately had
the same course of dealings, denying the problem, covering up the
problem, refusing to be candid when questions were asked in the
House and letting the mess continue until the whistle was blown
by the opposition.
Clearly there have been two inept ministers appointed by this
Prime Minister. They have been in charge of the largest spending
department of this government. This department spends $60
billion of our money every year. A billion dollars is a thousand
million dollars. These are huge amounts of money. We have a
right to expect competence, believability and trustworthiness in
the ministers the Prime Minister puts forward. He has failed us
on every count. They have failed us and they must be held to
account for that.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I commend the member for Calgary—Nose Hill. She
has done a tremendous job in bringing forward much of the
information that enlightens Canadians on the style this
government has undertaken.
My question very much flows from the question posed by the
previous member. Throughout this scandal we have seen that
efforts have been made almost to point the finger at the past. It
is almost unprecedented that a minister of the crown blames her
predecessor. I would suggest and I would like the hon. member's
response as to whether this is very much systemic. This goes far
beyond one minister of the crown or even the previous minister. I
would suggest this goes back almost to the very beginning of this
administration.
There is an old maritime expression that the fish stinks from
the head. I would suggest there are a lot of maggoty fish in the
barrel. Does the hon. member agree this is a systemic problem
that should be investigated in a much broader fashion? We have
37 projects of 459 projects of 30,000 in one year. I suggest it
is much more widespread than the current minister would have us
believe.
1100
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, clearly this is just
the tip of the iceberg. When we have in a government a culture
of gross mismanagement which is ignored, which is then covered
up, which is then denied and minimized, then there is something
very wrong in the whole administration of the government. This
cannot be an isolated case because the Prime Minister himself is
defending this course of inaction and negligence.
I believe that if Canadians knew all the truth and had full
disclosure about how grants and contributions have been
mismanaged by the government and how the departments across the
board have been mismanaged, there would be a huge outpouring of
outrage. We need to get to the bottom of this. There has to be
independent audits and examinations now of how the government
administers our affairs because the questions have been raised
and the signals that the government is not doing a good job for
us are too strong to ignore any longer.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Because of the member's excessive knowledge on this topic and the
interest being shown, and I noticed the member for Durham had a
question he would like to ask, I wonder if you would seek
unanimous that the question and answer period be extended by five
minutes?
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed to extend questions and
comments by five minutes?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I want to spend some time talking to the Canadian people about
some of the facts because I have some information they might be
interested in. Members opposite will of course have their fun
heckling.
The first fact was used by the member for Calgary—Nose Hill
when she recently said that “the government ordered the audit”.
That is interesting; the government ordered the audit.
I serve as vice-chair of the public accounts committee which is
chaired by a member of the opposition. The public accounts
committee hears from the auditor all the time. Every week he and
his staff come in. They talk to us about areas they have audited
which were not ordered by the government for which the agenda was
set either by the public accounts committee or by the auditor
himself. The important thing to establish is that the auditor is
independent. Every member in the House must agree with that. The
auditor is totally independent of any political interference
whatsoever.
The integrity of the auditor of the government of this country
is second to none. Anyone who knows him and his staff knows they
are dedicated, fair and extremely thorough. They will go through
programs, whether requested by a committee, the government, a
minister or on their own, in such minute detail that some of the
things they find out are truly quite amazing. Guess what
happens. From time to time regardless of what party is in power
around here, the auditor comes up with some problems. That is
what he is there for. That is what the whole system is about.
The member for Calgary—Nose Hill stands in her place and says
the government ordered the audit.
I spoke to a group of young people yesterday, high school
students who were touring our precinct. They were quite
astounded when I gave them the facts because what they had read
about this supposed boondoggle were headlines screaming “A
billion dollar boondoggle”. I explained to them, and they are
obviously more intelligent than some of my hon. colleagues
opposite, that the actual program is a job creation program. It
takes $1 billion and funnels it out into community groups from
sea to sea to sea to create jobs for young people, to supplement
wages for small businesses, to assist in hiring people, to deal
with people who need training, to deal with people with
disabilities, to help aboriginal Canadians with a hand up to get
jobs, training and skills so they can get on with becoming
participants in our society and to develop partnerships with
community groups.
That is what this program is all about. Members know this.
1105
The real danger here in the misrepresentation that has gone on,
is it continues to go on simply for one reason and that is that
the opposition smells blood and indeed all of us know that this
is a blood sport. We have to be tough and we have to stand up
and defend and make them accountable because being in opposition
they can say whatever they want.
We know about the Reform Party's accountability. We know that
the Reform Party fires caucus members faster than Brian Mulroney
changed his Gucci's. We know that if there is one person out of
line or out of sync in the Reform Party, even the venerable House
leader, he is simply booted out of caucus by the leader who
stands in front of Canadians and purports to say they have a new
way of doing business.
The Reform Party kicks people out of caucus faster than it takes
to change the name from the united alternative to CCRAP. I
should not say it because children may be watching. We all know
what the acronym is. The Reform Party kicks people out of caucus
faster than it takes to change the acronym from CCRAP to some
other one. They woke up and there was this word which they
normally associate with something on their—
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for
Elk Island on a point of order.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, this member is speaking in
favour of being truthful. The name of the party is the Canadian
alliance. The member is not correctly expressing the name of the
party.
The Deputy Speaker: I am not sure that is a point of
order.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, there is another name but
I guess that is the short form. Who would want to wake up and
see CCRAP as the name of the newly formed party? I understand.
The Deputy Speaker: The member for Elk Island did not
have a point of order the last time. It was a point of debate. I
hope he is not doing the same thing this time.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, in the interests of
truthfulness, the name of the party is the Canadian reform
conservative alliance. The member has it wrong.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, it is clear to me that
the party is struggling in that regard. The point is that Reform
Party members talk about accountability and telling Canadian
people the truth and putting forward issues of concern.
I want to stress this point. We are talking about an entire
project of $1 billion. The audit was done on 459 individual
projects within the $1 billion program representing a total of
$200 million. One-fifth of the HRD job creation program was
audited. Out of that one-fifth, 37 files were identified as
having problems. Those problems ranged from as small as not
putting all the paperwork in the right order to as serious as not
having the proper documentation at all. This is not acceptable
to the government and it is certainly not acceptable to the
minister.
The minister came forward and indicated that an audit had been
done and she provided us with the results. She gave us the six
point plan that will be put in place to deal with the mistakes. I
do not think any Canadian would expect an organization the size
of HRD or indeed the entire government to be without its share of
problems. But to suggest that because an auditor requested to
come in by the Government of Canada has identified some problems
in the files and that a cabinet minister needs to step aside over
that is political hysteria.
Members know full well that they are churning the pot and
feeding the hysteria through the media. The only thing that would
make their day a success would be to force a cabinet minister as
dedicated and as hardworking as this one to resign from the job
because of some trumped up nonsense.
1110
That is not to say the government does not recognize there are
problems. The government asked for the audit in the first place.
I do not know how many times we have to say that. The minister
released it. The opposition would take credit for that saying
“She heard we were going to ask for it”. Excuse me, I am under
the impression it was on the Internet. We do not get much more
public than that. The minister came out with it and said “Here
is the result of the audit. Here are the problems we have
identified and here is the action plan that we will put in place
to fix it”.
What really bothers me about all of the hysteria by the members
opposite and frankly by the media is that the real victims in all
of this will be the community groups in British Columbia, in
Newfoundland or in Ontario. They will be young people who need
summer jobs. That is what this is about.
I say to hon. members to put themselves in the position of a
bureaucrat sitting down somewhere in Halifax, Mississauga or
Vancouver with an application before them while all of this is
going on in the media. Might one not just be a little nervous?
The Reform Party is the party that demands less red tape. In
fact we will potentially see more red tape and more concern.
We want to have rules in place that the bureaucrats must follow.
There must be financial accountability. The minister has said
that she has put forward the plan that will do that, but we will
drive wedges between the offices of HRDC.
I would ask any of these members, some of them I am sure have
but I know many of them have not, to go to the HRDC office and
look at who is there. There are single moms looking to get
retraining in computers. There are 45 to 55 year old men who
have been displaced in their jobs and are looking to find a new
career, a new alternative. They need our help and why should we
not help them? If we can help them with a grant that creates a
job, then they have a job and they will pay taxes and they will
become productive, proud members of society.
The risk here in all seriousness is that we will damage the
relationship our dedicated HRDC offices have. I have one in my
community on Glen Erin Drive that services Peel and Halton. We
will risk the relationship those offices have with the community.
There is an organization in Mississauga called the Centre for
Education and Training. It does tremendous work. It would
access funds through the HRDC office to provide training,
retraining and motivation. It provides job skills and job search
skills. It helps people develop resumes. It helps people get
back on their feet.
The problem we face is that we tend to be in such a strong
economic climate. Unemployment is at the lowest rate it has been
since the 1970s for all levels. Whether it is for women, for
youth, or for the entire sector of society, the unemployment rate
is at its lowest for all levels. Interest rates are low.
Inflation is virtually non-existent. The economy is humming. The
books are balanced. We are in a surplus and are awaiting a
budget at the end of February that I believe will deliver tax
cuts to Canadians. Yet people are sitting around saying that
there has to be something wrong here, it cannot be all that good
and they will not sit back and accept all this prosperity. We
have too many problems.
People say we do not do anything for the homeless. Our minister
went to Toronto and announced $743 million in partnership with
the municipalities, provinces and the private sector. They
should be able to leverage that $743 million into a couple of
billion to create housing and help people get off the streets. Is
it enough? I guess not.
Maybe we would like to do more. I am sure many of us would. The
government is trying to respond.
1115
What we see is a feeding frenzy of mass hysteria that is
absolutely unfair to the Canadian people, who, because they have
read the headlines, think that somehow we have lost a billion
dollars. We have not lost one cent. They know that. What has
been potentially lost is the faith and the confidence that the
community groups have in working with HRD.
Meet the men and women who deal in this business. Meet the Ray
Fernbacks of this world, a dedicated civil servant who wants to
help young people, people who are without jobs and people who are
without hope. There are people like him all across this country.
Simply because of the hysteria and the nonsense we are in danger
of losing people like him and losing the relationship.
Opposition members know full well that many of the job fund
programs have gone into their ridings. The hypocrisy of being in
the House and listening as they wax on is terrible. Let us read
what they have actually said.
The member for Dauphin—Swan River said: “I am writing to
express my support for the TJF application made by the Rolling
River First Nation”. The member for Selkirk—Interlake said:
“I strongly recommend that the TJF provide funding for this
excellent creation program”. The member for Vancouver Island
North said: “This is a great opportunity for creating new jobs
and new wealth in the Comox Valley”. The member for
Battlefords—Lloydminister said in a letter to the minister: “I
would like to ask that you seriously consider the request for
funding and give the Voice of the Blue Rose Advocacy a favourable
response”. The member for Nanaimo—Cowichan, regarding an
organization called “Loaves and Fishes”, said: “I would like
to request that any and all avenues of financial resources be
considered in assisting this important work to continue. I fully
support the TJF application put forth by Tough Duck”. It is
interesting that these are all Reformers.
What this is really about is that the Reform Party wants to kill
this program. The Reform Party thinks it is more important to
give tax cuts to the rich than it is to help those small
community organizations. It will not be tough duck; it will be
tough luck. That is what will happen if the Reform Party has its
way and runs its scalpel through the human resources development
ministry. It will slash, burn and destroy programs.
Some of these names might seem funny, but these are community
organizations that are working in the community. The money goes
to hire people to help them deliver the programs. We should not
laugh. Reform Party members, of all people, should not laugh at
funny names. Goodness knows, they have so many up their sleeves
that we never know what they are going to come out with. That is
the real agenda.
The member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, one of the few in
the Reform Party whom I respect, said: “I believe that it is a
worthy, viable and visionary undertaking which warrants your
consideration and ultimately your approval of the applications”.
Another quality member in this place, the member for
Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, said: “I hope that the money will be
forthcoming from the transitional jobs fund to bolster the
economy of Port Renfrew. My hope also is that other projects
will be considered in the future that will provide for job
training opportunities that are sustainable over the long term”.
There are some real mixed messages.
Thirty-seven projects have been identified.
Interestingly enough, out of those 37, which represent $30
million—not $200 million, not $1 billion, but $30 million—which
is still a lot of money—three of those projects have already
been investigated. The files have been put in order and no
further action is required by the ministry staff. Those three
projects represent almost $12 million of the $30 million, which
is almost half. Certainly over one-third of the entire area
which was identified has already been dealt with, cleaned up and
put to bed. The recommendation is that no further action need
take place.
1120
The rest of the investigations are ongoing. We can rest assured
that in every HRDC office in the country people probably spent a
fairly busy weekend going through the files, and so it should be.
Because we refuse to buckle to the nonsensical demands of the
opposition does not mean that the government, the minister and
the prime minister do not take this seriously. This is serious
stuff. When the auditor says “We have identified problems”,
any government had better react.
In fairness, why not allow for a reasonable length of time for
the government to do the work to clean up the mess? If there are
not changes put in place, then perhaps the opposition's demands
would make sense. If the government does not correct the
problems that are there, whether they are systemic or they happen
once, it has to investigate these things because Canadians expect
no less than that kind of accountability, openness and
transparency, that kind of serious effort by their government.
Frankly, that is what is going to happen.
It is not just the Reformers. I will share with the House what
the Conservative member for New Brunswick Southwest said: “It
would not be fair to suggest that party affiliations play a role
in the awarding of money”. I agree. They got over half the
projects. He went on to say: “The resulting employment during
construction and the permanent jobs to be created from the
project will greatly benefit the people and the economy of the
St. Stephen area”.
We all know the importance and the significance of this job
creation fund. We know what it means to our youth, to our women,
to our aboriginals, to our people who have lost their jobs
through no fault of their own. We know the importance of the
partnerships and the relationships that occur right across the
land, and we have the serious potential of doing damage to
programs that are fundamentally important to all Canadians.
I will reject this motion, as will my colleagues. It is
unworthy of the opposition.
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, what a lot of bluster.
The member minimizes this by saying that there are routine
audits. Thank goodness we have audits. He uses laudable
platitudes to tell us about the efficacy of these programs.
However, schools of public administration, academics of
management science will always say that these kinds of programs
are wasteful and may actually do more harm than good.
Cash transfers without comprehensiveness really do not work. For
example, the Compass program described today in the Globe and
Mail said that the analysis of programs given under the same
rosy kind of outlines that the member describes shows that the
clients who had reduced their reliance on income support was not
significantly different from zero.
Will the member work within his caucus to end these kinds of
vote buying programs and actually try to develop programs that
really help people, rather than these types of programs which
sprinkle money around the ground to try to grow votes?
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, first, I apologize if the
member thought it was bluster. I get a little excited at times
trying to make a point. However, I think that Canadians need to
hear from some of us who will, as demonstrably as possible, put
the facts on the record.
The member just said it all. He has proven what I said and have
suspected; that is, that the intent of the Reform Party is not to
get the head of a minister.
The intent of the Reform Party is not even to embarrass the
government. The intent of the Reform Party is to kill the job
creation funds that are in HRDC which go to the communities.
They want to take that money, rip it out of the system and give
it to their wealthy friends in the form of tax cuts. That is
what he said.
1125
My answer, sir, is no, I will not work toward that. I will
defend these programs and make sure they get out to the people
who need them.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the
member if the fact of choosing a minister—as was the case with
the current Minister for International Trade and the current
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs—includes as a criterion the
ability to properly place the knife in the public's back.
I wonder whether this criterion did not lead us to this scandal
involving the management of Human Resources Development, that
is, that the sole function of the minister, who is no longer in
the position today, but was in it for at least three, if not
four years, was to report to the House without either question
or audit, to respond to the opposition and to say pretty much
anything.
My colleague, the member for
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques spent three months
at least questioning the minister on his management, on who were
and were not likely to receive employment insurance after paying
fairly significant premiums.
When we told the minister that not even 42% qualified to draw
what they had paid in insurance and the minister gave us any old
answer, was his answer based on actual figures or on what his
officials were telling him? Did he manage his officials? Did
he look into his department's internal administration? No.
Because his only talent was an ability to denigrate the
Quebecers who elected him. He became the Prime Minister's
accomplice in manhandling Quebecers, as we called it in Quebec.
Now we end up with the problems.
I ask the member if he is not afraid that we will soon find
ourselves with the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs facing
a similar situation and that we must repudiate him or criticize
the management of his department in its entirety? These
questions need to be asked and I put them to the member who has
just spoken.
[English]
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I understand that members
of the Bloc are only interested in discrediting, in whatever way
they can, any member on this side of the House who happens to be
from the province of Quebec.
The fact is that the minister is in a different portfolio and
the audit was requested by the Government of Canada. I do not
know how much more transparent we could possibly be. The audit
identified 37 out of 459 projects—$30 million out of $200
million—as having some difficulties. Three of those 37 have
been investigated, representing almost $12 million, and they have
been put in proper shape. I do not know how much more
transparent and fair the government could be, except to continue
investigating the remaining 34 files, representing about $20
million.
The member wants to attack someone from Quebec so that he can
make headlines which will somehow further the only thing these
people care about, which is the destruction of this country and
their attempts to take the province of Quebec out of Canada. It
will not work.
The minister is responding to the issues at hand. She has a six
point plan that will put in place the kind of transparency and
accountability that is needed. Any money that has been
improperly spent, as the Prime Minister said yesterday, will be
recovered by the government. We will not tolerate any of that
nonsense. The situation at HRDC will be cleaned up and it will
be cleaned up by the current minister.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the member for Mississauga West for a very entertaining
presentation. It is always good theatre when he speaks. I think
he has the toughest job in the country, trying to gloss over what
absolutely has to be the worst public relations disaster
imaginable.
I admire that he has the courage to stand there and spout that
kind of thing.
1130
It was gracious of him to concede that there is definitely a
problem with the administration of the programs. What he failed
to comment on is that there is a huge problem in the allocation
of the programs and who gets the benefits from the particular
funds. The transitional jobs fund is the one that most comes to
mind.
Statistically I have the third poorest riding in the country.
Does the hon. member know how many transitional jobs funds grants
we got in our riding? I can tell him. None. Zero, not one red
cent, because we were told we did not qualify. With an incidence
of poverty of 32% or 33% in the whole riding we did not qualify
because of some magic formula that they cooked up so they could
allocate it all to their own ridings.
The riding of Edmonton West is where most of the country goes to
get a job because there is so much prosperity there. The
Minister of Justice is pulling in transitional jobs fund grants:
$1.3 million to band trees to prevent Dutch elm disease. There
is a meaningful and significant project. We did not get any, not
one red cent.
Regarding the administration of the fund, would the member agree
that one of the biggest problems is that one cannot hack, cut and
slash 30% of the public service and still expect to get the same
amount of work done? Would he agree that maybe the Liberals cut
too deep when they laid off a third of the public sector? Now
they have lost track of the administration of their programs.
Could the member explain just what the rules are to qualify for a
TJF grant? I would like to know. It just seems to change from
day to day. Could he answer those questions?
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for
his questions. He actually made an interesting point. He said
that I was standing here defending what he called a public
relations disaster. I think that is what it is, actually. It is
a PR disaster. We have not been able to get the message out
because of the hysteria and misrepresentation by members in the
opposition and frankly in the media. How do we defend a headline
that says a billion dollars is lost when in fact it is not.
There is an old axiom in politics that says when one is trying
to defend something one is losing. I understand that. It is
very much public relations, and the public happens to be the
voters and citizens of the country. The reason I stand here and
say what I say is that it is our job and responsibility to get
the facts out. It is not just the one-sided nonsensical
arguments put forward by the opposition. There are a government
position, an explanation and an action plan put in place.
I also tell the member in relationship to his other question
that the minister informed the House on February 7, as reported
in Hansard that:
Of the 250 projects across Canada that qualified for transitional
jobs fund money where the unemployment levels were less than
12%...half of them were in opposition ridings.
I am sorry if the member has not been able to somehow persuade
or have some influence, but I would suggest that he should keep
trying. He should get himself someone in the ministry with whom
he can deal and work. If his riding needs these funds, I want
the member who I think is a very caring and socially well
balanced conscientious member to know that the danger we are
facing with all this stuff is that there will be no transitional
jobs funds for anyone in the country, whether in his riding or
mine. They will kill this program as sure as I am standing here
through the misrepresentation and misleading hysteria that is
going on.
I want Canadians to know that government accepts the
responsibility to clean this up. The government accepts the fact
that some mistakes have been made and it will be cleaned up by
the minister.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in today's debate. I
intend to be as non-partisan as possible. I have been a member of
the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development since
1994. I have been working with that committee for several years
and a number of issues have been referred to us.
1135
Let me read you today's motion from the Reform Party:
That this House express its concern over the gross mismanagement
of more than one billion annually in grants and contributions
from the Department of Human Resources Development, its support
for the doctrine of ministerial responsibility, and its lack of
confidence in the Minister of Human Resources Development.
The Bloc Quebecois will support that motion.
Why do we find ourselves in that situation? In early January
2000, the current Minister of Human Resources Development—who,
unlike the Prime Minister, did not consider this issue to be a
minor problem involving only 37 cases—released an internal audit
report which told Quebecers and Canadians that “there is a
serious problem in the Department of Human Resources
Development. The department has lost control over at least $1
billion. An internal audit investigation was conducted”.
It is important that people know what an internal audit is all
about. It is really a sampling. In this case, 459 files were
pulled out and reviewed. We were told that they took 459 files
out of 30,000 in the department. So, it is a very small sample.
Out of these 459 files, 37 were found to be very serious cases
involving some $30 million.
When the Prime Minister tells us that the present situation is
not serious, that only 37 projects are problematic, he is
abusing statistical science and misrepresenting how internal
audits are done. I urge the Prime Minister to find out from
chartered accountants what such an internal audit means. It is
a test done to check whether in fact a department or a company
is operating properly.
When a certain number of cases are unacceptable, a red light
goes off. This is what the Minister of Human Resources
Development made public on January 17.
What we now have is the government trying—and the remarks by the
member who preceded me were irresponsible—to tell us that in the
whole of the department there were 37 problematic projects, when
the number of projects audited was 459 out of a total of 30,000.
Statistically speaking, these 37 projects represent almost 2,400
problematic cases. This could involve nearly $2 billion.
That is the fact of the matter and that is what the motion
before us is critical of. If the federal government, because of
the position taken by the Prime Minister, says there are only 37
cases, it is being completely irresponsible. We see the result.
The result is that the parties opposed to job creation programs
are saying that such programs are no good. In an attempt to get
itself out of hot water, the government is accusing the Reform
Party of wanting to kill these programs.
The problem we are now facing is not the relevance of job
creation programs but the Liberal government's management of them.
In so doing, the Liberal government ends up negating the
effectiveness of the job creation programs, and that is very
serious.
As for the scandal itself, what the internal audit showed up,
let us recall that, out of the 459 files examined, 15% contained
no application from the promoters. This means that, in 15 of
every 100 projects, the project promoter could not be
identified.
In 72% of the remaining applications there were no forecasts; in
46% there was no anticipated number of participants; in 25%
there was no description of the activities to be supported.
And so it goes on. Most impressive.
If something like this happened in a small five-employee business
in the private sector, the boss would call operations to a halt
and say “Everybody into my office. We are going to see what is
going on. This makes no sense. We're in an awful mess here”.
The fact is the business would likely have already closed, if it
were in such a situation.
There are some other very important elements. For example, 97%
of files bore no indication that the promoters had been checked
for outstanding debts to HRDC. In 70% of project files, there
was nothing about expenditures. In other words, 7 out of every
10 files contained no invoices or payslips to justify
expenditures.
1140
An hon. member: Scandalous.
Mr. Paul Crête: That is the right word for it. Scandalous it
is.
In my opinion, the government had two responsibilities in a
situation like this. It ought to have decided to lay all the
cards on the table, which would have been the ideal situation,
because we are faced with a rather peculiar situation here as
far as parliamentary operations are concerned.
The present Minister of Human Resources Development, in that
portfolio only since the summer of 1999, has some responsibility
because she learned of the situation as early as last fall but
waited until January to make it public, while parliament was not
sitting, so as to keep things as quiet as possible.
We must remember her announcement was made at the same time the
Minister of Industry was getting involved in hockey clubs. But
between her announcement and the end of the hockey club saga,
the Minister of Industry withdrew his proposal because of the
hooha it raised from the public. So the grand announcement,
which was meant to be hidden while parliament was not sitting
and be kept as quiet as possible, moved into the limelight.
Why did it move as far into the limelight as it is today?
Primarily because the public, who pays taxes and thinks it is
already paying too much, did not like having its money wasted.
The current Liberal government was getting hot under the collar
about Emploi-Québec, which had just been set up, was beginning to
operate and was established to make a success of providing
proper manpower services.
We even heard the Prime Minister say, when I was in Hull as an
observer at the Liberal convention, “My God, that is really
embarrassing for us Quebecers”. At the same time, his
department, which had been in operation for several years, is
unable to account for a billion dollars.
The department is faced with a situation where the number of
scandalous cases uncovered by the internal audit is such that as
much as $2 billion may have disappeared through programs, with
no one knowing where the money went.
This is why taxpayers find this unacceptable. No one in Canada
is buying the Prime Minister's claim that there are only 37
cases. Indeed, we all know that we are talking about an internal
audit involving only a small sampling of overall government
operations. It is important to realize that. We are stressing
that point because we know people will understand it. We must
take what was said and go to the bottom of the issue if we can
get all the information.
This week, at the Standing Committee on Human Resources
Development, we will be asking that not only the current
Minister of Human Resources Development but also her predecessor
appear before the committee to tell us about the period targeted
by the internal audit, that is from April 1997 to June 1998,
when the current minister's predecessor was in charge. He was
the one responsible for that department at the time. That period
also encompasses the election campaign. This is a good example
of what this government attempted to do.
Yesterday morning, two rather uncomfortable deputy ministers
gave a 90-munite briefing in the press lounge, to explain the
status of those 37 cases. The government is acting in an
irresponsible and petty way by trying to make public servants
look like they are the culprits.
Let us take the example of the transitional jobs creation fund.
When officials in Quebec working for the Department of Human
Resources Development meet with a sponsor, they open a file,
complete it, have it approved at the regional, provincial and
Canadian level and the minister signs.
When a project operates this way, usually things go reasonably
well, but what is now coming to light is that there is a group
of projects that, instead of working their way from the bottom
up, proceeded from the top down during the election period.
Looking at the whole of Quebec, 54% of the projects approved in
the three years between April 1996 and April 1999 received that
approval in the months immediately before and after the
election.
The scenario goes like this.
The previous Minister of Human Resources Development who, during
the election campaign, found himself being pressured, receiving
telephone calls or visiting a business, told people not to worry
and promised to see that things were sorted out after the
election.
1145
And we are talking about an election campaign. During that
period, they were not just spreading their favours in Liberal
ridings; they also went after other ridings. Fortunately,
however, Quebecers do not go for this sort of bait. They
resisted the temptation.
But now we are looking at a group of projects that public
servants inherited on June 10, July 1 and in August, for which
the minister had given his word. The word went out that the
minister had given his word and that now it was up to them to
produce results. Now, two years later, an internal audit reveals
that no sponsor was listed for 15% of the projects.
No problem; they got their money anyway.
In 70% of the files, there was no financial monitoring. No
problem, they got their money anyway. Today they are trying to
tell us that this is not possible, that there were just the 37
cases. No way. They did not look at just 37 cases during the
election campaign; it was way more than that.
I believe that what we have here is a shocking scandal, because
this was going on in the department that had launched an all-out
an attack against the unemployed, one that has been going on for
several years. On the one hand they were unable to manage
employment programs, while on the other they knew very well what
their objective for recovery was. Every Canada employment
centre had an objective setting out how much had to be recovered
from the unemployed.
They looked at eligibility in order to ensure that as few people
as possible would be entitled to benefits.
They organized things to ensure that as few as possible would
receive benefits. They put on more employment insurance
investigators while at the same time, at the other end of the
system, there was no monitoring.
All in all, they were acting like a business and decided to
focus only on increasing revenues. However, we are not dealing
with a business here, but a department, the one responsible for
the social function of the federal government of Canada. It is
the department most responsible for sharing the wealth, and here
it is being used to gain votes for the Liberal Party of Canada.
This is totally unacceptable.
If that had been the only problem in the department, one might
have said that there was a crisis relating to the management of
those particular programs.
However, over the course of the past four or five years, there
was also a scandal over the use of social insurance numbers,
because in Canada there were more people over the age of 100
than in the entire world with a social insurance number. It
took an opinion from the auditor general; it took a unanimous
report by the committee to call for a change in things, and the
answer we kept getting from the predecessor of the current
minister, the member for Papineau—St-Denis was “Everything is
fine. There is no problem”.
That is in fact what this minister keeps saying. They have the
same tape. I think the prime responsibility of the current
Minister of Human Resources Development is to not have changed
the machine; to have taken the recording of her predecessor and
played it endlessly. I think she has a lot of responsibility in
this respect.
Today we learn—and this is another incredible example—that the
youth employment strategy, which served as the weapon of the
minister's predecessor, the member for Papineau—St-Denis, when he
was Minister of Human Resources Development, who said “See how
the Government of Canada does good things”, that 33% of the
money allocated produced no results. This program did not create
the jobs it was supposed to create. It has not brought young
people back to work as it should have done, and it is in the hot
seat, like the Canada jobs fund, like the youth employment
strategy and like all the other programs that were evaluated.
One of the things that has been mentioned is literacy programs.
Do members think that Canada can afford to waste money? Can it
afford to squander literacy funding? I think that this funding
is needed to do something about the problems of our illiterate
citizens.
But if the money is improperly spent and the use to which it is
put unknown, I think that the desired results have not been
achieved. Perhaps what is most tragic about the whole affair,
when all is said and done, is that there are people who need
these programs, and we have argued in favour of programs to
revitalize the economy in areas of high unemployment. We have
never challenged the need for such programs.
What can be challenged is when the minister directs funding
to her riding for a program for which only ridings with
unemployment rates of 10% and higher should qualify, when
unemployment in her riding stands at 6%, and at the same time
turns down funding for the Gaspé with its 22% unemployment rate.
That is dishonest and unacceptable.
How did we get to this state of affairs? How did this situation
come about?
1150
Let us go to the heart of the problem. There is a Prime Minister
who appoints ministers. He is the one who appointed the
incompetent individual who is now the Minister for International
Trade. At least he pulled him out of a department which gives
out a lot of money and assigned him to the part of the job he
can handle, which is public relations. But appointing him
Minister of Human Resources Development was an incompetent move.
By appointing the member for Papineau—Saint-Denis Minister of
Human Resources Development, the Prime Minister showed his
incompetence. He went for first impressions.
The Prime Minister told himself “He will make a good
spokesperson. He will repeat exactly what we want for the
department. He will keep saying for years that everything is
fine and then, when things get too hot, when I know the results,
I will move him elsewhere”.
The Prime Minister then appointed the current Minister of Human
Resources Development. During the period that she has been in
charge, there has been no concrete information on the situation
in her department. It was only in January 2000 that she said she
inherited a department that was coming out of the middle ages.
The middle ages are a dark period of our history, a period when
civilization did not exist, a period when people did not know
how to make things work. But patronage was thriving then. This
is the period to which the current minister is referring when
she talks about her predecessor, the member for
Papineau—Saint-Denis. He was the one in charge during that dark
period, during the middle ages.
As my colleague says, we were also able to see—with the figures
provided by the Bloc Quebecois on the impact of the election
campaign—that this was not only a dark and black period, but very
much a red period as well.
We are trying to find out who is responsible for this
situation. We mentioned that the Prime Minister appointed
someone who was not competent for the job, but who remained in
charge of the department for several years. Then, the Prime
Minister appointed another minister. We did give that minister a
chance, did we not? Just last week, the Bloc Quebecois was
saying “We need all the information. We will not ask for heads
to roll. We will not ask for people to resign, but we will ask
questions in the House”.
Yesterday I did ask a question to the minister.
I asked her why, between December 1 and December 16, 1999, she
continued to defend the programs here in this House, whereas she
had been aware of the audit since November 17, 1999. I was
expecting an honest answer, one that would say “I became aware
of it and in fact—”, with an attempt to find an intelligent
answer. But no, off she went again with the same old tape from
the member for Papineau—Saint-Denis, the one that says that
everything is fine, even if the place is burning down. The old
story of “Don't worry, be happy”.
The present minister continued along the same lines, which is
why I find that the motion of the Reform Party is in order. When
they refer to their “lack of confidence in the Minister of Human
Resources Development”, it is because she is the one who took on
the burden of the situation created by her predecessor.
Had she been responsible, she would have said right from the
time that the situation became known, “I am going to encourage
my predecessor to come and testify; I am going to ask Mel Cappe,
the deputy minister responsible for the entire Government of
Canada, the top civil servant, to come and testify”. He was,
after all, the deputy minister of the department the whole time
that this was going on, during this whole scandal.
This is one more example of the responsibility of the Prime
Minister of Canada. After appointing the member for
Papineau—Saint-Denis as Minister of Human Resources Development
and then, after he proved incompetent, the present minister, who
is incapable of taking on her responsibilities, he also
appointed Mel Cappe to the highest position in the public
service.
Now we know that the Government of Canada is, at the top deputy
ministerial level, being managed by a person who has created a
scandal in all of Canada's social programs. This is totally
unacceptable.
Thus, the primary responsibility for all this lies with the
Prime Minister of Canada. He appointed successive ministers
incapable of doing their job; he took advantage of their
inconsistency to create the transitional jobs fund in order to
get himself and his Liberal colleagues re-elected. He tried to
dump all the responsibility onto the public servants. This
whole attitude of disregard for democracy, which means making
things known so that there may be transparency in order to allow
people to make the proper choices, leads us to vote in favour of
the motion.
The primary responsibility for this scandal lies with the
present Prime Minister of Canada.
1155
[English]
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I know
members of the Bloc have fought very hard and very long for a
fair employment insurance system. I would like to hear their
comments because many aspects of it have bothered me. One was
the minister's comment that there was no witch hunt of those
within her department.
I was surprised at how quick they were to let themselves off the
hook, that they would presume innocence on their own part, but
when it comes to any poor soul who has ever made a mistake on an
employment insurance form there is never a presumption of
innocence. I know of people who have been hounded for two to
three years for an innocent error on an employment insurance
card.
If the minister is to be so quick to assume that everyone in her
department and herself are innocent, that everything was just a
bit of a mistake, then that sort of standard should be applied to
Canadian citizens who have made innocent mistakes on their
employment insurance forms. I would like the member's comments
on that.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Speaker, the member has raised an excellent
point. We must not forget that the Employment Insurance Act is
based on the presumption of guilt. If there is any doubt about
someone, that individual is guilty until he or she has been able
to prove his or her innocence before the whole bureaucratic
system.
In the case before us, it is the opposite. There is a proof of
guilt, we are sure the person is guilty, but someone—not just
anyone, the Prime Minister of Canada himself—is telling us that
an internal audit has shown problems in 37 cases out of 459. He
claims that only 37 cases are problematic, and the rest does not
exist.
He denies the fact that this department handled 30,000 cases.
hope the auditor general puts these facts on the table next
fall. He will be asked to appear before the committee so that we
can look specifically into this matter. My assumption is that,
once our review is over, these 37 cases out of 459 will not look
like a little sore but rather as the sign of a growing cancer
within the department, a cancer which has been tolerated by the
present government, which wanted it and took advantage of it in
the 1997 election.
In this sense, the member is perfectly right. There is a double
standard, and we are here to speak out against this situation
and to bring the Canadian government to put all the facts on the
table so that we can make a final judgement on these issues.
government, particularly the predecessor of the present
Minister of Human Resources Development, is responsible for
wasting billions of dollars, which is totally unacceptable.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I was a member of the Standing Committee on Human Resources
Development before the election. We had suspicions as to what
was going on, but we realize today that things were even worse
than we expected.
I would like to give an example to my colleague who is now a
member on that committee, and ask him whether there is a link.
Before the election, members used to be consulted about the
summer career placements program. When the election was called,
strangely enough, the former minister mentioned by the hon.
member took it upon himself to make those decisions.
I am from the Quebec City area, and, before the election, we
used to have a centre where the unemployed could get help in
dealing with all the red tape. It was moved to the Prime
Minister's riding—such a coincidence—where there was no
unemployment office.
We used to have about ten offices, and their number had to go
down to just two. They closed down all of them and opened two,
one in Montreal and the other one in the Prime Minister's
riding. Of all the ridings in Quebec, guess where they got the
best percentage during the election? Something tells me it is in
the Prime Minister's riding.
My colleague is absolutely right. The former minister is to
blame, and the present minister is also to blame, because she
does not want any light to be shed on this issue. However, who
was it who appointed these two ministers? Always the same
person, the Prime Minister. Does he not have the primary
responsibility for this boondoggle?
Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Speaker, I took notice of what by my
colleague from Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière said about the summer
career placements program. It is true that hon. members stopped
being consulted during the election campaign. That is part of
what we could bring up if we are ever allowed to have some light
shed on this issue.
1200
We could check if discretionary choices were purely partisan
choices. There were two ways to go about this. On the one hand,
there were the summer careers placements program and other
programs. On the other, contributions were coming in.
Last year, we had a good indication of the way things were
going. Members probably remember the Corbeil case. Supposedly,
that meant nothing. HRDC was as pure as the driven snow. Corbeil
was found guilty, but that did not trigger any alarms and
nothing changed in the government's ways. It took an internal
audit which the minister was made aware of on November 17 and
which she made public in January for the government to start
dealing with the issue.
There is a fundamental problem with this government, and that is
the Prime Minister's style of politics. Throughout his political
career, the Prime Minister has been known to resort to
partisanship, to show contempt and to disregard democratic
principles and the will of the people.
I will speak to the Prime Minister in terms that he will
understand. If he sees the Government of Canada as his business
and his business alone, I remind him that the shareholders of
his government are the citizens of Canada. They are the ones who
want us to shed light on this situation. Not only will
parliamentarians not stop, but people all over the country will
ask for clarifications on this issue. At a time when people are
paying so much in taxes, we simply will not let the government
waste that money. It cannot afford to do so.
This is a period when the federal government has money.
In the past, it had developed a habit of wasting money and
creating deficits. Now that fiscal balance has been achieved,
the government is back at it again. However, the internal audit
that was conducted revealed a deep and serious problem. We
absolutely must shed light on the whole situation at the
Department of Human Resources Development and also see what is
going on in the other departments.
Last week, a deputy minister from Treasury Board wrote a memo to
all the departments that give grants and subsidies. He said “Are
you sure that what is going on in Human Resources Development
Canada is not also going on in your department?” You can be sure
that we will get to the bottom of this and see to it that the
Prime Minister takes full responsibility.
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the member is
right. During the election campaign, in 1997, the members were
not authorized to sign job creation programs for students in
their ridings.
The minister traveled a lot; he came to Charlevoix. Two
investors from Montreal accompanied the minister to
Saint-Hilarion, in the riding of Charlevoix. The “Poulette
Grise”, in La Malbaie, was closed; 150 jobs were lost.
A few days before election day, to benefit from the situation,
he came to announce that Aliments Charlevoix would export
chicken and reopen the La Malbaie slaughterhouse, that
everything was all right, thanks to the savior, the Minister of
Human Resources Development of the day, the member for
Papineau—Saint-Denis. I am sure the Prime Minister found
shortcomings in that department.
After the 1997 election, he saw what had happened in Canada,
chiefly with the minister we are talking about, the former
Minister of Human Resources Development, the member for
Papineau—Saint-Denis.
I would like to ask the member for
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques if he
would agree with me that the Prime Minister probably noticed the
incompetence of the former Minister of Human Resources
Development and stripped him of this department, which involves
a lot of management, a lot of money and a lot of
responsibilities and gave him a department involving no
responsibilities.
Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Speaker, I can hardly read the Prime
Minister's thoughts. I am convinced that he had a very good idea
of what was going on.
Today, he denies being aware of those issues. He said he was not
aware that there was an audit on an amount of $2 billion at
Human Resources Development Canada. If the Prime Minister is not
aware of such situations, what kind of work does he do?
1205
We are talking about the government's monitoring role.
Governments are not only responsible for announcing projects.
They must also make sure that those projects yield results, see
that they are out in the open so that we can see, for instance
in the case of a job creation program, that jobs actually have
been created.
The minister cannot be evaluated only on how he makes an
announcement. In this regard, I agree that the former Minister
of Human Resources Development at announcing things, but he
certainly lacked the other necessary skills. Personally, I
consider his appointment as Minister of International Trade as a
demotion.
However, in a way, this may have allowed us to avoid an ever
greater mess than the one we appear to be in.
I hope that all this will all be out in the open as soon as
possible. Otherwise, we would not be fully doing our duty as
parliamentarians if we did not get to the bottom of the issue
and allow all Canadians to see the whole truth.
[English]
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, as
the spokesperson for the federal New Democrats on Human Resources
Development Canada, I am very pleased to speak to this opposition
day motion.
New Democrats concur and support the motion because we believe
it gets to the issue that we have been debating and it certainly
expresses our concern about the gross mismanagement of more than
$1 billion annually in grants and contributions by the Department
of Human Resources Development, as the motion outlines.
The motion and the issue that we are debating today gets to the
core of something that is very important in our democracy and in
our system of governance, the issue of ministerial
responsibility.
After looking at the information that has come to light over the
last several weeks about the internal audit of HRDC, it is clear
that this is an issue on the proper management of public funds.
This is an issue on the integrity and credibility of the
government. Even members of the government have admitted that
the practices that have gone on in that department have been
astounding and scandalous and, as the minister has said, she
herself has called for further information.
What is most disturbing about this issue is that the government
itself is also in denial about what is really taking place.
Yesterday in question period, and in other debates that have
taken place, it has been very interesting to see the government
now madly back-pedalling to defend its record and to defend what
has happened. It is now switching tactics. It is now saying, as
I heard today in the House from government members, that
opposition members do not support job creation or job
development, and that the government is now the big defender of
job development in the country.
The government's second tactic is to attack opposition members
on legitimate projects that were approved in various ridings
through existing programs, with all the rules in place, with the
proper application forms and so on. The government is now in
denial and is trying to put up some smoke and mirrors to switch
the line of attack.
As New Democrats, we have always supported legitimate and worthy
job development programs. Many of us represent ridings in Canada
that have high unemployment and high poverty. It was in fact our
party that pushed the government to be more forthcoming in its
support for job creation and helping the unemployed. Let us be
very clear that the issue is not about whether a job development
program is good. We are the first to say that job development
programs and job creation are very critical in the country.
Canadians are not fooled by the Liberal counteroffensive. They
understand that at issue are the findings of the government's own
audit which gave very clear evidence about the mismanagement of
this fund. The issue is the absolute mismanagement of huge
amounts of public funds and the partisan political decision
making that is taking place.
1210
Partisan political decision making is the nicest way to say it.
To be quite frank, it is also a slush fund. The concern has been
that public funds have been used by the Liberal government,
breaking its established criteria for the transitional jobs fund
and other programs, and basically shovelling the money into its
own ridings, which are not in need, when other areas are greatly
in need. What is at issue is the management of the fund and how
it has been administered in a very political and partisan way.
What disturbs us as New Democrats is the complete lack of
accountability, not only in the management of the fund and what
has come from it but, now that this has been put on the table and
the internal audit has become public, the lack of accountability
in the government's response and the lack of accountability from
the current minister and the previous minister.
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for
Winnipeg Centre.
In our democracy, our parliamentary system, there is a very
honourable tradition that when there has been a lack of
accountability and mismanagement, at the end of the day it is the
minister who must take responsibility. The minister is
accountable and the government is responsible for decisions that
have been made. That is why opposition parties have been very
clear in telling the current minister and the previous minister
that we want accountability.
We have a number of questions about this fund. Looking at the
internal audit, we see that it was only a sample audit, not a
full detailed audit. In reading the report, we read “there was
concern with respect to some political presence in the programs
at times. While a certain amount of political involvement is
expected in a program involving partners from the various levels
of government, there was nevertheless some uneasiness amongst
some respondents regarding projects which may have been approved
for political reasons rather than based on the strength of the
business plan”.
The NDP has a huge amount of concern about the very diplomatic
language that is being used in an audit that clearly points to
the political decision making and political management that took
place to the advantage of the government for their Liberal
members and its party.
We have questions as to where those funds ended up. Why did
they end up in the minister's riding, the Prime Minister's riding
and other Liberal member ridings that clearly did not meet the
criteria for the fund? Why did affluent ridings receive a
disproportionate amount of these funds? They may have had some
unemployment but certainly not as high as other parts of Canada,
such as Vancouver East, the area that I represent. Look at the
downtown eastside which has the lowest income postal code in
Canada. There was one transitional jobs fund program approved in
1997, before I was a member of parliament. It is an area of
incredibly high unemployment. Why has that area not received
anything? Why has money gone into the member's riding? Why has
it not gone into the riding of my colleague from Winnipeg Centre,
which also has high unemployment?
There are some very serious questions about why a massive amount
of public funds have been directed in such a way that they have
clearly benefited government members and to the detriment of
other needier areas in Canada.
Our critic for EI, the member for Acadie—Bathurst, wrote a
letter to the auditor general calling for an immediate special
audit of the situation in HRDC. The letter he received back made
it clear that the staff of the auditor general, who were
conducting an audit into the grants and contributions, believed
that there was so much work that needed to be done that the audit
would not be completed until the end of July and the report
published in October.
It is important that the audit be done.
1215
Members of the NDP support the motion because we believe it is
very important to get to the bottom of what took place. We know
that Canadians support legitimate, transparent and accountable
job creation and job development programs.
We in the NDP have always supported those programs. What we do
not support is the denial, the lack of accountability, and what
is now obviously political management of the fund that is
benefiting government members and denying areas most in need.
Those are the questions that we want to see fully made
transparent.
In conclusion, the motion deals with the issue of accountability
and integrity of the government. We think that is very critical.
At the end of the day the current minister and the former
minister who are both involved in this matter must be responsible
and must do the responsible thing in terms of being accountable
for what has taken place within the department. We have called
for their resignation and will continue to do that. We support
the motion.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the member for her remarks. As the member might
be aware, I as a backbench MP have done a number of studies on
NGOs, non-governmental organizations, particularly charities and
non-profits. I have encountered a lot of problems with
transparency and accountability in these organizations and I have
reported on them.
Would she be of the view that if we are going to clean up this
whole issue of giving government grants and contributions to
organizations one shoe should fit all and that non-profit
organizations should be required to meet the same standards of
transparency, accountability and corporate governance as
for-profit organizations in order to be eligible for public funds
and, moreover, that they should submit themselves to performance
reviews in order to be subject to further grants?
Ms. Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question
but again it is another example of how Liberal members are really
trying to deflect what is taking place in the debate. They are
shifting the attack and now saying is it not non-profits that are
somehow at fault.
I have a long history of close to 30 years of working with
non-profit organizations and NGOs. I can tell the member that
non-profit societies in terms of their democracy, in terms of
their transparency, are probably the best model that we have in
the country of how things should work. If the member wants to
look for where there is corruption or where there is
mismanagement then perhaps he should go into the business
community, into some of the financial institutions, to see what
is going on there.
Of course we expect that non-profits will make applications in
good faith, will fulfil those applications and will meet the
mandates of the program. The groups I have dealt with spend a
huge amount of time doing that and trying to meet all the
criteria.
That is not what this issue is about, though. This issue is
about the mismanagement of the government, the political
mismanagement in the administration of the fund. Why is the
member not raising that question?
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is refreshing to hear a member from
the NDP talk about fiscal responsibility. What we are looking at
today is that the old way of spending for votes is with us,
rather than wisely administering the public trust. That is what
is staring us in the face.
The minister of HRDC seems to be characterized as a starry-eyed
idealist defending cash transfer programs, taking from the many
to give to the few. The Liberals are like the Liberals of old,
the do-gooders for their friends who stupidly believe that top
down broad bureaucratic job creation programs actually create
lasting economic transformation. The Liberals cannot manage.
Especially starting in the Pearson-Trudeau years, federal
ministers are inherently expansionary. They exist; therefore
they will spend.
Will the member vote against the socialism of the Liberals in
the next budget? What we are looking at today was in last year's
budget. The Minister of Finance has to bear a lot of
responsibility for the philosophy and the program allocation,
what were the stated goals of the program.
I am looking for a critical evaluation come budget time if there
is an appearance of these kinds of programs in the next budget.
1220
Ms. Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his
question. Previous Liberal budgets or the ones we expect are
certainly not my idea of what socialism is about, but I assure
the member we will provide very rigid scrutiny of what the budget
contains.
His question really pertains to fiscal accountability and
responsibility. It is unfortunate the member has the idea that
somehow New Democrats do not stand for that. Of course we do. If
he looks at the Government of Saskatchewan or the NDP Government
of British Columbia, and if he looks at the work we do in the
House, he will see that we take very seriously fiscal
responsibility and ensuring that public funds mandated under
specific programs go where they are needed.
This is why in terms of this issue we are scandalized and
outraged at what has taken place under the Liberal
administration. There has been a complete lack of
accountability, a complete lack of proper political
administration of the program for very political purposes. This
is fiscally irresponsible and we are the first to stand and say
it.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
thank my hon. colleague from Vancouver East for agreeing to share
her time with me. As she has correctly pointed out in her
speech, our two ridings share a great deal of common items, most
of which are not very enviable. The very things we share are
things people would probably not want to share. One of them is
that both our ridings suffer from chronic long term poverty and
all the predictable consequences that come with it.
As the member pointed out, she represents what is the poorest
postal code region in the country, downtown Vancouver East. My
riding is the third poorest riding in the country when measured
by the incidence of poverty and average family income. However,
the point I would like to make is that neither of us qualify for
any transitional jobs fund money. Although we are suffering
from crime, violence and all issues surrounding chronic long term
poverty, we do not qualify for the help these funds were
presumably set up to assist ridings in dire straits. Frankly
there has not been one red cent for the riding of Winnipeg
Centre.
That really irks us. It is galling, as we see the onion being
peeled back layer by layer and the truth starting to come out,
that the ridings benefiting from these funds are fairly affluent
and well to do ridings. More often than not there has been some
political influence in how these grants were allocated to various
ridings.
The most glaring and best example we could use is the riding
represented by the current minister of HRDC. With an
unemployment rate of 6.6% and an incidence of poverty of 10.7% in
her riding, how does she justify pouring job creation money into
the particular riding? Most of us in poor inner city ridings
look to statistics such as these and are envious of them.
Another glaring example came to light when we looked at the
Edmonton East riding of the current Minister of Justice. Most of
the country is flocking to Edmonton because there are jobs and
opportunity and prosperity. I am not sure what the unemployment
rate is in Edmonton West but I am sure it is not the 12% that we
were told was necessary to qualify for these funds.
A $1.3 million grant went to banding trees to prevent Dutch elm
disease in the riding of Edmonton West. This is a laudable
concept. I am all in favour of saving elm trees, but why do we
not qualify for anything with an unemployment rate that is
staggering in the inner city of Winnipeg and an incidence of
poverty that is 31.1%? Some 31.1% of all people living in my
riding are poor and we do not get anything, zero, zippo. We were
told that we do not qualify.
The rules keep changing. First there had to be 12% unemployment
to qualify.
Now we learn that maybe in the riding of Edmonton West it is not
under 12% but that there are pockets of unemployment. That is
the term they are using. Aboriginal people in her riding are
disproportionately unemployed. That is a legitimate point but
she did not tell that to us.
1225
We have the same argument in Vancouver East or Winnipeg Centre.
I could point to and illustrate pockets of unemployment all over
my riding, but we were told that we do not get anything. This is
what is really galling and grating to people who are representing
areas in genuine need.
The hon. member for Vancouver East pointed out two flaws in the
current system. One is the glaring errors in the administration
of the fund. That is really what came to light first. Nobody
can deny there is a serious problem. Even the minister is
recognizing that there is a serious problem. I can indicate why
we have this serious problem. It is because when one-third of
the public sector is cut, hacked and slashed and everybody is
laid off, how could we expect the same amount of work to be done?
It is unreasonable to think the same kind of scrutiny can be
applied to these projects when everybody has been fired. In the
federal public sector 50,000 people have been laid off. Now the
chickens are coming home to roost. We are starting to see the
predictable outcome of laying off all those people.
The next glaring point about the TJF is the allocation. It was
a mystery to all of us how some ridings got these grants and some
did not. Now it seems pretty clear. It is political influence.
The Liberals are using it as a Liberal slush fund to further
their own interests in their own ridings.
Obviously on a personal level I can point out that it is tragic
we did not get any of it in my riding, but the real tragedy is
that it makes members of the general public even more cynical
than they already were about the political process and about what
we do in this place as politicians.
If they were not jaded enough already, as the real horror of
this disastrous story unfolds more and more Canadians will be
even more cynical about their government. That is the tragic
point I would like to make. It is tough enough to do our job and
try to maintain some semblance of dignity without this kind of
thing tarnishing the image of every person who stands in the
House of Commons.
In the Prime Minister's riding there were 17 of these TJF
grants. Let us imagine the millions and millions and millions of
dollars. Actually we have a total list of all grants that went
into the riding of the Minister of Human Resource Development.
Over three years there were $30 million in grants or $10 million
a year. It is a booklet as thick as the Manhattan phone book.
Virtually every little business in the whole riding has had
something shovelled toward them from these many, many, many
programs. Not all of them were TJF grants. I think there were
only three transitional jobs fund grants in her riding, but in an
area with 6.6% unemployment, not even half the minimum standard
which the rules say have to be met before a riding qualifies for
anything, it makes one wonder how that money was directed to that
riding.
Most of us on the prairies look to Ontario as a land of
opportunity and prosperity. How do towns like Brant qualify for
these grants? I am sure that there are problems all over the
country and everybody deserves equal access to these types of
training funds and subsidies, but it seems it is
disproportionately going to areas that cannot really argue they
need it.
The average family income in the riding represented by the
Minister of Human Resources Development is $45,000 a year. The
people in the core area of Winnipeg can only dream about aspiring
to that level of income. The average family income where I live
is $28,000 a year. We are talking about a disparity. It may
just be a different standard of poverty, but it is certainly a
lack of understanding of what it means to be locked into the
inner city core area without opportunity. These programs should
be there to assist on a broader level.
We talked about the Prime Minister's riding with 17 of these
grants worth $7,296,000. Is this justifiable when other ridings
are being given absolutely nothing?
I echo the comments of my colleague that frankly the NDP is not
against job creation programs. If the transitional jobs fund did
not exist the NDP would probably be calling for such a program to
be created. We are in favour of this kind of thing, but we make
the argument that everybody should have equal access to those
opportunities. They should not be spread out in as
disproportionate a way as they are currently.
1230
It really does make me wonder how the minister of HRDC with 6.6%
unemployment can qualify for any kind of grant at all. Then of
course there is Edmonton West with $1.3 million to band trees to
prevent Dutch elm disease. There is a Dutch elm disease problem
in Winnipeg too, but I do not think anybody would be so
presumptuous as to apply for a transitional jobs fund grant for
it.
I close by saying that the NDP will be voting in favour of the
Reform Party's opposition day motion. We think we are seeing
only the tip of the iceberg here as has been pointed out over and
over again. As we get deeper into this scandal, and that is the
only word we can use as it is going to be the scandal of the
spring, I regret as well that we are being diverted from the many
other pressing issues of the day. Frankly, it is a bit of a
diversion that we are concentrating on this subject instead of
all the important work that we could be doing, but it is
necessary. To restore the confidence of the general public it is
a process we are going to have to go through as painful as it is.
The real tragedy is not seeing one minister toppled, if that is
to be. The real tragedy is that the general public is so
disillusioned as they watch this unfold that we are doing
permanent damage to the reputation of the whole political system.
This should be dealt with swiftly. If the government were
honourable it would not be dallying around. It would not be
trying to build barricades and fences around the issue. It
should treat this issue honestly and admit that something
terrible is taking place. A very transparent process must take
place to heal the wounds because some cuts do not heal.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this
is a very interesting opposition day we are having today.
We have a real scandal before us. Even in the opinion of the
Prime Minister, it hearkens back to the great Mulroney years.
The Prime Minister got carried away last week saying that things
were no worse than they had been in Brian Mulroney's time.
I think they are worse. Here, a deliberate effort is being made
to play with democracy.
For example, in the riding of Saint-Maurice, the week before the
election on June 2, 1997, there was an avalanche of often
questionable grants, including to the golf club and to a certain
motel the Prime Minister is quite familiar with.
In Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, my friend and former colleague,
Roger Pomerleau, was beaten by my former union head. Thanks to
the abuse, his election cost taxpayers $25 million.
In the riding of Brant, where there is almost no unemployment,
millions and millions of dollars were invested in mismanaged
programs.
According to the polls, as they put it so well, if the trend
continues, we have taken at random 459 files, which we have
systematically studied and have come up with 37 nebulous cases,
really nebulous.
There is no need for me to mention Vidéotron, McGill or the
natives who repaid jewels with taxpayers' money. Off the top of
my head, this represents an 8% rate of error in the
administration of HRDC.
If there are in fact 10,000 files, at the rate of 8% there would
be 800 cases, and 37 have been found. There are another 763
they will have to start looking for tomorrow morning.
I do not understand. I wrote a letter to the former Minister of
Human Resources Development because, through his delivery
assistance program, an arbitrary decision, he had allocated a
certain questionable amount in my riding. I wrote him saying
“Be careful, Mr. Minister. You are playing with public money.
You are cutting the benefits of the unemployed and using the
money to pad those who do not need padding. They are already
well padded financially”.
1235
Three months later—he often went to Paris too often, apparently
—he wrote me to say “I do not understand, Mr. Chrétien, your not
being proud at having $35,000 distributed in your riding”.
I am happy to have him give $35,000, but properly.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member has already used three
minutes of his time and many members would like to ask
questions. That is not fair, I feel.
The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre, to give a short answer to
the question.
[English]
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the
comments which are very much in keeping with my speech.
Going back to the member's first point, it does remind us of the
Mulroney years and we should be reminded of what the Prime
Minister said during those Mulroney years when he talked about
the corruption that was so rampant in that cabinet. This is a
quote from the Prime Minister in 1991. He said, “When we form
the government every minister in the cabinet that I will be
presiding over will have to take full responsibility for what is
going on in his department. If there is any bungling in the
department, no one will be singled out. It will be the minister
that will have to take the full responsibility”. Those are very
strong words and it was a zero tolerance attitude maintained by
the current Prime Minister as the opposition leader in 1991.
We would like to see the same sort of swift action, take no
prisoners. If we are going to restore the public's confidence,
swift action must be taken. Frankly the minister is going to
have to go. We are going to hold the current Prime Minister to
his word and the comments he made in 1991. The same should still
apply today.
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker,
I will be splitting my time with my colleague the hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.
The saga continues. Let us go back in time. We have heard
different members get up in the House of Commons today and speak
about whatever we want to call it, shovelgate, or Place du
Portage gate, which is the building which houses this department,
or the bunker. We could name it what we want but it is certainly
a huge scandal.
Let us go back to January 19 when the minister of HRDC came into
the foyer of the House of Commons and delivered the internal
audit dated January 2000. That very same day I called the
department for a copy of the audit and it was so kind as to send
a copy to my office. Then 10 minutes later I got a phone call
from the same department to tell me that I had been sent the
wrong cover sheet and I was asked if I would destroy that cover
sheet and throw it in the garbage. I asked to be sent the other
cover sheet and I would take a look at it. When I received the
other cover sheet, there was no date. The date of October 5 had
been deleted. I checked with the various media to see what cover
sheet they had received and they had received the one with no
date.
It is obvious from that that the department was in a massive
cover-up. It might be a strong word but it is certainly a lot of
money. We are talking about a billion dollars here, not a
million. We are talking about a billion dollars of taxpayers'
money, money that people work hard for every single day, and they
pay hard taxes as well. We have come to find that a billion
dollars has possibly been mismanaged. I think it has been
mismanaged.
We are looking at 459 cases out of 30,000 cases and 37 could be
very serious. Let us do the math. The math was done to do the
audit. They picked 459 different cases. If we do the math and
take 37 cases out of 459 out of a universe of 30,000, that would
give us 2,400 files with a problem for a possible total of $2
billion.
1240
Two billion dollars is a lot of money and we are only talking
about one department, HRDC. Out of this big universe in Ottawa,
HRDC is not the only department that gives out grant money.
There is Heritage Canada and industry. There is a serious
problem.
We have been asking for an external audit on this. The minister
sent out to the press conference yesterday the very same people
she accused of being in the dark ages just the week before. I
have questions for the House and the minister. Who is in charge
of the department? Is it the senior bureaucrats we saw yesterday
or is it the minister? We all saw the scrum coming out of the PMO
last week. We have good reason to think why she was not there.
We also asked yesterday for the resignation of the minister
because the buck stops there. The buck stops with her desk, not
with anybody else. She accused bureaucrats of bungling this. I
state in the House of Commons that when I deal with the
bureaucrats in my riding, they are very thorough and very
transparent. If she is going to point the finger at somebody, she
had better put a mirror in front of herself and point at it. That
is the person she has to blame.
We also find with this audit that there was a concentration of
grants given during the 1997 electoral period, 54% to be exact.
That can be put in the calculator too. Fifty-four per cent of
the grants were given during an election period. It is
absolutely scandalous that taxpayers' money that was supposed to
go into regions affected by employment insurance reform was being
used to try to elect Liberal members.
An hon. member: Buying votes.
Mr. Jean Dubé: It was pretty well that. I hear members
of the opposition saying it was to buy votes. We will certainly
let the public decide that. We will tell them the facts and let
them decide what is really going on.
These programs were brought in to help regions with high levels
of unemployment, regions which under TJF had to have 12% and
higher, like my riding. I was fortunate enough to receive TJF
funds and the funds worked well. But mishandlings went on in the
department and that is the problem. We have to find out exactly
what is going on with the department so we can maximize the
impact of what this was supposed to do in helping the regions.
The minister's own riding of Brant has an unemployment level of
6.6%. Where is the justification for qualifying projects in that
riding? If my riding had 6.6%, we would not have received a
cent, but it has something like 25% to 30%.
1245
The bureaucrats yesterday, when being questioned by the media,
stated that there are pockets of unemployment within that riding.
We have a hard time getting the unemployment rate in a riding.
How can we get a reading of the unemployment rate in a pocket of
a riding? In my riding of Madawaska—Restigouche, the
Restigouche portion is calculated with the area of Charlotte in
southern New Brunswick. How can we calculate a pocket within a
riding? Is it by street number? I am not sure, but I would
certainly like to see how it is done. I would like to see the
pocket in my riding which is the highest.
We are very concerned with what has gone on in the past couple
of weeks, and probably the past couple of years. We are talking
about $1 billion, maybe a lot more. We could call it shovelgate,
or whatever we want, but it is the biggest scandal in Canadian
history and it is on the Liberal government's head. The only way
we can get around this, the only way we can bring transparency
back to this parliament, is to ask for an external audit. We
cannot ask the very same department to audit what it has done.
That is like asking the RCMP to investigate the RCMP. We cannot
do that.
We have a responsibility as a parliament to the people of Canada
to be transparent. Therefore, I ask the minister to call for an
external audit to get to the bottom of this.
I want to congratulate my colleague for putting forward this
motion. This party wholeheartedly supports the motion.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview—Greenwood, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have listened to many of the comments which were made
today. What absolutely amazes me is that the member would
suggest that $1 billion—
Some hon. members: It is $2 billion.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills: Now we are up to $2 billion. It has
been suggested that somehow every dollar of the total went to bad
projects.
The member said himself that he applauded the work of the public
servants in his riding. Right off the bat, I would presume he is
saying that the work which was done in his riding by those public
servants was satisfactory.
Mr. Jean Dubé: It was excellent.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills: It was excellent. The member said
that the work done in his riding by public servants was
excellent. I believe that in the House of Commons, with almost
301 members, the member does not have the only team of public
servants whose work is excellent. I happen to believe that about
my own riding and I know there are other members who feel the
same way.
Are there files on which ongoing investigations needed to be
pursued? Everybody has acknowledged that on the sampling of over
400 files, 37 needed extended work. That is happening. This is
totally transparent.
Is the member not concerned that by casting aspersions on every
single grant that was given in every single riding he is casting
aspersions in a way that many of those people with good solid
projects that have served his riding, my riding and many other
ridings well are going to feel tainted, poisoned or stained?
Does the member not feel that within that $1 billion there were
many good projects?
1250
Mr. Jean Dubé: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
his question. However, the person who accused the public
servants was the minister of HRDC, not the member for
Madawaska—Restigouche. The minister was trying to pass the
blame to everyone else.
Yes, in certain areas these programs have worked. But that is
not the question. The question is the billion dollars of
mismanagement. It could be more. We are talking about 30,000
projects at HRDC. It could be much more.
Last week a former cabinet minister told me to be careful of
what I said. I could jeopardize the programs. I will tell the
House something. It is important to know where every bloody cent
goes that taxpayers pay. That is not going to buy my silence.
We are going to get to the bottom of it. We need an external
audit.
If we are going to protect taxpayer money, if we are going to
maximize what we do with these funds, we need to bring
transparency back to this parliament and ask for an external
audit.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
not only do I wish to congratulate my Progressive Conservative
colleague and counterpart, but I am going to ask him a question
in French.
Yes, we agree with an external audit but, as a member in an area
of high unemployment, does he not find it strange that there
were more projects in ridings with much lower rates of
unemployment, when his own constituents were suffering?
I know that his colleague in the New Democratic Party told me
that he was feeling the effects of this situation because the
unemployed do not necessarily have money to invest in a project
and because, in other more prosperous regions, such as the
present minister's riding, there is more money to launch
projects to help the unemployed. How would he describe this
situation?
Would it not be better to have a criterion based on the number
of unemployed people for this program, which is aimed at the
unemployed? Would he agree that this should be the criterion
for deciding how to distribute funds fairly?
Mr. Jean Dubé: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the member for
Lévis, for his excellent question, because I know that there are
also problems in his riding.
When I look at these ridings with high unemployment and see how
the funds are being distributed under this program, I find this
absolutely deplorable.
The government is trying to defend itself. This morning, someone
said that when an individual makes a mistake in filling out his
unemployment cards, he is immediately considered to be guilty
“You're guilty, so off to jail with you”. But what we have here
is evidence that there was a lot of mismanagement or a huge lack
of management, and the government, as well as the Prime Minister
is rallying around the minister to try to protect her.
So, this is what we are used to seeing with this government, but
some limits and policies must be implemented in order to help
all the regions affected by high unemployment.
[English]
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate. As
alluded to by my colleague, the hon. member for
Madawaska—Restigouche, it is very timely that the official
opposition brought forward this motion.
As time passes it is like the dance of a thousand veils that we
are seeing from the government. We are seeing more and more
information coming forward. I would suggest this is not coming
forward in a very voluntary and forthright way, as members of the
government would have us believe. In fact, the minister
literally had the proverbial gun to her head when she knew that
access to information requests had been made and that this
information was inevitably going to be made public.
Let us start with the premise that the HRDC ministry is set up
for a very legitimate purpose.
There are areas in the country which obviously need assistance in
job creation. As the hon. member opposite suggested, we are not,
as an opposition, suggesting that every single program in the
country was somehow not legitimate. We are suggesting that it is
coming to light daily that a significant portion of them were not
legitimate. It is absolutely astonishing when we hear, and when
the Canadian public hears, that there are companies which
received money that did not even fill out an application. It is
absolutely astronomical when one considers the implications.
1255
How did the money get from the government coffers into the hands
of an organization that apparently did not even request it?
I believe the most appropriate characterization of all of this
is mismanagement. I would suggest that the minister has been
very economical with the truth when it comes to the disclosure of
information. She has suggested in numerous statements that HRDC
knows where the money is, that it is all accounted for. We can
go to our bank accounts and see that withdrawals were made. We
have the cheques to suggest that the money was received. The
question is: How was the money spent? Was it spent in line and
consistent with the applications, if there were applications?
Was the money accounted for? Was it tracked? Was there any
mechanism or system in place which guaranteed the legitimacy of
the company or the exercise for which the money was applied?
In my riding of Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough there are
regions, in Guysborough County for example, where unemployment is
in the range of 20% to 30%. It is devastating for the people in
that part of the country. This program, if we are to have faith
in it, is aimed specifically at helping depressed regions.
The tragedy in all of this, and my colleague from the NDP
alluded to this, is the absolute cynicism and the absolute loss
of any remaining shred of credibility that the government and
parliament might have in the country. It is on the chopping
block. It is now on the altar.
Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that when people look at this
their trust and faith is going to go further underground. We
heard members of the government, these same individuals and the
Prime Minister when in opposition, assuring Canadians that things
would be different.
It was only a matter of time before someone raised the terrible
spectre of Brian Mulroney. By comparison, and time will tell, we
will see just how legitimate some of these claims are when
stacked up against the Mulroney administration.
We all recall that image we saw of the rat pack, appropriately
named. Who can forget the image of the current minister of
heritage scrambling over desks, howling like a banshee, to get at
a member of the Mulroney government? Where is she now? The
silence is deafening when it comes to questions being asked of
her own government.
My colleague from New Brunswick also alluded to the fact that
this is hard-working taxpayers' money. This is the blood, sweat
and tears of Canadians who give their money to the government in
good faith, on the understanding that it will be spent in a
responsible fashion, in the belief that the money is going to be
used for legitimate purposes.
What we need from the government is an accounting. What we need
is some semblance of responsible reaction, some transparency.
These are the types of words the Prime Minister was very free to
throw around while in opposition but very reluctant to embrace
now that he is sitting on the government benches. Of course,
that is not new. We saw similar platitudes and comments made
about things like the GST and free trade. All of these were
going to change. They were scrapped along with the helicopter
program and most of the red book promises after the election.
What we need now is for the government to be completely open
about what has taken place. It appears that this so-called
scandal goes back to the very beginnings. It goes back to 1993,
almost immediately after the government came to power, under the
ministry of that now infamous name, Doug Young. The voters of
New Brunswick had the good foresight to send Mr. Young a message
in the last election.
I suggest, and again time will tell, whether under his tutelage
in this department the policies, principles and infrastructure
were put in place to allow for this scandal to brood, fester and
continue for years after.
1300
We saw an unprecedented attempt by the current minister. It was
a simultaneously behind covering and face saving exercise to
point behind her to the previous minister, but I think she has to
go back a little further to Mr. Young, to the very beginning.
I credit the media for this truth seeking exercise. It really
began in the off season. It is astronomical when we think about
it, but we know the Prime Minister in his comments to his caucus
last week said that they should sit tight, batten down the
hatches and this would go away. They have a budget coming and
there are other things they can distract the Canadian public
with. They can talk about clarity. They can talk about the
muddy, ill timed, ill conceived bill they have foisted on the
country, and hopefully the real issues of the country will go
away, such as the problems in health care, the overburdened
taxation system, the problems in education, crippling student
debt, underfunding to the military and underfunding for the law
enforcement agencies, all of which are not priorities. They will
talk about constitutional matters which in the meantime will
hopefully distract from the burgeoning and ballooning scandal
taking place in the HRD department.
The timing and sequence of events set out by my colleague from
New Brunswick about the infamous fax sheet that was sent with the
deleted date were very interesting. Obviously I suggest an
attempt was made to distance the minister from knowledge of the
first instance when the matter was brought to her attention.
We know there was a shuffle in cabinet or a change in ministries
in August. It stands to reason that an extensive briefing would
take place when a new minister took over. The audit was already
under way. Surely the previous minister would have had some
conversation with the minister to let her know that this was
something that might happen on her watch because it had already
begun.
The communication breakdown is not new is this instance. We
know of a similar situation. The current Minister of Fisheries
and Oceans had dropped in his lap the fact that the Marshall
decision was before the supreme court. His predecessor did not
take the time to let him know that there was a crisis brewing. A
lot of Chinese walls and walls of silence seem to surround the
government when it comes to sharing bad news. It certainly does
not want to share bad news with the opposition or the Canadian
public.
This is something that goes to the very root of democracy. This
goes to the very confidence of Canadians in their government. As
painful and as ugly as it may seem, this entire exercise of
uncovering what has taken place in this department is necessary
if we are somehow to try to restore some semblance of integrity.
It is very sad that using the word integrity in the political
process has almost become an oxymoron.
I know hon. members opposite do not like to hear this. It is
really tough to get hit with the truth, but I want the Canadian
public to know that the Progressive Conservative Party supports
the motion wholeheartedly. This is perhaps the beginning of the
end for the reign of error of the Liberal government.
Canadians are cynical beyond belief and apathy has begun to set
in. Parliament has been darkened by the performance of the
minister and the government in this regard. The flag over the
Peace Tower should be flying at half-staff today. The death of
what remaining faith there was in the hearts and minds of
Canadians may be on the altar today.
We need an external audit. It is obvious to everyone in this
place and to the millions of Canadians who are watching that this
has to take place if there is to be any shred, any scintilla of
credibility left in the government. All of what it has said and
now all of what it has done are before the Canadian public and
have to be laid bare.
I welcome the opportunity to have taken part in this debate and
I welcome the opportunity to continue to ask relevant questions
of the government. Hopefully we will get some answers.
1305
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I just have to caution members opposite that when they
make comparisons between the last election of 1993 under the
Mulroney government they have to watch out if they start to look
at multiculturalism funding. There are those of us who have
documents and have done research in this area. They are liable
to find, just as an example, the Parents for French organization
used to get a $130,000 annual contribution from the Mulroney
government but just prior to the election it went to $424,000.
There was a lot going on in that year about funding special
interest groups of all kinds prior to an election.
The point I want to make to the member is that there is an
opportunity to take advantage of the situation. I asked a
question of members of the NDP and they dodged the reply. I ask
this question of the member opposite. Is he willing to see the
same standards of transparency, accountability and performance
review that we wish to see in HRDC apply to all other
organizations that we see getting funding from government,
including those organizations involved in unions, involved in
poverty, non-governmental organizations, charities and
non-profits? Does he not think one shoe should fit all in terms
of accountability and transparency?
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to respond to
that question. We know in the past the government has said one
thing while in opposition but when it made that stroll a couple
of sword lengths across the floor it did something completely
different. Of course we want the same standard applied across
the board. We are very anxious to see transparency and truth in
government. We are sitting here on the edge of our seats in
anticipation that it will happen, but will it happen?
The hon. member opposite loves to raise the spectre of Mulroney,
but I will tell the House that when this is all over I think the
name he knows well will replace it. The promises of a new
approach, the promises of a new administration, are all in
jeopardy now.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member from the Conservative Party made a very good and
interesting speech. I am amazed at the questions and comments of
Liberal members, especially the member who asked a question two
minutes ago.
This same member supported the $20 million payment to the NHL. I
heard the Liberal member on CBC Radio supporting the program. Yet
his own caucus was opposing it and that is why the program was
cancelled. I am amazed that I do not hear any objections coming
from that side. As a matter of fact that side is trying to say
that this was a good program, not understanding that it was
totally mismanaged and, as my colleague has said, the biggest
scandal to hit the government. Perhaps he would like to comment
on what we are hearing from Liberal members.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, my learned friend knows
that hypocrisy is not a word we can use in this place. There is
something rotten in the Liberal dome. The malevolent king of
slush playing Robin Hood in reverse has somehow been caught in
the squeeze. There is a big difference between giving money to
the NHL, giving money to the banks, giving money to fat cat
Liberals. When it comes to a job creation program we are
supposed to be helping Canadians.
I am surprised that my friends in the NDP have not raised the
issue that changes to the EI system took place in the early part
of this administration which now keep money away from needy
Canadians if they are a few hours short of qualifying. Yet the
government seems prepared or more than willing to put money into
companies that are already making money. It seems prepared to
give money to businesses. Yet it will keep money away from needy
Canadians who are a few hours short of qualifying for EI. This
is a very shady approach on which Canadians will judge the
government harshly in the next general election.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
problems with Human Resources Development Canada are nothing
new. On the eve of the June, 1997, election, a man by the name
of Pierre Corbeil received from the minister who has now left,
the former member for Hull—Aylmer, a list of people who would get
significant amounts of money.
1310
Pierre came first and he asked for a ransom, in cash, please. We
do not know whether all the funds he received went directly to
the Liberal Party of Canada or if some got lost in his car along
the way but, nevertheless, it was seven months before the RCMP
were able to bring charges against him and before he recognize
his wrongdoing. But nothing was done within the department.
This is almost like Douglas Young, the guy from New Brunswick.
He got his punishment. I would like my colleague to finish this
story.
[English]
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, my colleague has brought
the name of Pierre Corbeil into this debate. We know there were
actually criminal convictions registered in that instance. We
know that it arose out of HRDC where a Liberal fundraiser armed
with lists of pending HRDC transitional jobs money went knocking
on the doors of companies that were perhaps eligible to receive
it and said “A little something for the effort and we might be
able to speed up the process”.
There were criminal convictions registered. The trail is now
cold but I think more and more watchdogs have become aware of it.
It comes down to a question of priorities. Do we spend money in
this reckless fashion or buy MRIs? Do we allow for some form of
accountability or some form of student debt relief? The
government has to make priority decisions. The government has
mismanaged taxpayer moneys and is now being held to account.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
honoured to stand in defence of the people of Canada,
particularly the people of my wonderful riding of Elk Island, and
to address this very timely issue.
Yesterday I moved a concurrence motion in the report of the
Standing Committee on Public Accounts. The report which was
tabled in the House last November would have addressed this
question. Of course the government has been sitting on it. We
began the debate and the very first Liberal member who rose moved
to stop the debate. Of course the Liberals have the majority and
stopped the debate on it.
One gets the impression that the Liberal pork-barrelling the
program we are talking about represents is a favourite program of
the government. The Liberals just do not want to see it attacked
or criticized or repaired.
I am very pleased to note today that all members on the
opposition side have spoken in favour of this very timely motion.
It is time that all of us, not only members in the opposition but
members on the other side, to do so. They were behind their
leader in the last two elections. They said they would follow
the leader of the Liberal Party who would take them into power
with integrity and who promised a new trust in government. That
is wonderful. I believe that people voted for the Liberals
because of that promise.
I venture to say in all sincerity that members on the government
side will apparently today, so we are told, stand on command and
vote against the motion in defiance of their own sense of
integrity because they know that this problem has to be fixed.
I will use a bit of my time this morning to give a little math
lesson because it has been overlooked so far. The Prime Minister
has tried to diminish the size of the problem by saying that only
37 projects are suspect and that the rest are all fine. He is
also saying that the 37 being questioned will be clarified and
all will be well.
1315
There are two ways of dealing with a problem like this. One way
is by denial, get out the damage control troops to see whether
the damage to the Liberal Party and the government of the day can
be minimized. The other way is to honestly face up to it.
I have told this story in the House before. I will briefly
repeat it and anyone who wants the full story will have to go
back. I remember one time in my life when I did something that
really was bad. I mentioned this story in the House a couple of
years ago. I was a youngster and I suppose I was following the
lead of some of the older people in the group. We were out for a
bike ride and we ended up at a neighbour's place in the farm
country of Saskatchewan. The house was vacant. As I said the
last time I related the story, much to my sorrow and personal
regret now, when we left not a single window was left in the
building because we had broken every one of them by throwing
rocks at them. It was dastardly.
I do not know what the other parents did, but my father took me
to the owner. I will not mention his name again; the last time
Hansard misspelled it because I forgot to give the correct
spelling. I had to look that man in the eye and say, “I broke
the window”. He also required that I pay it back.
I was a youngster on a Saskatchewan farm in the late forties.
We did not have a great deal of money. Money was hard to earn.
I picked up beer bottles for about two years and sold them in
order to repay the debt. I am grateful to my dad for the lesson
he taught me.
To me, that is a way of solving a problem. When one has erred,
the best way of fixing it is to face up to it, admit it and then
make restitution.
Here is a situation where the Prime Minister is trying to
minimize the problem and explain it away instead of saying to the
people of Canada, “Yes, the auditor general in his report
brought this problem to our attention and we will do something
about it”.
In fact, nothing was done. The previous member from the Tory
party brought out this point too. One of our people made the
access to information request. I do not know whether Canadians
know this but when a request is made under the Access to
Information Act one of the first things that happens is that the
department getting the request fires off a warning memo to the
minister that says, “Hey, they are looking into something here.
Let us be prepared”.
In a sense that becomes part of the damage control team trying
to get the defences ready even before the attack is launched. It
just so happened that within a couple of days of that access
request being filed the minister said, “Oh, oh, we have been
caught. They are on our trail. I guess now we will have to be
honest”.
I hesitate to say this, but an honesty that is forcibly
extracted somehow rings hollow. I do not want to impute any
improper motives to the Prime Minister or to the various
ministers who have been involved in this scandal but I think it
rings hollow.
Getting to my math lesson, as members know, I have been an
instructor of mathematics at the technical institute in Edmonton.
I did not specialize in statistics but I know a little about it.
One of the things that happens when a sample is done, within a
statistical range of error, it is appropriate to apply the
results of the sample to the entire population.
For example, the Liberals like to gloat that right now if 2,000
Canadians were asked how they would vote in the next election,
something like 35% or 36% would say they would vote Liberal. How
did they get that? Out of the 2,000 people maybe there were 800
or so who said they would vote Liberal. They took the 800 out of
2,000 and extrapolated it to the entire population and said that
is how the entire population would vote. That is how statistics
work.
As a matter of fact statistical methods are used all the time in
many different industrial processes and certainly in
socioeconomic studies and investigations.
1320
In this case there were some 30,000 projects. The internal
audit came as a result of the auditor general putting his finger
on a problem. That is when the internal audit was called and
appropriately so. The auditor general pointed out there was a
problem way back last April, almost a year ago. The department
said that it needed to look into it and fix it, which was an
appropriate response.
The internal audit looked at a random sample of 459 projects.
These projects were not chosen because they were suspect; they
were picked statistically at random. That is my understanding of
how these projects were chosen. Of the 459 we have these
percentages. These are the numbers plus or minus a certain range
due to statistical variation which is very normal in statistical
studies. My guess is that it could be plus or minus 5% or
thereabouts.
Taking a sample size of 459 and extrapolating it to 30,000, this
is what we have. Of the projects that were reviewed, 15% did not
have an application on file. That means out of all of them we
could extrapolate to say that there are 4,500 projects that were
approved without even having an application on file.
An hon. member: No.
Mr. Ken Epp: A member opposite is saying no but I stand
by my numbers. It is the same percentage applied to the whole
population as it is to the sample plus or minus a very small
range. If he wants to say 4,400 or 4,600, I will go along with
that, but it is 4,500 plus or minus a small number.
Of those that had no cash forecasts, there would be 21,600
projects. Eleven per cent of them had no budget proposal. That
means we could conclude that some 3,300 of these projects did not
even have budget proposals, and they were approved and received
taxpayers' money.
Mr. Speaker, you have signalled that my time is up and I wish I
could go on. I am trying to give a message to the Liberals on
the other side. Today when they are asked to vote on this
important motion, I appeal to them to do as will all other
members on this side. Let us vote for the people, for the
taxpayers and not just for our own self-preservation.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am delighted the member for Elk Island raised the
issue of the Access to Information Act because that is a subject
of great sensitivity to me today. As he will realize his party
blocked a private member's bill that would reform the Access to
Information Act, increase transparency and increase accessibility
to the very kinds of documents and information that the member
for Elk Island is citing.
So I would like to ask him how he could expect me as a member on
this side of the House who is most interested in getting to the
root of government documents, in getting to examine the way
government functions and indeed who has had legislation before
this House that would enable members to better do their job in
this regard, to take this motion seriously when his party has
deliberately blocked the very kind of legislation that we need in
this House to enable backbenchers and opposition members to
assess how government operates? Legislation is transparent and
yet that party, the party on the other side, has rejected that
legislation. And they expect me to support their motion? Well,
I am sorry.
Mr. Lee Morrison: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. It appears that the hon. member is again challenging your
authority. You shut him off on this before but he persists. Can
we not get back to the debate on the subject at hand which is the
scandal in HRDC?
The Deputy Speaker: I am sure we will with the hon.
member for Elk Island who now has the floor to respond.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what the member
for Wentworth—Burlington is saying.
He had a very important bill. He came to members of the Reform
Party and got them to sign a sheet of paper which said we want to
make sure it is debated in the House. Reform Party members
agreed to that. Then he changed the bill. Now it has a
different substance in some areas. The signatures no longer
stand. It was simply on a matter of principle that he was given
a set of signatures that applied to something other than what he
was presenting in the House. It is a completely different issue.
He should understand that. We want to preserve the integrity of
Private Members' Business which is so important.
1325
However, he has brought up the subject of integrity and I will
just conclude with a simple statement. I expect him as a result
of his commitment to integrity, honesty, openness and
transparency to rise in support of this motion.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, every time I hear the member for
Elk Island talk about his window story, I get very nervous about
the beautiful stained glass windows in the House. I hope he does
not salivate over those beautiful windows.
I thank his party for bringing this very timely motion to the
House today. It is very important. Throughout this country, we
as politicians and members of parliament are held in low esteem
regardless of this boondoggle. We need moral leadership that
encourages people not only to become members of parliament but to
run for elected office at all levels.
I ask the hon. member should the minister be asked to resign,
which I suspect she should do to show leadership, but should not
the previous minister of that department also resign? These
problems are systemic. They did not just happen overnight.
It is interesting to hear the Conservative Party talk about
accountability. When it was in power a lot of money went into
areas and was not really accounted for. I am glad to see the
Conservative Party has changed its tone and has seen the right
way of doing things now.
Should not the previous minister resign as well for this
boondoggle?
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, the member has a valid point.
First I would like to assure him that when I was nine years old,
having gone through that lesson, I learned not to break windows.
To my knowledge I have not broken one since then, even
accidentally, so do not worry about the windows here.
I would like to talk about the idea of ministerial
responsibility because the Prime Minister said that the ministers
would be responsible. Indeed it is a measure of integrity that
when things have really blown apart the minister resigns.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
regret that I have to stand in the House to talk today on a
subject of this sort that represents what we would expect to be
the very best for Canadians in terms of their use of tax dollars.
I have come to sleuth and to understand more of this big scandal
which some would suggest is certainly major mismanagement of
taxpayer dollars. I do definitely, individually, have major
concerns with the management and the minister's and the whole
government's lack of competence in this area.
I would ask this more as a question and the members in the House
and people in the gallery and those watching in TV land would be
the ones to respond. This government vaunts and boasts often of
its competence, managerial ability, fiscal prudence and sound
government. We see quite the contrary it would appear. I ask a
question and I do not prejudge the outcome but everyone can draw
their own conclusions. Is there something of a fraud in the
Prime Minister's brag of managerial competence, fiscal prudence
and sound government? As I lay out my understanding of what has
occurred here I will allow the audience to draw its own
conclusions today.
In a very considerable way what has happened over the last
number of weeks, or at least what has been exposed, has drawn
into question the jobs fund as a matter of principle and whether
it is effective in creating jobs. That is sad in a certain
sense. I am a believer that there can be tax dollars targeted
for social programs for individuals who are disabled and so on.
They need equipment and special access. That maybe is another
matter. That is a social program. That is policy set in place to
help those who need that leg up in society.
Government handouts are very poor at creating jobs in the
general sense.
If that were not the case then the maritime provinces would
obviously be booming, as might other parts of our country.
1330
Generally speaking, when we are not talking social programs—and
there is need for that with respect to disabled and other
people—job creation, for the most part, should be done by the
private sector. It is the engine that drives job creation.
Studies have shown that. It is beyond dispute. Reducing
corporate tax, payroll taxes and those kinds of things provide
incentive and release money for investment.
It is a real shame that this $1 billion or more boondoggle seems
to be endemic and systemic in the government. It is money that
could well be used in other areas. When we have had significant
cuts in health and post-secondary education and we have not had
the kind of support for farmers in terms of a subsidy war across
the world, it is a real shameful thing in my view.
Tax dollars are justifiably used for things like health care,
post-secondary education and a basic social safety net. After
that we do have a consensus to break down from there.
What is so preposterous about this is that tax dollars have been
used for things that they should not be used for and on the other
hand we have had a deficit in respect to health, education and
basic social needs.
We do need social programs that help people with disabilities
and so on, but we do not need them as the driving engine to
create jobs. This is a fundamental flaw. They do not create
jobs as effectively or in any proportion as the private sector
would if it was left to do that.
When seats throughout the west were held by Reform, we did not
say, as some people may have thought, that we did not want our
share. We said that we had enough of these kinds of programs.
We have had enough of the old way of doing things, the dark ages'
way of doing things, by patronage and pork barrelling which comes
out of the 1800s and 1900s. In a modern democracy, we should not
be doing programs in this manner. The west was not asking
“Where is our share?” It was saying “Enough of this kind of
stuff, enough of these fiascos”, which are now very apparent.
The government failed to create jobs in many cases. It gave $14
million to 32 companies but no jobs were created. We can list
many of them and we will over the course of the days ahead.
Companies in my own province that created zero jobs were Clifford
Smith Trucking, $72,000, and Saskatchewan Dutch Elm Disease
Committee, $100,000. No jobs were created. I could go on with a
list of companies and projects that received money but where not
a single job was created.
We could list companies that have closed. A Cape Breton coffin
factory received $400,000 to make fibreglass coffins that would
float or last forever underground. Only three of those coffins
ever sold and the factory closed.
We could list companies that have wasted money. In the 1988
audit we found, among other ridiculous kinds of examples, that a
road that went nowhere was built through the riding of the then
revenue minister Elmer MacKay. Two bridges were built but no
roads connected to them. It goes on and on. As a matter of
principle, the government has clearly not been creating jobs and
in fact cannot do that.
The government has used this fund and the grants and
contributions to give politically motivated handouts. Some have
called it a slush fund. I will leave that for others to state.
However, the minister certainly did not keep her own rules. There
are 15 pages of grants given to the minister's Brant riding, a
riding which should not have qualified for grants. Since April
1999, she has approved other projects. Her riding did not have
an unemployment rate of over 10%. The earlier qualifying rate
had been 12%. She was signing cheques for her own riding
contrary to the most basic rule of the Canada jobs fund criteria,
which was to create permanent jobs, new jobs, sustainable jobs
and so on in areas of high unemployment, areas where there was
more than 12% unemployment, later relaxed to 10%. She clearly
violated that rule.
How can Canadians put their trust in a minister who mismanages
the money that goes into her own riding?
I can think of other examples that have been mentioned in the
House during question period. I refer to the Grand-Mère Inn in
the Prime Minister's own riding, the Pierre Corbeil story, an
enterprising young Liberal, an individual who thought that he
could lever some money for the Liberal coffers by going to them
and saying “If you give me a donation, we will make sure your
TJF application gets approved”.
1335
Mr. Paul Forseth: It is called a shakedown.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott: It is called a shakedown, as the
member said. He was charged with that and there was a
conviction. These programs are rife with that stuff. It would
not be surprising if many more instances of that turn up.
As I understand it, a special assistant in the justice
minister's riding of Edmonton West by the name of Greg Fergus
handled these special representations by ministers, which led to
grant approvals in areas that did not strictly qualify. Justice
Minister McLellan's riding received $1,350,000 and $888,000 from
the transitional jobs fund even though the unemployment rate was
lower than the TJF rate.
There is no accountability to taxpayers and the records are
poor. This is not just sloppy, it is systemic. If a dot or a
decimal is missing, that is sloppy. If it is patterned like this
throughout, that is systemic. The problem the government has is
that these are not just a few isolated cases. They run like a
thread in terms of patronage and pork barrelling throughout the
government. It is endemic.
Let us look at the recent TAGS program: 34% did not contain any
proposal to support the project; 83% did not have any supporting
documentation; 80% were not checked to see if recipients owed
money to HRDC; and 76% did not show any evidence of financial
monitoring. That was under the Atlantic groundfish strategy.
Other examples could be cited from across various departments.
We believe some cover-up is going on. We have said before that
the minister appeared to have misled the House. On November 17,
1999, she would have had the information in hand and had been
fully briefed, yet subsequent to that, on December 1 and again on
December 7, she talked about the wonderful and extraordinary job
being done to make sure Canadians got back to work. What a
wonderful play act. On December 7 she talked about how Canadians
approved of this when she was withholding information that would
have pointed to the contrary and would have exposed this whole
thing.
One would have to ask, and I believe some have rightly done so,
whether the minister is staying in that role because of
bloodlines or genetics because her father did not fiscally manage
things accurately. Significant dollars were in question when she
was in the aboriginal affairs department.
The Prime Minister's spin on this whole thing is that there are
only a few cases. Let us consider that the scathing audit of 459
projects is a representative sample of between 50,000 and 60,000
projects. According to Ms. Brigitte Nolet, a spokesperson for
the ministry of human resources, the sample of just under 500
projects represents about 60,000. With that proportion, we still
have about 4,800 that have been badly mismanaged.
This is a major problem. We cannot just minimalize it as the
Prime Minister does. It is endemic. It is systemic. It is a
pattern of the government and deserves to be dealt with in this
manner on this day and rebuked for the good of the Canadian
taxpayer.
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I do not
know where to start. I hesitate because the language I would
like to use might be unparliamentary, and I cannot use all the
words that come to mind. I hope the members opposite will
understand that many of the words I would like to utter will
remain unsaid out of respect for the Chair, who would judge
these words to be unparliamentary.
I will use a very simple language.
A billion is a long string of zeros with a one in front of them.
It is a thousand million dollars that were squandered, handed
out to friends and supporters, particularly those who contribute
to the liberal election fund.
1340
We know that there are 1.5 million children living in poverty in
this country. If we took $1 billion and divided it by 1.5
million, every child in Canada could have received $6,666 in
support. But that was not done.
Instead, next year, it will be reported that once again the
number of children living in poverty, and parents living in
poverty of course, has grown. I know that, in my riding of
Matapédia—Matane, where unemployment is very high, from time to
time someone makes a mistake and claims one week too many in
benefits and there are penalties for doing so. They come and
get them and they are almost prepared to send them to jail.
About the $1 billion that disappeared and went into the pockets
of some rich people, I ask my colleague, whom I listened to
intently, how he would qualify this scandal.
[English]
Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is
quite right. Words fail, at least in this place, in terms of
words that are allowable to use. Without a doubt, in terms of
just the scan of it so far and in the research that we have done,
it shows that a disproportionate amount of those dollars have
gone into Liberal-held ridings. It would certainly bolster what
has been said before in terms of being used, being levered for
contributions to the Liberal Party and so on. I think that is
what outrages the public in the whole matter.
The Liberals are now trying to minimize it by saying that it is
just a few projects, when in fact this is a representative
sampling of a far bigger piece.
Yes, we do have a problem. Frankly, the whole system needs to
be changed or started from scratch again where we deal with
handicapped people and provide the resources and so on there. We
need to get away from the kinds of things that are subject to
political interference, patronage and the kind of pork-barrelling
that has been used by the Liberal government over the course of a
number of years.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to give the hon.
member an opportunity to respond to a couple of concerns. He
talked about the private sector being the economic engine that
creates jobs. There is a downturn to that as well. For example,
the Royal Bank in my area made $1.76 billion this year and
announced a layoff of 340 new jobs. Next year the bank plans to
make $2 billion.
Yes, the private sector does create jobs, but there has to be
some sort of corporate responsibility when it comes to economic
opportunities in the outstretches, or what I call the extremities
of Canada.
There is no question that what we need in the country is moral
leadership, people who will stand on principle. My question is
for the previous member who spoke, as well as for the member for
Elk Island. If the minister is to resign, should not the
previous minister resign as well?
Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Mr. Speaker, I would again agree
with my hon. colleague. I do think this sends a signal with
respect to the activities and competence of the previous minister
as well. It taints the record of when he was there. It was on
his watch over a period of time when a significant part of the
program began and then changed over to the Canada jobs fund. He
was able to skittishly get out of there just in time. Some might
say that he was lucky or fortunate, but perhaps it was planned. I
am not sure. I think it also sends a signal in terms of the
competence of the minister who was in that position previously.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will
be splitting my time with the hon. member for Vancouver—Quadra.
We have an internal audit that was released by the Minister of
Human Resources Development. The minister announced a six point
plan to deal with this particular situation with which I do not
think anyone in the House is pleased.
We hear though from the opposition terms like scandal,
pork-barrelling and slush fund.
We do not hear anything from the opposition about what we should
be trying to do to fix the problem. How can we constructively
participate in making sure that this problem does not happen
again? But no, we would rather bandy about cheap terms that have
little credence. We know that it was not $1 billion missing, but
we continue to hear the $1 billion figure. Unfortunately, if we
say something long enough we tend to believe it, which is
certainly the case across the aisle.
1345
The fact is, we have 459 projects—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Some of my colleagues have all the
answers and are not prepared to listen.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
privilege. I urge my colleague to stick to the facts and to the
facts only. If five cents are diverted by this government, by this
party, it is five cents too much. According to the figures, we
are talking about an amount between $1 and $3 billion, not
$300 million. Let us stick to the facts.
The Deputy Speaker: I fail to see how this could be construed as
a question of privilege.
[English]
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Mr. Speaker, it is hard to stick to
the facts when people over there are not listening. I have
indicated that there was not $1 billion missing. I have
indicated many times, both in the House and outside, that if
there is $1 missing we should all be concerned about it.
Clearly, on this side of the House, the minister is taking
appropriate steps.
The minister responded very quickly to the call to attend the
Standing Committee on Human Resources Development on Thursday.
Normally, instead of 10 working days, we have the minister there
on Thursday to answer questions, to put the facts on the table.
Some of my colleagues on the other side have already started to
dismiss the role of the standing committee because they seem
surprised that the minister, who wants transparency, openness and
accountability, as everyone on this side of the House and I am
sure on that side of the House would like to see, is willing to
ensure that the questions which members might have—and I mean
questions, not rhetoric—are put on the table. There is no
question that we have to have confidence in the system.
Before the audit was released some colleagues on the other side
of the House spoke about projects in their ridings as being
worthy, visionary and all so important. Now they cannot wait to
say “scandal”. They cannot wait to say “pork-barrelling”.
Where has this money gone? It has gone to literacy programs. It
has gone to job creation programs. It has gone to programs which
have benefited communities from one end of the country to the
other. Yet we hear these terms being bandied about, without any
interest it seems in looking for real solutions to deal with the
administrative problems which are clearly unacceptable.
Rather than simply shrugging it off, we have designed a six
point program. It may not be exhaustive. There may be other
constructive suggestions which the committee will be able to
present on Thursday to the minister.
The minister has responded already by indicating that she will
provide quarterly updates on the action plan. It is important
that every member of parliament be involved to ensure that the
dollars my colleague across the way referred to will go to the
people and the organizations which have applied, to ensure that
there is accountability and to ensure that the proper paperwork
has been done. It is unacceptable in this day and age for moneys
to be handed out without the proper documentation.
The audit never suggested political interference. The audit
never at any point suggested that there was $1 billion missing.
What it indicated was that there was very sloppy bookwork. It is
very clear that the six point program that is being implemented
as we speak is designed to deal with this.
Let me give the House one example of the program.
To ensure that the payments are made properly, the director will
have to certify the particular project. There will have to be a
signed agreement. There will have to be signing authority.
Payments will be advanced only when the documentation is there,
and I am speaking of documentation in terms of claims, expenses
and so on.
Since many members wrote letters of support for projects in
their communities, at some point we all believed there was value
in the projects they were touting, whether they were literacy
programs, job creation programs or whatever.
1350
Clearly the point is that we want to make sure there is
confidence in the system.
I hear members opposite bandying about terms without any
constructive or supportive comments as to how we might fix the
problem together. They would rather attack the minister, saying
that she should resign. The minister released the report, the
action plan, and has made it the number one priority of her
department.
No one is prepared to accept business as usual, certainly not on
this side of the House. We want to ensure that we have a system
which is strong and comprehensive. We must ensure that the
payments are made with every i dotted and every t
crossed. They must be carefully checked. All of the files which
are active are being reviewed by the department and will be
reported on by the end of April.
It is important that we not lose sight of the fact that these
steps are being taken. The auditor general has endorsed the
action plan before us. I would like to hear the comments of
members opposite in regard to the action plan and the 25
recommendations which were made in the audit.
We have heard in the media and in the House about the projects
that have been approved across the country, how they have
benefited the various ridings. Yes, the system has broken down,
but we are fixing the system to make sure it never happens in the
future.
It would be folly to continue to use terms and figures which
members clearly know are inappropriate. I too am restricted in
the terms that I might use in the House.
At the end of the day, if we are improving the literacy skills
of Canadians, if we are giving the people who have disabilities
an opportunity to work, if we are giving them meaningful
employment opportunities, as has been suggested by many members
and organizations, we should not minimize the important role
which HRDC plays in communities, and in many cases very visibly,
from coast to coast to coast.
In the short term the minister is taking corrective measures to
ensure that payments meet certain financial and program
requirements, as well as checking for and correcting problem
files. In the longer term we will look at equipping our HRDC
staff with the right tools. It is important that they have the
tools to do the job. We want accountability, openness and
transparency. That is part of the action plan. We want to have
measurable and achievable results. And we want to report back
not only to the House, but to the public at large.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the member for Oak Ridges talked about accountability
and responsibility. He said that the Liberal government should
be responsible and accountable. All Canadians want from their
governments is for them to be accountable and responsible to the
people.
The member for Oak Ridges said: “We have to have to have
confidence in the system”. We have seen a very severe attack on
the integrity of the government over the last year. How can
Canadians have confidence in the system, in the government, when
it tries to spend $20 million a year to subsidize millionaire
hockey players?
How can we have confidence in the government when it refuses to
assist western grain farmers who are suffering the worst farm
income crisis since the 1930s?
1355
How can we have confidence in a government which defends the oil
companies, allowing them to gouge consumers at the gasoline pumps
at the highest rates in the world?
How can we have confidence in the government when medicare is in
crisis and all it says is that it will look at it over the next
five years?
We have a real crisis in confidence with respect to the
government.
I ask the member: How can you persuade Canadians to trust your
government to do the right thing in any program you administer
when every single time you lay your hands on the treasury the
money is misspent?
The Speaker: Before I recognize the hon. member for Oak
Ridges, I know it is only the second day, but I would ask the
member to address his questions through the Chair rather than to
the member.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague gave us
a litany of issues, many of which he knows are not directly under
federal jurisdiction. In some cases, such as gasoline, although
the federal government is responsible for dealing with
competition, it does not deal with the issue of pricing at the
pumps.
In terms of the farm crisis, there is not one member on this
side of the House who needs any lesson in dealing with that
crisis. The minister has put forth dollars. Maybe you should
talk to your friend, the premier of Saskatchewan, about anteing
up his 40%.
Maybe you should talk about the fact that when the Government of
Canada put—
The Speaker: I am interrupting once more to say that the
hon. member must address the Chair. Please, do not address each
other directly.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to learn
any bad habits from my friend across the way. There is no
question that the comments we are getting from across the aisle
are not in the proper context. They are saying that we are not
doing anything.
We have anted up 60% for farm incomes. Gasoline pricing is not
our responsibility, but competition is, and we accept that. If
we are going to talk about medicare, let us put the actual
figures and facts on the table, not the rhetoric.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[Translation]
ELISABETH GASSER
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a few
days before Christmas, Elisabeth Gasser passed away. She had
been my riding assistant in Brome—Missisquoi, providing me with
wonderful support right from the first time I was elected in 1995.
Her death is a great loss for her family, her many friends and
her work colleagues, as well as for the Liberal Party, on which
she focussed the strength of her convictions and the enthusiasm
for which she was well known.
I was greatly affected by her passing, because Elisabeth was one
of those people known for their joie de vivre, dynamism and
availability to all. She was one of those people who never did
anything half-heartedly. She made her way through life with
determination and passion.
This lady, who was so full of life, left us at the age of 45, as
the result of lung cancer. She leaves a great void behind her.
I wish to salute the courage of this woman whose extraordinary
morale never faltered all the time she was ill. I extend my
most sincere condolences to her family, particularly her four
children, who were still very much in need of their mother's
presence.
Farewell, Elisabeth.
* * *
[English]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the federal government plays politics with its
multibillion dollar HRD programs while abandoning essentials such
as isolated coastal community docks, the coast guard, national
defence and the RCMP.
Department of Transport policy states that the federal
government will continue to maintain port facilities for remote
and isolated communities. Its actions contradict its words.
The village of Quatsino has been a viable west coast community
since the 1880s. Quatsino relies on boat transportation and dock
facilities to send children to school and to access health care.
The federal government wants to abandon one end of this marine
route by abandoning the dock. Federal bureaucrats have told
residents it is their problem because they chose to live there.
When will the government see past its insensitive nose and live
up to its own policy commitments?
* * *
WHITE CANE WEEK
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this week is White Cane Week. The white
cane and the guide dog have come to symbolize every blind person's
right to pursue and achieve a full and independent life.
1400
They allow blind persons to travel safely, undertake gainful
employment and fully participate in society. Canadian schools,
institutions and business leaders should take the lead in
ensuring full acceptance and equal opportunity for the blind in
Canada.
Finally, I ask all Canadian citizens to recognize and respect
the white cane and the guide dog as representing safety, dignity
and self-help for the blind.
* * *
[Translation]
FATHER GEORGES-HENRI LÉVESQUE
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to pay tribute to the memory of Father Georges-Henri
Lévesque, whom I had the privilege of knowing during my years in
the Quebec national assembly.
Father Lévesque was one of those special people whose
exceptional contributions to society leave an indelible mark on
the times in which they have lived.
Theologian, academic, reformer and scholar, Father Lévesque
founded Laval University's faculty of social sciences, and
co-chaired the commission which created the Canada Council.
We owe him a debt of gratitude, primarily for his inspiration,
his courage, his brilliance as a reformer and social intervenor;
his name is rightfully linked with the great flow of ideas and
social reforms that gave rise to the quiet revolution.
Father Lévesque, for all that you have been, and all that you
have left as your legacy to us, we are deeply grateful.
* * *
[English]
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and
Addington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on January 16 the family farm
tribute was held at the Air Canada Centre in Toronto. This
successful afternoon of entertainment and education saw 13,000
people in attendance and was broadcast live across Canada by CBC
Newsworld and CFRB.
A long list of performers from Gordon Lightfoot, Michael Burgess
and the Toronto Symphony Orchestra to children's entertainer Fred
Penner inspired event goers. Participants also frequented the
exhibit gallery educational booths set up by Agriculture and
Agri-food Canada, by Health Canada and by agricultural
organizations like the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.
Urban Canadians who make up more than two-thirds of Canada's
population enjoy tremendous benefits from the commitment and
contribution of our farmers. Canadian farmers are the most
efficient in the world. They produce the highest quality of
foods at domestic prices that are the envy of other countries.
On behalf of Rural Caucus I wish to acknowledge the efforts of
the member for Broadview—Greenwood in collaboration with Ronnie
The Hawk Hawkins in spearheading this event. Through their
efforts—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Kelowna.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday's question period revealed that the Prime Minister does
not care about credibility. On June 12, 1991, he said:
If there is any bungling in the department, nobody will be
singled out. The minister will have to take the responsibility.
Yet the Prime Minister made a spectacle of defending the HRD
minister. The Prime Minister has no regard for integrity. His
minister knew of the bungling of the transitional jobs fund. Yet
he defended her when she told the House and Canadians that
everything was all right. She now admits that was not true but
what she says now is true. Can we believe her? We only know for
certain what the auditors have shown us: mismanagement and
ineptitude.
The Liberals do not care about how they spend taxpayer money.
They just want more of it. There were 37 tax increases since
they took office. As the latest billion dollar boondoggle
glaringly shows, when the Liberals get our money they abuse it,
misuse it and lose it.
* * *
[Translation]
FIGURE SKATING
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
hugely proud to announce to this House that Pierrefonds will be
hosting—and this is a first for Quebec—the North American
Challenge 2000, between August 8 and 13. This international
figure skating championship will be linked to the summer 2000
championships.
Sponsored by the Club de patinage artistique de Pierrefonds, an
affiliate of the Association régionale de patinage artistique du
Lac-Saint-Louis, which comprises 15 clubs, the competition will
bring over 1,000 young people together and allow them to test
their skills in one of the most beautiful sporting disciplines.
I would like to congratulate, among others, the Fédération de
patinage artistique du Québec, which has a membership of nearly
38,000 skaters and the Canadian Figure Skating Association for
their work with the young people and for the confidence they
have shown in the Club de patinage artistique de Pierrefonds.
Every success to our athletes, officials and organizers.
* * *
ANNE HÉBERT
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Anne Hébert, one
of Quebec's greatest writers passed away recently at the age of 83.
Poet, novelist and playwright, this gentle discreet woman caught
the imagination of Quebecers through her writing with its
shadows of love and hate, life and death, red and black and dark
and light.
1405
Born in Sainte-Catherine-de-la-Jacques-Cartier, cousin of another
famous writer, Saint-Denys Garneau, she produced works that
earned her an international reputation and prestigious awards,
including the Prix France-Canada, the prix Fémina and the prix
des Libraires de France, to name but a few.
Anne Hébert died at the dawn of the year 2000. Like the century
marked by concern and great hope, she left us a body of work
drawn on our roots.
The Bloc Quebecois would like to express its deepest sympathies
to her family and say to them, in the words of one of her lines,
that she who ceaselessly secretly weighs our soul will remain in
the hearts of Quebecers.
* * *
[English]
CHURCHILL HEIGHTS
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I take this opportunity to welcome the students of Churchill
Heights to Ottawa today. These students have travelled to Ottawa
from my riding of Scarborough Centre in order to visit the
impressive Parliament Buildings and to see firsthand how their
government functions. This experience will no doubt be an
enriching addition to what they have already learned in the
classroom and will leave a lasting mark on them for the rest of
their lives.
I believe it is important for Canadians of all ages to visit the
capital and bear witness to the legislative process at work. As
such I extend an invitation to all my constituents to do as the
students of Churchill Heights have done by visiting us in Ottawa.
I welcome the students from Churchill Heights to Ottawa and
thank them for giving me the opportunity to host them in our
country's capital.
* * *
GULF WAR SYNDROME
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, an
independent autopsy performed on deceased Captain Terry Riordon
proves conclusively that gulf war illness exists and that
depleted uranium is the probably cause. Captain Riordon's wife,
Sue Riordon, endured the double misery of watching her husband
die a slow and agonizing death and hearing the government deny
that he was suffering from anything but stress.
It is one thing for the government to send our troops to war. It
is entirely another to deny they are sick as a result of that
war, but that is exactly the government's record. It has
continually denied the existence of any gulf war syndrome and
publicly insisted that depleted uranium is essentially safe even
though its own internal documents warn personnel to wear safety
gear when handling this substance.
It is time to recognize the illness, care for the veterans and
isolate the toxin that has caused a decade of pain for hundreds
of vets. It is time for the government to be held accountable.
We honour the courage of Sue Riordon in her quest for the truth.
* * *
[Translation]
QUEBEC ECONOMY
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we just
heard some excellent news for our economy. The value of Quebec
exports has increased for the third consecutive month, to reach
$5.7 billion. This is a 4.7% increase compared to the October
figure.
This is a sure sign of the strength of the Quebec economy as
well as proof that Quebec can only gain from being part of this
great country that Canada is.
Unfortunately, the sovereignists send the wrong message when
they try to make people believe that an independent Quebec would
fare better. These eloquent figures prove just the opposite.
* * *
[English]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, is there anybody left who wonders why Canadians do not
have confidence in the government? The political mismanagement
of HRDC funding practices has created yet another Liberal slush
fund. Canadians are not fooled by the Prime Minister and his
spin doctors trying to get off the hook. Canadians know that
ministers must be accountable for their own departments.
Instead of following through on its ethical obligations and
instead of helping students who are suffering under record high
debt the government decides to subsidize billionaire banks. Next,
the shipping company owned by the finance minister is interested
in buying the assets of Devco, the same crown corporation that
through his policies he helped shut down. Is that ethical?
The questions speak louder than the rhetoric. In this last
month alone the examples of just how much the government is out
of touch with the needs of ordinary Canadians are shocking. If
the government wants to restore its credibility it must first
learn to respect the people to whom it is accountable, all
Canadians.
* * *
[Translation]
MINISTER OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday,
with his usual but nevertheless hard to take self-importance and
contempt, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs described
those groups wishing to be heard on Bill C-20 as “mothball
clubs”.
As far as we in the Bloc Quebecois are concerned, these groups
reflect the views of millions of Quebecers, including women,
young people, artists and workers. Mothballs have nothing to do
with them.
1410
On the contrary, the fact that these Quebec groups wish to be
heard and the plea by some 100 Canadians yesterday to have the
clarity bill withdrawn are a breath of fresh air, and the
minister should listen to these people.
Let us help the minister make amends. Let him invite these
groups and listen to them during the committee hearings. The
minister will see that what they have to say has nothing to do
with mothballs.
* * *
[English]
THE ECONOMY
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, through the efforts of all Canadians we are enjoying
some of the best economic conditions in over a decade. The
unemployment rate was 6.8% in January, the lowest level since
April 1976.
This is the largest decline in unemployment under the leadership
of any Canadian government in over 50 years. Over 1.7 million
new jobs have been created since the Liberal government took
office in 1993.
Every Canadian is a part of this success: the lowest
unemployment rate for women since 1974, 5.5%; for young people
since 1990, 12.5%. With 16 consecutive months of economic growth
the Canadian economy is experiencing the longest uninterrupted
surge forward in over a decade. Job creation and economic growth
are part of every party's political platform, but it is only this
government that has delivered on that promise in liberal
proportions.
* * *
WESTERN ALIENATION
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to comment on last week's release of the Liberal
government's task force on western alienation. After reading all
62 pages of the report I realized that no matter how many studies
the government does on the issue of alienation it still does not
get it.
The report showed how completely detached the Liberals are from
the needs of western Canada. Their view of western Canada is
endemic whether it be their historic indifference to the farm
crisis, the 1997 election call in the middle of the Red River
Valley flood or a decision under the Trudeau government to create
the national energy program.
As a timely example of this western indifference, just this
week, yesterday and today, a delegation of respected agricultural
leaders have been denied, refused a meeting with the Minister
responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, one of the few Liberals
left in western Canada. The issue they wanted to talk about was
western grain transportation, the Kroeger report, an item that is
vital to agriculture in western Canada.
* * *
ROBERT MUNSCH
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph—Wellington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have always known that Guelph—Wellington is full of
wonderful and talented people. Later this week one of those
people, author Robert Munsch, will be inducted into the Order of
Canada. Robert Munsch has written 35 children's books, including
the classics Mortimer, The Paper Bag Princess and
Love You Forever.
Children across Canada and around the world have grown up with
these great stories which not only entertain but also teach
important lessons about the importance of family and of accepting
people for who they are.
All of Guelph—Wellington will watch proudly when Robert Munsch
is honoured by Governor General Adrienne Clarkson for his
impressive contribution to children's literature. We hope that
Mr. Munsch will keep writing for many, many years to come.
* * *
FOREST INDUSTRY
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on behalf of the people of Okanagan Coquihalla who have
serious concerns about the softwood lumber agreement. Since
Canada entered into this agreement many lumber producers have
faced severe hardship. My riding has seen hundreds of layoffs in
the forest industry with more and more jobs threatened every day.
J. S. Jones Timber Ltd., the biggest employer in the Hope-Boston
Bar area, is on closure notice. One of the most efficient lumber
mills in western Canada had to tell over 100 employees they will
soon be out of a job because the federal Liberal government
negotiated a bad deal. The softwood lumber agreement has failed
to protect the interests of our forest industry.
When the softwood lumber agreement expires the people of
Okanagan—Coquihalla are demanding that the federal Liberal
government remember there are people working in the forest
industry in British Columbia and we expect a better deal or no
deal at all.
* * *
HEALTH
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, Alberta Premier Ralph Klein has his foot to the floor in
his drive toward two tier health care. We are only weeks away
from the introduction of for profit hospital care in Canada and
the Liberal government is still in disarray, wringing its hands,
paralyzed in the glare of Klein's headlights.
Canadians do not want two tier health care and across the
country are mobilizing to fight it. Only the Liberals seem
powerless to act. They should snap out of it and wake up.
1415
The government has the power to stop the Klein monster it
created with its transfer cuts and lack of leadership. It can
use the surplus budget and restore the transfer payments fully.
The government can immediately act to outlaw private hospitals.
It can act now, not next month, not next year, to bring in
national home care and national pharmacare.
The big question is do the Liberals have the political will to
act in time or will our valued public health system become
roadkill on the drive to private profits?
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the government just loves to claim that human resources grants
are about job creation. It never cites examples like the $2.5
million grant to Videotron. That is the $5.6 billion merger
Videotron. These guys are not exactly needy.
The minister bungled $1 billion. Now she has been caught at it.
I am going to ask the Prime Minister again and I would like to
see if he could answer this one on his own without any help from
binder boy. Will he fire the minister for incompetence?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the exaggeration on the other side is unbelievable.
These programs are serious problems—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien:—serious programs that have
been established and they do not want them. Even the riding of
Edmonton North received grants for the Canadian Nature
Federation's office in Edmonton, the Edmonton Evergreen Community
Association and St. Michael's Extended Care Centre Society of
Edmonton. Do they want me to apologize because—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Edmonton North.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Freud lives. The Prime Minister just said it is a serious
problem. That is absolutely true.
The minister and the Prime Minister are playing Canadians for
fools and they are not going to buy it. Out of 37 files alone,
$7 million could not be verified and there are 60,000 files in
this case. The minister has had the audit since last August. She
kept it quiet. She dodged it in the House and worse, she did
nothing about it until we caught her. I would like to ask her,
will she fess up and quit today?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat again for the record
that I never said that things were running perfectly in my
department. We received information that told us we could do a
better job with the management of our grants and contributions.
We made that information public. We are now implementing a six
point plan and we will stick—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Edmonton North.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the minister made it public only after she knew she was caught.
We have a motion on the floor today to make sure that people
realize how slipshod the management in this department has been.
Members who support this motion today will be reassuring
taxpayers that in spite of “Miss Management” over there,
someone actually cares about their taxpayers' dollars and how
they are being spent.
I would like to ask which one of the cabinet ministers over
there will stand in their place today and condemn the minister
for bungling a billion bucks?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we will stand up in the House of Commons and vote for
programs that are helping people in need in the ridings. We will
tell the people of Canada that the program of that party is to
cut the taxes of the rich by 40% and scrap the programs that
belong to the poor of Canada.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we have obtained information on an HRDC job subsidy
program. It reveals that just prior to the 1997 election call,
the number of approvals skyrocketed. It was a transparent
attempt to influence thousands of voters by turning on the public
taps.
1420
This is yet another example that HRDC programs are not really
about creating jobs as the Prime Minister tries to pretend. They
are about creating votes for the Liberals. First the billion
dollar bungle, then the cover-up and now this. When will the
Prime Minister ask for the minister's—
The Speaker: The right hon. Prime Minister.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
received information about a riding. I have received information
about the city of Calgary. Yesterday somebody mentioned my own
riding so I checked, because the programs had to be approved by
the Government of Quebec, the Parti québécois. Of the 17
projects that were submitted, only five were approved before the
election. Twelve were approved after the election.
Miss Deborah Grey: Oh, that is okay then.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: So that was okay then. That
proves that we did not use it. Of the five that were approved
before the election, if they were to help me to get elected it is
probably because Lucien Bouchard wanted me to remain Prime
Minister of Canada.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I think the Prime Minister has a hearing disability.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: I can sympathize with a Prime
Minister who does not want to answer serious, serious charges
against his government, but the fact of the matter is that these
are public moneys that were clearly shovelled out the door in
enormous piles just before an election.
What does the Prime Minister and the government have to say to
Canadians about such a blatant misuse of their money?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is true that I have a problem with hearing. I have
had it since I was a baby. I accept that but probably the hon.
member should learn not to create things that do not exist. She
is still talking about $1 billion of mismanagement when it is not
true.
An hon. member: That is what it is.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: No, it is not true. There were
459 files and 37 needed more information. All information will
be out. Some cases were extremely small.
As I said and I repeat, the auditing will be carried on until
the end. Every dollar that would have been misspent will—
* * *
[Translation]
BILL C-20
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs refused to
meet with the Fédération des femmes du Québec, the Front commun
des assistés sociaux, and Quebec's student federations and
labour congresses, going so far as to describe these groups as
“mothball clubs”.
Will the Prime Minister tell us whether he shares the disdain in
which his minister holds groups representing hundreds of
thousands of Quebecers or whether he intends to dissociate
himself from the minister's remarks?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the party leader and all his troops, who have thrown the worst
words in the dictionary in my direction, who have used terms
such as traitor and sell-out to describe French-speaking Quebecers
sitting in this House, should mothball some of the vocabulary
they use in their speeches.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to know when I have used such terms. If he can give
examples, let him do so. And I did not understand the end of
his reply. It was incomprehensible.
1425
I wonder if the Prime Minister could explain to the House why he
is refusing to meet with these groups when he consults them on
other projects, as he did with the prebudget meetings for
instance.
Why is he refusing to meet with these groups, which have
something to say and which represent hundreds of thousands of
Quebecers? Why is he so scornful of them? That is the
question. We would like an explanation.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a
committee will hold hearings and, if they wish to make
presentations before it, they may do so like any other group.
The committee will hold hearings and they may attend. They have
never been told that they could not attend.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
An hon. member: It is up to the committee to decide.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: It is up to the committee to decide.
I said that the committee would be sitting in Ottawa because the
bill applies to all provinces and, if a travelling committee is
required, it will have to go to all provinces, and we do not
want to waste too much of the House's time on this. We want to
move ahead as quickly as possible.
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we
would really like to understand what the Prime Minister has just
said.
Is he going to encourage the groups to participate, authorize
the committee to travel? Is this what the Liberal majority on
the committee is going to propose that the committee should do?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is up to the committee to decide
whom it will hear. The hon. member has a great deal of
experience and already knows how committees operate.
The committee was selected a little earlier today by the House
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which will report
tomorrow. When the committee is subsequently informed of the
orders of the House, that is of second reading, it will meet to
select witnesses. That is how it will be done.
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to repeat my question to the Prime Minister, that
same Prime Minister who, when the linguistic school boards were
being debated in the House in 1997, stated, and I quote
“Everyone's point of view must be heard, however, for this is a
democracy”.
Does the Prime Minister wish the groups to be heard by the
committee? Does he want this committee to travel?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if I am not mistaken, the hon.
member has just referred to a quote made by himself in the past.
It is interesting that the Bloc Quebecois members use
quotations when it suits them, but when it does not suit them,
they do the opposite. This does not surprise me.
* * *
[English]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the Prime Minister made it clear both in the House and
outside of it that detailed documentation has been compiled
riding by riding for all HRDC grants and contributions for every
member of parliament.
Canadians have a right to that information. Will the Prime
Minister agree to table that documentation for all 301 ridings?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have these documents and have looked at some files. I
asked them to look into the files of my riding because I was
interested. We looked in members' files and they were all asking
for money from the department. Very often we agreed when they
had a good case. That is why this program exists.
We are not offended when members of parliament make
recommendations. What we are offended by is when they double-talk
and when they send letters to the minister asking for money and
then complain in the House of Commons because they do not want to
receive the money.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is
clear that the Prime Minister has the information. It is clear
that the House leader has the information. It is not so clear
that the HRDC minister has the information. I think she gets it
on a need to know basis.
Canadians have a right to that information. If the Prime
Minister will not agree to release the documentation, then we
need an independent public inquiry to get to the bottom of this.
Will the Prime Minister today agree to the appointment of an
independent public inquiry?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, yes, we have some information for the House of Commons.
I do not know why the hon. member is afraid that I could get up
and cite some case in her riding.
We have the right to do that. This is public information and she
is afraid that we will use it. She could put a question on the
Order Paper and we will give her the information.
1430
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, what are truly missing here are iron clad assurances
that the government will behave responsibly with taxpayers'
money.
Given the potential for criminal activity in this matter and a
history of such within HRDC, will the solicitor general call on
his commissioner today to launch a full and complete
investigation to clear the air?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me review again what has transpired.
I, as the Minister of Human Resources Development Canada,
received the report on an internal audit. I was not happy with
the results of that report.
I insisted on a strong management response that includes a six
point plan that has been reviewed with the auditor general, who
himself says “In our opinion the proposed approach represents a
thorough plan for corrective action to address the immediate
control problems that were identified”.
We will work with the auditor general to implement this plan.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, while the Prime Minister engages in the age old
tactic of accuse the accuser, aided by the co-driver of the
getaway car, the government House leader, Canadians are waiting
for answers.
What is missing is some semblance of accountability. We know
that money went missing. We know that money went from government
coffers to Liberal backers, who turned around and made
significant contributions to the government. How can the public
have faith in this system that is so politically tainted and
advantageous to the government?
Will the minister call for a full, independent financial audit
of her department?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I said that this is an audit by the department.
I also said yesterday that previously the auditor general could
report only once a year. Now he can report four times a year. We
want all of these cases to be known as quickly as possible so
that we can remedy the situation as quickly as possible.
We want the public money to be well administered and all moneys
disbursed to the programs they were intended to serve. That is
exactly what we are doing and what we will keep doing.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
another day, another example of how rotten to the core this
government has become.
The latest rip-off is that the government sent $200,000 to a
water bottling company in the Indian affairs minister's riding.
Today that company is bankrupt and the money is all gone.
In the history of the country there has never been a more
incompetent and neglectful minister than the Minister of Human
Resources Development. Never.
When will that minister resign?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member is holier than thou all the time.
Is he opposed because the government is giving money to the
Medicine Hat family YMCA, the Medicine Hat Rehabilitation Council
and the Taber and District Community Adult Learning Council? We
are doing that for his riding, as we do for the riding of every
member of parliament.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
what I am opposed to is stupid government like we are getting
from this government and this Prime Minister.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. I would prefer if we stayed
away from terms like stupid on a day like this.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, that is a challenge.
The minister mismanaged $1 billion, and then she tried to cover
it up. Now she is trying to weasel out of her responsibilities.
When will she resign?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again, $1 billion has not disappeared.
We know where it is. The cheques to every organization and
individual indicate where the money has gone.
I am taking my responsibility as minister. I received the
information. I made it public. We are implementing a very
cohesive plan. This problem will be fixed.
1435
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is trying to play down the
importance of Human Resources Development Canada's loss of
control by reducing to only 37 the number of problem cases. The
scandal involves a great many more files according to the
internal audit report.
How can the government justify the fact that of the 459 files
audited, 80% were not subject to any financial monitoring? We
are not talking about 37 files, but 367.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
all the documents were made public, and the auditors found 37
cases that warranted additional study. This represents a figure
of approximately $30 million.
Next week, each of the 37 cases will be thoroughly analyzed and
solutions provided. If people have received money they are not
entitled to, they will have to repay the government.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, according to the same internal audit report,
in 97% of the projects audited, the government paid out money to
promoters without checking to see whether there were outstanding
debts to Human Resources Development Canada, something that must
be done.
Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that 445 of the 459 cases
are involved and not the 37 he likes to repeat?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this gives me a chance to ask the hon.
member to read our six point action plan. If he will understand
it he will know that these issues will be dealt with.
First and foremost, the first item is that we will ensure that
all payments meet financial requirements. Secondly, and this
goes to the point of the hon. member, we will check and correct
all problem files.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the human resources audit uncovered an
appalling pattern of mismanagement and misuse of funds, many just
prior to the 1997 election. The human resources minister ignored
that audit. The minister was so irresponsible and so needy of
attention that she handed her own riding three-quarters of a
million dollars in grants as late as November, in spite of the
fact that her riding does not qualify.
She abused the granting rule, she botched $1 billion and she
refuses to accept responsibility. How can Canadians possibly
trust this minister?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again, no rules were ever broken with
applications for programs in my riding.
The hon. member is talking about transitional jobs fund
programs in areas over 12%. Let us look at where those programs
and projects were approved: in the riding of Kootenay—Columbia,
six projects, with a value of $3.5 million; in the riding of
Nanaimo—Alberni, seven projects, $2.3 million; in the riding of
Nanaimo—Cowichan, six projects, $1.5 million.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in the minister's own words the mark was
12%, yet the 1996 Canada census shows the unemployment rate in
the minister's riding of Brant at 8.4%. Statistics Canada in
1999 gave the unemployment rate of that riding as 6%.
1440
How does the minister feel that her riding qualifies? Where
does that riding get 12% unemployment?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again, there were no rules broken for
applications for transitional jobs funds in my riding.
There is a story I would like to tell the House about the member
for Edmonton North, who in the darkest times in my riding, when
another plant was closing, went there to speak to the employees.
She asked “Where is your member of parliament? She is doing
nothing for you”.
Then we see them challenging me on the implementation of
programs like TJF. It is clear that the Reform Party is only
happy when the people of my riding are not working.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister is trying to create a diversion by repeating that the
bungling at Human Resources Development Canada involves only 37
cases.
However, the department's internal audit report says that 303
cases were approved without analysis and that 165 projects out
of 459 obtained unjustified fund increases.
Will the Prime Minister admit that, by telling us that only 37
cases were involved, he is trying to hide the facts in order to
save the government's face and his incompetent minister?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again I would draw the hon. member's
attention to our six point plan.
Indeed, we point out that we will look at all our active files.
If we find that there are issues of overpayment, we will deal
with them. If we find that there are cases of fraud or
misappropriation, the appropriate authorities will be brought in.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, 321 projects
out of 459 submitted no invoices or payroll records to back up
expenses. Of the 459 projects, 367 were not subject to any
financial monitoring. And they find that funny.
Should the Prime Minister not admit that his minister is
completely incompetent and that taxpayers' money is extremely
badly managed by his government? It is a scandal.
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Let me say again, Mr. Speaker, that the strategy we
have built is one that has been recognized by the auditor general
as being workable.
Let me make another comment on a statement by the assistant
auditor general.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. Jane Stewart: Mr. Speaker, we are talking about our
approach to remedying this problem. The assistant auditor
general said “Right now the minister has said, and the officials
have said, that they have aggressively put a program in place
that will address these problems immediately.
I have had some
discussions with the officials in the department and I must say
that they are taking this very, very seriously. They are making
it a priority and they are putting a number of things in place
immediately”.
[Translation]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, ministerial
accountability means that the minister is accountable for the
management of her department.
We have discovered rules that were not followed, money that was
improperly spent, and a minister that directed taxpayers' money
to her own riding.
What is the minister waiting for to resign?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not take a job and not finish it.
I received information that said we could do a much better job
in administering grants and contributions. I made the report
public. I wanted Canadians to know that we had a challenge in
our department and that we were going to fix it.
In working with my department very closely, we have built a plan
of action that has the approval of the auditor general. We are
going to implement it and we are going to fix this problem once
and for all.
1445
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, do you know
what would have happened to this minister in private industry?
Stockholders would have met and she would have been out the door
in five seconds. Why is it so difficult for the Liberal
government?
When is this minister simply going to clean out her desk, turn
in her key and let somebody else take over her department? When?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to say something. The people of Canada
have looked at this government very closely.
An hon. member: No.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: Yes. And we did not have to
change our name four times.
The people of Canada recognize that we started with a deficit of
$42 billion and we now have a surplus. We started with an 11.5%
unemployment rate. We now have the lowest rate in 24 years at
6.8%. The interest rates were 11% when we started and are now at
6%. That is why the people know that when we have a problem we
will solve it.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Placeteco, a
company in the riding of Saint-Maurice that is well known to the
Prime Minister because the former director general of the
Liberal Party of Canada works there, obtained $1.2 million. The
net result is that 61 jobs disappeared.
Can the Prime Minister tell us whether Placeteco is on the list
of projects for which sponsors will have to return money, as he
said yesterday?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the projects in my riding, like those in all ridings, are
subject to the same audits and the same rules.
There were projects in my riding, and there were projects of all
sorts in all ridings where required. In this case, they
received a grant and, like everyone else, they will have to
follow the rules that apply to all ridings in Canada.
* * *
[English]
ENDANGERED SPECIES
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.
Canadians are very concerned about the protection of wildlife
species and their ecosystems. Dr. David Green, of the Committee
on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, says that the
current list of endangered species is just the tip of the
iceberg.
What additional money and manpower will be made available to
increase scientific species assessments and reviews?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I will start by thanking Dr. David Green and the
members of the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in
Canada for the excellent work they have done over the last 22
years.
I can assure the hon. member that the independence and the
scientific credibility of the committee will be protected in the
new legislation that I will be introducing within the next month.
I can assure her that I will be discussing with Dr. Green the
resources that his committee will need for the new
responsibilities that the legislation will make necessary.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
say to the Minister of Human Resources Development that her
response “there is no money missing—we've seen the cancelled
cheques”, is a ridiculous response.
How does the minister justify $900,000 on the TJF list given to
Anvil Range with no jobs created; the $90,000 given to the
Saskatchewan Dutch Elm Disease, which sounds like a Liberal
disease, with zero jobs created; and the $72,000 given to
Clifford Smith Trucking with zero jobs created? And on the list
goes. How does she justify tax dollars being used for that kind
of job creation?
This is job creation for Liberal candidates. It is about
Liberal vote gathering. The jig is up. Instead of justifying
millions of dollars for zero jobs created, why does she not
create a job opening and simply resign?
The Speaker: Concerning the question as it was stated, I
think the hon. member was seeking information about a very
specific project. I will permit the question but the hon. member
should know that those specific questions are out of many
hundreds or thousands of folders. They are pretty specific. I
wonder if he can make them a little more general.
The hon. Minister of Human Resources Development.
1450
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I justify the moneys invested in the
transitional jobs fund because it created 30,000 jobs for
Canadians who were not working before.
I justify the transitional jobs fund because it created work in
communities right across this country: in the ridings of 25
Reform members, $20 million invested; in the ridings of 32 Bloc
members, $57 million invested; and in the ridings of 12 NDP.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the transitional jobs fund list indicates 32 projects, with $14
million doled out, produced zero jobs. This is not about job
creation. It is about sprinkling taxpayer dollars like pixie
dust.
Why will the human resources minister not fess up to this
scandalous absconding of tax dollars and simply resign?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in my job as minister, I have to look at
these programs to determine if they are indeed making a
difference.
The hon. member can pick and choose the projects that he wants
but there are over 60,000 of them that are part of the last three
years' investments.
I can tell the House that overall our performance reports are
good. When we are looking at the transitional jobs fund, we are
talking about 30,000 men and women who have depended on this fund
to have the dignity of a job.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the Prime Minister criticized opposition members who
are following the rules on job development programs. Now the
Prime Minister is refusing to disclose information that his House
leader clearly is spoon-feeding him with.
New Democrats support job creation. We support student
employment programs. What we do not support is the Liberals
making a mockery of these programs through gross mismanagement.
We do not support programs being approved for political purposes
and withholding information from members and the public.
Will the Prime Minister table all of the information and—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Human Resources
Development.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, does the hon. member think that the $37
million approved in her riding between 1997 and now were for
political purposes?
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister has all the information concerning the transitional
jobs fund, for each and every riding. In fact, this information
is currently on the desk of the leader of the government in the
House.
Canadians are entitled to that information. Is the Prime
Minister prepared to table today, in this House, all the
information contained in his magic book?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is the first time I hear members complain about the fact that
the government is too well-informed.
We are doing our job. Perhaps the hon. member feels left out. I
do not have anything about his riding, but now I am interested
in finding something about it.
[English]
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker,
we heard the minister today and on previous days bragging about
the six point plan.
Is the minister telling us that a department that handles 30,000
cases and billions of dollars in taxpayers' money has no plan
before October 5?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what the hon. member's
point is. Indeed, as I have presented to this House, as minister
I received the information from an internal audit. It said that
we can do a much better job in administering our grants and
contributions.
I have taken it seriously. The department has made it a
priority. We made the report public.
I say again, we will fix this problem.
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker,
a spot check of 70 grants found $27 million made its way to
donors of the governing party. In the riding of
Tobique—Mactaquac, Barrette Diversified Corporation received a
TJF grant of over $16,000 and gave back half that grant to the
governing party in donations.
Was this what the government intended to do when it set up this
slush fund in the first place?
1455
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if he is making a link and a criminal accusation then he
should make it. I have a member of parliament who is complaining
but he has bragged in his householder that the Liberal government
has invested money for job creation in his riding. He talked
about 542 jobs being created by these programs.
We made a mistake helping his people. We will tell his
electorate in the next election.
* * *
IMMIGRATION
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the recent arrests of illegal migrants at Sarnia,
Walpole Island and Windsor point to the need for strengthened
laws.
Will the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration update the
House and all Canadians as to how she proposes to solve this
problem? I agree, we need to show the world that yes, we are a
humane and compassionate country, but that we will not be taken
advantage of or be a dumping ground for criminal activity. What
is the minister's plan for action?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member and I share her
concerns. In fact, we have zero tolerance policy when it comes
to foreign nationals who commit serious crimes in Canada. Foreign
nationals who have committed crimes outside of Canada are
inadmissible to Canada. Further, the public safety of Canadians
is our number one priority.
Having said that, the refugee determination system is about
saving lives. Canada is an open and compassionate society. Yes,
at the present time we are reviewing our legislation and our
regulations to determine that it is appropriate to meet these
challenges.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
human resources minister pretends she is compassionate. However,
compassion is when we recognize that Canadians are dying in
hospital waiting lines and we do something about it. Compassion
is when we recognize that families are being strangled by
excessive taxation and that we be as prudent as possible with
their hard-earned tax dollars. Cold-heartedness is when we blow
a billion bucks and we could not care less.
Is it that the human resources minister is cold-hearted or is it
that she just does not care?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I reject the premise of the hon. member's
question. As I listen to the questions from that side of the
House through the course of the day, I just want to say that
making change is a difficult thing to do. Asking questions about
change is pretty easy. It reminds me of a phrase we use back in
my town in Brant County, where they say “dogs bark at cars but
dogs can't drive”.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister for International Trade is taking cover to avoid
answering the questions of parliamentarians on the problems
affecting the Department of Human Resources Development, for
which he was responsible during a long time.
Will the minister do the honorable thing and agree to testify
before the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development
regarding the bungling at Human Resources Canada, particularly
since the chair and the vice-chair of the committee, who are both
fellow Liberals, said that they may well call the minister to
testify?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
1500
The Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the insults hurled by members
opposite at the Minister for International Trade are not
justified.
As for the substance of the question, the hon. member knows full
well, as I do and as all members do, that not only is the
question out of order, so is what he is asking.
[English]
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
Winnipeg Centre is the third poorest riding in the country, yet
we were told that we did not qualify for one cent of transitional
jobs fund money.
Much wealthier ridings, like the one represented by the minister
of HRDC, qualify for all kinds of TJF money even though her
unemployment rate is half that of Winnipeg Centre. It is no
wonder Canadians are cynical. It is no wonder they are calling
the TJF the Liberal slush fund.
How is it that my riding at 13.7% unemployment qualifies for
nothing and the minister's own riding at 7.6% gets millions and
millions of dollars of transitional jobs fund money?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a list here and he is the one who has received
the most of all members of parliament. I am happy that he wants
more.
They cannot have it both ways, complaining that they want more
and complaining at the same time that the program is no good.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, in all
this business about Human Resources Development Canada, we know
that 50% of program spending was during the 1997 election
campaign. We know that there was influence peddling involved,
and that one person was even convicted.
This morning, the members for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough and
Madawaska—Restigouche met with people from the RCMP in order to
have an in-depth investigation carried out on various
allegations.
Could the solicitor general do what we did this morning, that is
ask the RCMP to carry out a full investigation so as to save the
innocent and charge the guilty?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again, we are taking action. If the hon.
member has indications that there was wrongdoing, let him bring
them forward and the appropriate authorities will be involved.
* * *
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to
the presence in the gallery of my brother Speaker from the
Legislative Assembly of Ontario, the honourable Gary Carr.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
1505
POINTS OF ORDER
TABLING OF DOCUMENTS
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. During question period the Prime
Minister used a document to contradict the allegations that I
made. Clearly there is complete disagreement here, a 180 degree
opposite.
In the sense that the Prime Minister used that prop or that
document as part of his answer, I would like him to table it so
we can get to the bottom of who is right and who is wrong.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I rise on the same point of order as the hon. member for Winnipeg
Centre. I think it is important in the House, if we are to have
genuine debate and questions and answers, if we are seeking
information and asking questions of the government, that there be
some modicum of respect for truth in the Chamber.
When a question is asked about a particular fund, in this case
the transitional jobs fund, then the government, if it is going
to make claims about what goes to certain ridings and what does
not go to other ridings, needs to stick to what the question
asked is about. In this case it is the transitional jobs fund.
If the government has evidence as it claims that there were
transitional jobs fund money, not other money but transitional
jobs fund money which is what the question was about, going into
the riding of Winnipeg Centre, then I invite the government to
table it now because it cannot.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
rising in support of the member for Winnipeg Centre on a couple
of points. As we know Beauchesne's citation 495 requires that
documents quoted from in the House should be tabled in the House.
That is one with which we are familiar.
I also turn to Erskine May at page 63 which talk specifically
about ministerial accountability in the House. This is a
relatively recent ruling adopted by members of the House in 1996.
To read briefly from it, it says:
That, in the opinion of this House, the following principles
should govern the conduct of ministers of the Crown in relation
to Parliament: ministers have a duty to Parliament to account,
and be held to account, for the policies, decisions and actions
of their departments and Next Steps Agencies; it is of paramount
importance that ministers give accurate and truthful information
to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent errors at the earliest
opportunity. Ministers who knowingly mislead Parliament will be
expected to offer their resignation to the Prime Minister;
ministers should be as open as possible with Parliament, refusing
to provide information only when disclosure would not be in the
public interest—
Over the last couple of days we have seen a spectacle of the
House leader and others on the government side providing
information on a regular basis to the Prime Minister and other
ministers and then refusing to table that same binder, that same
information which they have collected from across the country. It
is in the public interest. It is not in the public interest to
withhold that information. It is in the interest of all
Canadians to see that information.
1510
The reason it is important, not just the few quotes from today
but the entire binder of information it has on each and every
member of parliament in this place, is that there is a gag order.
A gag order has gone out from the government to HRD offices,
refusing to even discuss the very documents that members on the
opposition and other sides of the House may have communicated
with the government. They have been told to refuse to discuss
the very documents the government has in the famous binders
across the way.
We have a spectacle where the government is using information
garnered from the department, using departmental resources and
using ministerial gag orders saying that the information is not
to be shared with anyone else. A video has been sent out to all
HRD offices explaining how to answer requests for information and
how to stymie the process to make sure that information does not
get out.
What do we have? We have a government using departmental
resources to keep information away from members of parliament and
from the Canadian public.
The member's request to table the document, which is a
reasonable one, should be extended to the entire packet of
information the government has on each and every member of
parliament in this place which it is using selectively and to
provide information that is not truthful, and which Erskine May
says is a contempt of this place.
It should table not only the documents that were quoted from
today and this week in the House of Commons, but I would ask you,
Mr. Speaker, to ask the government House leader to do the
honourable thing and look after ministerial accountability and
responsibility. He should do what Erskine May and the House of
Commons collectively decided in 1996, and that is not withhold
information that is in the public interest. This information is
in the public interest and should be tabled in the House of
Commons.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I know hon. members are very upset by this matter,
but I would attach myself very much to the remarks of the
previous speakers.
The government House leader is not only an officer of his
government. He is also an officer of the House. I respectfully
request that the House leader is very familiar with House
procedure and with the previous precedents quoted by the
opposition House leader.
He is duty bound, I would suggest, to table these documents, not
only the documents that were handed quickly as back-up to the
Prime Minister throughout question period over the last number of
days but, as has been previously stated, all documents being used
to fortify and deflect attention away from this issue. Those
documents should be before the House and accessible to the
opposition and therefore accessible to the Canadian public.
[Translation]
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to corroborate to some extent what the two
previous speakers have said.
I have been in this House 16 years, and it is customary when
quoting a document for the Prime Minister or the minister
concerned to table the document, in order to be able to use it
subsequently in answering questions or to use extracts from it
in answers.
When the Prime Minister or minister quotes from documents or
reads excerpts from them, however, they are required to table
the entire document so that each member of the House may have
the same use, view of, and ease of access to the documents in
question.
If no document or file had ever been quoted to the members, he
could say “Go and get the documents you want under the Access to
Information Act”, but this particular document is pertinent to
the debate and to the events as they are unfolding. All of the
files must therefore be tabled, and parts of the document must
not be quoted during question period only.
It is totally legitimate for each member to demand this right.
[English]
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on the same point of order. I also asked a question in the
House today and was amazed to hear that $37 million had gone into
my riding.
There is no way for me to verify that information. It is not
clear whether it was the transitional jobs fund or other
programs. It is patently unfair for this information to be at
the beck and call of government members and not to be disclosed
to all members of the House. It is unparliamentary and
undemocratic.
We are talking about public expenditures and if that information
is being used by the government in debate, in question period,
and there is no way for members to be able to verify that
information or how to respond to it, it is very unfair.
1515
I would implore the Speaker to consider this point and to
request the government to disclose this information as it is in
the public realm.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to a
number of points that were raised today. I do not agree with too
many of them and I intend to share with you why I do not.
The member for Vancouver East alleges that because answers were
provided to her the government should automatically supply
written material to support an answer. We could equally claim
that the government should have supporting material for some of
these unsubstantiated allegations from some of the members
across. That would probably be far more constructive in terms of
the good governance of the country with one difference which is
that the numbers we have used I maintain are correct to the best
of our knowledge. I would say that is hardly the case with some
of the questions being asked.
[Translation]
The member for Richelieu raised the point that, when a minister
cites a document, he should not only table the document cited,
but all of the documentation.
I draw your attention to citation 495(4) of Beauchesne's, which
reads as follows:
[English]
That is citation 495(4).
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Cite what the Prime Minister was
referring to.
Hon. Don Boudria: I am glad the House leader for the NDP
is interjecting. It permits me to refer to citation 495(3) of
Beauchesne's which says:
A public document referred to but not cited or quoted by a
Minister need not be tabled. Journals, November 16, 1971,
p. 922.
Mr. Peter MacKay: What are you hiding, Don?
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Table it.
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, in terms of the document
that I have before me, I have my ministerial briefing book
prepared by my staff. This is my own personal briefing book.
Ministers historically have had these to assist them in preparing
constructive answers to the questions that are asked of them from
time to time.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Otherwise known as the book of lies.
The Speaker: Order, please. Some things I do hear, some things I
do not. I would ask the hon. member who is a veteran
parliamentarian to please cease and desist from words such as
that. I call on hon. members to listen to the explanations that
are being made and then I will make up my own mind.
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I will ignore that for the
time being.
The opposition House leader also requested that a minister table
his briefing book. He further alleges that my briefing book was
prepared by officials of a government department. That is
factually incorrect. I would like him to substantiate that
accusation if he has any way of providing that.
Referring to the opposition House leader, I offered yesterday to
table the letters that were quoted yesterday. I asked him across
the floor of the House by way of interjection to ask me to table
the letters because I had annotated them and offered to table
them. It is interesting to note that he did not seem to think
that it was a good idea to have his own quotes tabled with those
of his colleagues in the House of Commons.
The member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough would like me to
table documents which were not referred to in the House. I would
love to table the letter that he sent to the department asking
for funding for MacPherson's Trailer Services and the one for the
brewery in his constituency. I will drink to that. There is the
one he sent for the Dunrite Blasting company, the one for
Trans-Atlantic Transport, the one that he sent for Scotia Aqua
Farms, the one that he sent for the amusement park, the hair
studio, Caren's Shear Magic Hair Design, and the one for Fitness
Xpress, but Mr. Speaker, I did not quote from those documents.
The rules do not permit me to table in the House of Commons these
documents that the hon. member sent, so obviously I do not intend
to do so.
1520
Any documents that were quoted from today, other than our own
internal documents, I will gladly table. For instance, I am
prepared to table the householder of the member for
Madawaska—Restigouche which made all sorts of very praising
remarks about the human resources department. I will gladly
table that particular document because it was actually quoted.
Finally, a member from Winnipeg asked about the amount that
human resources development contributed to his constituency. I
believe that he asked specifically about the transitional jobs
fund. The Prime Minister—
An hon. member: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
The Speaker: Order, please. I will hear this and then I
will hear your point of order. The hon. government House leader.
Hon. Don Boudria: The Prime Minister in his response
answered that the total human resources development money given
to the constituency represented by the hon. member, which I
believe to be Winnipeg Centre, that information is correct, was
in the amount of $139,469,824. That is the riding in all of
Canada that has received the most human resources development
money for the combined years of 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000 at
least to date.
The Speaker: As a general rule, when we
have a public document that was quoted from and cited, yes, we do
have it tabled in the House of Commons.
I repeat citation 495 which states:
That is from a decision in 1971.
(4) Only the document cited need be tabled by a minister. A
complete file need not be tabled because one document in it has
been cited.
Therefore, if something was quoted from in the House and it is
cited, then that document would be tabled.
What we have here is a question of do ministers have the right
to have materials in the House that they refer to to give answers
in the House. I would judge that if all of the briefing notes
which were prepared for the ministers had to be tabled, then I
think that that would perhaps put the minister at somewhat of a
disadvantage and that all of the information that he uses would
be cited in public.
I will review the blues, and if the blues do state a specific
document was cited and where it was cited, then I will come back
to the House if it is necessary. But I will not order that notes
that are made either in the House or before they come in the
House as briefing notes be released to the House.
1525
On the other point brought up about accountability of the
ministers, I am sure that if the hon. member looks through all of
that and if what the hon. member is claiming is that not that
there is a matter of opinion on both sides but that there
was—now this is my word, the hon. member did not use it—but
that in fact there was a deliberate lie, then we are dealing with
something else altogether. The minister of course is appointed
by the Prime Minister. If the minister feels for whatever reason
that he or she should be resigning for whatever reasons he or she
has, then that would be his or her decision. Conversely I think
that the Prime Minister would have all of the authority that a
leader of a party has to dismiss or change the ministers as they
are.
On both counts, one the releasing of the information, I would
rule that yes, if it is in a public document cited—and I commit
to reviewing the blues to see if indeed there was a document
cited in there—and two on the accountability of ministers, I
would rule on both cases that the point of order is not granted.
This point of order is over.
* * *
PRIVILEGE
MEMBER FOR MISSISSAUGA WEST
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): My
member's privilege, Mr. Speaker, has to do with debate this
morning. The member for Mississauga West was speaking about
myself and the Selkirk—Interlake riding and referring to HRDC
moneys that had flowed into my riding.
The member for Mississauga West is referring to material that he
has access to out of the HRDC department or from the hon. House
leader of the Liberal government which I as a member do not have
access to. As a result my ability to debate and to discuss the
very moneys that have flowed into Selkirk—Interlake are hampered
by not having access to the same information that the government
members have.
As a result, my privileges have been abused in the House. I
would ask that all the files pertaining to the HRDC money that
has flowed into Selkirk—Interlake be turned over to me so that I
can defend myself and answer to allegations that are brought
forward by the members on the Liberal side.
The Speaker: I think that the hon. member is now
taking part in a debate. The hon. member says one thing which
would be his understanding. I do not know that you have to show
all of your research files for everything that you say in the
House. The hon. member on the other side is claiming another
thing.
I would suggest that this is a matter of debate and that the
hon. member has recourse to debate. That would be my decision at
this point.
* * *
[Translation]
POINTS OF ORDER
HOUSEHOLDERS
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I rise
on a point of order, just for clarification.
You acknowledge that it is the privilege of all parliamentarians
to send our fellow citizens householders four times a year.
This is a recognized privilege in this House.
I want to point out for your consideration the fact that, when
the government leader, with a lack of fair play and something
nearing unparliamentary practice, hijacks this mailing in order
to change the meaning we have given it as opposition parties, we
are put at a disadvantage in relation to all the information the
government has.
I will close simply by respectfully submitting that, if the
government leader can rise in the House and use our
parliamentary mailings for devious purposes, we as opposition
parties must have the same information as they do to on the
subsidies awarded in our respective ridings.
The Speaker: I thank the hon. member. If he is referring
simply to the householders we send out to our constituents, as
the member pointed out, four times a year, we all have an
opportunity to read them, as they are in the public domain. If
we want to use them in debates here, that is acceptable and it
has always been so. >The hon. member may do so if he wishes, as
the other member did today.
However, I think that it is simply a continuation of the debate,
which I hope we will resume in a few minutes.
* * *
1530
[English]
PRIVILEGE
MEMBER FOR MISSISSAUGA WEST
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise on a point of order. The member for Selkirk—Interlake
referred to my speech this morning and suggested that somehow I
had violated his privileges in this place.
I quoted from documentation that was not provided by the
ministry but rather by our own caucus research bureau, quite
extensive letters from this member dated June 24, 1997. I read
the quote—
The Speaker: I submit that this is debate on both
side. The hon. member need not explain from where he got his
information. Now the hon. member has it on the other side. I
think this is indeed a matter of debate, and I would like to let
the matter sit at this point.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I am simply looking for a
clarification of your earlier ruling. You are reserving the
opportunity to review the blues.
The request from the opposition is quite clear. As I understand
it, the documents referred to by the Prime Minister both
yesterday and today in the House are what is being sought, and
the Chair is reserving on whether the reference to those
documents therefore demands that they be tabled.
The Speaker: I want to read the blues to see what
precisely was said and in what context. At that time, if I judge
that it is necessary to come back to the House with whatever the
decision is, I will do it.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the
amendment.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, this debate is on a tripartite motion by the Leader of
the Opposition. The first element goes to internal management of
the Human Resources Development department. The second relates
to ministerial responsibility as a constitutional principle. The
third relates to the particular minister actually holding the
office of minister. The last two questions are related a little.
It might be worth noting that the present minister was Minister
of Indian Affairs and Northern Development until as late as
August 1999. I had the opportunity of negotiating at great
length with her on native land claims in British Columbia as late
as August. Most of the matters under discussion occurred or had
their origins and were completed well before she entered into
office. The issue of ministerial responsibility in the
particular case thus has a certain artificial quality to it.
On the general issue of ministerial responsibility, we might say
with some disappointment that the debate in the House has not
been very edifying or very useful. It is a principle that
developed in the early 17th century constitutional struggles in
Great Britain. At that time there was a clear constitutional
dichotomy between prerogative power and legislative power, and
most of the principles were developed in that context. They
apply with difficulty to a situation of fused governmental power.
The parliamentary executive was developed in the 19th century and
continued to the present.
Again, what one might call the modern concept of ministerial
responsibility relates to the period of constitutional
laissez-faire and limited government and probably has little
practical relationship to the sort of problems we face today in a
period of big government with very large spending power on the
part of the government and very large departments of which we
have two or three within the present post-war Canadian
governmental system. In a certain way it surpasses the
capacities of ministers to administer without considerably more
sophistication in the administrative processes and structures
available to them.
It is perhaps a little disappointing therefore that so little has
been said in follow up to the principle of ministerial
responsibility and what it means in terms of concrete changes and
modernization of governmental structures and processes.
1535
I noted with interest the present minister's immediate responses
to the situations that have been discussed in the House in the
last two days: the internal changes which are being made without
constitutional amendment and intensified staff training on
administration. They involved the introduction of the principle
of accountability of managers for the results of their programs;
disciplinary action if gross mismanagement or fraudulent
activities are revealed; the creation of a new audit group; the
review of all active files by April 30, 2000; and ensuring files
are complete before the contract is signed and that all requests
for payment are accompanied by a check list containing necessary
financial information. These are good steps and we welcome their
introduction.
I think we should ask members of the House, both government and
opposition but I think with particular reference to opposition
members, what exactly they did or saw as their function as
members of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development.
These are all-party committees. The agenda is subject to
consensus formation. The opportunity to ask for files and to
review them is there.
I find it interesting that there seems to have been an absence
of information on the part of members when specific issues have
been raised of grants made to their constituencies. They do not
seem to have been aware of that fact, and one wonders why.
The responsibility of a member of parliament or a member of a
committee is to keep oneself appraised of the details of
administration. It is always within the power of a committee to
demand production of files or to demand the appearance of
officials. With certain of the committees of parliament this is
a fact of life. Some of them have been quite robust committees
and quite rambunctious in the process.
I note with particular interest the surprise of the member for
Vancouver East, a very much respected individual, that a total of
$37 million in grants went to Vancouver East. As a resident of
Vancouver I cannot think of a better area of the city to receive
$37 million. I might even wonder whether that is enough. But,
again, are members of parliament not utilizing to the full their
role as members of committees or their role of individual
members? In other words it is a case, as Bentham said, of judge
and company, in this case government and members of parliament.
There is more than one party involved in this whole process.
Every file that comes to my office, infrastructure, millennium
grants and the like, is scrutinized closely. I have a
subcommittee within my parliamentary offices and we go through
them in great detail. We rank the applications hierarchically
and I think it has been one of the factors in enabling us to
present cases to ministers and to others for grants. I think
that is part of the responsibility of a member.
Years ago I gave evidence to the McRuer commission set up by the
Government of Ontario. James McRuer was a great chief justice of
Ontario and was concerned with complaints of administration of
grants and other programs within the Government of Ontario.
Chief Justice McRuer asked me to appear as a witness and to
present evidence on this issue. Is there a crisis in government?
Does it affect individual rights? Could we have advice on
structures and processes of government? I repeat these simply
because I think they are germane to the problem of the growth of
big government in Canada, the phenomenon of certainly the last 25
years, the big spending governments, when we have accepted social
responsibility for the welfare of citizens in health care,
education and related matters.
1540
At the time the McRuer commission was set up there were a series
of debates in universities and elsewhere. Professor Hayek of
Road to Serfdom was predicting the end of democratic
government because administration was becoming so complex.
Professor George Keeton, who was a top English jurist at the
time, wrote a book, the Passing of Parliament. Parliament
was disappearing simply because of the strains on executive
government.
The obvious conclusion was that the post-modern British derived
system of the parliamentary executive was not responding as well
to these problems as other systems that have the separation of
powers like the United States and other countries have, and to a
certain extent like Great Britain had in the early 17th century
when the great constitutional struggles on ministerial
responsibility emerged.
The United States set up a commission under ex-president Herbert
Hoover, the Hoover Commission on Government. It recommended
substantial reforms within the United States system, which I
brought to the notice of the McRuer commission.
In a certain sense the pro-active concern of the Canadian
parliament under all governments in the last 40 years with the
Quebec issue at the expense of other and larger constitutional
administrative law reform issues has hurt us in taking effective
action in advance of problem situations, situations such as we
face today.
One of the recommendations made to the McRuer commission was the
establishment of a uniform administrative procedure code applying
to all government departments. A second was for a specialized
Conseil d'Etat administrative tribunal having jurisdiction over
all governmental operations. A third was personal liability of
civil servants and others for misconduct, including gross
negligence in the administration of their operations, personal
liability, civil law damages and the like if that is necessary.
The present minister proposes recovery of misspent funds. It is
a step in that direction. I recommend to the House, if we can
carry this debate constructively further and if all parties would
agree, that a priority should be a general overall structural
review of administrative processes in government.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my hon. colleague from
Surrey Central. It is a pleasure to speak to the situation if
for no other reason than it brings to light an endemic and
systemic problem within the government that has been occurring on
the government's watch since it was elected.
This is nothing that began overnight. It did not begin with the
audit for which the member for Calgary—Nose Hill had been
pushing for a long time. It did not bespeak the 459 programs
that have been brought to the floor of the House, showing a
miserable lack of accounting. It bespeaks a problem that is
running through many departments. I will begin with the HRD and
will go to a few others after.
What actually took place here? Some 459 plus projects were
looked at randomly in the audit that was done as a direct result
of Reform Party insistence and pushing for a very long period of
time. Of those programs, 15% did not have an application on
file. Of the remaining applications, the following elements were
missing: 72% had no cash flow forecasts; 46% had no estimate of
the number of people participating; 25% had no description of the
activities that were being supported; 25% had no apt description
of the participants; 11% had no budget; 11% had no description of
expected results; and 97% of the files showed no evidence that
anyone had been checked to see whether they owed money to HRD, a
requirement to determine whether or not the program fits the
bill. Eight out of ten files reviewed did not show any evidence
of any financial monitoring on the part of HRD, and 87% of the
project files showed no evidence of supervision. I could go on.
1545
The response from the Prime Minister is that in this small
cross-section are all the problems we have. That is absolute
nonsense. To think that this random cross-section, which shows
such endemic mismanagement, represents the only problems faced by
HRDC is, at best, short-sighted and, at worst, refers to things
that we cannot mention in this place because they would be in the
realm of unparliamentary language.
What does it actually bespeak? It bespeaks mismanagement and a
lack of respect. It is a lack of respect for the taxpayers of
Canada who break their backs to pay money to this institution,
which should spend it in a responsible manner. It is a lack of
respect for all Canadians and it is a lack of respect for the
money the government receives. It is looked at as the
government's money, and the government demonstrates that time and
time again.
This is not the government's money. It belongs to some poor sod
who is paying taxes on the $19,000 a year which he earns. It is
his money. It is the money of 30 million Canadians. It is not
the Liberals' money. It is not the Reform Party's money. It is
the people's money. It is up to the government to manage it
properly.
The government has prized itself, falsely as we can now prove,
on being a good manager of the public purse. We have shown that
not only is it an appalling manager, but when faced with
irrefutable facts of its mismanagement, it obfuscates, it puts
the issue under the carpet and pretends there is no problem.
That is not only an insult to this institution; worse, it is an
insult to all the taxpayers who pay money to the government.
The member for Mississauga West stood this morning to go on a
pathetic tirade over issues that are completely irrelevant to
what is taking place. The member stood and said that the Reform
Party is against job creation, that it is against developing
programs for places with high unemployment rates, particularly in
certain sectors of Canada and in aboriginal communities. That
money is meant for this purpose. We do not dispute that at all.
We want to make sure that these places have higher rates of
employment. However, every member of the opposition wants the
money to be spent in a responsible way. We do not want the money
to be used as a tool for pork-barrelling. We do not want it to
be used cynically as a means to gain power. But that is exactly
what has been taking place for far too long.
This did not happen overnight. For over 10 years the auditor
general has been saying that HRDC has had a great deal of
difficulty keeping its finances on track. In previous reports it
has been stated that HRDC has been unable to monitor what was
going on to ensure the money was being spent wisely.
The question which I pose to the government is: Why did it take
until the year 2000 for the government to admit, in a backhanded
way, that it has a problem? It does not have a little problem;
it has a massive problem. It is a chronic problem that is faced
not only by the programs within HRDC but by a lot of other
programs.
I have worked on reserves and I have seen some of the most
impoverished people of the land. The money which is targeted to
help those people, to deal with the rampant unemployment amongst
them, to give them the skills which they need, does not get to
them. We can go to many reserves and see people living at levels
of poverty which are akin to what we would see in third world
countries. Children lie on concrete slabs in the middle of
winter.
Multiple families live in houses that are boarded up, without
central heating and with soiled mattresses on the living room
floor. There are drunk people all over the place and children
who have infections all over their bodies. We probably would not
see this situation outside these communities.
1550
Money is earmarked to help these people, but for years they have
not received that money. That is in part why there is
deplorable, abject poverty in those communities. It is not
because the money is not there. There were billions of dollars
involved in the minister's previous portfolio. She knew full
well what was going on. The member for Skeena brought it up time
and time again, as did the member for Wild Rose, the leader of
this party and other members of the opposition. Money is being
spent by the department of Indian affairs, but that money is not
getting to the people. The auditor general has brought that up
time and time again, but the government puts its blinkers on and
says it does not have a problem.
This is the tip of an iceberg that is very large. The
honourable thing to do, beyond the minister resigning, would be
for the government to finally come clean with the Canadian public
and say that it will do an audit or it will listen to the auditor
general and others and fix the problem. If the government does
not fix the problem and make sure that taxpayer money is used as
it was designed to be used, to help those who cannot help
themselves, then it should leave because it is not doing its job.
If the government professes to be the manager of the public
purse, then it should do the honourable thing. Those responsible
should either resign or fix the problem, together with opposition
members. All members have people in their ridings who are
suffering and the problem needs to be fixed now.
There are other things, such as western economic diversification
and ACOA. The people at CIDA just found $850 million. The
member for Surrey Central will speak later about the $850 million
of CIDA money that was given with no or minimal accountability to
Canadian companies. That money was designed to help the poorest
of the poor. It has gone into the pockets of companies making
millions of dollars. Why should the Canadian International
Development Agency be giving money, with no accountability, to
private companies to spend onshore? That is not what taxpayer
money is for.
The government should do the honourable thing. The minister
should quit, the government should fix the problems right away
and come clean in all of the other ministries to ensure that
taxpayer money is spent wisely.
Mr. Dennis Gruending (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP):
Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the comments of my hon.
friend and I found them to be both thorough and thoughtful.
The New Democratic Party has always believed in giving a helping
hand to people in any region of Canada when they need it. On the
surface of things the transitional jobs fund was supposed to
serve exactly that purpose. It was supposed to help people in
regions of high unemployment, higher than 12%. We in the NDP
support that initiative and we always have supported that kind of
initiative.
People in my constituency of Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar did not
qualify for this job creation program because, thankfully, our
unemployment rate is far below 12%. There are very few areas in
Saskatchewan which qualified for this program because our rate of
unemployment is considerably lower than the threshold.
I believe that people in my constituency and throughout
Saskatchewan would support a program that would move resources to
regions of the country where there is high unemployment. Where
there is high unemployment there is always resulting poverty.
That was what the program was intended to do, if it had been
administered cleanly, but this program was not administered
cleanly. This program became a vehicle for Liberal
pork-barrelling and political interference.
1555
As we know, the Prime Minister's riding alone received grants of
over $7 million, 17 of them. We know that the human resources
development minister's riding also benefited liberally, even
though her riding, like mine, did not officially qualify. There
is real evidence that there was political interference to the
benefit of Liberal ministers. My friend mentioned the word
“cynical”. I find this a cynical and disgusting attack on the
unemployed and the poor. This Liberal slush fund is a shame and
a scandal.
As my friend mentioned, government ministers must take
responsibility for their actions, and I agree with him that the
Minister of Human Resources Development must resign.
Can my hon. friend comment on the effects of this kind of
pork-barrelling and the other examples he mentioned, like CIDA?
That is an example which is of much interest to me. Can he
comment on what effects this kind of pork-barrelling and cynicism
have in the long run on the electorate and on the body politic?
Mr. Keith Martin: Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. friend
from the NDP for his excellent question. There is a great deal
of apathy and cynicism among the public today. We can see on the
basis of what has been brought to the floor of the House with the
HRDC scandal that it is to some extent, unfortunately, justified.
However, within the context of the problem we have today there
is hope, hope that we as members of the opposition, and I hope
hon. members of the government, can fix the problem. If we fix
the problem, then perhaps we can start to rebuild the trust that
elected officials should have with members of the public, trust
that this institution and parliament should have but do not with
the public. We need to mend those bridges by doing the right
thing.
The member mentioned his riding. There are farmers. There is
the aboriginal issue. There is ACOA. There is the western
economic diversification fund, and on and on it goes where moneys
are used by the government of the day to pay off friends and to
win support for the next election. It has little or nothing to
do with helping the poorest of the poor or those people in need
of jobs. If it were, then we would all be in agreement, and the
ministers on the other side know that.
An hon. member: Give me a case.
Mr. Keith Martin: The member says “Give me a case”. He
need not look any further than the audits of CIDA. The member
need not look any further than the audits of HRDC and where the
money has gone.
We do not want to stand here and slam; we want to fix the
problem. The government should do the same thing, as soon as
possible.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
after the thorough, thoughtful and to the point speech by my hon.
colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, I rise on behalf of the
people of Surrey Central to speak on the Reform Party's supply
day motion expressing our deep concern and the outrage of many
Canadians over the gross mismanagement of grants and
contributions by the Department of Human Resources Development
totalling more than $1 billion annually, which is not a typo but
$1 billion annually, and our lack of confidence in the minister.
We on this side of the House will take this opportunity to let
Canadians know that we endorse the doctrine of ministerial
responsibility, something that is sorely lacking under the
current Liberal administration.
Today is the second day of the sitting of the House in the new
year. On New Year's Eve, which I spent with my constituents in
Cloverdale, everyone was excited as we moved from the past
millennium to this millennium. I looked through the eyes of my
constituents, and all Canadians, to their dreams. Canadians were
dreaming of the government of the day building a strong and wide
bridge over which all Canadians would cross from the previous
millennium to this millennium.
In the new millennium their dreams are that their taxes will be
reduced, that jobs will be created, that there will be no brain
drain. We are hoping that the government will return the
billions it has cut from health care and education.
1600
They are dreaming of pension reform, policies that strengthen
families and family values that are respected. Their are
dreaming of a criminal justice system that will serve the needs
of the victims not the criminals. They are dreaming of a
federation that will be based on equality and democratic
principles that will be followed in federal institutions. They
want accountability in government and they we want the government
to listen to the people. These are their dreams.
This weak Liberal government has no political will and no
vision. Rather than fulfilling those dreams, we have
unfortunately come back to the House in the new millennium
confronted with the biggest boondoggle yet. This billion dollar
boondoggle shows us that maybe every federal department is being
mismanaged. It seems to be a systemic problem.
With only 1% of the grant moneys spent by HRDC being examined,
we have discovered a great deal of mismanagement.
I will not repeat the facts, percentages and figures reported in
the audit because my colleagues have already highlighted them. I
will give some examples to the House to show the kinds of cases
we are talking about. In one case, a sponsor submitted a $60,000
proposal but received $150,000. After verification, the sponsor
indicated that only $30,061 should have been claimed.
In another case, out of the $50,547 in verified claims for one
file, more than half of that money was the salary of two persons
during the first three weeks of the project.
Another example shows that a firm was paid $150,000 out of which
$30,000 was used for overhead expenses with no accompanying
explanation. There was no business plan, just two pages of
description; no feasibility study and no rationale on the file
for recommending it. The project's length was extended and the
grant increased to $420,000 with no clear explanation.
There are numerous examples. In the Prime Minister's own
riding, where most of the money went, the job creation rate was
negative. Bankruptcies were filed after receiving the grant
money.
Hundreds of businesses disproportionately located in the
hometowns of Liberal cabinet ministers received government grants
without anyone checking where the money went. In some cases, out
of those 459 examined, the grateful recipients did not even fill
out any application forms.
The problem does not stop there. The worst is yet to come. This
is only the tip of the iceberg.
The transitional jobs fund name was changed to Canadian jobs
fund. I suggest to my Liberal friends that they should change
the name again to the Liberal slush fund and amalgamate all the
slush funds from other organizations so that they can pork-barrel
and use this slush fund for buying votes as they do.
In April 1998, I questioned the minister responsible for CIDA on
the lack of accountability in spending of CIDA's industrial
co-operation program called CIDA Inc. Out of that $815 million,
half of that money was spent in Quebec. This taxpayer money was
given out without follow-up processes to monitor how the money
was spent. The question is not where the money was spent but how
the money was given out. Canadians do not get money for
feasibility studies from the banks.
The audit commissioned by CIDA Inc. concluded that the benefits
were overestimated and that information on projects and companies
were incomplete and inaccurate. The minister could not account
for CIDA Inc. funds to the tune of almost one billion dollars.
The audit also identified other serious problems, including the
fact that 33% of the money was allocated to just 7% of companies
that applied.
1605
The auditor general's office prodded CIDA to conduct a follow-up
audit last year and the depressing results were quietly released
just before Christmas.
The 1999 version of the audit showed that the problems at CIDA
Inc. were not only continuing but in many cases had become worse.
In more than 33% of the cases, money was paid out even though
mandatory reports were not filed at all. No reports were filed
on 10% of the projects and 33% of the money went to only 4.4% of
the companies that applied. This was worse than the 1997 audit
results.
The lack of proper accounting at both CIDA Inc. and HRDC, and
many other government departments, like Western Economic
Diversification or ACOA, is part of a much larger problem of
billions of dollars being spent each year on grants and
contributions.
There are charges of political interference from the top down,
interference from government cabinet ministers, including the
Prime Minister. Incidentally, the former minister of CIDA was
also the former minister of HRDC.
No one has assumed responsibility for these boondoggles even
though they are backed up by the audit and the cases number in
the dozens. The amounts involved are huge.
The head of the civil service has refused to take responsibility
for his bureaucrats. In turn, the human resources minister has
refused to take responsibility for him. The Prime Minister, in
turn, has refused to take responsibility for her. The former
minister of HRDC has blatantly refused to assume the
responsibility. Why can they not take responsibility rather than
cover up and engage in damage control?
Now we hear that the government has issued gag orders to
government officials so that they cannot share the information
with opposition members.
I have a private member's bill in the House, which I will be
introducing soon, concerning whistle blower legislation. If that
was in place these problems would probably have been prevented
because the government's weaknesses, the corruption and
mismanagement of those funds, would have surfaced.
There are many questions that remain unanswered. Canadians want
to know if the Liberals will admit that these grants are
political slush funds to buy voters with their own money. They
also want to know if the previous HRD minister will admit that he
knew about the missing money and, if he did, why he did nothing
about it when he was in office.
There are many other questions. Will the Prime Minister take
any action? He has always campaigned that he would show
responsibility in government.
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I have looked at the motion put forward by the
opposition party on this issue. I have also listened to a number
of remarks in the House over the last couple of days during
question period.
As a member of parliament who represents one of the ridings
which has one of these 37 so-called boondoggles, or billion
dollar mess-ups that the opposition likes to say, I would like to
explain to people exactly what the one is in my riding. The
Fanshawe College, with the help of Human Resources Development
Canada, got a grant of $19,800 to promote summer student jobs.
I am in a rural area with a lot of small communities. It was
Fanshawe's responsibility over the last couple of years to go to
the small communities to promote summer student employment. It
did a very good job.
When it came to reporting time, Fanshawe College came to HRDC
and said that it was an educational institution and that it want
to know what it should do about the GST in terms of its input
cost. It wanted to know if it could claim back 100% like it had
in other areas.
1610
Because Fanshawe College was one of the 475 projects that was
picked out, the auditors came from Montreal. They went through
the college's books and said that everything was fine, but that
it could only claim 50% of the GST not 100%. So Fanshawe College
had to give back $200 in GST. That is one of the 37 examples
that those people across the floor keeps saying is mismanaged
money.
Summer jobs for students is vitally important in my riding. The
jobs that Fanshawe College has provided, and the jobs that the
department and the minister have provided in terms of more money
going toward summer student employment, has helped my riding and
the young people living there.
Hearing that fact, does the hon. member not agree that without
knowing all the facts on these cases the motion put forward by
his party is a little off base?
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to answer
this question because it shows the ignorance and arrogance on the
government bench. It shows that the Liberal government has no
vision and is so weak that it cannot see what is happening on the
national scene.
I ask the hon. member to go a bank and withdraw money without
signing a withdrawal slip. Can he get money from the bank? Can
the cashier give him any cash without him signing the withdrawal
slip? How can the government withdraw the taxpayers' money?
This money belongs to the taxpayers.
The government has to be accountable for this money, every
dollar and cent. How can millions of dollars be given to Liberal
friends or to some other business without having a paper trail or
any application on file?
This motion is very much needed because it will demand
accountability from the government. We will demand the
resignation of the minister who first tried to cover-up the
issue, who then misled the House, who then denied all
responsibility and who then went into a damage control mode. It
is shameful.
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Madam Speaker, my concern
is in the real disparity in accountability. It is clear that
there was no accountability with this program. I have to say
that I do support the transitional jobs fund. It has been
important in the Yukon.
There was accountability in other programs, such as the young
entrepreneurs program where everything was filled out in
triplicate. It did an incredible job. However, its funding was
cut by two-thirds without any warning after the agreement had
been signed. This volunteer group was left high and dry and
scrambling to find money to cover the unexplainable cut in its
funding, which was never to be returned. This was a volunteer
group that was unbelievably scrutinized. It had to present
everything in triplicate. It was accountable. What bothers me
is that there is not the same kind of accountability on the other
side.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Madam Speaker, maybe there was no
vote bank for the Liberals. They have been telling voters to
vote and support them and they will reward them. There were no
rewards given because there were no votes for the Liberals.
I think these programs are working as slush funds. Maybe there
was no way of buying votes in that riding.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on this
opposition day motion because it gives me a chance to clarify the
areas in my department that do need strengthening. It also gives
me a chance to explain to the members in the House and to
Canadians the things that we are doing at Human Resources
Development Canada to set things right.
I am the first to acknowledge that the internal audit that we
received identified deficiencies in the administration of our
grants and contributions programs. The grants and contributions
we are talking about are moneys that go to Canadians with
disabilities to help them to obtain the skills they need to get
and hold a job.
1615
It is money that goes to young Canadians for summer jobs, for
internships so they can get that very important experience that
they need to continue over the course of their lives to
participate in our economy.
It is money that goes to Canadians who want to learn to read, to
our literacy grants and contributions; Canadians who are not at
the rate and the level of literacy so they can participate fully
in society and the economy and get an opportunity to learn.
It is money that goes to Canadians who have not been able to
find work through targeted wage subsidies, through
self-employment assistance and to their communities where there
may not be a diversified economy to help build new opportunities
and jobs for men and women who want and need them.
Those are the kinds of programs we are talking about. I can
tell the House that when I got the results, I was concerned.
From my point of view the right thing to do was to make it
public, to tell Canadians that we have a challenge in the
department but we are prepared to fix it. From my point of view,
Canadians can have greater faith in a department that is prepared
to identify its problems and commit itself to improve them, to
fix them, than in a department that sweeps them under the carpet
and does not pay attention. For me, that is what government
should be about, to be able to continuously improve.
Canadians appreciate and understand that times change, people
change, circumstances and technology change. We have to keep up.
But we have to be able to recognize where the challenges exist
and then have the capability and the force to make those
improvements. That is what this is about.
We actually looked at the audit and what it said and did not say
and there are some points I want to make. First and foremost the
audit did not say that $1 billion disappeared. We know where the
cheques have been sent. They have been sent to educational
institutions, to community organizations, not for profit
organizations, to small and medium size businesses and to
individuals in the ridings of every single member of parliament
in this House.
The audit did not measure the results of these programs. We do
that every year in our performance analyses which are part of the
estimates that are presented to this House and debated in
committee.
The audit did not talk about political interference. How could
it? As I said, these programs, these grants and contributions,
are found in the ridings of members from the New Democratic
Party, the Reform Party, the Bloc, the Conservatives and indeed
here among Liberal members of parliament. But they are there to
help communities and individuals in need.
I put my focus on what the audit did say. The audit looked at
how we administer these very important projects. It looked at
whether there were applications on file. It looked at whether
the rationale for a project was included in the file. It looked
to see if we were monitoring the receipts that we got from groups
and organizations and individuals that identified and itemized
the ways in which they spent the money that had been forwarded to
them. These are important things because they are the foundation
of the programs that we are managing.
The audit said that we can do a significantly better job. As
the audit indicated, because in some cases there was not an
application, it did not mean that there had not been one or there
was not one somewhere else. It just meant it was not in the
file. If there was not a rationale it did not mean that the
project was not a good project. It just meant it was not written
in the file. But for me, the files do have to be complete. We
have to be able to confirm to Canadians why the investments we
are making with their tax dollars are the right investments.
I have taken this audit very seriously. As I say, from my point
of view the administrative management is the foundation of our
work. It supports these grants and contributions, these projects
that we know are important in the lives of Canadians and their
communities. My job as minister is to shore up this foundation,
to make sure it is strong, because when a foundation shifts or is
weakened, that which it holds up can also become weakened. For
me, the responsibility that I have as minister is to take this
seriously, to do what I have to do to shore up the foundation, to
make it strong. I am prepared to do that.
1620
What is interesting about this is that that is the story, the
story of a department that through its own series of checks and
balances identified an opportunity for improvement, that made
this information available to Canadians in a transparent fashion
and asked Canadians to recognize what we are doing and then to
measure it by the work that we do to improve it.
The opposition says that we are hiding something. How can that
be when we have made the report public, when it is available for
Canadians to deal with? I guess they do not have the same values
of transparency and openness that we on this side of the House
feel to be very important.
Another thing that is interesting is that we hear from
individual members of parliament that they do not think we should
be investing in hotels or in golf courses or in Bible colleges.
What those members do not understand is that they are talking
about people. They are talking about the people who have had the
opportunity to get employment at these hotels, at the golf
courses, or to get a summer job at a Bible college. Those people
who listen to the members of parliament challenging those
undertakings must be asking is this job not good enough? We know
it is good enough for them. They know and they appreciate and
they want the government to participate in providing
opportunities for them so that they can benefit from the
greatness that we know is ours as Canadians.
When we look at this from our side of the House we know that the
government can play a significant role in the lives of
individuals and that we can partner effectively with communities
to create opportunities to strengthen both the social and
economic realities that are theirs. That is what we believe in
on this side and no one will change that. That is why for me it
is so important to take this audit and to deal with it wisely,
effectively and fully.
I would just like to share with the House some of the letters
that we have received that tell us we are right to support these
grants and contributions. We hear from Eric Boyd, the managing
director of the Canadian Paraplegic Association. Mr. Boyd
writes:
With the $1.7M provided by the Opportunities Fund over 3 years, I
am pleased to report that we have been able to lever an
additional $1.5M from our Corporate Campaign to support our
employment programs. I'm even more pleased to report that the
Association has been able to increase its annual job placements
from 500 to 750 in just one year, resulting in annual savings to
taxpayers in excess of $18M.
Here is another from Carolyn Emerson who is working at Memorial
University of Newfoundland in the women in science and
engineering program. She writes:
Funding for the WISE Students' salaries during the ten years of
the program has come primarily from HRDC's Summer Career
Placement Program from almost all of the Canada Employment
Centres around the province. That support is most gratefully
acknowledged and has been a real investment in young Canadians,
an investment that is reaping dividends as they enter the
workforce.
This one is from Barbara Mulrooney and Barbara Linehan. They
are the co-owners of B & B Crafts. They are in Placentia,
Newfoundland. They say:
Through this fund we are proud to say how we feel about the
difference our business has made in our lives. This fund has
enabled us to get up every morning and proudly say that we have
to go to work. It has raised our self-esteem and confidence
through the pride we feel and see in our work.
Again, I just point out that from our point of view these grants
and contributions are extraordinarily important. They make a
difference in the lives of Canadians and in their communities.
From my point of view as Minister of Human Resources Development,
when I see that there is a job to be done to improve our
administration, I take that seriously, and I will ensure that we
work to fix it.
In that regard we have worked very, very closely with experts to
build a plan that will ensure that this problem is fixed; to
ensure that this problem never happens again; to ensure that our
foundation is strong and these grants and contributions are
supported. I would like to give the House the highlights.
1625
First of all, we will ensure payments meet our financial
requirements. That means that no payments will go out until the
local director at a human resources development centre, or the
director general, certifies that the project file meets the new
financial criteria. There are no new agreements that will be
approved until we have signed confirmation that the project file
contains all the essential elements. All active files will be
reviewed by April 30 to certify that they are complete.
Second, we will check and correct all problem files. We have
been talking about this. We are investigating 37, now 34 because
we have completed some, audit cases where financial rules may
have been broken. I underline may, because in the three we have
already closed we found no difficulty. The paperwork was found
and things were as they should have been. We also note that any
similar cases that are identified through a review of active
files will be investigated and resolved in the same way, and any
cases of suspected fraud or other illegal activity will be
referred to the police.
Third, and this is very important, we will provide improved
training and support for staff. This means that we will provide
them with the direction, tools, training and additional resources
that are needed. We will review and improve accountability and
management structures and work processes to make sure we have our
structures right. We will complete the first round of training
and make sure that by February our financial criteria are
understood by all and that their responsibilities are understood.
There is a point I want to make here. What I do not want to do
is build a system that sucks the accountability and
responsibility all back to headquarters. We have worked very
hard to build a service delivery model. We are at the local
level. We can deal with individual citizens and with their
community members to get the important grants and contributions
into their hands in a timely fashion. That has worked well and
that has been a great success in our department.
Now what I want to do is work to provide them with a system that
will also allow them to be fully accountable and transparent to
the Canadian taxpayer and ensure that the investments we are
making, the tax dollars we are investing, are followed dollar by
dollar. This is important to me and it is modern comptrollership
that we are talking about here and that we can achieve.
The fourth aspect of our six point plan says that we will ensure
accountability to judge results. We will ensure that the
implementation of the action plan is part of the basic job
requirement for all managers involved in grants and
contributions. I am going to receive quarterly reports on our
progress starting in April 2000. Those reports will be made
public because I do want Canadians to judge us against our
actions. We will have external reviews of our progress in June
2000 and January 2001.
Fifth, we will get the best advice available. We have presented
the new system to the Treasury Board comptrollership standards
advisory board and we have incorporated its advice. We have
incorporated the suggestions from our meeting with the auditor
general. We have also contracted with Deloitte & Touche who have
advised us on the integrity of our plan and have given us
suggestions on modern comptrollership.
Finally, and this is extremely important, we will report on our
progress publicly. As I have mentioned, to me that is a
priority. We will report to the media on our follow-up of the 37
cases. We will brief the media on our quarterly reports. We
will provide information to the Canadian public and I will appear
before the parliamentary committee of human resources on this
topic this week.
I would like to share for the record the reaction of the auditor
general to this plan. He said in his letter to our deputy dated
February 7, “In our opinion, the proposed approach represents a
thorough plan for corrective action to address the immediate
control problems that were identified”.
I am taking the job as Minister of Human Resources Development
seriously. I can also say that my department is taking this
seriously. I have spoken with employees from coast to coast to
coast. They want a better system. They want better tools. They
want to continue to serve Canadians in the best possible fashion.
The department is committed to this plan. It is committed to
this work and supports it fully. Together we are going to ensure
that we have the best administrative practices when it comes to
grants and contributions.
We will continue to support these projects which are so vitally
important in the ridings of each and every member of the House of
Commons.
1630
For me this is about ministerial responsibility. It is about
taking information that says we can do a better job, making it
public, building a plan of action that is approved by experts
from the outside, and then committing to the people of the
country to implement it, to fix the problem, to make it work and
together to continue to build a strong Canada.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, the speech of the minister could be summed up in three
words: promises, promises, promises. They fly totally in the
face of the failure, failure, failure of the minister and the
department over the past few years. That is the real problem.
I would like to take the minister up on her promise of openness
and transparency. We have asked through access to information
for the files relating to the TJF grants that went into the Prime
Minister's riding. When those requests came back they were about
half whited out. In many cases the papers had their headings but
the rest had been cut off.
I will take the minister at her word, and because she has
promised full disclosure and transparency to the Canadian people
I would ask if she is prepared to table in their entirety those
documents relating to all the TJF grants in the Prime Minister's
riding in the House this week. I would like an answer to that.
Hon. Jane Stewart: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member
knows there are aspects under the Privacy Act that have to be
considered when files that are offered to requests for access to
information are presented. Those are the laws of the country.
I would note that the department of human resources has a good
record in responding to access to information requests. We have
sent out many, many pages. Thousands of pages are presented to
those who request them because that is the right thing to do.
The issue here includes Canadians, the Privacy Act, and the
information that can be forwarded is forwarded.
[Translation]
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am
somewhat uncomfortable with the minister's speech, because she
downplays a situation that has been going on for several years.
The minister also confuses two things.
She confuses projects on which individual members are expected,
by virtue of their functions, to make a decision with the
documents on file. That is my first point, and I believe all
members here do support these programs in good faith. However,
program management does not concern the members of this House
who are not government members and representing the minister's
department.
Is the minister familiar with the Public Service of Canada Act,
which calls for public servants at all levels to be accountable?
If a company were managed the way her department is, it would
have gone bankrupt a long time ago.
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart: Madam Speaker, that is precisely what
this is all about. It is about taking responsibility. As I say
again, the department through its own series of checks and
balances, an internal audit, identified that there were things
upon which we could improve. I received the information and I
took it seriously. I have asked the department to make it a
priority, and in so doing we have worked with outside experts to
develop a plan that will ensure this problem is dealt with, that
it is fixed, and that it will never happen again. That is about
taking ministerial responsibility.
I look forward to being in a circumstance where Canadians are
being provided with the information, which we will now have on a
continual basis, to measure us by our results.
1635
Mr. Richard M. Harris: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point
of order. I would expect that if the minister is to speak to the
House today she would at least be speaking in a truthful and open
way. She has said—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): This is not a point
of order.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean Dubé: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The
minister is here. As you probably know, many opposition members
would like to ask her questions. You said there would be
four questions and there are four opposition parties. I would
appreciate it if our party had the opportunity to ask a
question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Unfortunately, time is
running out as members keep raising points of order.
[English]
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP):
Madam Speaker, we in the New Democratic Party have been very
clear that we are not, nor have we ever been, against job
creation initiatives. God only knows in my part of Cape Breton
that we have had enough flimsy job creation programs from
agencies of the government like ACOA.
My question is for the minister. I have a concern with respect
to what appears to be the flexibility of the role. My
understanding is that the criterion was 12% unemployment. It had
to create at least one sustainable long term job. The riding of
my colleague from Winnipeg Centre has an unemployment rate of 13%
and the riding of the minister has an unemployment rate of 6%. My
question is quite clear. Why has the minister's riding qualified
for TJF funds when my colleague's riding of Winnipeg Centre has
not?
Hon. Jane Stewart: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to talk
about this matter. It gives me a chance to explain to the House
the circumstances in my riding of Brant. The hon. member is
wrong with the numbers that she is quoting on the unemployment
rates in 1995 and again in 1997. The rates were acceptable and
part of the CJF and TJF programs.
My riding of Brant has suffered extraordinarily in the course of
the last decade. The businesses that supported many men and
women in Brantford, Massey Ferguson and White Farms, closed up.
The rates of unemployment were extraordinary. We had to
diversify our economy. As a result of the transitional jobs fund
we have really helped my community turn the corner. That is what
this is all about.
Just as another point of interest, as part of transitional jobs
fund three-quarters of the projects were in ridings of 12% or
greater, but a quarter were for projects in ridings where the
unemployment level was a pocket of high unemployment, and the
majority of those projects were found in opposition ridings.
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Madam
Speaker, my region of Canada has suffered quite a bit. We have
been fortunate enough to qualify for these grants and we have
received some too.
The reason that the TJF was put in place was the reform of
employment insurance. It was put in place to help regions
throughout the country like mine. We realize today that money
has gone to other areas which did not qualify. The minister
talks about pockets but it is the first time that I have heard
about pockets.
I cite the example of the $16,000 given out of the TJF fund in
Tobique—Mactaquac and the $7,500 given to the Liberal campaign.
There is something wrong with that.
The minister speaks about the six point plan. I have a serious
question. When TJF was brought in by the government was there
not a plan in place to monitor the moneys that were handed out
throughout the country? Was there not a plan then?
Hon. Jane Stewart: Madam Speaker, there was a plan. The
point of all this is that we are to improve the application and
the implementation of better measures of management because that
is the right thing to do.
There is another point I would like to make.
I say to you, Madam Speaker, that if the hon. member has any
evidence of wrongdoing please have him bring it forward so that
we can have the officials in the appropriate jurisdictions deal
with it.
1640
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I wonder why more members across the floor do not take
their questions outside to the media.
People see through what the opposition is saying but they are
very concerned that the hard earned tax dollars they give to the
Government of Canada are well looked after by the departments
within government. What assurances can the minister give my
constituents in Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant that the money is well
spent and is going toward the things for which it is meant?
Hon. Jane Stewart: Madam Speaker, the assurance I can
give the member is that I am taking this seriously. I have made
this a priority for my department and the department has rallied.
We have a plan of action that will work.
I can confirm again that we have gone outside the department and
asked the experts to help us build the appropriate strategies so
that we can ensure we follow every tax dollar and ensure that it
is working well for all Canadians.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. There is a tremendous amount of interest on the part of
all members in asking questions of the minister. I seek
unanimous consent of the House to extend the period for questions
by five minutes.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there unanimous
consent to extend the period for questions by five minutes?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Stan Keyes: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I remind the hon. member who asked for unanimous consent
that the minister has already established in her remarks in the
House that she will be going to the all-party standing committee
on Thursday to address more questions from all members of
parliament who would care to attend.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the
hon. member for Bras-D'Or—Cape Breton, Child care.
[English]
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak
in the House on the motion presented by the official opposition
which holds in question the department of human resources and the
minister.
The Liberals prior to the elections of 1993 and 1997 supposedly
took the high road when they approached Canadian voters. I quote
the Prime Minister as reported in Hansard in 1991:
I would like to tell the people of Canada that when we form the
government, every minister in the cabinet that I will be
presiding over will have to take full responsibility for what is
going on his department. If there is any bungling in the
department, nobody will be singled out. The minister will have
to take the responsibility.
I also quote the Prime Minister as reported in Hansard in
1994:
There can be no substitute for responsibility at the top. I vow
to you, to this House, to Canadians, that I will never abdicate
that responsibility. I will never pass the buck.
I guess that leads us into the motion today and what has
happened. Canadians have an expectation. Canadians are those
hard working taxpayers who work long hours. They are the men,
women and young adults who are starting their careers as workers.
They give part of their money to the Government of Canada to
spend on their behalf to provide programs for other Canadians and
for themselves. They expect the government to manage the
spending of their money with due diligence and to make sure that
it is not wasted. Lord knows that Canadians pay enough taxes.
They certainly are not looking to the government to waste it on
their behalf.
1645
The question is: What did Canadians actually get? The
auditor's report is quite clear as to what they got. They got a
government which takes very lightly the responsibility of
managing taxpayers' money. They got a government which does not
seem to understand that the money comes from the taxpayer and not
some location like a tree. Canadians got a government which
refuses to assume responsibility for the management of that
money.
The auditor's report revealed that money had been given out but
there were files which did not even have applications for the
money. It revealed that there was a lack of supervision, a lack
of concern as to where the money was supposed to go. There was
no plan as to where the money was supposed to go. There was a
real lack of management and administration. There was a lack of
supervision, a lack of documentation, but, more importantly, a
lack of understanding by the minister in charge of the
department. She is responsible to make sure that the department
manages the spending of taxpayers' money properly.
What Canadians are getting is a message from the Prime Minister
and from his government that we do not have to take
responsibility for our actions. That is the message the Prime
Minister is sending, not only to us, but to other ministers; that
they will not be held accountable for things in their departments
that would represent poor decision making, bad management or lack
of accountability. The Prime Minister is sending the message to
his ministers that they will not ever be held accountable for the
misuse or mismanagement of taxpayer money.
The message he is sending to Canadians in general is that they
do not have to take responsibility for the way they report to
government through government programs. They do not have to take
responsibility for fudging figures or accounts, or losing
documentation which may be required by Revenue Canada. How can
it be all right for the department to access money or submit a
report without all of the documentation but not be all right for
the ordinary Canadian? Canadians are getting the message from
the Prime Minister and his government that they do not have to
take responsibility.
When I speak about Canadians I want to single out young
Canadians who are just entering adulthood and the workforce. What
kind of message are they receiving by the government's actions?
What message are they entering adulthood with? That it is okay
to walk away from problems? That it is okay to cover up reality,
the truth? That it is okay to give out questionable information?
What message are we giving to the young people who will one day
sit in the House of Commons in leadership positions?
An hon. member: Cynicism.
Ms. Val Meredith: My colleague says cynicism and he is
quite right. That is what bothers me.
We have leadership in our country which is sending the wrong
message, which is showing a bad example to Canadians. I think
that Canadians deserve better. I think that Canadians deserve a
government which will use due diligence in managing taxpayers'
money, which will respect the fact that its money comes from
ordinary Canadians who are working day in and day out to raise
families and to provide not only for their families but for
themselves and their communities. I think that Canadians deserve
to have a government which recognizes that there are people who
cannot look after themselves, who need assistance, but that
assistance is given on merit and not for political reasons.
Canadians deserve to have a government which recognizes that
politics should be separate from government; that government,
when it is spending taxpayers' money, should not be making
decisions based on raising election funds or gathering votes. It
should be a government which spends taxpayers' money to provide
programs for Canadians, programs and funds based on merit and
merit only.
1650
There may be a reason for some of these programs, but there is
never a reason for bad management. There is never a reason for
making decisions based on politics rather than merit. There is
never a reason for having one set of rules for the minister and a
different set of rules for everybody else. There is never a
reason for covering up what actually happened. That is not what
Canadians deserve.
Canadians deserve a government that will give the truth as it
is, not as the government sees it. Canadians deserve a
government that will do the right thing for the right reasons.
They do not deserve a government that will hide behind the back
of the Prime Minister or the skirts of the minister of HRDC. They
deserve a government which will face the responsibility that was
given to it by the voters of Canada to govern with integrity.
Canadians deserve nothing less. Unfortunately they do not have
that.
Mr. Richard M. Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the minister said that she was taking
credit for bringing the internal audit public. She was taking
great pains to show her willingness to discuss this in an open
manner.
As I recall, it was members of the official opposition which two
days before actually let it be known that we had our hands on
this document. Could it be assumed that the minister only made
it public because she was caught in some sort of nest that she
could not get out of and she knew we had the audit?
Ms. Val Meredith: Mr. Speaker, the facts are that the
official opposition put in an access request on the 17th and the
minister released the audit report on the 19th, two days later,
because she knew that it would become public anyway. She did the
damage control by releasing it before we did.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
response to the last question shows how ridiculous is the Reform
Party's thrust. The member opposite has no proof that the
Minister of Human Resources Development released the document on
the 17th because the Reform Party did what it did on the 19th. It
might have been the other way around. The Reform Party might
have had information that the minister was doing her job
adequately, which she has shown she was doing. She said there
would be corrections. Maybe the Reform Party decided to go the
way it went to create an avenue going the other direction. Maybe
that is what happened.
We are seeing allegations from the Reform Party that do not have
substance. The answers today from the Prime Minister and the
human resources development minister clearly show that we have
projects that are good right across the country. Will the hon.
member not admit that these projects are good?
Ms. Val Meredith: Mr. Speaker, we will let Canadians
decide for themselves. The minister had the auditor's report
for five months.
The official opposition put in an access request on the 17th and
the minister released it on the 19th, five months after the fact.
Circumstances show that it was probably the pressure of the
official opposition's access request, which would have resulted
in it being released anyway. Damage control says that it is
better to release something than it is to have it otherwise
released.
1655
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the member was talking about politics and
partisanship rather than merit. The facts are that in targeted
wage subsidy programs the average spending in cabinet ministers'
ridings was $350,634. The average spending in a Liberal riding
represented by a Liberal member of parliament was $335,730.
However, the average spending for targeted wage subsidy programs
in a riding represented by a Reform Party member was only
$149,529, less than half of a cabinet minister. Those are the
facts. That relates to the heart of what the member was talking
about; politics and partisanship rather than merit.
Ms. Val Meredith: Mr. Speaker, I cannot disagree with my
colleague's comments. The interesting thing, and the minister
reiterated it today, is that the margin was 12% for the jobs fund
and yet Statistics Canada figures, government figures, show that
the figure was 6% in 1999 in her riding, not 12%. The rate of
unemployment was 8.4% in 1996. It shows that the rate of
unemployment was going down in her riding. It certainly did not
meet the 12% requirement of the minister's target level for the
program. Her riding took money that should have gone to a more
needy riding.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is my pleasure to address the opposition day motion. We
are taking head-on the issue of whether the government should be
engaging in the types of actions that it has engaged in over the
last months and years. It has taken taxpayers' money and spent
it on all kinds of questionable activities without doing the
proper accounting. In fact, we would argue that in many cases
there seem to be absolutely no rules at all when it comes to how
the government spends money through the Department of Human
Resources Development.
I want to start by running through some of the facts and
reiterating some of the things my colleague said a minute ago.
They bear repeating because they are important. I do not think
anyone could argue that this is one of worst cases of neglect and
abuse of taxpayers' money in the history of Canada. I do not
think people could argue that. We are talking about a billion
dollars.
My colleague mentioned a minute ago that two days after the
Reform Party filed an access to information request for a copy of
an internal audit done in the Department of Human Resources
Development the minister called together a very hasty press
conference and revealed that there were all kinds of problems in
her department and the fact that she had known about this for
months and months on end but had done absolutely nothing about
it.
Here is what that audit revealed. Of the 459 project files
reviewed, 15% did not have an application on file from the
sponsor. Of the remaining applications the following elements
were missing: 72% had no cash flow forecast; 46% had no estimate
of the number of participants; 25% had no description of the
activities to be supported, yet cheques were cut and money went
out; 25% provided no description of the characteristics of
participants; 11% had no budget proposal; and 11% had no
description of expected results. Ninety-seven per cent of all
files reviewed showed no evidence that anyone had checked to see
if the recipient already owed money to HRDC or to the government.
Eight out of ten files reviewed did not show evidence of
financial monitoring, and 87% of project files showed no evidence
of supervision. That is what was happening in this department
for months and months on end.
We now know that this went back before the current human
resources minister and that the previous minister, now the
Minister for International Trade, was also aware of this.
My colleague from Calgary—Nose Hill questioned both ministers at
various times and they assured the House there were no problems
in that department, that everything was above board and that all
the applications were being scrutinized.
1700
We can see that simply was not true. The audit proves that. But
what does the government do? It does not say it is sorry. The
minister does not resign, which is the honourable thing to do
when one blows a billion dollars. The minister somehow finds the
courage to stand and say it is no big deal. I do not know how
she can do that. I do not know how she can say that they have
implemented a six point plan and it is no problem now. We are
talking about a billion dollars.
I do not know if my colleagues across the way have been out in
their ridings over the last month and a half, but if they have,
they will have found that people are concerned about the state of
health care in Canada today. They are asking how is it that the
government can blow all this money on these grants and not really
know where it ended up, yet health care goes lacking.
In my riding we were promised emergency aid for the farmers. I
should point out in fairness to the people in my riding that they
are not simply asking for subsidies, but they do say they were
promised this. They are wondering what happened, because they
told the bankers that they would be getting this. It has not
shown up but a billion dollars has just blown out the door
through human resources development. It is absolutely
scandalous.
When we analyse this what do we find? First of all I have run
through some of the facts. Obviously there are simply no rules
when it comes to spending money in human resources development.
We are talking about a program where they really do have
freestyle grant giving. There are no rules. It is chequebook
politics. The department cuts all kinds of cheques. There are no
application forms.
Certainly there were a lot of questions about the propriety of
what happened in the Prime Minister's riding. The few rules that
there are were seemingly broken in order to ensure that money got
into the hands of people who were big political supporters of the
Prime Minister. It is absolutely scandalous.
We found out that once the cheques were sent out there was no
real accounting. The best examples are some of the things that
were in the paper today.
McGill University was seeking $60,000 and someone made a little
error and gave it $160,000. That can happen, but if there is
some kind of financial system in place we get the $100,000 back.
But those guys over there did not catch it and $100,000 is just
gone. McGill says “We decided that we really needed it so we
will just hold on to the $100,000”.
There was the situation where the native band in British
Columbia ended up taking money that was supposed to be used for
child care study and using it to buy jewels. It is unbelievable.
That is what happens when we give a Liberal government a bunch
of money and an open chequebook to do with what it will. That is
precisely what happens.
What I am concerned about, and I think Canadians are concerned
about, is that a culture of neglect runs right through this
government.
Interestingly enough it was the human resources minister who was
previously the Indian affairs minister. On her watch the auditor
general came before parliament to present his report. Over and
over and over again were all kinds of examples of how the
government was not monitoring money that was going to Indian
bands. There was example after example. Did anything change?
Have things changed? Obviously not.
There is another example in today's newspapers of what has gone
on. It is absolutely shameful.
The question is what do we do in a situation like this? The
very first thing is that we exorcise the cancer. We get it out
of there. Do we know who that is? It is the minister, the
previous minister and probably the minister previous to that one.
Three ministers in a row sat there knowing that this was going
on and allowed that $1 billion to be spent year after year after
year with no proper accounting. Meanwhile high priority things
are left wanting.
1705
Consider national defence. We send people around the world to
do all kinds of great and honourable things and put their lives
on the line without proper equipment. The government is blowing
$1 billion a year out the door. It is absolutely unbelievable
but the government sits and justifies it.
I heard the minister with her pathetic justifications today. It
was unbelievable. She said, “Well you know, some of it goes to
things that are really good”. Well, guess what. We know that.
We know there are some things out there that if they had some
money it would be good. We do not question that.
We question which ones should get the money and where that money
should come from. Should it come from big daddy government in
Ottawa 2,000 miles away from all these projects, or should it
come from local levels of government and private individuals? I
would argue it should come from the latter because those are the
people who know which programs are most important in their
ridings. They know what they can afford because they are the
taxpayers.
When we have a government that coercively takes money from
people and we have the highest personal income taxes in the
western world, and it hurts my friends across the way when we
point these facts out and they are painful, rather obviously in a
situation like that people would like to have the choice.
I have no doubt that Canadians being as generous as they are,
they would overwhelmingly support worthy programs. They would.
What they resent is a government that reaches into their pockets,
drives taxes through the roof to the point where we have the
highest taxes in Canadian history, and then wastes their money.
This is one department. I would love to peel open the books on
those other departments because I know we would find the same
thing in myriad other departments.
I encourage my friends across the way to climb down off their
high horses and admit they are wrong. The minister should
resign. Probably the previous two ministers should resign. Maybe
then Canadians would start to have some faith that the government
actually cares about what it does with people's money. I do not
think they believe that now. They have seen too many examples of
waste and cover-up and mismanagement from the government.
I will close by saying that very shortly there will be another
budget. I hope that the finance minister does not have the gall
to ask Canadians for more money to increase spending. Rather
obviously, there are billions of dollars of waste in the
government, yet my friends across the way do nothing to root it
out and to save taxpayers a lot of money.
I encourage the minister to heed the message to clean up the
waste and mismanagement before he asks for one more cent in the
next budget.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was
just looking at the ceiling to see if there was a full moon.
There must be a solar eclipse or something because the member
opposite certainly has a strange imagination.
He had a very rhetorical speech with no substance or facts at
all. He talked about facts but there was no substance to what he
was saying. He talked about blowing $1 billion out the window.
Has he not listened to one thing the minister said in the House
in terms of explaining—
An hon. member: No.
Mr. Wayne Easter: It is not unusual for members of the
Reform Party to say no because they do not listen to ordinary
people. They do not care about ordinary people. They are a
non-caring party, that is for sure. It is obvious in their
remarks today. Talk about a culture of neglect. The party
opposite neglects ordinary people. The fact of the matter is that
they definitely do not care. This program was put in place to
create jobs and it in fact has done that. The minister—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I have to interrupt
the member because we have a lot of questions but not a lot of
time. One minute for the response, please. I am sure that the
hon. member for Medicine Hat can divine a question out of that.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, that was certainly a
content based question. Let me respond to what my colleague has
said.
The fact is that the internal audit did find $1 billion worth of
programs that were not properly accounted for. In fact there
were many, many examples where money went to all kinds of
projects where not a single job was created, not one job.
That sets aside whether or not jobs would have been created if
that money had been left in taxpayers' pockets in the first
place. We argue that a dollar left in the taxpayers' pockets is
far more effective than a dollar in the hands of a bureaucrat or
a politician, and my friend just made that case for me.
1710
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I agree with only one thing that has been said in the
debate today and that is that the most important thing we do as
parliamentarians is to be accountable and responsible for
Canadians when it comes to the use of their money. What I find
astonishing from the opposition today is the complete lack of
recognition that the government has any role in working for the
public good of the people of Canada.
Perhaps the members opposite are in the dark about what is
happening in their ridings. I personally am not. I personally
visit every project in my riding that gets funding from the
Government of Canada, so I know exactly who these projects are
hiring. I know exactly what kind of training they are providing
and I know exactly what successes they are achieving.
As examples hundreds of new Canadians are being trained on how
to get a job in Canada and on what job skills are required. There
are people being trained for industry and for available jobs.
There are students getting work during the summer that will allow
them to return to university. These are people I know in my—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry but I
need to interrupt. We will see if we can get a question out of
that for the hon. member for Medicine Hat.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, I think that is the
problem. A lot of these politicians do go and see who is getting
hired. In fact that is our criticism. We do not think
politicians should be involved in making those decisions.
If we are going to have a program like that, and I sure do not
believe we should, the last thing we want is politicians
interfering with it. Can the member not see that there is all
kinds of room for abuse? Did she not pay attention when we
grilled the Prime Minister about what went on in his riding? That
was shameful. We see millions of dollars wasted, millions of
dollars which should be used for things that are good going to
political things. We do not believe that is a proper use of
taxpayers' money.
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, one of the ways in which government makes sure the money
it spends is well spent is to involve the local people. The hon.
member asked why people in Ottawa should be making these
decisions. He may not be aware but in ridings such as mine it is
actually the local people who come together in various fashions
and who sit down and work with the Canada Employment Centre
offices to make sure that money goes into the area specifically
where it is needed most.
In a lot of areas, in particular in an area like southwestern
Ontario, there are pockets of high unemployment. That is really
where we want those moneys to be directed.
An hon. member: Like Brant?
Mr. Bob Speller: Yes, exactly like Brant. In Brant
particularly there are pockets where the unemployment rates are
much higher than 12%. That is why this program was made, to make
sure—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Order, please. I am afraid
there is no more time. There are barely a few seconds for the
hon. member for Medicine Hat.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Madam Speaker, there is a 6%
unemployment rate in Brant and my friend across the way is
defending pouring money in when the standard is 12%. Obviously
that is the minister feather bedding her own riding.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am very pleased to offer my comments on this very
misguided Reform opposition motion which we are debating today.
I find it quite astonishing that some members, especially those
of the Reform Party, would claim that the government is trying to
hide something here when it was the minister herself who made the
internal audit known to the public.
I heard the hon. member for Medicine Hat talk about pathetic.
What is pathetic is what the Reform Party and others are trying
to do in this debate, which is to misrepresent the facts to the
extent they are. It is absolutely shameful but it is so typical
of the pathetic Reform Party. What it is good at—
Mr. Ken Epp: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
It is clearly in the parliamentary rules that one cannot charge a
member with misrepresenting the facts. It is against the
standing orders and I would ask you to ask the member—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am sure that if the
hon. member said anything that was questionable he will correct
it right away.
Mr. Lynn Myers: Madam Speaker, I am sure the hon. member
opposite understands when I say how pathetic the Reform Party is
as it twists and turns in its own self-flagellation. It is
unbelievable how those people opposite are intent always on
pitting Canadians against Canadians, region against region, group
against group, people against people.
That is all those people who are nothing more than disunity type
people have in common. They deserve each other and they deserve
what they get. However, we on the governing side—
1715
Mr. Ken Epp: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The hon. member is imputing motive and that is against the rules
of the House. He cannot do that.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It being 5.15 p.m.,
it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith
every question necessary to dispose of the Business of Supply.
The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour
of the amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having rise:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Call in the members.
1745
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
| Blaikie
|
Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Brien
| Brison
|
Cadman
| Canuel
| Cardin
| Casey
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Cummins
| Davies
| de Savoye
| Desjarlais
|
Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duceppe
| Dumas
| Duncan
| Epp
|
Forseth
| Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Gruending
|
Guay
| Hanger
| Hardy
| Harris
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Jones
|
Konrad
| Lalonde
| Lebel
| Lill
|
Loubier
| Lowther
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Mark
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
McDonough
| McNally
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Meredith
| Morrison
| Muise
| Nystrom
|
Obhrai
| Penson
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Plamondon
| Price
| Proctor
| Reynolds
|
Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Solberg
| Solomon
|
St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| Stoffer
| Strahl
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Vautour
|
Vellacott
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne – 104
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
| Bakopanos
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cotler
|
Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Guarnieri
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
|
Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
|
Sgro
| Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
St - Julien
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
|
Vanclief
| Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
|
Wilfert
| Wood – 142
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare the amendment lost. The next
question is on the main motion.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
1750
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
1755
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
| Blaikie
|
Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Brien
| Brison
|
Cadman
| Canuel
| Cardin
| Casey
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Cummins
| Davies
| de Savoye
| Desjarlais
|
Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duceppe
| Dumas
| Duncan
| Epp
|
Forseth
| Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Gruending
|
Guay
| Hanger
| Hardy
| Harris
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Jones
|
Konrad
| Lalonde
| Lebel
| Lill
|
Loubier
| Lowther
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Mark
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
McDonough
| McNally
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Meredith
| Morrison
| Muise
| Nystrom
|
Obhrai
| Penson
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Plamondon
| Price
| Proctor
| Reynolds
|
Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
|
Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| Stoffer
|
Strahl
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
|
Vautour
| Vellacott
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne – 105
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
| Bakopanos
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cotler
|
Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Guarnieri
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
|
Limoges
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Patry
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
|
Serré
| Sgro
| Shepherd
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| St - Julien
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Vanclief
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 143
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare the motion lost.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1800
[English]
SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC) moved:
That the Standing Committee on Industry review policies currently
in place that affect the Canadian shipbuilding industry in order
to assess their ability to provide a competitive and equitable
environment for growth of the industry in Canada.
He said: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to have the
opportunity to rise in this place to discuss a very important
issue which I believe is critical to the economic well-being of
the country and in particular Atlantic Canada.
I rise today as a member of parliament for the riding of
Fundy—Royal which borders the city of Saint John. I am one of
many members of parliament who have spoken in this place over the
last number of years to put forth the need for us to modernize
our current shipbuilding policy.
Members from all sides of the House have spoken on behalf of
this initiative. It has a wide breadth of support from a number
of political parties, for example the New Democrats, and a hot
and cold relationship with the Liberals. The member from Lévis,
Quebec, has been a strong advocate of the need to revitalize our
shipbuilding policy.
No member in the House of Commons has fought more tirelessly
than the member for Saint John to ensure that the people of Saint
John, New Brunswick, are able to earn their living at the
shipyard located there and that Saint John Shipbuilding Limited
will work again. The member for Saint John has spoken in the
House on countless occasions, whether it be during debate or in
question period. I rise today on behalf of all individuals who
are trying to advance this debate.
Motion No. 71 calls on the Standing Committee on Industry to
complete an indepth review and analysis of current shipbuilding
policies and how they affect the growth or lack thereof of the
shipbuilding industry.
The motion does not compel the government to make any changes.
It only requests that the industry committee assess the current
system for its ability to promote growth in the Canadian
shipbuilding industry. Put simply, it proposes that the
committee complete an indepth review of the file.
I will talk about what we need to do to revitalize our
shipbuilding as has been advocated by an unprecedented number of
individuals.
Only last March the motion put forward by the member for Saint
John on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada
called on the House to develop a national shipbuilding policy. At
the same time the member for Saint John utilized the exact same
language the Liberal Party of Canada used on two separate
occasions to put forward a resolution by its members at its
national convention concerning the need for us to develop a
national shipbuilding policy. At that time in the House the
Liberal government chose to reject that initiative. I find this
a bit shocking.
1805
I have a document with me which I hesitate to use as a prop by
any means. It is entitled “Atlantic Canada: Catching
Tomorrow's Wave”. I do not know if members have had a chance to
review this document, but on page 104 it notes that one of the
critical initiatives needed to develop a modern economy in
Atlantic Canada is a new shipbuilding policy. Maybe the Liberals
are actually listening to the member for Saint John, to me and to
all other individuals who have put forth this point.
Page 106 goes on to say that Canada is the only country which
does not provide any direct construction grants, loan guarantees,
preferential rate export financing, research and development
grants, preferential tax treatment or customs duties on imported
ship materials.
That document was produced by Liberal Party members from
Atlantic Canada, what few it might actually have. A number of
them were able to coalesce to put together a document on
September 30, 1999, less than six months after they turned their
nose down on trying to advance the debate we had put forward back
in March.
I am advocating something that is almost unprecedented. These
individuals are calling for us to modernize the shipbuilding
industry. They represented all 10 premiers of this great country
of Canada not just once but on two separate occasions: in St.
Andrews in 1997 and again in Quebec City in 1998. All 10
provinces have actually put their shoulder to the wheel and said
that we need to ensure we have the financial instruments to
develop a shipbuilding policy.
In addition to all 10 premiers, the ship owners, the
shipbuilders and labour have coalesced around the same principles
and are advocating the exact same things that we need to
modernize our shipbuilding industry.
Before I go into the actual issues in terms of what I am
advocating the Department of Industry and the Minister of
Industry bring forward, I want to make it very clear to everybody
in this place today or watching at home on CPAC that we are not
looking for subsidies in any way, shape or form for the
shipbuilding industry. We are looking for the government to do
two principal things. One is to give it sound, viable access to
its market and the other is to provide a proper tax regime for it
to be able to compete.
Sound and viable access to its market for most commodities might
be roads, rails and other direct infrastructure like ports and
airports, for that matter. We have those challenges near my home
in the riding of Saint John. That is normally the kind of
infrastructure we speak about.
Another role in terms of what we are looking at in terms of a
sound, viable access to its market is an international trade
regime so that it actually has a marketplace in which to
establish. I will come back to that in a few moments as I
progress through the course of the debate.
We also need to develop an international tax regime whereby we
can be competitive in Canada. The corporate taxes in Canada are
completely uncompetitive in other regimes. In fact, Canada has
the second highest corporate taxes in the industrialized world,
second only to Japan. It is difficult for any industry to
compete and make a profit in Canada, in particular the
shipbuilding industry.
The four points I will advocate would be the cornerstone for
developing a modern shipbuilding policy supported by all 10
premiers, labour, ship owners and shipbuilders.
I know the member for Saint John can attest to them as well as
every family, every man and woman who actually has earned a
paycheque in shipyards whether it be in Saint John, New
Brunswick; Marystown, Newfoundland; Port Weller, Ontario; Lévis,
Quebec; or elsewhere throughout the country. These are the
initiatives we are looking at doing.
1810
First and foremost, we understand categorically that any time a
large capital good is purchased in Canada or anywhere in the
world the available financial package is a cornerstone of whether
or not the bid is competitive. That means access to capital at
the most aggressive financing rates possible. That is why we are
advocating that a loan guarantee program be adopted similar to
the one in the American title XI program which guarantees under
very prudent criteria the loan of a potential ship buyer.
The title XI program has been in place place since 1936. Do
members know how many loan defaults it has had since then? The
member for Saint John knows the answer. The answer is zip, zero,
not one loan default. If a student in university copied
something and got in trouble it was called plagiarism. In the
real world, if it works it is called being resourceful. I am
advocating that Canada develop a loan guarantee program similar
to the one in title XI and adopt it in the Canadian context.
We have a natural vehicle to deliver that in the departments of
industry and international trade, the Export Development
Corporation. It will guarantee a loan for a foreign buyer of a
ship. We also need to adapt it to guarantee a loan for a
domestic buyer of a ship, especially given the fact that we have
a aging fleet on the Great Lakes, one of our principal markets in
terms of where we can build ships on a competitive basis in
Canada.
The second point I am advocating is that our punitive tax regime
in Canada needs to provide accelerated depreciation combined with
revising Revenue Canada leasing regulations. Lease financing has
become a very natural vehicle for purchases of large capital
goods. We need to ensure that our tax regime is competitive with
that of the United States. I am not looking at subsidies. I am
looking at a loan guarantee program. I am looking at changing
the Canadian tax regime.
The third point I am advocating is that we need to ensure that
we find sound, viable access to our markets. I spoke about the
need for a trade regime. The result of the free trade agreement,
NAFTA, in general has been very positive for Canada. Prior to
1988 we traded essentially $80 billion each year with the
Americans. Today we trade around $240 billion to $260 billion
each year with the Americans.
However, the Jones Act which has been in place in the United
States since 1936 has blocked our penetration into the American
market. That is fine to some degree. We can compete if we have
a proper tax regime and a proper loan guarantee program with the
markets in the EU. We can build ships in our own waters and on
the Great Lakes.
It is incumbent on the government, the Minister for
International Trade and the Minister of Industry, to step forward
and talk with the Americans about opening up some kind of
bilateral accord on building certain types of ships. The example
of offshore drilling rigs comes to mind. The member for Saint
John and I have spoken about it on countless occasions. There is
an actual demand for more capacity to build drilling rigs for
development off the banks of Newfoundland in the Terra Nova,
Hibernia, Ben Nevis and White Rose oilfields, in terms of the
development that has taken place along the Carolinas and what we
have seen in the Gulf of Mexico.
1815
We could develop shipshape drilling rigs, which are in demand
with the States, and we could open up a bilateral accord in that
way. Maybe we should look at ocean-going tugs, which are
manufactured in P.E.I. In Georgetown, P.E.I., in the solicitor
general's riding, they manufacture a very cost-competitive ship.
Maybe we could develop a bilateral accord in that area.
What we are looking at is a loan guarantee program similar to
what the Americans have under Title XI, revising our leasing
regulations so we have a competitive tax regime and opening up
some form of bilateral accord.
I heard, sadly, in the House on a number of occasions the
government say “You, the Progressive Conservative Party of
Canada, negotiated the free trade agreement and at that time you
missed out on an opportunity to ensure that shipbuilding was
exempt from any kind of protectionist regime under the free trade
agreement”. I would like to remind every one of those members,
categorically, that free trade has been a win for Canada. In
1988 our trade with the Americans amounted to $80 billion. Today
it is around $240 billion.
The government has been in office for almost seven years and it
has not knocked on the door of one congressman or one senator in
the United States of America to say that maybe it is time we
actually tried to do something in that regard.
The problem with this issue is that there is no leadership in
advancing the file. This is where I am at a loss. The Minister
of Finance says that it is not his file. The Minister for
International Trade says that the EDC is under his jurisdiction
but it is not really his file, that it comes under the industry
file. The Minister of Industry says that the instruments we are
looking for belong in other jurisdictions.
If we do not have a quarterback in place who is willing to
advance the shipbuilding industry in this country, then it is
time we change the quarterback. We should change the Minister of
Industry so that we can ensure we get people back to work in
Atlantic Canada, in Quebec, in Vancouver and in Ontario.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
I rise to respond to Motion No. 71 presented by the hon. member
from the Tory party. The motion calls for the Standing Committee
on Industry to review the policies in place which affect the
Canadian shipbuilding industry in order to assess their ability
to provide a competitive and equitable environment for the growth
of the industry in Canada.
This is a noble cause. Canadians want to sympathize with the
hon. member who laments the days when Canada was one of the great
shipbuilding nations.
Lower taxes would help all factors of our economy. If the
government would lower taxes it would help our industries. Lower
taxes would help all companies across the country.
The official opposition policy calls for private sector
self-reliance without the federal government providing tax
dollars to support any specific sector.
Let us look at the shipbuilding industry in Canada. With only .04%,
that is 1/25th of a percentage point of the world's
shipbuilding production, Canada cannot sustain a shipbuilding
industry. Rather than try to match these subsidies and other
incentives offered by other countries, we should concentrate our
efforts on negotiating down unfair export subsidies.
Far from guaranteeing loans to Canadians who purchase Canadian
built ships, we should drop the 25% tariff we have on non-NAFTA
ship imports so that all Canadian shipowners and ship purchasers
are not penalized.
Industry Canada can tell us about the problems in the
shipbuilding industry. It is a declining industry, a dead in the
water industry. There is an overcapacity in the world of over
40%. Canada is not even in the ballpark.
1820
What the Liberals and Tories have done to the shipbuilding
industry in Canada is a study on what not to do in terms of
productivity. Yet the industry department continues to have a
shipbuilding policy which has technology partnership grants,
research and development grants and the Export Development
Corporation supporting it. Why?
The technology partnerships program is available to firms for
research and development, if they so wish. It is repayable based
on success. It is a risk sharing, reward sharing program. No
one should use this program for shipbuilding because there would
be no way to pay back the loan.
Let us look at the world shipbuilding industry. This industry
has moved away from North American and European markets to
southeast Asian markets. Japan and South Korea continue to
control over two-thirds of the total international market for
shipbuilding and ship repair. China is emerging as a rival.
When combined, these three countries control over 75% of the
world market.
Due to extreme pressure from Asian shipbuilders many traditional
shipbuilders, including the Norwegian company Kvaerner, have
chosen to get out of the industry altogether.
Canada cannot build major ships. We can manufacture only minor
and smaller vessels here. Both of these markets are already
operating at over 40% of their capacity. Demand and prices are
already weak and are forecast to continue to decline. Prices for
1999 are down by 6% to 24% from last year.
The international market is experiencing a significant
downsizing. Market conditions for shipbuilders are not about to
change. The total employment in Canada's shipbuilding and ship
repair industry as of May 1999 was about 5,000.
What should be done? We should not turn to taxpayers and make
them pay for a shipbuilding industry in Canada that will never be
a viable industry. On this side of the House we support
de-politicizing economic decision making by eliminating grants,
guarantees and subsidies.
What did the Tories do about the shipbuilding industry when they
were in power for nine years? The destruction of the
shipbuilding industry during their time in government was
devastating to our eastern provinces and to B.C.
Let us look at subsidies as a solution. The Tories think, as
the Liberals do, that all we have to do is get the industry
committee to approve millions of dollars worth of subsidies and
we can resurrect Canada's shipbuilding industry. That is
typical. The Liberals use the industry committee and its
minister to try to give millions of dollars of taxpayers' funds
to hockey teams. This is all very disgusting to those of us who
are building an alternative to the traditional way of doing
things here in Ottawa.
In the last session the House debated shipbuilding. A Bloc MP
wanted to establish a federal loan granting program that would
cover up to 87.5% of the money borrowed to purchase a commercial
ship built in Canadian shipyards. That bill would also have
provided a favourable and generous tax treatment of lease
financing for the purchase of Canadian built ships. The Bloc
MP's bill proposed a refundable tax credit for refitting
commercial ships in Canada. This was not just another attempt to
do some Liberal bashing over this issue; maybe the Bloc Quebecois
also wants Canadian taxpayers to continue pouring millions of
taxpayer dollars into Quebec up to the last minute, until they
leave Canada, but it is very clear that the people of Quebec will
not be following the Bloc Quebecois anywhere.
Let us look at the industry committee. In November of last year
the industry committee dealt with the shipbuilding matter. The
committee heard the sad details of the worldwide industry, which
spelled poor prospects in the industry for our country in the
future.
1825
The Liberals on the committee did not know or were not willing
to admit that their minister for the homeless was secretly
lobbying cabinet, trying to broker a common ground between
industry and the government. Canadians think that she is in
Toronto working on the homeless problem. We know that she is not
in B.C. helping Vancouver with its homeless people. The media
caught her working on shipbuilding. The Liberals only want to
meet to talk about helping the shipbuilding industry. This
garners votes in eastern Canada and Quebec, and they hope in B.C.
The government could be wrong, but it does not want to have to
face Canadian taxpayers and our foreign trading partners with the
facts and figures on actually how much money it would pour into
the industry. That is a big question.
This is the same government that cannot account for $1 billion
in HRDC spending, which we were debating earlier today. The
concentration on this issue could be construed as a thinly veiled
attempt to orchestrate the immediate building of five or six
ships which the federal government plans to construct in four or
five years. We are watching for an attempt to have these ships
built this year or next. This may save the taxpayers money or it
may not. Maybe the ships could be built cheaper offshore. That
would save taxpayers some money. Let us look at a viable
solution. Maybe the Liberals will have these ships constructed
just before the next federal election so they can throw the
industry a bone. No one will be fooled.
I will support the review of the shipbuilding policy. However,
I will support it reluctantly.
The questions are: How many times do we have to review this
matter? How much money is it going to cost taxpayers? Canadians
know that the current Liberal government is maintaining a high,
artificial level of taxation. It is hurting our economy, our
productivity and our growth with high taxes, as the member from
the PC party mentioned. It is hurting our consumers and it is
discouraging foreign investors from coming to Canada. It has
caused a brain drain that threatens our country.
Something has to be done about the high level of taxes that is
killing jobs, our economy, our industry and the country. Our
employment levels are too low. With our vast resources and our
ability to create wealth with other nations in the global
economy—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I must interrupt the
hon. member as his time has expired.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Madam
Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to speak to the
motion moved by the member for Fundy—Royal in New Brunswick.
I say pleasure, because this member, along with certain others,
has long been calling for a real shipbuilding policy.
Before I address the motion, I have a few comments about the
speech by the Reform Party member. I was somewhat taken aback
because I have been on the Standing Committee on Industry since
the 1997 election, and I noticed that the party is on its third
industry critic. The first two shared our vision, but all of a
sudden, perhaps seeing the possibility of political gain in
their fight with the Progressive Conservatives for a certain
percentage of the voters, they are switching their position.
I want to point out to the Reform Party member who has just
spoken and who is not listening to me—but I will say it again—that
20 members of his party supported my Bill C-213 just a few
months ago. So some consistency is called for on the Reform
Party side.
Now, I will return to the motion by the member for the
Progressive Conservative Party, the member for Fundy—Royal. His
motion made sense and perhaps still does. What he was calling
for at the time was for the issue to be considered by the
Standing Committee on Industry.
1830
There were at least three sittings of the Standing Committee on
Industry where we met with Department of Industry officials. In
response to a question by a Reform member, a deputy minister
replied that the Reform member was wrong, that the federal
government had no particular policy on shipbuilding and that the
member could rest assured that no more was being done for that
sector than for any other. I then rose to say “That is exactly
where the problem lies. You are doing nothing in particular for
this sector. You have abandoned it”.
Yet that party had committed, in its red book and in 1993, to
hold, within a year of its election, a summit on the future of
shipbuilding in Canada. Since then, nothing.
A little later on, management and the unions appeared before the
committee. We asked the unions “Do you feel that there is a
shipbuilding policy in Canada?” They said there was not. Then
we asked management “Do you feel that there is a policy?” They
said “Yes, there is the customs duty”. Clearly the CEO of the
Shipbuilding Association did not want to overly displease the
Liberal Party. He said “Yes, there are certain policies,
including the customs duty” but that is all.
Over and over again I asked “Do you feel that you have a true
shipbuilding policy?” In the bill we are going to address
tomorrow evening, moreover, the three measures I am referring to
are the three ones being requested. I stated further “You are
supported in this by the unions, by the Chambre maritime du
Canada, by the provincial premiers. You have the support of
150,000 people who sent a mail-in postcard to the Prime Minister.
You even have the support of members of the Liberal Party of
Canada who are holding their convention.” Some Liberal members
attending the convention voted with the grassroots, urging their
government to act.
The Minister of Labour tried to do something. She appointed a
delegate to the Maritimes to look into the matter. The Reform
Party member noticed and he criticized the minister for it,
telling her “You should not have done that. You did that in
secret”. As for the Minister of Industry, he did not want to do
anything, while the Minister of Finance could not do a thing.
That has always been his line.
Why can the Minister of Finance not act? He will not tell the
House. He lets the Minister of Industry answer, but we are
asking for tax measures. Outside the House, the Minister of
Finance says “You see, I have some interests in the shipbuilding
industry.
These interests are now in a trust, but I cannot answer. I would
not want to be seen as someone who wants to promote that sector
because I happen to have some interests in that particular
sector”.
Things are not good when the one person who could do something
does not dare do so for fear of being criticized. When she saw
that her industry colleague was not acting, and even though this
was not her responsibility, the Minister of Labour tried to do
something, but the Reform Party member criticized her for it.
I want the Minister of Labour to know that she did well, as did
her colleague from New Brunswick. She wants to look into the
matter. I have nothing against that, but we have been asking for
reviews for seven years. The industry got organized and
conducted a review. The Standing Committee on Industry
considered the issue from a productivity point of view.
Figures in hand, the unions appeared before the committee to
testify that Canadian shipyard workers were paid 20% less than
their American counterparts, and 50% less than workers in
Germany and Japan. Only two countries, Korea and communist
China, pay their shipyard workers less, and that is the example
the Reform Party member would have us follow.
There are people who claim to be experts on the shipbuilding
industry while never having set foot in a shipyard. I would
like the Reform Party member to try this line in Halifax or
Vancouver, where there are two large shipyards. Or he could try
out the audience in Lévis. He would be well-advised to pre-record
his press conference because he is going to run into trouble.
This position is indefensible and inconsistent with the earlier
positions taken by the Reform Party. Now it is trying to teach
us a lesson about free enterprise.
All they are trying to do is lower individual income taxes.
1835
The member for Fundy—Royal told us that Canadian corporate taxes,
which take in shipyards, are among the highest. That is one of
the problems. Why do Canadian shipowners have their boats built
outside Canada? Why do those people who have had ships built
sometimes sail them under foreign flags? Because corporate
taxes are not the same everywhere in the world, and there are
tax havens. The Minister of Finance knows this. He chairs a
committee of members of the group of 20 and he should give this
some thought. That is the problem, not what workers are paid.
The problem is a serious lack of guaranteed financing.
No one here in this House is asking for funding. The Reformers
keep saying it, and the member himself keeps saying that the
member from the Bloc is asking for a refundable tax credit. The
words mean what they mean: refundable. It is not funding. A
loan guarantee is not funding, it is support.
Is the Reform Party, which is trying to copy the American
program, trying all the time to tell us that things are better
in the United States? What is called for in Bill C-213 is
exactly what the Americans have been doing for the past 100
years. We in Canada are doing what? We are exempting the U.S.
from paying 25% duty. However, our Canadian shipowners cannot
go to the United States, because of the protectionist measures.
The member for Fundy—Royal said “We have to look at that. It
cannot be included in a bill”. It is not in my bill either
because the Minister for International Trade is the one to go
and negotiate some similar measure with his American counterpart
or a change to NAFTA—and that is very difficult—or have the Jones
act amended to exempt Canada from such a policy. If this were
the case, with the current rate of exchange there would be work
in Canadian shipyards, incredibly more than Canada could
generate.
I recently did a study on the Internet and by phone. In the
United States, shipyards are currently working at full tilt.
The remaining European shipyards are also working to capacity
because following the Asian crisis the Asian shipyards are not
working at full capacity.
The Reform member does not know what he is talking about when he
speaks as other detractors of the shipping industry. He said
that China, Korea and Japan are building 500,000 tonne boats.
No Canadian shipyard is in that league. They do not go beyond
100,000 tonnes. Why? Because they build ships that have to go
through the Panama Canal which will accept nothing over 90,000
tonnes. So, let us compare oranges with oranges and apples with
apples. If you do not know what you are talking about, better
not to speak.
[English]
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Madam Speaker, first, I wish to praise the hon.
member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière for being so
passionate and caring for the shipbuilding industry in this
country. There is no member of parliament who has worked harder
on this issue for workers in the shipbuilding industry all across
the country. He, his party and the Conservative Party should be
congratulated for bringing this motion forward. I applaud their
efforts in bringing this to the forefront and to debate in the
House of Commons.
I will begin by saying that I am wearing the CAW/MWF pin from
the Marine Workers' Federation. Mr. Les Holloway and all those
wonderful people in Halifax, in Saint John and in other shipyards
around the area have worked tirelessly on this issue to get the
government to listen. What this nation needs is a shipbuilding
policy. Holland, Italy, England and the United States have one
but we do not. If we did, it would be working.
We constantly hear from the industry minister that there is an
overcapacity in the industry, yet Canada only produces .4%.
What the industry has been asking for is that the level be
brought up to 1%, a .6% increase, in order to create and sustain
thousands of jobs in Atlantic Canada, Ontario, Quebec and
Vancouver.
1840
It is incredible that the government will not listen. It is
absolutely unbelievable. The reason it does not listen is
because its focus is between Windsor and Quebec City in terms of
central Canadian thinking.
We have a farming crisis and the recent fisheries crisis but the
government refuses to listen to the extremities of the country.
I say, in all honesty, that any time we have a labour leader
like Buzz Hargrove and the owner of one of the largest
shipyards in the country, J.D. Irving, singing out of the same
hymn book on this policy, one would think that the government
would grab at that, but it does not. It absolutely ignores the
issue.
I honestly believe the government does not understand the
industry at all. It is completely blank. It is like a deer
caught in the headlights of a car. It just cannot figure it out.
The member for Fundy—Royal mentioned the book Atlantic
Canada: Catching Tomorrow's Wave. Unfortunately, the
government missed the boat on this one. It is unbelievable.
We had the appointment of Senator Boudreau from Nova Scotia who
is now in the Senate draining the taxpayers' purse promoting this
red book wherever he goes. The problem is that he has absolutely
no clout with the government. If he did, the government would be
listening to everyone on the shipbuilding policy.
There was a great book written recently by a great author in
Nova Scotia who lives in my riding, Mr. Lesley Choyce. He wrote
a book entitled Nova Scotia: Shaped by the Sea: A Living
History. In it, he describes how Nova Scotia was one of the
finest and largest shipbuilding provinces in the 18th and 19th
centuries. What has happened in this new millennium? The thing
has fallen apart. Why? Because the government refuses to
institute a policy of fairness so we can keep workers in this
country.
As we speak, shipbuilding workers from the Saint John dockyards
are being lured to the United States to build ships. It is
unbelievable that the United States has such an overcapacity of
work that it has to get Canadian workers, who are the best in the
world when it comes to building ships, to build ships in the
United States. We could easily be doing that in the yards of
Saint John, Halifax, Marystown, Lévis and Vancouver.
It is amazing that the government cannot figure this out.
Hundreds of workers are leaving this country and their families
behind to build ships in the United States when the work could be
easily done in this country. It is absolutely incredible that
the government would ignore the needs of Atlantic Canadians,
Quebecers and British Columbians when it comes to building a
shipbuilding industry.
I find it scandalous, to the highest degree, when I hear where
the finance minister, who has Canada Steamship Lines, has his
ships built. Where does he have his ships built?
An hon. member: In Taiwan.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Yes, in Taiwan, an Asian country. He
could not even build his own ships in this country. This is from
a man who wants to become the leader of the Liberal Party and the
prime minister of the country. It is not much of a commitment to
working people in the country.
Mr. Lynn Myers: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. The member is taking shots at one of the cabinet
ministers. It is totally inappropriate and totally unwarranted.
He should tailor his talk in a way that does not do that because
it denigrates this whole House and all Canadians. That is
absolute rubbish. He should withdraw it and get to his point.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am afraid that it
is really a point of debate so we will allow the hon. member to
carry on.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Unfortunately, the truth sometimes
hurts. The reality is that the government has completely ignored
the needs of the 10 premiers of the country who have said
that they need a national shipbuilding policy. It has ignored
the needs of thousands of Canadians. It has ignored the needs of
hundreds of communities in the country that rely on shipbuilding
for their livelihoods.
What will the government tell these people when those yards
eventually shut down? What will happen then? Oh, I know, there
will be a traditional transitional jobs fund grant. That should
be good. Maybe that is what the problem is.
1845
The shipbuilding industry should go to the human resources
minister for money and grants. That way it would not have to
file any papers or anything. It could get the money or whatever
it needs right away. Maybe that is what the NHL should have
done. Instead of going to the industry minister it should have
gone to the human resources minister. There is all kinds of
money for those initiatives but absolutely not one shred of
concern for this country's shipbuilding industry and that is an
absolute disgrace.
I could go on and on. People like Les Holloway of the Marine
Workers' Federation and many other communities across the country
are asking for leadership. They are asking the government to
listen to them, to work together with the industry, the
communities and the workers to come up with a comprehensive
policy that will make the shipbuilding industry what it once was
in Canada. Our workers and our industry people are the finest in
the entire world when it comes to shipbuilding. We can be proud
of that instead of having rusty shipyards throughout the country.
Mr. John Cannis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I was going to start with the
text of my prepared notes but I will not. I am going to take
this opportunity to respond to the emotional and passionate
presentations I have just heard from the Conservative member who
brought the motion forward, the Bloc Quebecois member and my good
friend from the NDP. What I heard took me away from what I really
wanted to say about the good work that was done in committee and
how extensively the committee looked into this matter.
I have heard comments which have shocked me. Instead of focusing
on constructive comments of what we can do about the shipbuilding
industry, I heard about the farmers and I heard about HRDC. I
heard everything but constructive input. I find that shameful.
They were referring to ministers and their businesses which are
in trust. That is shameful. That is not what we are supposed to
be doing here tonight. We are here to discuss shipbuilding and
to bring some constructive points forward.
I am going to take this opportunity to refer to my notes and
talk about how enthusiastically and aggressively the committee
addressed this issue.
The member referred to Les Holloway and all the other great
people. I am glad he is doing this. He should do it to get their
votes if that is what it is going to take to get their votes and
if that is what it is going to take to get a contribution to
their campaigns. That is fine. I have no objections to that,
but I do object when we go totally off the issue.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. The hon. member, my good friend from the Liberal Party,
is insinuating that I made comments for vote getting. If that is
the case, I guess J. D. Irving will be voting for the New
Democratic Party as well.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am afraid that is
debate.
Mr. John Cannis: Madam Speaker, that is not what I said.
I was saying we should compliment, congratulate and support
people who support us.
I am pleased to respond to this motion brought forward by the
hon. member for Fundy—Royal that the Standing Committee on
Industry review policies currently in place that affect the
Canadian shipbuilding industry.
We on this side of the House are very open to the idea of a
parliamentary review of the shipbuilding industry, but this
motion seems to be caught in a time warp. I understand where the
members from the Bloc, the Conservatives and the NDP are coming
from. I understand the regions. I understand the members have
to address a specific industry in their ridings and be so
passionate.
What is the point of standing up and bringing something forward
that has already been addressed? Is it showcasing? If it is, I
congratulate the member. I think he is doing a great job.
Tomorrow he can send a press release to his local newspaper
saying “Look, here is what your member for Fundy—Royal has
done”. But we have a responsibility when we come to this House.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. He
is wondering why. It is because Davie Industries is under the
protection of the Bankruptcy Act. There are 200 people—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am sorry but this is
debate. The hon. parliamentary secretary.
[English]
Mr. John Cannis: Madam Speaker, I thank you for your
clarification. Let me get to the essence of the whole debate
here tonight.
I remind the House that last November and December the Standing
Committee on Industry had already begun reviewing Canada's
productivity and competitiveness with respect to shipbuilding.
I want to make it crystal clear that the member's motion comes a
little bit too late, as I said earlier. Let me emphasize the
valuable work already done by the Standing Committee on Industry.
1850
Before taking a few moments to review the testimony provided
during the hearings, I want to once again remind all members that
there is a national shipbuilding policy in Canada and it includes
the following support. They said there is no shipbuilding
industry. There is an accelerated capital cost allowance for
Canadian built ships; a 25% tariff on most non-NAFTA ship
imports; domestic procurement by the federal government in the
hundreds of millions of dollars; Export Development Corporation
financing for commercially viable transactions; and a very
favourable research and development tax credit system.
These are the very elements that the industry committee has
examined. On November 16, the first day, the committee heard from
several government officials. Committee members were provided
with a global portrait of the shipbuilding industry. We have to
look at it in that context, one in which most shipbuilding today
is done in Asia, Japan, South Korea and increasingly I might
point out in China. These governments heavily subsidize the
sector.
The Japanese have built a strong niche in the construction of
large vessels and have managed to hold on to that niche. The
newly developed countries see shipbuilding as an outlet for their
steel production and steel production is a key to their
industrial development. Other countries, including the United
States, have non-tariff barriers to buying foreign built ships.
Officials also maintain that overcapacity has been a problem for
Canada's shipbuilding industry today. For some time now the
industry has been undergoing rationalization. Officials have
suggested that the industry itself acknowledges that
rationalization has improved its competitiveness.
On a more positive note, officials pointed out in committee that
the Canadian manufacturers are on a par with just about everyone
in the world when it comes to designing innovative products,
manufacturing them efficiently and marketing them to the world.
They said that there are niche opportunities for the Canadian
shipbuilding industry. Ice-breaking vessels, ferries, offshore
equipment and self-unloading vessels are areas in which we have a
great international reputation. We are also well regarded as
builders of military frigates. Unfortunately there is not that
big of a market for them.
Officials from the Export Development Corporation also appeared
before the committee. They reported that EDC has concluded 17
transactions with the shipbuilding industry for a total of $247
million worth in business. Here is one government program which
indeed is showing a positive result.
Finance officials also explained how Canada's tax system
supports shipbuilding, including giving the industry a higher
capital cost allowance and noted that Canada has the most
generous R and D regime in the G-7.
During the hearings the hon. member for Fundy—Royal referred to
the financing available in the United States under the title XI
program. I remind the hon. member for Fundy—Royal of his
exchange with the finance officials concerning his suggestion
that Canada should provide a combination of lease financing and
accelerated depreciation. The hon. member also may believe that
in providing these incentives the government would end up
increasing federal revenues because there would be more economic
activity. Finance officials clearly pointed out in their reply
that rarely does the government's return on such incentives
amount to more than a fraction of the amount of taxpayer moneys
committed.
These are some of the points raised in the first day of the
standing committee's hearings on shipbuilding. As you can tell,
Madam Speaker, we had a vigorous and exciting debate during that
session.
The standing committee went on to hear testimony from labour
organizations including the Canadian auto workers, the Marine
Workers' Federation of the CAW and the ship workers union of
Lauzon. We were presented with a document entitled “The
Shipbuilding Strategy for Canada” which talked about the need
for a level playing field, emphasizing the role of the Jones Act
in the United States in closing its markets to Canadian built
ships.
They offered suggestions including financing terms that would be
similar to what the Americans have with their title XI program.
Once again the committee had a very probing, thought provoking
exchange with the shipbuilding industry.
1855
On December 14 the standing committee met for a third time on
the topic of shipbuilding to hear from industry representatives.
The Shipbuilding Association of Canada spoke of the impact of
subsidies on the market and the need for competitive financing
arrangements. He referred specifically to the title XI financing
of the American shipbuilding industry. The Chamber of Maritime
Commerce spoke also about the advantages that labour practices
and low labour rates give the shipbuilding industry in newly
developed countries.
I would like to close by thanking the member for bringing
forward the motion and giving us the opportunity to debate this
issue in the House and the opportunity for the government to put
some of the data on the floor.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to conclude this evening's debate. I compliment
the members of the House who participated in the debate
like my colleagues in the NDP. I know the member for
Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore has been a strong
advocate in advancing this debate. The member from Lévis has
been a champion for advancing the cause to have a modern
shipbuilding policy that actually works compared to the one which
we currently have that does not work.
However, my greatest compliments go to the member for Surrey
Central for what he essentially has done for me in the riding of
Fundy—Royal. He has augmented my vote by about eight to ten per
cent. He categorically said this evening that the shipbuilding
industry in Canada is dead. That was the cornerstone of his
debate. The result that I can go to the polls in Fundy—Royal
and say categorically that Reform will do nothing, zero, to
augment the shipbuilding industry.
The problem is that the Reform member missed the fundamental
issue. The cornerstone of what all 10 premiers are advocating,
every single premier including the Progressive Conservative
premiers Michael Harris, Ralph Klein and Bernard Lord, is tax
reduction and an incentive based modernized shipbuilding policy
based on reducing taxation. The problem is—
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I have been listening to the debate and I did not want to
raise this issue because usually we are on point but the member
has just misquoted and misrepresented me.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am afraid that is a
matter for debate. It is not a point of order.
Mr. John Herron: You are right, Madam Speaker, it is
a point for debate and it is a wrong debate, a wrong position.
The cornerstone has three prongs we are advocating which are
having a loan guarantee program, bilateral trade with the
Americans and tax reduction. I know Reformers are not real
Conservatives by any means. They do not understand what tax
reduction is in that regard.
To my colleagues in the Liberal Party of Canada, I know that
they categorically want to help individuals. We are not asking
them to spend any amount of money, but I have to remind the hon.
member who spoke on behalf of the Liberal government that its own
members from Atlantic Canada are advocating the need to improve
its shipbuilding policy that is incentive based, not subsidy
driven, so that we can get those men and women back to work.
Above all, perhaps the thing I am most shocked about is the very
fact that every single time we have had a shipbuilding motion
before the House they have never permitted on any occasion any
member from the Liberal caucus who has a seat in Atlantic Canada
to actually participate in the debate. I wonder why that is. Is
it because the Minister of Industry is blocking it?
I know that the member from Moncton, the Minister of Labour,
really wants to advance this particular debate. In order to do
so I would hope that she participates in the debate tomorrow. We
are going to be debating shipbuilding again with respect to the
private members' motion by the hon. member from Lévis.
What we are doing today from a shipbuilding perspective is not
working. We have an unprecedented coalition of individuals who
are looking for tax reduction, not subsidies, to modernize the
shipbuilding industry.
1900
We have had Reform members flip flop. This is nothing new for
them. Two or three Reform members came to committee to say they
support what we were doing. Then they came to the House and said
that they did not support it. They cannot make up their minds.
Maybe in tomorrow's debate we will get a new Reform speech and
have a new perspective in that regard.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The time provided for
the consideration of the item of Private Members' Business has
now expired and the order is dropped from the order paper.
[Translation]
Pursuant to Standing Order 30, the House will now proceed to the
consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's
order paper.
* * *
[English]
PRIVACY ACT
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.) moved:
That a legislative committee of this House be instructed to
prepare and bring in a bill, in accordance with Standing Order
68(4)(b), to remedy the weaknesses of the Privacy Act, including
providing relief or compensation for persons who suffer as a
result of improper disclosure of their private information and
imposing penalties for those who wilfully violate the provisions
of the Privacy Act.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I hate to interrupt but I want to point out something for
the record before we start debate on the motion.
In his comments the PC member misrepresented the facts, so I
want to—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am afraid that we
are now on a new private member's bill. The other one is a thing
of the past.
Mr. Mike Scott: Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to
this motion and to tell the House and those people at home who
may be watching why the motion is important and should be
supported by the House. I am referring to a motion that would
require the Government of Canada to toughen up the privacy
commission's role and responsibility in safeguarding the rights
of Canadians and their right to privacy.
Every Canadian citizen has the right to the security of the
person under our charter of rights and freedoms. It is my
contention, and I think most if not all members of the House
would agree, that the security of the person would include the
security of the private information held by government
institutions or other institutions which could in some way
jeopardize or prejudice the individual if the private information
were to be distributed among the public.
Most sensitive and private information on Canadian citizens is
held by government institutions. We should think about the
tremendous amount of information Revenue Canada has on each and
every one of us as taxpayers and about all other information held
by government in terms of birth certificates, marriage
certificates and so on which the government routinely collects
from us in one way or another, largely through Revenue Canada.
Revenue Canada is the institution most people would be most
concerned about because it concerns financial matters, but there
are other matters as well.
A federal body of legislation known as the Privacy Act
safeguards the privacy of Canadian citizens. The privacy
commissioner and his office were established to oversee the
administration of that act, to receive complaints from Canadians
when they feel their privacy or their right to privacy has been
violated, to investigate those complaints, and to make
determinations on whether or not those allegations are well
founded.
1905
The Privacy Act is a good idea. As a matter fact it is
absolutely imperative to have the Privacy Act, the privacy
commissioner and his office to field complaints from Canadian
citizens, to investigate those complaints, to make determinations
and to discharge those complaints to the best of their ability. I
take no issue with the privacy commission or the privacy
commissioner.
The issue we are dealing with today is not that the Privacy Act
is deficient in the sense of defining a person's rights, what
private information ought to be held as private, and how
government, financial and private institutions ought to act with
respect to information that is sensitive or is considered to be
private.
The problem we face right now is the Privacy Act has no teeth in
it. In other words we have a body of legislation, and it is
absolutely correct, which protects the rights of Canadian
citizens and to safeguard their privacy and their right to
privacy. However, if anyone violates that act, even if the
violations are wilful or intended to prejudice the individual or
individuals involved, there are absolutely no penalties contained
within the body of the Privacy Act.
I ask members to reflect on how ludicrous that is. It is the
same as having laws that govern how we drive our vehicles. We
have posted speed limits and laws on how we conduct ourselves on
the road when we operate motor vehicles. For example, it is
against the law to be operating a motor vehicle if one is
impaired. In most places in Canada it is against the law to
operate a motor vehicle without wearing a seat belt. It is
against the law to be driving faster than posted speed limits. It
is against the law to disobey stop signs. There are penalties
attached to each and every one of those laws and regulations. The
penalties more or less reflect the severity of the violation or
the potential violation of each of those regulations or laws.
Human nature being what it is and human beings being what they
are, we can only expect people to behave in a certain way when
there is a real deterrent for them if they violate the laws upon
which society is based. In the instance of the Privacy Act where
there are no penalties or downside to violating the act, how can
any Canadian citizen feel good about expecting the privacy laws
to protect him or her?
I will tell the House how the lack of protection within the
Privacy Act first came to my attention. A couple of years ago a
fellow in Alberta by the name of Bruce Starlight, an aboriginal
person living on the Tsuu T'ina reserve, wrote a private letter
to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development that
was not circulated to anyone else. In his two page letter he
made a number of observations and allegations with respect to
financial mismanagement on his reserve. In her capacity as the
minister responsible for that department he asked her to
investigate and determine whether or not what he was alleging was
true. Mr. Starlight did not receive a response to his letter
from the minister.
1910
About two and a half or three months later he received a knock
on his door one night. It was somebody serving him legal notice
that he was being sued for defamation for making allegations
against his chief and council. Part of the evidence of his
allegedly making defamatory allegations against the chief and
council was the letter he had written to the minister with her
actual office stamp on it.
That private letter was received in her office in Ottawa. To
this day we still do not the exact trail, but it was handed back
to the chief and council against whom the band member was making
allegations. It put Mr. Starlight in a very difficult situation.
He contacted me, as a member of parliament and as critic for
Indian affairs and northern development, and asked for my
assistance. He asked “Is the government wallowed to do that? If
I write a letter to a minister, which is considered to be a
private matter, is the minister allowed to circulate my letter to
anyone in a way that may possibly prejudice me, my family and my
position in my community?”
We contacted the privacy commissioner and the privacy commission
on Mr. Starlight's behalf and posed the same question. We asked
the privacy commissioner to investigate. I have to tell the
House and anyone out there who is listening that we received
absolute co-operation from the privacy commissioner's office and
from the privacy commissioner himself. We were very pleased with
the way they responded to our requests. We were very pleased
with the way they conducted an investigation. We are very
pleased with the fact that at the end of the day they did come
back to us and to Mr. Starlight. They concluded in a very
substantial way that Mr. Starlight's privacy had been compromised
very badly by the minister of Indian affairs and her department.
The minister of that day is currently the minister for HRDC.
The privacy commissioner also advised us at the time that
although there was a violation of privacy there was no penalty.
There was no recourse for Mr. Starlight at all. The fact that he
was put in a very difficult situation and in a position of
financial hardship because he ended up having to partly finance a
legal suit out of his own pocket did not give him any recourse
whatsoever to go back and initiate any kind of action against the
minister of Indian affairs and/or her department.
In the course of the investigation the privacy commissioner
determined that there were at least 61 or 62 people within the
minister's department and the higher echelons of the department
of Indian affairs that had access to Mr. Starlight's letter. The
privacy commissioner determined that it would be virtually
impossible to determine the actual culprit or culprits in the
violation of Mr. Starlight's privacy, short of getting honest and
truthful statements from people who were involved, which I gather
were not forthcoming.
The privacy commissioner made a number of recommendations to the
department and to the minister for instituting better security
surrounding correspondence. The minister and the department made
public statements that they would take the privacy commissioner's
advice and tighten up security.
In the meantime that does not help Mr. Starlight. It does not
send the right message to government institutions when they see a
minister and a minister's office in blatant violation of the law
with absolutely no penalty to be paid in a milieu—and it has
been patently obvious for the last few days that this is very
true—where ministers of the crown routinely refuse to take
responsibility for their departments and the bungling that goes
on.
The minister in question in this case, who is now the minister of
HRDC, in my estimation is incapable of taking responsibility
simply because she is not a capable minister. She is not in
charge and never has been in charge of any department over which
she has been given responsibility. What recourse do Canadian
citizens have in that kind of milieu where nobody wants to take
responsibility, in a situation where the privacy commissioner
says that there were 62 people who had access to that letter and
nobody has taken responsibility, and the minister responsible for
the department is not taking responsibility?
1915
There must be teeth in this legislation. There must be a
penalty attached to violations of these regulations and it has to
be a penalty commensurate with the violation. In other words,
there must be real teeth in this legislation.
It is not much wonder that government is not interested—and we
can see that by the lack of support this motion has received from
other members of parliament, notably on the Liberal side of the
House—in amending the Privacy Act to include tough penalties for
those who would violate the act. I would suggest that most of
the time it will be government that is actually in violation of
its own act, in violation of its own laws.
I ask members of the House how Canadians can possibly have faith
in the Privacy Act and in the work of the privacy commissioner
and how they can feel their privacy and their right to privacy is
secure and held sacred by the Government of Canada when the laws
have absolutely no penalties and no teeth.
I strongly urge the House to make this a votable motion. I ask
for unanimous consent that we agree to make this a votable motion
and that we send it to the justice committee for a review and ask
it to report back to the House as to how that could be done.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Madam Speaker, we are now
debating Motion No. 19, which I will read to the House. It reads as
follows:
That a legislative committee of this House be instructed to
prepare and bring in a bill, in accordance with Standing Order
68(4)(b), to remedy the weaknesses of the Privacy Act, including
providing relief or compensation for persons who suffer as a
result of improper disclosure of their private information and
imposing penalties for those who wilfully violate the provisions
of the Privacy Act.
We just finished a lengthy study of the Privacy Act. It started
after the last general election and went on for some time. Then,
last fall it was put, somewhat hastily, on the government
agenda again. Since it was among the commitments made in the
throne speech, Canada wanted a privacy act.
I remind the House that we were opposed to this legislation not
because of its purpose per se, which was to give Canadians an
act that would protect the transmission of personal information,
but rather because of the fact that, in most cases, particularly
in the case of Quebec where such legislation already exists,
several areas were already covered, in fact all areas were
already covered.
Some areas are covered by federal legislation and others by
provincial legislation. There will be a difficult adjustment for
companies whose activities come, for one part, under federal
jurisdiction and, for another part, under provincial
legislation. But that is nothing new. We see that in so many
areas and that will happen now with the protection of private
information.
We have a great deal of difficulty accepting the principle that,
because no other province was taking action, Quebec was pushed
out of a jurisdiction it was exercising.
1920
The federal government could very well have recognized in this
legislation the precedence of the Quebec consumer protection
legislation. Especially since the federal government bragged
that its legislation was very similar to the Quebec legislation,
with a few adjustments, and that it had borrowed big chunks from
it. If both legislation are similar, all the more reason to give
precedence to the provincial legislation. Companies, even those
under federal jurisdiction, and federal institutions in the
province could then be told to abide by the provincial consumer
protection legislation.
A whole bunch of overlapping would have been avoided because
the current legislation provides for a transition period. For a
few years, the act will be only partially in force, but in time
its scope will increase and problems will arise along the way.
As a matter of fact part of the act is in force now while the
rest will be later, in three years.
We strongly opposed it. My colleague from Mercier initially led
the charge on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois. Several groups from
Quebec came to testify on this bill. I am thinking about—and the
intergovernmental affairs minister is going to accuse us once
again of bringing out mothballs groups, but I will list a few
of those who supported us—the chamber of notaries, the bar,
people who cannot necessarily be accused of being part of any
political family, let alone the sovereignist family.
The Conseil du patronat cautioned against it.
Quite a few groups, including trade unions, the CSN in
particular, submitted briefs. The Quebec access to information
commission highlighted all the potential problems and
difficulties associated with its implementation.
In practice, some definitions are different, for example, what
is a signature. When we talk about e-commerce, some notions which
were defined in the civil code can now be found in the federal
act. Their meaning is different because these two approaches—the
one based on the civil code and the one based on the Criminal
Code or the federal privacy legislation—are very different.
We are not trying to artificially create a problem where there
is none.
There are technical problems, and the groups themselves will
have to live with that: the lawyers of the Bar, the business
people represented by employers and the workers represented by
central labour bodies.
Of course, not everyone in this group necessarily has a monopoly
on the truth. How did it happen, however, that we found
ourselves in the situation—in the case of Quebec—where only the
representatives of the Liberal Party were in favour? Perhaps
two or three individuals whose motives and often whose links to
this government are questionable and who pay lip service to this
bill.
There was therefore very little support for this legislation in
Quebec. However, we understand the aim of it: that Canada be
governed by a law since there was none outside Quebec. However,
I am told some provisions existed in Ontario and perhaps in some
other provinces, which were not as extensive as the consumer
protection act. It is understandable for Canada to want to be
proactive and have a law. That said, if the other provinces do
not want to exercise jurisdiction, that is not our problem. And
if the federal government thinks that it should exercise it
instead, it should have entered into an agreement.
The ministers of the Government of Quebec have requested
meetings and, to my knowledge, they never even received an
acknowledgement of receipt or nothing was done to have highly
technical and specific discussions to see how to deal with the
situation.
Now we have a Reform Party member who, no sooner is the debate
over, already wants to amend the act. To my knowledge—and I may
be wrong—this legislation was supported by the Reform Party. They
could have promoted it more when the bill was being reviewed.
There is, among other things, this idea of compensating those
who suffer prejudice.
Would this not—I am not an expert on this issue mind you—open the
door to compensation whenever there is prejudice? When this
happens between parties in a civil case, there are recourses for
individuals. Now, must we systematically set out in the act that
there will be prejudice and that compensation will be paid to
those who suffer prejudice?
As for the second part of the motion, dealing with applicable
penalties, this is already covered. Whether we like it or not,
legislation already exists, and there is a penalty for failing
to comply with its provisions.
In fact, there is whole series of offences.
1925
What does this motion mean with regard to penalties? How far are
they willing to go? What does it mean in practical terms?
The motion is relatively precise in that regard. The notion of
prejudice is new. It can be understood that it is only a matter
of principle. The notion of sanctions or penalties already
exists. Why is it not explained more clearly in the motion? It
becomes difficult to support a motion the second part of which
is vague, and probably deliberately so.
In any case, it is very difficult for us to support a motion
aimed at amending a piece of legislation that is hard for us to
live with.
The fact that this piece of legislation has been adopted does
not mean that the problems I alluded to earlier will not arise
with regard to the different definitions in the federal
legislation. I used signatures as an example earlier, how an
electronic signature is defined, and so on.
Of course, there will eventually be some degree of
harmonization, but in the meantime, it may very well be that
consumers will not enjoy the same protection as they did before.
When only one act applied in Quebec, businesses under federal
jurisdiction—and I am thinking specifically about the
telecommunications sector—complied with this act. Everybody came
under the same legislation and it was known. Now there are two
acts.
Consumers will see businesses using the excuse that there is a
transitional period, that the federal legislation will be fully
in force in a few years, that there are two definitions, that
things are complicated, and so on. And there will be consumers
who will find it all very confusing and will wonder which of the
two pieces of legislation applies, and which protects them and
how.
This is a very complex issue in a sector that is already complex
and is evolving very rapidly.
Some of these principles were defended during the committee
proceedings, but it might have been better to debate them or to
make amendments back then, rather than support the bill, as the
Reform Party did when it came time to vote. To my knowledge, we
were almost the only ones to oppose the bill. Today, some
members are voicing opposition, but they had much less to say
when it might have done the most good.
I will conclude by saying that it is very hard for us to support
this motion, which is not votable in any event, but had it been
votable, it would have been very hard for us to support it.
[English]
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Madam Speaker, I
am pleased to join the debate on Motion No. 19. I thank the hon.
member for Skeena for raising the issue and for bringing it
before the House.
I believe that it has enough merit to be made votable. I would
have liked to have seen that. I am disappointed, as I know he
must be, that the committee and members of the House chose not to
allow that, which will terminate the debate after only one hour.
I tried to listen carefully to understand the motivation. I
think I understand what the member for Skeena had in mind when he
put this motion forward. I find the motion vague, but I suppose
that is the nature of motions. It gives a general direction; not
a specific task, as would be set out in a bill.
I understand that the Privacy Act can be a source of frustration
for some in that it does not have the teeth, as the member put
it, to really change patterns of behaviour because there is no
real discipline involved. There is no real penalty involved for
violations.
The member used the example of a motor vehicle violation.
People would not be stopped from speeding if there were no
penalty associated with it. We will not get voluntary
compliance, and that must be what the Privacy Act is relying on.
It is asking people to change their patterns of behaviour, but
there is no threat of consequence if they do not choose to do so
and do something wrong.
I recognize the whole issue of data services these days. The
storage of data is becoming very complex. There are huge
personal privacy and public interest issues associated with it.
One of the worst examples that I can think of, in which the
member would be interested, concerns the province of Manitoba.
The previous Tory government in the province of Manitoba
contracted out the Manitoba health data services to a private
firm. It was a local firm, albeit, but everyone's personal
medical records were in the hands of a private company.
That was bad enough. A lot of us did not think that was a good
idea. It was on a fee for service basis. That company then
further contracted it to Dallas, Texas.
So now all of my personal medical records, my mother's records
and everybody else's records in Manitoba are stored in Dallas,
Texas. We do not know under what circumstances. We do not know
if the people there sell membership lists to pharmaceutical
companies that may want to mail a letter to a person who has a
specific medical condition.
1930
The fact is that it is no one's business and there should be a
tighter grip on very private and very personal medical
information. I think it is fundamentally wrong. This is one
example of how a person's privacy can be jeopardized by new
technology and the way the world is moving in those directions.
I am a little disappointed about the incident that gave rise to
the creation of the motion. It was quite narrow in scope. We
are really talking about one individual who had a problem with
one letter. I am sympathetic. I think it was wrong that the
letter became public without the person's knowledge or consent.
However, I also feel that if the letter was full of accusations
about wrongdoing, people have a right to know who their accusers
are. It is a basic tenet of law. It is a basic tenet of natural
justice and fairness that we get to know who is making
accusations about us.
Therefore, I am not totally stressed by the idea that somewhere
along the line the Indian band in question found out who it was
that was essentially blowing the whistle on some alleged
wrongdoing.
That leads me to another point I would like to make. This
incident may be better addressed through legislation trying to
craft whistle blowing protection rather than amending the Privacy
Act. What Bruce Starlight was really doing, I suppose, was
blowing the whistle on some alleged wrongdoing in the enterprise
of which he was a part. He must have been associated with that
Indian band.
I ask the hon. member to consider the much broader issue of
whistle blowing when he looks into this further. This was not a
workplace situation. In this case, it was blowing the whistle on
an organization in which the person was a member.
In a workplace, it could become even more complex. Many recent
incidents have surfaced where a worker comes forward, blows the
whistle on some alleged wrongdoing in his or her workplace and
ends up getting disciplined for it. This is getting to be a very
big issue.
We would like to believe that the public sector is a good
employer. I would like to think that it would welcome whistle
blowing, that it would want to know if there is something going
amiss in its enterprise. Instead, the first swift and immediate
reaction is usually to fire the person. The employee does not
have any recourse because it is just cause to fire someone for
taking any steps that might be to the detriment of the operation.
Another basic tenet of law is that there is an implied loyalty
that is required between an employer and an employee in that
situation. An employee is not allowed to do anything that will
really damage the reputation of the company or the boss.
Therefore, when an employee comes forward and makes public facts
that might shut that operation down or cost it money, or
essentially blows the whistle on anything that it might be doing,
he or she is breaching that implied loyalty of employers and
employees.
I would rather have seen the issue of Bruce Starlight addressed
in the larger context of whistle blowing legislation of some
kind.
We are looking forward to the day in the not too distant future
when that sort of thing is welcomed. I think 35 out of the 50
states in the United States have whistle blowing legislation that
is very strong in their public sector. Again, they recognize
that a good employer probably wants to know if someone is
pilfering money, polluting or any number of things that they
might be doing that are not quite copacetic.
I was interested to learn from the member of the Bloc Quebecois
that the Privacy Act just underwent a comprehensive review. I
would have thought that would have been the time where we could
have made amendments to the Privacy Act to try to add teeth, as
the member said. I do not know how that opportunity was missed
but I did not have any personal dealings with that.
I know most Canadians do want a Privacy Act and most Canadians
do worry about what happens with their personal and private
information, whether it is their credit card number or, as in the
example I gave of the Manitoba health records in the hands of a
private firm, and we have lost all ability to edit or control how
that material is going to be used or if it will be made public.
From what the hon. member for Skeena tells us, there is no
penalty if a person does breach the implied trust relationship
that exists between my information and the person who is holding
my information.
I think it is a very legitimate point and makes for an
interesting debate. It is frustrating because these debates go
nowhere when the item is not deemed votable. It is only an
academic exercise we are playing here but to raise the issue on
the national stage is a bit of progress we can measure.
1935
While I support the concept and I admire the member for bringing
the issue forward, I am somewhat frustrated that it is so narrow
in scope that it is really only addressing one individual who had
a problem with one letter that went public. I am not even sure
that it was so wrong for that letter to be made public because
somebody who is accused of doing something wrong does have a
right to know the accuser. The accuser also has a right to be
free of discipline or suffer any negative consequences for
bringing these things to people's attention. This brings me
again to the point that I wish this issue was dealt with within
the context of whistleblowing, not Privacy Act amendments.
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Madam Speaker, I am pleased
to address the motion presented by the hon. member for Skeena
regarding the Privacy Act.
I do believe that privacy implications in the new age of
technology are important considerations. There was a story in
the media not too long ago about a woman whose tax information
was publicly released because she had filed a complaint. In a
subsequent federal court of appeal ruling about her case, the
court struck down the disclosure rules that said such personal
information could not be released regardless of the case.
This was a prudent decision by the court and it demonstrated the
importance of privacy and protection in this day and age. In the
decision there was no compensation provided to the woman whose
privacy was inappropriately violated. I believe this is
appropriate. It is on this point that I think the hon. member's
motion is flawed.
The member calls for legislation that sets out a compensation
provision for those whose privacy is violated. I believe that
such an act would lead to large complications in terms of
legalities. This could very easily create a paradise environment
for lawyers.
To a greater degree, how does one determine or define injury as
a result of a breach of privacy? Does an improper disclosure of
one's personal information warrant financial compensation? I do
not think in the vast majority of cases where disclosure occurs
that the person requires financial reward because of such breach.
I do agree with the hon. member that there are weaknesses in the
Privacy Act. For instance, I believe we need to pay greater
attention to the implications of personal and corporate privacy
in the rapidly advancing information age in which we live. I am
not sure that the Privacy Act in its current incarnation can
fully address the need for protection in cyberspace and beyond.
This is an area on which I believe we must place more emphasis.
I do not think the member's motion is particularly focused on
this area. In a world where information is so readily and
speedily available, I think it is vital that the Privacy Act be
able to respond to breaches of privacy in this area much as it
currently does in terms of government not being able to disclose
one's tax return and so on.
As for the second part of the motion concerning punishing those
who breach privacy concerns, I think there may be more weight to
this section. I doubt that anyone would disagree that it is
important to ensure there are proper protections in place to
discourage and to punish those who wilfully violate the privacy
of another.
I again wonder what sort of approach the member would like to
take on this issue. How do we define a punishment when it is
next to impossible to define injury in a case like this? I would
think that if sufficient damage was done, the individual would
have the recourse of a libel suit or another civil pursuit.
At this level I do not think we necessarily need to bring in
legislation as the member has suggested. Instead I believe it
would be worth looking at more specific and in depth issues of
privacy from the framework of technology and the exchange of
information. This is where people need the most protection at
this time, where personal information can travel broadly without
even the knowledge of the person affected.
1940
On this point I believe the member has a valid argument that
perhaps a parliamentary committee should be struck to thoroughly
investigate ways in which we can strengthen the protection that
Canadians need in ensuring that their personal information
remains just that, personal.
Again I return to the fundamental flaws in the member's approach
to seeking greater privacy protection. It would be quite
dangerous to firmly set out penalties and rates of compensation
for the acts referred to in the motion. It sets up a legal
framework for convicting offenders after the fact whereas what is
most needed are preventative measures.
I believe the Privacy Act in its current state addresses most of
the issues for which it was intended but I can agree with the
motion that perhaps we could tighten it up to ensure there are no
gaping loopholes as there were in the tax case referred to
earlier. Whereas the most confidential and private of personal
information is controlled by the government, there need to be
virtually foolproof mechanisms in place to guarantee that John
Doe's tax return does not end up in the public domain because he
chooses to challenge it. This is a very important responsibility
of the government and one that must be maintained and met.
Although I agree that some improvements need to be made in the
Privacy Act and that it should be a concern and perhaps priority
of the House to visit the privacy issues in greater detail, my
colleagues and I cannot support Motion No. M-19 because it seeks
to create a legal reference point that overlooks the larger
issue.
As members we cannot reasonably determine what price tag to put
on somebody's compromise. That is an area that the courts must
define. What we can do is strengthen and tighten the framework
of privacy protection by responding to the more minute details
that are perhaps overlooked at the present time.
Mr. John Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
we have before us a motion that would lead to the establishment
of a legislative committee of the House to prepare and bring in a
bill to remedy what the hon. member refers to as the weaknesses
of the Privacy Act. The bill would include relief or compensation
for persons who suffer as a result of the improper disclosure of
their private information and it would impose penalties for those
who wilfully violate the provisions of the Privacy Act. Let me
say at the outset that the Minister of Justice does not support
this motion.
There are two laws that affect the protection of personal
information held by the federal government. First, section 8 of
the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that everyone
has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or
seizure. This section has been interpreted to deal with privacy.
Second, the Privacy Act protects personal information collected
by the federal government. The Privacy Act was brought into
force in 1983 with the agreement of all parties in the House. The
act provides individuals with access to their personal
information held by the federal government. It further gives
individuals some controls over the government's collection and
use of this personal information. It also protects the
individual's privacy by limiting those who may see this personal
information and for what purpose it might be used.
The Privacy Act sets out the principles of fair information
practices thereby requiring the government to collect only the
information needed to operate its programs, to collect the
information directly from the individual concerned whenever
possible, to tell the individual how long it will be used, to
keep the information long enough to ensure access by the
individual, and to take all reasonable steps to ensure the
accuracy and completeness of personal information.
It should be noted that no federal legislation is in place to
protect personal information held by the private sector. In
response to concerns raised by Canadians, the government
recognized the pressing need for statutory reform regarding the
practices of private sector organizations in relation to personal
information.
In October 1998 the Minister of Industry introduced Bill C-54,
the personal information protection and electronic documents act,
to address these concerns. Bill C-54 was introduced in this
session as Bill C-6 and was adopted by the House in October last
year. When part I of Bill C-6 comes into force it will apply to
organizations in the private sector and will establish their
obligations for the protection of personal information. The
government is very proud of Bill C-6 and of the value Bill C-6
will add to the privacy laws in Canada.
1945
As the government continues to scrutinize closely the
developments in the area of the privacy law, part of the
government's ongoing work is to monitor the practices and trends,
both in the public sector and in the private sector, involving
the collection, use and disclosure of personal information and to
consider ways that laws relating to privacy can be improved.
In his motion the hon. member for Skeena raises a number of
interesting points that should be taken into account in the
government's ongoing review of the Privacy Act.
[Translation]
We do, however, have some reservations when it comes to
reviewing and amending the present privacy legislation. We feel
it would be premature to strike a legislative committee to look
at a reform of the Privacy Act.
[English]
This said, the government continues to carefully monitor the
current laws relating to the use of personal information. Now
that a framework for the protection of personal information is
nearing completion with Bill C-6, improvements to federal laws
can be considered on a more measured scale. The government will
ensure that the interests of all stakeholders are heard, assessed
and weighed.
Canadians have demonstrated to us that they value the protection
of their personal information and that they appreciate the
responsiveness of the government to their concerns. Government
will continue to respond to the concerns and needs of all
Canadians.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I would
like to respond to some of the comments that have been made by
members of the House. I appreciate the level of debate that has
taken place today.
First of all, I believe the member for Winnipeg Centre made the
suggestion that maybe it was not wrong and he did not have too
much of a problem with the fact that a member of an aboriginal
band in Alberta wrote a letter to the Minister of Indian Affairs
and Northern Development and that letter was leaked back to the
chief and council.
For the benefit of the member and for the benefit of other
members of the House—and it may not be understood by members—a
letter to a minister of the crown written by an individual is
considered to be privileged information, the same as any letter
received by any one of us from one of our constituents is
considered to be privileged information. As members of
parliament we do not take that information and share it with the
press or with other individual constituents, unless we have
expressly received permission to do so by the original author of
those letters or those communications. That is considered to be
privileged information.
It is not up to the member for Winnipeg Centre or anybody else
to make judgments about whether it was the right thing to do.
The fact is, that is the law and the law was violated, and it was
violated by members of the minister's department.
In listening to the debate I heard talk from other members and
other parties about Bill C-6 and the government's initiatives
with respect to the Privacy Act. I say to hon. members, and the
parliamentary secretary in particular, that is all fine and well,
but the parliamentary secretary would know that Bill C-6 is
designed specifically with the private sector in mind.
Bill C-6 does nothing to address the concerns and the rights of
individuals with respect to private information that is held by
government institutions, and in this case by federal government
institutions. There is no institution or organization that holds
more personal private information on Canadian citizens than the
federal Government of Canada. Therefore, it is the federal
Government of Canada that this legislation is targeted toward, or
ought to be targeted toward, more than any other organization.
That is not to say that the private sector and the initiatives in
Bill C-6 are not good initiatives.
I share the concerns that some institutions in the private
sector have access to tremendous amounts of private information
and I share the view that those private institutions ought to be
responsible for the private information they hold and ought to be
held accountable in law when they willfully break the privacy
rights of Canadian citizens.
I would also respond to the parliamentary secretary, who said
that it is difficult to ascertain what damages may be awarded
when violations occur. Maybe it was the member from the
Progressive Conservative Party who said that. I am not sure.
I certainly would not want to attribute comments to the
parliamentary secretary if in fact it was somebody else. However,
I would say this. There are many instances in law where it is
difficult to determine actual damages when there have been wilful
violations. I use as an example the laws with respect to
defamation, slander and libel. It is often difficult, if not
impossible, to determine what actual financial harm has been done
when one individual wilfully defames, slanders or libels another
citizen. I do say, though, that as difficult as it might be for
the courts to make those determinations, they are granted that
purview and do their best to discharge that duty. The mere fact
that there are penalties ascribed in law to people who would
wilfully slander or libel is a tremendous deterrent and it makes
us much more responsible as individuals when it comes to
considering how we are going to conduct ourselves. That is why
it is imperative that the Privacy Act be amended, that teeth be
put into it so that there are real, tough and strict penalties
that are attached to violations of those laws so that Canadians
can feel much more secure about private information that is held
concerning them, in particular private information that is held
by the Government of Canada, but by other institutions as well.
1950
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The time provided for
the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired
and the order is dropped from the order paper.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
CHILD CARE
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP):
Madam Speaker, four months ago I stood in the House asking for a
commitment to a national child care program and received a
half-baked answer about how the government supposedly tried and
was stopped by provincial governments.
The fact is that if the government had the will to do so, it
could implement a national child care program right now. Instead,
the government has tried to pass the buck of responsibility as it
has with many other programs and services.
What happened to the 150,000 spaces for children in child care
that was promised in 1993? The government promised $720 million
for child care in 1993, but it has in fact cut spending. In too
many provinces, like my home province of Nova Scotia, the child
tax benefit is clawed back when families' main source of income
is social assistance, a perverse attempt at addressing poverty
which has ensured that the needs of children in poor families
have not been addressed.
If the Prime Minister and the Liberal government really took the
needs of children seriously, they would know that the parents of
these children have clearly stated that a federally funded
national child care program is what both the children of Canada
and their parents need to start off on the right path.
Liberal double-talk on child care is just one more example of
how the government has been saying one thing and doing another.
Over four months ago the government made a speech about how
children would be a priority in the 2000 budget. But what has it
done over the last six years in power? Broken promise after
broken promise has meant simply more poverty and more poor
families.
We all agree on the benefits to children of quality care in and
outside their homes in their early years. We all agree that
children are a priority. We all know that money exists to make a
national child care program a reality. We all know that the only
reason we do not have such a program is because of the lack of
will and commitment to Canada's children shown by the Liberal
government in its race to the bottom.
As the mother of two children and as a Canadian I think it is
unacceptable that only 9% of children in need of care have access
to regulated child care.
Today I would ask the government when it will finally agree that
we need a federally funded national child care program and when
it will commit to a date when it will provide access to quality,
affordable child care for all of Canada's children.
1955
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the
question of the member which has come back a couple of times
indicates to me that this member does not really understand the
federal-provincial arrangements through which this country is
governed co-operatively by both levels of government.
The member said that if the government had the will it could
implement a national child care program right now. That is
simply and purely incorrect. The federal government could not
implement such a program because caring for children is part of
the responsibility of the provinces. We simply could not do it
without provincial co-operation.
She also asked what happened to the 150,000 child care spaces
that were promised in the 1993 red book. We fulfilled that
promise when we came forward with an offer to set aside $400
million and asked the provinces to come forward and use that
money to build child care spaces.
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill: You asked the provinces?
Ms. Bonnie Brown: Yes, we invited the provinces. Not one
province came forward and said “Yes, we want to build this
program with you”. After a time, the money was set aside from
that program because no one stepped up to the plate to use it.
That is what happened to the 150,000 spaces that were suggested
in the red book.
Our Speech from the Throne in the fall indicated that this
government has no higher priority as a government than children.
But that statement does not lead directly to the establishment of
a national child care system.
We recognize that while parents have the primary responsibility
for the care of their children, raising the next generation is
everyone's concern. We know that early childhood development and
care is essential to raising healthy children. That is why early
childhood development is a key theme in the national children's
agenda through which—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am afraid I must
interrupt the hon. member as the time has run out.
[Translation]
The motion to adjourn the
House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this
House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.57 p.m.)