36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 68
CONTENTS
Tuesday, March 21, 2000
1000
| PRIVILEGE
|
| Member for Wentworth—Burlington—Speaker's Ruling
|
| The Speaker |
1005
| Mr. John Bryden |
1010
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Citizenship and Immigration
|
| Mr. Joe Fontana |
| PETITIONS
|
| Taxation
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Child Pornography
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Human Resources Development
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Families
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
1015
| Registered Retirement Savings Plan
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Breast Cancer Society of Canada
|
| Mr. Lou Sekora |
| Child Poverty
|
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
| Mammography
|
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
| Abortion
|
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
| Canada Post Corporation Act
|
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
| Ms. Angela Vautour |
| Mammography
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Marriage
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Young Offenders Act
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Genetically Modified Foods
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| Pedophile Registry
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1020
| SUPPLY
|
| Allotted Day—Management of the Department of Human Resources
|
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Motion
|
1025
1030
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
1035
| Ms. Angela Vautour |
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
1040
1045
| Amendment
|
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
1050
| Mr. Gérard Asselin |
1055
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
1100
1105
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
1110
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
1115
1120
1125
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
1130
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
1135
1140
| Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
1145
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
1150
1155
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
1200
| Hon. David Kilgour |
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
1205
1210
| Mr. Bob Kilger |
1215
| Ms. Libby Davies |
1220
1225
1230
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
1235
| Mr. Jean Dubé |
1240
1245
1250
1255
| Mr. John Harvard |
1300
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
1305
| Mr. John Bryden |
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
1310
1315
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
1320
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
1325
1330
| Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
1335
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
1340
| Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew |
1345
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
1350
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
1355
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| TAIWAN
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| DEANNA GEDDO
|
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
| THE LATE LYAL HOLMES
|
| Mr. Lou Sekora |
| 1ST BATTALION ROYAL CANADIAN REGIMENT
|
| Mr. Hec Clouthier |
1400
| RIDING OF SAINT-MAURICE
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| NISGA'A TREATY
|
| Mr. Jim Gouk |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
| YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
|
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| ALEX PAUK
|
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
1405
| CIAU BASKETBALL CHAMPIONSHIPS
|
| Mr. Rick Casson |
| LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA
|
| Ms. Carolyn Bennett |
| RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
|
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
| RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1410
| GASOLINE PRICES
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| RESERVES
|
| Mr. David Price |
| PRIME MINISTER
|
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
|
| Mr. Inky Mark |
| RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
|
| Mr. Rick Laliberte |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
1415
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
1420
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
1425
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| GASOLINE PRICES
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. John Manley |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1430
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
1435
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
1440
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
|
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| GASOLINES PRICES
|
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Hon. John Manley |
1445
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Ms. Susan Whelan |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
|
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
1450
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| GASOLINE PRICES
|
| Mr. Gilles Bernier |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Gilles Bernier |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
1455
| NATIONAL REVENUE
|
| Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi |
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
| EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
|
| Mr. Keith Martin |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| GASOLINE PRICES
|
| Mr. Serge Cardin |
| Hon. John Manley |
1500
| NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT
|
| Ms. Louise Hardy |
| Hon. Robert D. Nault |
| GASOLINE PRICING
|
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
| Hon. John Manley |
1505
| PRIVILEGE
|
| Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration
|
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
1510
1515
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1520
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Mr. John Bryden |
1525
| Mr. Joe Fontana |
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
| Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
1530
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| SUPPLY
|
| Allotted Day—Management of the Department of Human
|
| Motion
|
| Mr. John McKay |
1535
1540
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
1545
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1550
1555
| Mr. Paul Bonwick |
1600
| Mr. Stéphan Tremblay |
1605
1610
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Mr. Paul Bonwick |
1615
| Mr. Larry McCormick |
1620
1625
| Mr. Yvan Bernier |
1630
| Ms. Judy Sgro |
1635
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
1640
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
| Mr. Pat Martin |
| Mr. Jim Gouk |
1645
1650
| Mr. Paul Bonwick |
1655
| Mr. Larry McCormick |
| Mr. Keith Martin |
1700
1705
1710
| Mr. Yvan Bernier |
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1715
1740
1745
(Division 1164)
| Amendment negatived
|
1750
1755
(Division 1165)
| Motion negatived
|
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| WESTRAY MINE
|
1805
(Division 1166)
| Amendment agreed to
|
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1810
| SUPPLY
|
| Allotted Day—Health Care
|
| Motion
|
1815
(Division 1167)
| Amendment Negatived
|
1820
1825
(Division 1168)
| Motion negatived
|
| Allotted Day—Canada Health and Social Transfer
|
| Motion
|
1835
(Division 1169)
| Amendment negatived
|
1840
(Division 1170)
| Motion negatived
|
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| BLOOD SAMPLES ACT
|
| Bill C-244. Second reading
|
1845
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1850
1855
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1900
| Mr. Joe Jordan |
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1905
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| Employment Insurance Fund
|
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
1910
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
| Banks
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1915
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 68
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, March 21, 2000
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
1000
PRIVILEGE
MEMBER FOR WENTWORTH—BURLINGTON—SPEAKER'S RULING
The Speaker: I am now prepared to deliver my final
ruling with respect to Bill C-206 standing in the Order of
Precedence for Private Members' Business in the name of the
member for Wentworth—Burlington.
This matter, concerning the acceptability of the list of 100
signatures, was originally raised on February 7, 2000 by the
member for Athabasca. The hon. member for Athabasca complained
of the use made of his signature in helping to have Bill C-206
placed in the Order of Precedence. He maintained that his
support for the bill was limited to the text in its original form
as Bill C-264 and not to the current version which is before the
House.
The hon. member for Wentworth—Burlington, for his part, claimed
that he had never attempted to mislead the House or any of its
members by his use of the list of signatures which he had
gathered during the previous session.
1005
[Translation]
In a preliminary ruling which I delivered on February 8, 2000, I
indicated that, as the mechanism provided by Standing Order
87(6) for having an item placed in the Order of Precedence was a
recent addition to our rules, the Chair lacked any precedents on
which to base a decision. At that time, I requested that the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs consider the
matter and provide some indication of how the provisions of
Standing Order should be understood.
[English]
The procedure and House affairs committee has presented the
results of its deliberations in its 19th report, which was tabled
on Friday, March 17, 2000 and I am thus in a position to make a
ruling on the question. I am deeply grateful to the members of
the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for the
advice that they have provided the Chair. I appreciate both the
care which they have exercised in their deliberations and the
promptness with which they have returned their views to the
House.
[Translation]
In light of the guidance provided by the procedure and house
affairs committee, it seems to me that the most reasonable, and
the fairest, way of proceeding in the present case is to declare
the list of supporters, collected during the first session of
this parliament in support of Bill C-264 in its original form,
invalid. The list was collected at a time when our new
procedures were not yet in place and legitimate concerns have
been raised concerning just what it was that members thought
they were committing themselves to in signing it.
[English]
I am therefore accepting their recommendation that the member
for Wentworth—Burlington have the opportunity to demonstrate
that current support exists for the debate of Bill C-206 by
filing a new list in conformity with the provisions of Standing
Order 87(6)(a). I emphasize here, as the committee did in its
report, that what is sought here is support for the holding of a
debate on the substance of the bill, not support for the content
of the bill itself.
If it is shown that there is widespread support for the
consideration of this item, it will be allowed to proceed.
Failing the filing of the necessary list with the Journals Branch
prior to Bill C-206 being set down for the first hour of debate
at second reading, the item will be removed from the Order of
Precedence. It will, of course, remain eligible to be returned
to the Order of Precedence through a later filing of such a list
or by the normal process of the draw.
I would like to thank the member for Athabasca for raising this
issue and the member for Wentworth—Burlington for his clear and
concise account of the order of events. I would also like to
thank the House leader of the official opposition, the member for
Berthier—Montcalm, as well as the member for Roberval, for their
contributions to the consideration of this question. I would
also once again express my appreciation to the Standing Committee
on Procedure and House Affairs for its valuable assistance.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, of course I respect your decision in this matter. I
would just like to make two observations. Bill C-206 is due to
come up for debate within about a week. Because of the very
close timeframe in which you have ruled that I should be required
to get the signatures again, I would ask that if I can get the
signatures in the next day or so that perhaps Bill C-206 could
remain where it is on the Order of Precedence rather than being
dropped to the very bottom and perhaps not being debated for some
months to come.
Second, I would just like to make one comment. I do believe
this arises from a legitimate misunderstanding. I regret that I
never had the opportunity to speak before the procedures and
House affairs committee to explain the origin of the
misunderstanding and to clarify the situation.
Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I think your ruling is the correct
ruling and I abide by it.
1010
The Speaker: I believe the question the hon. member is
asking is whether this bill will come up in the normal course of
events. The answer is, yes. Is that what the question is?
Mr. John Bryden: No, Mr. Speaker. I do not quite
understand your ruling. The bill is due to come up in the next
few days. If the hundreds of signatures remain valid, it is due
to come up on Thursday or Friday at the latest.
What I am asking you, Mr. Speaker, is, if I can get the hundred
signatures in the next day or two—and I would hope to have the
co-operation of the opposition parties in this—can my bill
remain on the order of precedence and come up on Friday, as it is
currently scheduled to do?
The Speaker: That was the question I thought the hon.
member asked. The response is, yes.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to table, in both official languages, the
government's response to four petitions.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I have the honour and duty to present, in both official
languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on
Citizenship and Immigration.
It is with a little sadness that I do so because the report
outlines the release of in camera material by the member for
Lakeland which the committee believes may constitute a breach of
the privileges of the House of Commons. If you, Mr. Speaker, find
a prima facie case of privilege, I am prepared to introduce a
motion for the entire matter to be referred to the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
I also want to bring to the attention of the House that on
Friday, March 17, I stood in the House on a point of privilege to
address the same matter. The first report of the Standing
Committee on Citizenship and Immigration is also doing the same
thing in asking the Speaker to rule on this very important matter
which deals with the privileges of all members of the House with
regards to confidential material being released prematurely
before the committee and this House has had an opportunity to
consider it.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask for your guidance and your advice on
this matter.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I thank the hon.
member for London North Centre for his intervention. The Chair
will take the member's comments under advisement and the Speaker
will be apprised of his concerns.
* * *
PETITIONS
TAXATION
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is my pleasure to rise and present a petition on behalf of
thousands of Canadians from Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario
calling for deep and immediate tax relief at the federal level.
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to present a petition from Canadians across the country
who are calling for the federal government to invoke the
notwithstanding clause so that we have a valid child pornography
law in Canada.
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is my pleasure to present a petition on behalf of Albertans
calling upon the human resources development minister to
immediately resign.
FAMILIES
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a petition to present from my riding calling on parliament
to support Motion No. 300 which recognizes the fundamental rights
of individuals to pursue family life free from undue interference
by the state and to recognize the fundamental right and
responsibility of parents to direct the upbringing of their
children.
The petitioners urge the legislative assemblies across Canada to
do likewise.
1015
REGISTERED RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
present a petition calling upon parliament to enact legislation
to wind down the Canada pension plan while protecting the
pensions of current seniors and that Canadians contribute to
mandatory RRSPs of their own choosing.
BREAST CANCER SOCIETY OF CANADA
Mr. Lou Sekora (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today I present a petition from the
Breast Cancer Society of Canada. Canada has the second highest
incidence rate of breast cancer in the world, second only to the
United States.
Early detection remains the only known weapon in the battle
against breast cancer.
CHILD POVERTY
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise to present a petition on behalf of the residents of
Saltspring Island in my riding of Saanich—Gulf Islands.
On November 24, 1989 this House unanimously resolved to end
child poverty in Canada by the year 2000. Therefore, the
petitioners call upon parliament to fulfil that 1989 promise and
end child poverty. It is a serious problem and I call upon
parliament to do something.
MAMMOGRAPHY
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I have three petitions.
The first is signed by petitioners in my riding and elsewhere
across Canada calling on parliament to enact legislation to
establish an independent governing body to develop, implement and
enforce uniform and mandatory mammography equality assurance and
quality control standards in Canada.
ABORTION
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the second petition deals with the reporting of national abortion
statistics for Canada.
CANADA POST CORPORATION ACT
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the third and final petition relates to rural route mail carriers
and their request upon parliament to repeal subsection 13(5) of
the Canada Post Corporation Act.
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, PC): Mr.
Speaker, today I wish to present two petitions which were
presented to me by Alice Boudreau, the representative of the
Association of Rural Route Mail Couriers.
These petitions have in total 519 signatures and call upon
parliament to repeal subsection 13(5) of the Canada Post
Corporation Act.
I understand the frustration of the rural route couriers and I
certainly support their efforts.
MAMMOGRAPHY
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition from petitioners in
southern Ontario who note that Canada has the second highest
incidence of breast cancer in the world. They call upon
parliament to enact legislation to implement uniform mandatory
mammography quality assurance and quality control standards in
Canada.
MARRIAGE
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is my pleasure to present a petition calling on parliament to
enact legislation such as Bill C-225 so as to define in statute
that a marriage can only be entered into between a single male
and a single female.
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
present a petition on behalf of my constituents. They call upon
parliament to amend the Young Offenders Act, including but not
limited to, making the protection of society the number one
priority, reducing the minimum age governed by the act from 12 to
10, allowing the publishing of violent young offenders' names,
increasing the maximum sentence for all offences, except murder,
and increasing the penalty for first degree murder up to 15
years.
[Translation]
GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this
morning it is my pleasure to table in the House a petition
signed by 615 people in my region calling on parliament to
quickly pass legislation making it mandatory to label any foods
that have been genetically modified in whole or in part.
[English]
PEDOPHILE REGISTRY
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a final petition from people in my riding calling upon
parliament to enact legislation to establish a pedophile
registry.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1020
[Translation]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—MANAGEMENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ) moved:
That this House condemn the government for the poor
management seen at the Department of Human Resources Development,
particularly in the award and use of grants for partisan
purposes, and that it recommend the creation of an independent
public commission of inquiry, whose members will be appointed by
the House, and whose mandate will be to inquire into all
practices of that Department and to report to the House by
September 19, 2000.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I simply wish to bring to your attention that the hon. member
for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques will be
sharing his time with the hon. member for Québec and that,
subsequently, other Bloc Quebecois members will be sharing their
time in the same way.
Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Speaker, I would like to recall the theme of
today's opposition motion, which states:
That this House condemn the government for the poor management
seen at the Department of Human Resources Development,
particularly in the award and use of grants for partisan
purposes, and that it recommend the creation of an independent
public commission of inquiry, whose members will be appointed by
the House, and whose mandate will be to inquire into all
practices of that Department and to report to the House by
September 19, 2000.
Everyone in Canada is now aware that the Minister of Human
Resources Development is responsible for an administrative
scandal relating to the funds available for all grant and
contribution programs.
The first part of our motion relates to the poor management seen
at Human Resources Development Canada. It may be worthwhile to
remind hon. members that, according to an internal departmental
audit, 87% of cases bore no indication of the supervision of
officers dealing with projects, while 75% of projects receiving
contributions had no indication of whether the expected results
had been attained.
Particularly in the case of job creation programs, they are able
to announce to us how many jobs they want to create, but unable
in a single case to tell us whether the objective has been met,
and particularly unable to indicate whether the business used
the money for the planned purposes. This is a very concrete
example.
It is also said that 70% of projects have no invoices or pay
stubs to justify expenditures.
In 36% of cases where funding was increased, no reason for the
increase was given. For 36% of budgets in which there was money
given in addition to the original amount, they were unable to
justify the increase.
It will surprise no one that the Bloc Quebecois is today calling
for an independent public commission of inquiry into the matter.
From the day the minister made public the findings of the
internal audit, instead of taking a responsible attitude and
seeing to it that they got to the bottom of the whole situation,
the Liberal government and the Prime Minister—who is very much
involved in the problems at HRDC—had no other concern but to
cover up the situation. They tried to conceal from Quebecers and
Canadians the fact that, at HRDC, they had lost control of the
management of all the jobs creation grant programs and all the
grant programs aimed at helping handicapped people and fostering
literacy.
The government is unable to say what was done with the money and
what it wanted to do with it.
It is hiding behind a six point program that should deal with
the situation in the future, but refusing to get right to the
bottom of what happened in the past.
For weeks, during oral questions period, the Prime Minister
simply stated “There is no problem. The only problem involves
$251”. Yet, we were talking about $1 billion. We have seen that
when this Prime Minister wants to hide from realities, he is
very good at doing so, but he has no right to try to conceal the
fact from every Quebecer and Canadian.
1025
Thanks to the probing by the opposition parties, we have
learned, over the past few weeks, all about the $251 problem.
For example, we have found a $150,000 grant that was supposed to
go to the riding of Rosemont but ended up in Saint-Maurice. We
still do not know what actually happened to the money. An
investigation was launched further to the questions asked by the
member for Rosemont.
The same thing happened in other cases brought to light by the
members of the opposition. The Bloc Quebecois has exposed the
whole story behind Placeteco, revealing how the company was
managed and how the friends of the regime have benefited from
the whole operation. We always have to force the minister to
reveal the facts, one question at a time.
She has a reactionary style of management.
Every time we manage to show her a file that has not been
handled properly, an investigation is launched. This amount of
$251 which the Prime Minister referred to again and again in the
House lead to at least 19 RCMP investigations.
Mr. René Laurin: That is scandalous.
Mr. Paul Crête: Last week, I asked the following question to the
Department's director of internal audit. “How many of the
internal audits you have made since you took up your duties have
led to an investigation by the RCMP or any other police force
before this particular audit?”
His answer was really significant: none. Of all the previous
internal audits, none had led to a full blown investigation. If
19 investigations are now being conducted by the RCMP or other
police force, it must be because there is something fishy going on.
At any rate, this shows there is a very serious problem that
needs to be addressed.
Basically, there are two periods that need to be analysed, which
is one reason why the House should adopt this motion. The first
one is the period during which the current Minister for
International Trade was in charge of the Department of Human
Resources Development. That is when everything was done wrong.
It has been found that, during that period, the federal
government managed public funds without proper control.
Day after day, during question period, the minister would tell
us “Job creation programs are doing very well and the youth
employment strategy is an excellent program. Don't worry, we got
tough on the unemployed, but, on the other hand, we are very
good at managing the available funds and creating jobs”.
This time last year, the Bloc Quebecois exposed the fact that
HRDC officials had quotas to meet. This means that there is a
double standard in that department. When it comes to harassing
the unemployed and taking as much money as possible from workers
and businesses, all the necessary controls are in place. The
unemployed worker who receives $275 or $250 a week in benefits
should be careful not to make any mistake because he will get
caught in no time.
There are investigations under way that cost $150,000. A
$1 million dollar loan to the National Bank was supposed to
create jobs. No jobs were created with that money, but there is
no problem. It is perfectly normal. Jobs were consolidated but
no new jobs were created, even though that money was supposed to
help create some 40 new jobs.
There is no investigation, nothing.
In all these situations, the minister hides behind answers that
provide no new information. This is why a public inquiry
is necessary.
We tried to find out why the government treated the
administrative discrepancies this way. We might have said that
had there just been the discrepancies, it would be easy to get
out of it. The government should say “There have been errors,
we are going to change the situation, look at what was done in
the past and try to correct our past errors”.
We wondered why the government had this attitude. The answer
lies in its use of the transitional jobs fund in order to win
the 1997 election in a number of ridings. Let us look at the
facts.
During the 1997 election campaign, in the few months preceding
and following it, the government spent 54% of the amounts
accorded over three years. In other words, in eight months, 54%
of the money was spent on projects. By some chance, 63% of the
money was spent in the ridings of Bloc members. That means the
government decided to use the transitional jobs fund as a
partisan tool, to advertise the Liberal Party of Canada, as a
means of criticizing the opposition parties, but they used
public money to do it.
They decided to use the transitional jobs fund in order to buy
votes. Today, we know why the federal government does not want an
inquiry, does not want the facts to come out. It is not because
of a malversation of funds. The federal government knows about
malversations, mismanagement of public funds; we saw this last
year. We have seen the deficits they created. Today we see
that the problem in Department of Human Resources Development
exists in other departments as well.
1030
The real reason is that it exposed the system put in place by
the Prime Minister, a system that allows the government to use
public funds to win elections, particularly in ridings where the
outcome is uncertain. We will recall that, in the riding of
Saint-Maurice, 58% of people voted yes in the 1995 referendum.
The Prime Minister of Canada was not at all certain that he
would win in his own riding.
As we can see, they decided to turn on the tap.
Memos written by officials state that “it is imperative that
this particular issue succeed, because that is what the Prime
Minister wants”. Numerous cases were exposed, some in stories
like the one broadcast by Radio-Canada yesterday evening, which
clearly show that, politically, there is something fishy going
on in the riding of Saint-Maurice.
To have good political debates, to have people who opposing
views, whether they are federalists, sovereignists, Liberals or
Bloc Quebecois, is normal. What is unacceptable is to undermine
democracy by creating a patronage system designed to influence
voters using every taxpayer's money.
Let us not forget that the money given away by Human Resources
Development Canada is not that of the members of the Liberal
Party of Canada, but that of all taxpayers in Quebec and in
Canada. It was intended to help create jobs in all the ridings,
in compliance with the rules.
The best example of what the Liberal government did can be found
in the riding of the minister responsible for the transitional
jobs fund. To qualify for a grant, ridings must have an
unemployment rate higher than 12%. The government decided to
give grants to businesses located in the minister's riding and
invented a new rule to support its decision. Under that rule, in
ridings where the unemployment rate is below 12%, grants may be
awarded if there are so-called pockets of poverty.
I will conclude with the example involving the minister's
riding. The problem is that the other ridings in Canada were never
informed of that rule. So, the minister herself used the
transitional jobs fund for her own partisan purposes. This is
why all Quebecers and Canadians want an independent public
inquiry. Action must be taken to correct this unacceptable situation.
[English]
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened with some interest to the member opposite. In
terms of what he was saying, I am offended that he would paint
the Prime Minister and the people of Shawinigan, and
Saint-Maurice, the riding which the Prime Minister represents,
into a corner and make the implication that the Prime Minister,
as any good member of parliament, should not work very hard on
behalf of his constituents.
I reject that premise. I reject the implication of the member
opposite because it is not only wrong, it is duplicitous. Why
will he not understand that a good member of parliament can be
effective, as the Prime Minister is repeatedly, to ensure that
the kinds of job creation programs are put in place not only in
this case in Quebec but across Canada in the best interests of
Canadians, groups in the ridings, students, young people, the
disabled and others who genuinely require these kinds of grants.
Why is it that he always has to reduce everything we do in the
House somehow into an aggrieved state that he must project and
talk about? It is unfortunate. He should stand on his feet and
congratulate the Prime Minister for working very well on behalf
of Quebecers and for doing the kind of work that is necessary not
only for Quebecers wherever they live in Quebec but for all
Canadians. He should stand and give congratulations but instead
he always has to feel aggrieved. Why?
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Speaker, I agree that all members have the
responsibility to contribute to the good functioning of their
region, but we should all play by the same rules. We are also
entitled to expect that democracy will be respected.
1035
On December 15, 1999 the Prime Minister said “Mr. Fugère never
worked for me and has never been on the executive of my riding”.
It was later demonstrated that Mr. Fugère is an acquaintance of
the Prime Minister and that he gets a cut on the grants he
obtains. There is, for instance, this $11,500 cheque from the
Grand-Mère Inn for a $100,000 grant for which no evidence was
filed. I can say—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Speaker, would you please ask the chatterbox
across the way to shut up so that I can carry on?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Continuing with questions
and comments.
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, PC): Thank you, Mr.
Speaker—
Mr. Paul Crête: I had not finished my speech.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): No. We must now move to
another question. The time provided for the answer has now
expired, and the hon. member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac has the
floor for another question.
Ms. Angela Vautour: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to see how
annoyed government members get when we speak the truth in the
House.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Ms. Angela Vautour: I thank my colleague from the Bloc. I find
it really interesting how angry Liberal members are today,
hurling all kinds of insults.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Ms. Angela Vautour: If they could only keep quiet, perhaps I
could make my comments. This certainly shows a serious lack of
respect on their part.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
An hon. member: Mr. Speaker, have these chatterboxes shut up.
Ms. Angela Vautour: I thank my colleague from the Bloc for
giving me the opportunity to speak on a very important issue,
especially since we, members from eastern Canada, know that there
are very serious problems in our regions, which have been caused
by this government.
Would my colleague agree that instead of making deep cuts in the
employment insurance program and wasting $1 billion, the
government should have cut less?
Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Speaker, I understand very well my
colleague's anger because she lives in a region similar to mine,
with many people on employment insurance, seasonal workers,
people who work very hard to earn a living to provide for their
families.
Now we find out that this department, which keeps such a tight
rein on the unemployed, has set recovery quotas for each Canada
Employment Center. Failure to meet the quotas resulted in
employees losing their job. I am not making this up. This is what
departmental memos are saying.
On the other hand, when it comes to the transitional jobs fund,
the government does not hesitate to help itself—this is the way
Liberals do things—to taxpayers' money to win elections,
particularly in the riding of Saint-Maurice, by putting in place
an unacceptable system in our society.
This is the sort of attitude that was witnessed 50, 60 or 70
years ago. I trust the hon. member for Waterloo—Wellington would
be well inspired to read the documentation. It contains
overwhelming evidence, and we can table it. We are calling for an
independent public inquiry because we are sure that if the facts
come out the Liberal government will look so bad that it will
lose the next federal election.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I wish to
thank my colleague from Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques for introducing this motion today in the House. It
allows an important debate to take place on the scandal at the
Department of Human Resources Development.
Although government members and ministers seem determined to
wipe the slate clean and to say that all is well in this
marvellous country, the scandal at HRDC does not concern the
programs, but the management of these programs. Yesterday
members opposite tried to minimize the issue by accusing us of
wanting to deny grants to the handicapped, to our communities,
which badly need them.
1040
What worries us is the way the government is using tax dollars
for political purposes, and is interfering politically by
handing out money in our communities.
It is fair enough for members to work to get funds into their
communities, but when four investigations in Quebec and 19 in
the whole country are being carried out on how the money is
distributed and on how certain ministers and members in Quebec
and elsewhere in Canada have managed to get top funding for
their ridings, we have every reason to be worried and to move
the debate on to a higher level than the one where Liberal
members and ministers seem to want to keep it.
The Minister of Human Resources Development also lacks foresight
and rigour, as far as this scandal is concerned. We know full
well that, from the very beginning, she tried to minimize the
problem. The opposition parties, including the Bloc Quebecois,
persisted and succeeded in revealing this huge scandal and
shedding some light on this mismanagement by the government.
The minister told us that she learned about the main elements of
the report in November. She said that she was aware that
something was going on in December and that there could have
been some irregularities, but she never told us that she was
aware of this report as far back as August nor that she had been
informed of the situation in the Department of Human Resources
Development.
After being pressed by the Bloc Quebecois and the other
opposition parties, the minister started admitting that maybe we
had been right to be concerned about the situation. People
sometimes tell children that they are setting a bad example. The
Prime Minister also minimized the significance of the problem,
saying that $250 were at issue and that, therefore, there was no
cause for concern. But the more we dig and the deeper we delve,
we discover new problems and examples of mismanagement.
Problems were found in 37 of the 459 files sampled. Some experts
might say that these cases may have been revealed as examples,
but that we could discover much more serious problems if we did
a major clean up of the management of public funds at HRDC.
The minister tried to hide the facts and that is what concerns
us. First, she tried to hide the facts about the dates on which
she was made aware of the report. She was informed in October but
said she was not until the end of November.
Four months later, she was maintaining that no rules had been
broken, that there had been no preferential treatment and that
no money had been paid out without authorization. That was on
December 16. However, she was aware of the auditor general's
report. She knew about the mismanagement at HRDC.
She knew that grants had been awarded for partisan purposes.
She knew that there had been political interference and that 75%
of the funds available had been awarded in the Prime Minister's
riding, during the election campaign or about that time. She
knew that 54% of the money from the transitional job fund had
been awarded, during the election campaign, six months before
and two months after, in order to reward friends.
I want to come back to the criteria in relation to the pockets
of poverty. I am insulted because there are such pockets in my
riding. As a member of parliament, I would have liked to know
about this. In my riding, the average income is higher than the
poverty level.
1045
That does not mean that there is no poverty in lower town, in
Saint-Roch, in Saint-Sauveur or in Limoilou. I have said to
groups, to community networks “You are not eligible, the
unemployment rate must be higher than 12%”.
I am concerned by the way this department, this government takes
the taxpayers' money and uses it here and there for partisan
purposes to look good.
Numerous instances have been uncovered. In the case of the
Canadian tourism institute, the grant went into the director's
pockets: $2.5 million paid in December 1998.
Two people resigned after blowing the whistle on what was going
on in that administration. Within the institute, people were
awarding themselves money for sitting on the board of directors.
We told them “Do not do anything before the RCMP has completed
its investigation and we have completed our own”. These people
were forced to resign because they had exposed the problem. The
same thing happens to us here, when we raise a problem. They try
to gag us, to tell us that we are wrong, or else they shout at
us, as they did earlier.
We could also mention other investigations. The Fugère affair is
another case in point. Mr. Fugère's lobbying activities were
denounced. We know that he has done some work in the Prime
Minister's own riding. The Prime Minister said he did not know
him, that he had not given him any money.
We know that the recipient of thes grants was a lobbyist who
sometimes works for Mr. Chrétien's riding office. Once again,
no invoice has been produced.
I want to get back to the auditor general. He has expressed
great concern about the mismanagement at Human Resources
Development Canada. We are not the ones saying this, the
auditor general is. He takes administrative audits seriously.
There are shortcomings, problems of compliance with legislative
requirements, weaknesses in program design, poor control and
insufficient information about the regulations.
The auditor general expressed frustration about the general
administrative situation.
According to him, there are other shortcomings. There are other
irregularities in the list obtained via access to information
and the one released by HRDC. Again, we are not the ones saying
this, the auditor general is. Might not someone who is above
the whole mess, who is not partisan, who wishes to inform this
House, be trusted? He has said that something is going on in
HRDC. There seems to be no desire on the government side to
take him seriously; the desire is to minimize the problem
underlying the scandal.
The government wants to intimidate us by telling us to pipe
down, by telling us to go and settle it outside. As a woman, I
know what settling it outside means. I am not going outside. I
am going to stay here, and I am going to speak out here. It is
high time people were told how things are done in this
parliament. I am not going to step outside, because I do not
want to settle it with fists.
I would like to move an amendment to my colleague's motion. The
door has been opened somewhat, but I would like to open it
wider. I move:
[English]
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened with some interest to the member opposite.
At one point she said that words failed her. Words should fail
her, because what she was doing was in effect creating myths.
She was not speaking the truth, and she should know better. Let
me tell the House why.
This motion is frivolous and vexatious.
Instead of grandstanding and fabricating mythology, she should
remember that the Bloc is on record as supporting these kinds of
programs.
1050
Why do I say that? I read not so long ago in Le Soleil in
Quebec that the Bloc is on record as saying that these programs
are good.
Today they are putting on this big grandstand show, trying to
agitate and get people worked up by vigorously objecting and all
of these kinds of nonsensical things. I vigorously object to the
kind of mythology that is being promoted in the House today.
I also point out that all of the projects in Quebec, as in other
provinces, had to be signed off by the Parti Quebecois, the
Government of Quebec, in a partnership role. This fact they
conveniently leave out of their fine words.
If these grants were so bad, why is it that the Government of
Quebec, the Parti Quebecois, signed off on them? If they were
that bad, why did the separatists in Quebec sign off?
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The amendment is in order.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, once again we can see how
seriously my colleague takes RCMP investigations. Are RCMP
investigations a myth? Is the auditor general's report a myth?
This tells me just how much the government members want to
minimize the problem, saying “Yes, but the Quebec government
approved the grants”. One can approve a grant but the
responsibility is theirs to do a follow-up on the programs, to
have the right funding and to see to it that the criteria are
met.
Speaking of bad faith, we are told for example that our
communities need that money; I agree. Why do we want all these
programs to be clarified? Because we want all communities to
benefit from them.
Where has all that money gone? We are talking about $100,000
here, $1 million there and $200,000 elsewhere.
I would have preferred to see these amounts to go to my
communities instead of discovering that they got lost somewhere.
The government should stop blaming the opposition parties for
wanting to get to the bottom of this scandal. I will not stop
using the word scandal, because this is in fact a scandal. A
government that does not know where the money has gone, that
does not do a follow-up on its grants, should not be in charge of
managing the public finances.
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I want to
congratulate the hon. member for Québec, who gave an excellent
speech. She is perfectly right to condemn the $1 billion scandal
in the House.
The Liberals brag about being good managers. The hon. member for
Saint-Maurice, the Prime Minister, and the hon. member for
LaSalle-Émard, the Minister of Finance, are running surplus after
surplus. How did they manage to run a surplus while losing one
billion dollars at HRDC?
Everybody knows that it was by cutting transfer payments and EI
for those who needed it. Today, we are faced with a scandal.
More than 50% of the funds earmarked for grants and
contributions were spent a few months before and after the
elections to buy votes.
Is it very unfortunate that the Minister for International
Trade, who was then the minister responsible, cannot answer some
questions. The current minister is now responsible. And she is
because she knew about the report and misled the House.
Could my colleague confirm that that minister should resign, not
because she was responsible for the $1 billion boondoggle but
because she was aware of the situation and misled the House?
1055
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I want to be sure
that what we are doing is proper and that there has not been an
accusation that the hon. minister deliberately—and I underscore
the word “deliberately”—misled the House. I will leave it
there. As far as the Chair is concerned, there was not the
impression that there was a deliberate desire to mislead the
House.
I will recognize the hon. member for Québec for a short
response.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, all we can say is that we
did not get answers to our questions and that opposition parties
are also there to shed light on the management of public
finances. This is one of our responsibilities.
As for calling for the resignation of the Minister of Human
Resources Development in light of this huge scandal, we can
certainly do that, but we could also call for the resignation of
the Minister for International Trade, who just skated around
while he was in charge of HRDC, claiming that he really knew his
department and how it was managed.
We do have to look at how that department is managed. We know
where the orders come from. They come from the big boss. It is
urgent to shed light on HRDC's management process.
We are not satisfied with the minister's replies. She knew about
the report and about the internal problems long before all this
was made public, but the government tried to downplay the
situation.
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be
sharing my time with my colleague from Waterloo—Wellington.
I want to say at the outset that I am grateful to the member for
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques for his
timely motion.
Everyone knows that this subject has consumed the House since we
returned from the winter break. In question period the
opposition commands the agenda because it gets to ask the
questions. There has been what I would call a feeding frenzy on
this particular topic. The reason for that is because in six and
a half years this is the first time the opposition has found
common ground, one with the other.
Opposition members have not been very successful at criticizing
the government or co-ordinating their efforts in the face of our
major improvements to Canadian society over the last six years:
the reduction of the deficit, the lowering of unemployment,
bringing under control the nation's finances to the point that we
now have the best financial situation we have had probably in 15
or 20 years.
Canadians know that, but we have found one area that needs a lot
of improvement. Through an internal audit we have identified a
section of our government that needs some serious work. Our
internal audit told us some bad news, and we took it as bad news.
We took it seriously and we admitted ownership because we are the
government. We came up with an action plan to address it.
We did not dream up the action plan. We devised a plan and into
it we incorporated the advice of the auditor general, the other
financial institutions of the government, the Treasury Board
Secretariat, and we have even called in the private sector to
look at our plan and how well it will address the problems
raised.
Because the specialty of Bloc Quebecois members is moral
outrage, they have found this a very comfortable file to hone in
on. I am actually surprised at how well they have slid into the
agenda of the Reform Party. We all know why Reform Party members
want to go after this file. They want to go after this file
because they want to erode the confidence of Canadians in federal
social programs.
1100
They want to suggest to Canadians that HRDC is not well managed
and to do that they have not painted the full picture. They have
taken something that a painter might think of as painting a
picture by paint by number. In the paint by number card that
they have pulled out they are painting one section out of 60 over
and over and over again.
I am trying to put it into perspective. One has to remember
that the Department of Human Resources Development has a budget
of $60 billion. For eight weeks the section that has
commandeered the attention of the opposition and the media
represents $1 billion or 1/60 of the department's budget.
I do not hear many complaints from those 3.7 million people who
are receiving their old age security cheques. I do not hear many
people complaining about their guaranteed income supplement.
There are 1,381,000 of them. I do not hear too many people who
have qualified for EI complaining about their cheques. There are
1,263,000 of them. Nor do I hear complaints from the 1.4 million
families representing 2.6 million children who are receiving
national children's benefits. Instead they attack what is a good
department, what is representing the social programs administered
by the federal government, with the exception of health which has
its own department.
The Reformers are trying to paint a black picture based upon
essentially a job creation fund that is part of that $1 billion
and is worth $330 million. That is 1/180 of the department's
budget. Now we have this in perspective: 1/180 of the
department's budget is being attacked for eight weeks. That is
1/360 of the Government of Canada's budget. I ask Canadians
whether this is worth eight weeks of the time of the House.
I am not trying to trivialize the problem within that 1/360 of
spending. That is important and we take it seriously. We accept
responsibility and we accept ownership. It has been said that we
try to hide things. I invite all members to go their whips'
offices to see the 16 binders of information, each one being five
and a half inches thick and piled on top of one another. They
almost reach to the ceiling. Therein they will find a
description of every project that has been funded under grants
and contributions across the country.
At the same time as we have collected this information for the
perusal of all, the media, the opposition and our own members who
want to know, we have been transparent. It is an unprecedented
release of information for a government. We did not do that
because the opposition was forcing our backs to the wall. We did
that because we want to govern well. The population of today
wants to know and we want to let the population know.
I have sent lists of the projects in my riding to various
constituents who have asked for it. They have phoned me back
with questions. It has created a great deal of work but for
transparency purposes it is worth it. It is this minister who
has led the drive to openness and transparency. I am proud to be
assisting her because she is leading into the new era of the new
century with that.
It has been said that there was a lot of money spent in 1997. It
is true that the budget for this has gone down from the $3
billion, which is part of this, to less now because in the
meantime we signed labour market development agreements with the
provinces and a huge chunk of money was taken out and moved to
them. If we compare 1996 with 1999 we will say that it has gone
down. It was not because it went up in 1997 because there was an
election. It was after 1997 that one at a time we signed
agreements with the provinces and transferred the relevant
training money to them, so today it looks like we are spending
less.
It was not for partisan purposes. That is a figment of the Bloc
Quebecois' imagination.
1105
I want to be clear. We are not talking about $1 billion. We
are talking about the possibility of worrying about $330 million
in the Canada jobs fund. Just to update the House, at this time
we have recovered $225,729 because we have identified some
overpayments with our work. We have called it back and it has
arrived. It will be different tomorrow and it was different last
week, as we gather the information and put it together day by
day, but as of today we are owed $640.21.
I hope this puts it into perspective for the viewers who have
been bored to death by eight weeks of talking about 1/360 of the
Government of Canada's budget.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, here again I
can see that government members, ministers and parliamentary
secretaries do not fully understand the problem with the
scandal.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources
Development says that we do not fully appreciate all the
government does to help, with income security, employment
insurance benefits or the national child benefit. I wish to
point out that these are not grants. They are fixed amounts
which are given. Accordingly, one cannot really use those
amounts for partisan purposes.
When she says that she does not hear any criticism about
employment insurance benefits, I can tell her that we often
pointed out that they have been reduced and that six persons out
of ten are not eligible for those benefits.
I am currently touring Quebec to look into poverty and the
social safety net, which is gradually shrinking over the years.
An election is coming up and a little more money might be added,
but Quebecers will not be fooled. We will know what they are up
to with public spending.
According to her, Reformers are using the scandal to say that
the programs should be cut back. However, we want to shed some
light on this scandal. The government is minimizing the scandal
at Human Resources Development Canada by saying that much is
being done elsewhere, that this only involves a mere $1 billion.
Only 19 cases are mentioned. A comprehensive investigation
should have been ordered for the government's overall
administration and the auditor general should have been asked to
look into the way it is using taxpayers' money.
This is the issue we have to deal with. Opposition parties are
doing their duty when they ask—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry to interrupt.
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown: Mr. Speaker, we know that a billion
dollars is a lot of money. As for the point that we do not get
it, it is not true. We do get it. What I do not get is how they
will play this game with the Reformers and continue to erode
people's confidence in the social programs which I know they
believe in.
I know the social conscience of most Bloc Quebecois members is
extremely strong. They have a true idea of community and as such
I see members of that particular party as supporters of the way I
view the world. I try to recruit them to the causes we believe
in together.
However damage is being done by the consistent use of the word
scandal and by this opposition day. They do not seem to realize
that the impact is not necessarily eroding support for the
Liberal government or helping them to win seats. It is
strengthening the right wing in the country as personified by the
National Post. They are giving the National Post
more and more fodder every day to feed to the people so that they
lose faith in social programs. I do not understand why the Bloc
Quebecois is co-operating with that.
1110
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
there is a huge scandal going on at HRDC at the moment. It is
unprecedented in Canada's political history. Even in the time
of the Conservatives, during the nine years when scandal
followed scandal, never was a scandal worse than the one before
us now at HDRC.
The minister, out of a concern for transparency, invited us to
use the phone line set aside for MPs to request information. I
used the line and then went through access to information because
they would not give me the information on the direct line.
However, I have received two calls on a very specific matter in
my riding in Thetford Mines. Barely 15 minutes ago, I was
talking with Odile Cukier, who is negotiating with me as to
whether or not she should give me over 200 pages, because they
would contain privileged information of a confidential nature,
such as an address and telephone number or a social insurance
number for certain people.
Why not reveal all on the files we are asking about?
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown: Mr. Speaker, this member has a funny
idea of history if he thinks this is the biggest scandal in the
history of Canada. He obviously is not aware of the railway
scandal at the beginning of the century. He probably did not
know about Gerda Munsinger. When we have international spy
secrets being traded, when we have public money being stolen,
when we have what the movies call sex, lies and videotapes, then
we have a scandal.
We have a problem of management in our grants and contributions.
We accept responsibility. We are working on it. We are turning
up new information every day as our 20,000 employees go through
the files and check on everything.
Perhaps this member has been having trouble getting the
information he wants on one file. I offered just yesterday to
help him get that information. However I must caution members
that we cannot give information that would erode the privacy of
individual Canadians. It is probably something about the Privacy
Act that is restraining the official from giving him everything,
but I am happy to work with him on that.
We want to be open and transparent for our colleagues in the
opposition and for Canadians to know that we are working on it
step by step to clean it up.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
at the outset I commend the parliamentary secretary for her very
thoughtful words and the insight that she provided not only for
the House but for Canadians wherever they live in our great land.
She mused a little out loud about why the Bloc and the Reformers
would be so cozy, cheek to cheek in this kind of debate. It
struck me that it was not so long ago that the Reformers held a
convention in London, Ontario, or maybe Toronto. In any event,
who was their lead speaker? It was the separatist, Mr. Biron.
The lead kick-off speaker of the Reform Party of Canada was none
other than Mr. Biron, a separatist from Quebec. I guess the
parliamentary secretary's musing about where they are at is no
secret. They are playing toe and toe, playing cheek and cheek
and playing pretty cozy these days.
The member for Frontenac—Mégantic talked about scandal. Let me
tell him that the only scandal is that the Bloc members and he,
instead of standing up for Quebecers and getting the kind of
money that is necessary for hard pressed areas in Quebec and in
other places in Canada, should be defending—
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I insist that you ask this member to withdraw his remarks. The
members of the Bloc Quebecois were elected democratically
without buying votes one after the other.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I listened very
carefully to the words of the hon. member for
Waterloo—Wellington and I did not hear anything in his words
that were inappropriate.
1115
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to point out
that the only scandal we are talking about today is the inability
of the Bloc members to support their constituents, to support
Quebecers in getting jobs and finding out the kind of money that
is necessary for each of their individual ridings. That is the
scandal here today and not what they are talking about.
I want to get to some of the facts. We heard the member for
Quebec speak and we heard the member for Elk Island bellow across
the aisle. Incidentally he is the member who is on record in
Hansard as having called me a liar not so long ago. That
very member is part of the Reform Party which, let me see now,
was to bring a fresh start to parliament, a new way of doing
business, was it not? And the member for Elk Island sits and
bellows across the aisle. There he sits calling people liars.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I would ask you to ask the member to stick to the debate. They
say we flirt with the Reformers. Can I talk of Bill C-20, which
was passed at Quebec's expense and on which they wanted to gag
us? They applauded the Reformers, but those two were going on
hand in hand.
This sort of thing can be said for a long time—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We need to cut each
other a little bit of slack here today. There will be a fair
amount of debate going back and forth. We will all have to
develop thicker skins.
Before the hon. member for Waterloo—Wellington gets started, we
can bring the word liar in the front door and we can bring it in
the back door, but let us just leave it outside the House.
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, what clearly is not left
outside the House is the thick skin those members should be
prepared to put on. They can dish it out, but it appears they
cannot take it.
I want to point out to the member for Quebec and the member for
Elk Island who was bellowing across the aisle not so long ago
that the auditor general is very much part of the process.
Instead of getting up and parading mythology like the member for
Quebec was doing a minute ago, she should know her facts.
By the way, I was vice-chair of the public accounts committee. I
have worked very hard and long with Mr. Denis Desautels over the
years. I know the kind of thorough work he is prepared to do.
He will do it and rightfully so on behalf of the taxpayers of
Canada. His report will come out in the fall. What will his
report say? We do not know, but we do know that Mr. Desautels,
the Auditor General of Canada, will be conducting the kind of
review necessary to get to the bottom of things.
When I hear both of the members opposite, the bellowing one too,
talk about the auditor general not being part of the process, I
have to scratch my head because he is an integral part of the
process. Instead of perpetuating that kind of mythology, the
hon. member for Quebec should get her facts straight. So should
the bellowing member by the way. They should make sure they know
what they are talking about.
Speaking of facts, I want to point out that over and above that,
the standing committee on human resources development is taking a
look at all this kind of information. Why? It is trying to get
to the bottom to see exactly what transpired and how. More to
the point, and I think the minister has repeatedly said this time
and time again over the last seven weeks, she instigated the
audit. She brought it forward and she is now trying to correct
it.
It is interesting. The member for Calgary—Nose Hill tries to
take the lead. Other members here today, the Bloc types, by
grandstanding are trying to cash in and to carve a name out for
themselves. It is really shameful. What they should be doing
instead is defending people who require this kind of money,
people who are unemployed, people who are disabled, young people
and people in areas of high unemployment.
There are areas of high unemployment in Quebec. There are areas
of high unemployment in the east. There are areas of high
unemployment in the west. Instead of caterwauling away and trying
to stir up all kinds of ridiculous things, they should be
congratulating the government and saying what a wonderful thing
it is doing in the best interests of Canadians.
They should be congratulating us. Instead they seem intent on
distorting the facts and that is too bad.
1120
Canadians are very smart people. They see through that kind of
political posturing. They see through those kinds of political
shenanigans. They see through the kind of nonsense which the
Bloc is trying to promote today. Canadians see through it.
Quebecers and Canadians wherever they live in this great country
of ours see through the kind of shenanigans that the people
opposite are trying to pretend is true. We will have no part of
it and rightfully so. Canadians expect no less from the
Government of Canada.
In addition to the committee taking a look at this very
important issue, the minister herself has said that four times a
year she is prepared to come forward with a report and make sure
all of the facts are on the table in terms of what is happening.
It is important to note that we have put in place the kind of
safeguards that are required in this all important area.
Let me zero in on the point I believe the Bloc is missing in
this very important debate. Should the government be providing
these kinds of grants and contributions to constituents wherever
they live in Canada? I do not know what their answer is but the
way the Bloc members are talking and posturing, it would appear
that their answer is no, the government does not have a role.
Like the parliamentary secretary said, they are in bed with the
Reformers with the right-wing agenda of trying to cut off
Canadians at their knees when it comes to these important things.
Canadians reject that kind of right-wing nonsense. They want
absolutely no part of it.
I thought the Bloc was more progressive than that. I thought
the Bloc had a better social conscience. I thought it would be
more prepared to defend Quebecers and defend people who genuinely
need this kind of assistance. Instead, we hear them toady behind
the Reformers and the best they can come up with is a flat tax.
Imagine. Even the right-wing Republicans, the wing nutty types
in the United States have rejected the flat tax. Maybe Jerry
Falwell, Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Bakker and a few others of their
ilk—
Mr. Jim Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I think it might be good if the member were to speak with some
relevance to the motion before the House instead of acting like
his dog just died.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): That is certainly not
a point of order.
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talks about
dogs. He is the last one who should be speaking about dogs
because that party they are trying to assemble, that dog will not
hunt.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I am tired of hearing this sort of thing. The Prime Minister
spoke about sleeping dogs with reference to sovereignists, and
now dogs are dragged in, in connection with Reformers. Can
members express themselves some other way or is this how they
always criticize people?
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We have got to stop
barking at each other.
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, it really is quite
interesting to see how upset the Bloc members get. I thought
they were good politicians. A good politician is able to dish it
out and take it, not simply to dish it out. Tut, tut Madame. It
seems to me she should develop a bit of a thicker skin.
There are two fundamental values which Canadians support when it
comes to this kind of issue. We on the government side support
the values of listening to Canadians and of being caring and
compassionate. These values are intrinsic to the very core of
Canada.
I hear the hon. Reform member caterwaul and laugh because he
does not understand this. He does not understand that caring and
compassion is a core Canadian value because he is a Darwinian
economist. We were speaking of dogs a minute ago. He wants to
let dog eat dog because he cares only about his rich friends. He
does not care about people who are less fortunate and people who
genuinely require our assistance. Blessfully and thankfully, we
on the government side do.
1125
We care about ordinary Canadians. We care about helping people
in need. We care about the disabled. We care about students. We
care about people who genuinely require our assistance. Unlike
those Reformers who have cast away and left them adrift, it is
clear that we on the government side will not do that and
rightfully so.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We have several
members who wish to ask questions. We will keep the question to
one minute and one minute for the response.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
grateful for the opportunity to speak. The member opposite did
not address the motion. The motion has to do specifically with
the mismanagement in the Department of Human Resources
Development.
He spoke glowingly of the auditor general, yet he failed to
point out or to remember the fact that it was the auditor general
who almost a year ago released his report that drew attention to
this great mismanagement. As a matter of fact the auditor general
has been raising such questions for a number of years. Finally
the media and the official opposition were able to get together
in such a way to make this an issue across the country because
Canadians are concerned about the mismanagement of their money.
The debate is not on whether or not some of the programs are
good. Some are, some are not. The debate is about the lack of
accountability.
I am amazed that the member did not see fit to address the real
question. For example, some 85% of the applications did not have
even a supporting application form. That is mismanagement of the
greatest form.
That is what we are trying to address. We will continue to do
that. I think members of the public in Canada will applaud us
and not the wasteful Liberal government.
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, I do not need a lecture from
the member opposite. I was at the table when the auditor
general's report came out. I was vice-chairman at that time. I
know full well what the auditor general reported. We as a
committee then went into detail in terms of what we were prepared
to do.
I want to point something out to the hon. member. He should
really think hard, deep, fast and long about getting his facts
straight. It was not the media, it was not the grandstanding
opposition types, especially the member for Calgary—Nose Hill
who with grandstanding kerfuffle and all kinds of outrageous
statements has tried to take credit for somehow flushing the
government out on this. That is incorrect, it is wrong and it is
nonsense. It was the minister who came forward and through her
audit and her process was able to begin correcting the problem.
Instead of sitting there and fabricating those kinds of myths,
members should be congratulating the minister for doing her job
and doing it effectively.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to get back to this morning's motion. Essentially,
this motion recommends “the creation of an independent public
commission of inquiry”.
What happened is that HRDC's internal auditor selected 459
projects at random—somewhat like in a survey involving 1,200
people across Canada. Of these 459 projects, 80% were
problematic, had not followed the normal procedure. What is
worse is that 37 were extremely problematic. Of these 37, the
RCMP are investigating 19 throughout Canada, three of them in
the riding of Saint-Maurice, the Prime Minister's riding.
With his usual verve, the Prime Minister told us that only $250
had been misspent. Our suspicion is that, if all 11,000
projects were audited, the HRDC scandal would involve somewhere
between $1 billion and $3 billion, an amount unprecedented in
Canada; it is mind-boggling.
1130
The Liberal Party has been accused of buying votes, and what
happened in Saint-Maurice in 1997 clinches it. The Prime
Minister literally won the election by handing out taxpayers'
money and, unfortunately, this money was misused as in the case
of Placeteco. This was on the news last night. It is
scandalous.
I ask the member opposite to tell me how the Liberals are going
to be able to refuse to create an independent commission of
inquiry to look into all the projects when the vote is held at
5.30 p.m.
[English]
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed in the
hon. member's assertions and I totally reject, out of hand, his
comments, especially with respect to the riding of Saint-Maurice.
He should be a little more careful in terms of what he says.
Instead of denigrating the constituents of that great riding,
instead of denigrating, by extension, Quebecers, he should be
standing in his place and celebrating the fact that the
Government of Canada wants to put in place the kinds of grants
and contributions that are appropriate for people who are in
need. He should be celebrating that.
In direct response to his questions—and I got to the substance
of this in my speech—we have the kinds of checks and balances
that are in place. We have the auditor general's report, for
example, which will come out in the fall. The auditor general is
an officer of the House. I cannot believe the opposition is
taking the kind of swipes at the auditor general that it is
doing. It is outrageous.
The Auditor General of Canada, who is an officer of this House,
has the prerogative to look into this whole issue, to examine it
thoroughly and to bring about the kinds of recommendations that
will be meaningful for Canadians. What do the Reformers do? They
dismiss it out of hand and say that he is not good enough. I
take exception because I work with the auditor general and I know
exactly the kind of work he will do.
As for the RCMP, I was involved with the regional police for 10
years. I was chairman of the police. I know that those kinds of
investigations go on all the time. For the member to stand in
his place and imply that there is some kind of scandal going on
here is absolutely outrageous and he should retract.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
unlike the previous speaker from the Liberals, I would like to
speak specifically about the motion that is before the House
today and hopefully not get into the same kind of rant that he
decided to get into.
The motion reads:
That this House condemn the government for the poor management
seen at the Department of Human Resources Development,
particularly in the award and use of grants for partisan
purposes, and that it recommend the creation of an independent
public commission of inquiry, whose members will be appointed by
the House, and whose mandate will be to inquire into all
practices of that department and to report to the House by
September 19, 2000.
I will be keying in very specifically on the issue of the
independent public commission of inquiry. There is nothing more
important to this scandal than that we get to the bottom of it
and the only way we will get to the bottom of it is with an
independent public inquiry.
The last thing the Liberals would want is an independent public
inquiry. I know this because of my experience in attempting to
pursue the involvement of the Prime Minister in the APEC affair
as it happened and unfolded in November 1997 in Vancouver.
This government knows by experience that the longer the process
is drawn out the less relevant it is. Clearly, it has managed to
bury the Prime Minister's involvement in the suppression of
Canadians' freedom of expression and their fundamental rights
that they hold as Canadian citizens. It has managed to bury this
in a totally irrelevant process which, again I say, is why I am
speaking specifically to the issue in the motion of the
importance of an independent inquiry.
1135
The government's answer to accountability is damage control. It
deflects the issue hoping that people become bored and it
complicates the issue until it is no longer recognizable. As I
said, the APEC inquiry is an absolute classic example of this.
In the Prime Minister's 36 years of public life, he has learned
how to use the system to protect himself, particularly by burying
the issues.
The Canadian people want simple answers to the question in APEC:
Was the Prime Minister involved in suppressing Canadians' freedom
of expression? Is there support for my position that indeed that
was the case?
Here is why that matters, as expressed by Craig Jones, one of
the jailed protesters. He said:
The root issue for me is to what extent we are going to accept
the political control of the RCMP by the executive branch of the
government.
Why it is important to the people of Canada is the significance
of the separation of executive and enforcement or politicians
from police. Where there is a dictatorship there are politicians
directing the police. Where there is a democracy we are supposed
to have a firewall between politicians and police.
To the issue of accountability and to the issue of an
independent inquiry, I refer you, Mr. Speaker, to September 21,
1998 when I asked the Prime Minister the following question:
I would ask the Prime Minister one more time...Will he admit that
his fingerprints are all over this process, that he is fully
responsible for the fact that democratic rights of Canadians were
taken away as a public statement, a political statement by him?
The solicitor general of the day said:
I would appeal to the members opposite to recognize the
appropriate role for the public complaints commission that was
established by parliament. It deserves our support and I would
ask the members opposite to give it to the commission.
The relevance to this motion is that the public complaints
commission was the incorrect body to be looking into this issue.
The relevance to this motion is that I suggest that the human
resources development minister's appraisal of the problem, as she
sees it under her so-called six point program, is the incorrect
vehicle to be taking a look at this.
Let us take a look at the APEC affair to see how this became
convoluted and how a proper inquiry ended up being twisted and
pulled out of the realm of possibility.
I asked the following question on September 24, 1998:
There is no level of inquiry. There is the public complaints
commission, and I quote from the RCMP Act “They only may look
into any member or any other person employed under the authority
of this act.
That is what the public complaints commission can look into. It
is strictly a snow job that the solicitor general is doing—
The solicitor general again said:
This inquiry has exactly the same powers as the kind of inquiry
that the hon. member was demanding, very specifically the powers
of a broad inquiry.
I point out again that throughout this entire affair the
respective solicitors general and the Deputy Prime Minister all
said that this was the correct vehicle, which is why we support
the Bloc Quebecois motion.
If we are going to get to the bottom of this scandal at Human
Resources Development Canada, the only way we will get there is
through an independent public inquiry.
On October 20, 1998, I asked the Prime Minister, with respect to
the APEC affair, why he was trying to bury this affair under the
public complaints commission. I quote the Prime Minister, who
said:
I want people to understand that it is the opposition that should
apologize for depriving the Canadian people of an independent
body to look into that problem.
He was either unaware, uninformed or in fact wilfully said
things that were not accurate when he made that statement because
this has never been an independent public inquiry. This has
always come under the public complaints commission which was
never ever designed to uncover the fingerprints of the Prime
Minister with regard to this issue.
1140
I must say that Commissioner Ted Hughes has a tremendous task
ahead of him. In my judgment he has been doing an outstanding
job, yet he is still not getting to the bottom of it.
In February 1999 the Prime Minister committed to the House that
everyone from his office and the government would be available to
testify. Considering the number of fingerprints the Prime
Minister had on the APEC affair, we assumed everyone included
himself.
However, totally contrary to the representations made by the
Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the respective
solicitors general, and contrary to the answers to the questions
that we had posed in question period, the lawyers for the
government, understandably, argued in front of the commissioner
that the Prime Minister should not appear. It was something of a
surprise that the solicitor for the commission itself also argued
to the commissioner, in public at the commission hearing, that
the Prime Minister not appear. However, it went over the top
when the lawyer for the RCMP argued at the public complaints
commission that the Prime Minister should not appear.
Again I say that the reason we support the Bloc Quebecois motion
that is before the House is because of the importance and
significance of an independent public inquiry to get to the
bottom of the HRDC scandal.
On February 28, 2000 the Prime Minister said that he did not
have to go to the inquiry because he could reply to questions in
the House. He has repeatedly stated in the House that he will not
answer questions and that we should let the commission do its
job. However, forget that, the commissioner is trying to do his
job. When it was convenient, the Prime Minister hid behind the
incorrect vehicle and this government chose to cover up for the
Prime Minister.
I pointed out that there were three important differences
between the House and the APEC inquiry: First, witnesses are
under oath; second, witnesses may be cross-examined and their
statement of facts may be challenged; and furthermore, the answer
from a witness may exceed 35 seconds.
In summary, from the example Canadians have before them about
the coverup by the politicians directing the police at the APEC
inquiry and the fact that the government wilfully chose to hide
that inquiry under the incorrect vehicle, the public complaints
commission, clearly the House must support the Bloc motion to
call for an independent inquiry to uncover the facts relating to
the scandal at HRDC.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened
carefully to the speech by the member of the Reform Party and I
would have a few questions for him.
He said, I want to thank him for it, that he will support the
motion brought forward by the Bloc Quebecois to have an
independent, non-partisan public inquiry. The Liberals have great
difficulty telling what is non-partisan. Perhaps I misheard, but
I would like to know if this is the member's personal position
or that of his party, if this will be a free vote or a party
vote.
Unfortunately for him, I would like to respond briefly to the
Liberal member, who is accusing us of all evils. I think that,
if he could eliminate us, he would do it in a flash.
He accuses us of having an alliance with the Reform Party on the
issue of good management of public funds. We are not against
having programs. But regardless of the amount, be it $100,000,
$1 million, $10 million or $1 billion, I think all Canadians,
whether Reformers, BQ, NDP or what not, want that money to be
well spent and well managed. That is all we want. Priorities
will be identified later.
We are accused of ignoring the auditor general's
recommendations. For the benefit of the Liberal members who will
follow this debate, I would simply like to point out that the
auditor general wrote, and I quote:
Over the past two decades, my office has carried out several
audits of the management of grant and contribution programs by
federal departments and agencies. These audits identified
persistent shortcomings.
1145
He further wrote, and I quote:
I can't help but express a certain degree of frustration with
the management of grant and contribution programs.
This shows the role of the auditor general in denouncing the
shameless squandering of grants by the Liberal Party. I would
also like the Reform member to comment on that and to tell us
what his party's position is on the matter.
[English]
Mr. Jim Abbott: Mr. Speaker, our party will be supporting
the motion for the reasons I stated. Clearly there must be a
full independent public inquiry into this affair.
This affair is a matter of principle, which is something that
the parliamentary secretary clearly did not understand in her
presentation for the government today. She said “What is the
big deal? This is only one—” and then she gave some kind of
fraction, 1/186th or whatever it was. I do not know. It had
something to do with Liberal math, so I do not really understand
it.
There are dollars and cents involved. However, the most
important issue is not the dollars and cents. The most important
issue is that the government goes out of its way constantly to
pat itself on the back, calling itself a wonderful manager of the
Canadian taxpayers' funds, when in fact it is not. It is
absolutely cavalier with the money that comes from the Canadian
taxpayer to the public treasury. On top of that, it gets
involved in a process that is a cover-up, because it works these
funds as it sees fit.
Last Thursday and Friday were absolutely classic examples. The
minister herself did not have a clue as to whether there was a
fourth police inquiry into this affair in the Prime Minister's
riding. First she said there was, and then she said there was
not. It struck us over the weekend that the people in her
department changed the facts so that they ended up supporting the
minister's utterances.
If there was ever a reason for an independent public inquiry,
this is it, and the time is now.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, for five
weeks we have been led to believe that the Reform Party is
opposed to the government's regional development programs and
that all it wanted to do is object.
I would like to remind the House briefly that there is a
$27 billion surplus in the employment insurance fund. The
transitional job fund was created to try to make up for the
money taken away from unemployed workers, and to help them find
work.
Could my hon. colleague tell us if the Reform Party is opposed
to the program or only to the way it is managed and to the
government's lack of accountability for taxpayers' money?
[English]
Mr. Jim Abbott: Mr. Speaker, very clearly what this is
about is the mismanagement of funds. There is a difference of
opinion between ourselves and the NDP on how to effect these
changes. That is part of the political process. Indeed, when we
get to an election it will be part of the dialogue.
That is not the issue. The issue is the gross mismanagement and
the cavalier attitude that the Liberals have toward hard earned
tax dollars. It does not even control the disbursement of those
tax dollars. That is the issue.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to rise in debate on this supply day motion from my
colleagues in the third party, that the House condemn the
government for the very poor management brought to the attention
of the Minister of Human Resources Development, notably in the
allocation and use of grants for partisan purposes, and recommend
the creation of an independent public inquiry commission whose
members would be named by the House and whose mandate it would be
to investigate the overall practices of that department and to
report to the House no later than September 19, 2000.
Speaking on behalf of members of the official opposition, we
intend to support this motion, although we would like to see an
inquiry into this very grave matter conducted by the auditor
general rather than an independent commission.
1150
The predicate of this motion is that the government has engaged
in classic pork barrel political spending of the most grotesque
kind, the kind of politics which I thought a modern liberal
democracy would have advanced beyond. But in fact what we see
through the granting programs administered by the Minister of
Human Resources Development and many of her other colleagues is
that public money is increasingly being used under this
government for partisan purposes. That ought not to be happening
in a liberal democracy under the rule of law.
Due to the very diligent research of the official opposition, we
have managed to uncover a mountain of information about the
misadministration of over a billion public dollars through the
human resources department. We know that because of access to
information requests submitted by the official opposition special
audits revealed that 80% of grants made by HRDC showed no
financial monitoring, 87% showed no supervision, 97% showed no
attempt to find out if the recipient already owed money to the
government, 11% had no budget proposal on file and, incredibly,
15% had no application on file for money that was received from
the government.
We have uncovered more and more information as the weeks have
gone by. Just yesterday we revealed in the House an internal
audit conducted of the TAGS program during the period 1994 to
last year which revealed similar misadministration and abuse of
public funds.
The Prime Minister and the minister of HRDC say that this is
just an administrative error, a series of coincidental
administrative errors for which the political ministry takes no
responsibility and merely passes the buck to what the
parliamentary secretary to HRDC yesterday referred to as lowly
bureaucrats.
Not only have we seen the complete rejection of the concept,
tradition and convention of ministerial responsibility, but, more
shockingly, what we see when we look below the surface, when we
look at these grants, is the gross politicization of granting
programs of this nature.
To take an example, the number of grant approvals from the HRD
department skyrocketed near the end of the last election. What a
surprise. What a coincidence.
Some members may recall having seen a graph. I think it was
published on the front page, above the fold, in the Ottawa
Citizen some three weeks ago. It graphically represented
the findings of the official opposition's research, which showed
that the grant approvals and announcements were on a flat line
throughout most of 1996 and 1997. Then, all of a sudden we came
to April, May and June, the time of the last federal election,
and there was this huge spike in the number of approvals and
announcements of HRD grants.
I am sure it was just a coincidence that it was concurrent with
the last federal writ being dropped in May 1997. When we look at
the hard numbers, though, 592 approvals were made in April 1997
when the government knew it would drop the writ for the last
general election, and that number, the 592 approvals, was four
times higher than the monthly average of targeted wage subsidy
approvals for the period April 1996 to August 1999.
What we see is clearly the government abusing its power, abusing
its control over public resources, abusing its control of the
bureaucracy to force the approval of granting programs in the
targeted wage subsidies administered by HRD for its own political
advantage. I find this to be really quite reprehensible.
There is further evidence. Last year the minister of HRDC's
riding received over three times the national average in targeted
wage subsidy money. In spite of the fact that her own riding did
not qualify for any such grants, in spite of the fact that it had
one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country, it was
receiving more grant money than ridings with much higher
unemployment rates which qualified for the program. This is more
political interference.
1155
The Prime Minister's riding, the home of the famous Versailles
water fountain, the home of the hon. member for let them eat
cake, received more grant money than all of the prairie provinces
combined. I am sure that is just a coincidence. I am sure that
all of the phone calls, faxes and letters from the Prime
Minister's office to bureaucrats in HRDC asking for the
expedition and approval of granting programs, some of which had
not yet made application, were merely coincidental. There was no
political pressure. I am sure it was just one lowly—to coin a
phrase—member of parliament doing his job for his constituents.
If members buy that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn for them.
Canadians do not buy that kind of evasion. Canadians know the
abuse of public funds for political purposes when they see it,
and they see it now in spades with the Right Hon. member for
Shawinigan.
A letter from a human resources department official reveals
that the Prime Minister deliberately broke the rules regarding
regional distribution of grant money, because he was instructed
to approve grants in the Prime Minister's riding. We see this
pattern over and over again. We find that there is substantial
and compelling evidence that the government has systematically
engaged in the partisan use and abuse of public funds for its own
political benefit. I am talking about senior ministers' ridings
and the Prime Minister's riding. Grants have been forced to be
approved and announced immediately before election time. This
demonstrates the kind of corruption which is at the heart of the
granting process.
We believe that in a modern liberal democracy, governed by the
rule of law and parliamentary conventions, these kinds of pork
barrel spending programs are outdated. I am sure this is news to
the Prime Minister, but this is not money that belongs to the
Liberal Party of Canada. It is not money held in trust by the
member for Saint-Maurice. It is not money that belongs to
anybody but the people who have earned it and paid for it, and
who have had it taken away from them by government.
Yesterday in this place we debated the fact that the government
has cut some $21 billion from health care during its tenure since
1993, all the while increasing boondoggle prone spending such as
the HRDC grants. We saw in the recent budget tabled in the House
by the hon. Minister of Finance that the government is going to
increase boondoggle prone spending and granting programs like the
transitional jobs fund and the targeted wage subsidies faster
than it is going to increase spending on health care, which is by
far the highest public priority. Why? Not because these
programs create jobs. On average, the jobs created by these
programs cost several times more than the job is actually worth
on an annual basis. It is because the government is seeking to
gain and maximize political partisan benefits for its members and
perspective candidates in the next election. That is why we will
concur and support the Bloc Quebecois motion to seek an
independent inquiry, although we would rather see it conducted,
as we have asked already, through the office of the auditor
general, an officer of the House.
The Leader of the Official Opposition has written to the auditor
general seeking such an inquiry. We hope that he will respond.
If not, we hope that an independent inquiry, the likes of which
are contemplated by this motion, will finally get to the bottom
of this mess and this corruption.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I will
repeat my question again to my colleague from the Reform Party.
He seems to be indicating that the programs are not creating
jobs. I come from Acadie—Bathurst, in northeastern New Brunswick,
and I can tell you that we have been hard hit by the changes to
the employment insurance. I would be reluctant to say the
program did not help our small businesses create jobs. The
Reform Party keeps on saying that no program can help. I must
disagree.
1200
My question is for the hon. member from the Reform Party. I
would like him to be somewhat clearer than his colleague.
Does he believe government programs can help create jobs in
regions like mine where there are no jobs? If one looks at the
peninsula, the unemployment rate climbs to 40% in winter when
there is no more fishing.
It is not the program that should be criticized, but its
management. We would like to get to the bottom of this. We would
like a public inquiry to get to the bottom of this and save
those programs that are good for Canadians.
[English]
Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, I concur with my colleague
from Acadie—Bathurst in that our principal concern today is the
misadministration of these programs. That is the focus of this
motion, which is why we will be supporting it.
The member asked if I and my party oppose programs of this
nature in principle. I believe, having studied the case
experience of governments across the world, that a dollar left in
the hands of an entrepreneur, an investor, a small business
person or working family is more effective in creating wealth,
jobs and a higher standard of living than a dollar transferred
through the enormous federal bureaucracy and distributed through
so-called job creation schemes.
I agree that there ought to be an effective program for job
creation, particularly in economically disadvantaged regions. I
think that the most effective program would be significant tax
relief which would increase the incentives for people to invest,
take risks, work and save.
Although we may have a philosophical difference with the member
for Acadie—Bathurst on that point, we do have an agreement with
respect to the need to review and completely overhaul the
misadministration of programs, such as the one we are discussing
today.
Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State (Latin America and
Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, further to what the member for
Calgary Southeast just said, I know that he does not want to deny
people with disabilities money any more than we do.
Where would he draw the line? Could he amplify on what he has
just said in terms of these grants?
Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, I am not addressing grants
for the severely disabled. I worked for organizations raising
money for the severely disabled. I believe that the severely
disabled, more than any other constituents in society, deserve
our public support. They are the most vulnerable and, in most
cases, do not have the capacity to find gainful employment.
However, that is not what we are talking about. We are talking
about the targeted wage subsidies and the transitional jobs fund
that have been misadministered. I doubt very much that the huge
increase in the number of approvals for the targeted wage
subsidies in April 1997, one month before the federal writ was
dropped, was done for reasons of compassion for the disabled. I
rather suspect it was done for reasons of partisan necessity on
the part of Liberal candidates.
I concur with the member that there ought to be programs to
assist the disabled, but I do not think that has anything to do
with the explosive numbers of so-called job creation grants
announced concurrent with the federal election. Those are two
entirely separate issues and we ought not to confuse them.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I will be
sharing my time with my colleague from Vancouver East.
I am pleased to speak today on the Bloc Quebecois motion calling
for a public commission of inquiry into the HRDC contributions
scandal.
The mismanagement of contributions programs by this Liberal
government is not just a matter of financial management, it is
also a question of credibility.
Because this government has not assumed its responsibilities and
has neglected to manage this contributions program, Canadians no
longer have any confidence in the government's role in job
creation. And yet, the transitional job fund is not a bad
program in itself.
1205
The government definitely has a role to play in job creation,
but by using these funds for political purposes the Liberals
have taken away Canadians' confidence in their government and in
their MPs.
The government has a role to play because Canadians have always
asked “What are we getting in return for all the taxes we pay?”
From 1986 to 1993, the Conservative government initiated the
cuts to employment insurance, and now the Liberal government is
continuing these cuts. What was needed, supposedly, was
something to try to get some jobs back.
Is it working? Perhaps not, but there are certainly some for
whom jobs have been created.
In my riding of Acadie—Bathurst, the money helped businesses in
my region. The people who got work, who were able to work, are
proud of it. At issue in the House today is the way it was
managed, and I will get back to that a little later.
It suits the Reformers to have the government's credibility
undermined by this mismanagement, but it is not in the interest
of Canadians. The Reform Party wants us to end government
assistance programs.
I put questions twice in a row to my Reform colleagues. They
told me specifically that they are not in favour of job creation
programs. They did say it was all right for the
handicapped—perhaps they will have a hard time answering that—but
they are willing to drop the rest.
I have to say that I believe that when a person has no work,
that person is almost handicapped. When a man has no work and
has a wife and children to feed and the children go to school on
an empty stomach, he is almost handicapped.
It is important to maintain the programs and for the government
to gain back some credibility through them. If the government
has hidden nothing regarding the programs, it should undertake a
public inquiry, it should put it out on the table. For the past
five or six weeks this House has been held hostage because of
government credibility in the programs it has mismanaged.
The Reform members would be happy to see the government get out
of pension, health and income security programs. Now the
Liberals are helping the Reformers with their agenda of reducing
the role of government.
As I just said, this House has been paralyzed for five weeks
because of the scandal at Human Resources Development Canada.
What is clear is that, in spite of the efforts of all the
opposition parties to shed light on what happened, we have no
answers to fundamental issues surrounding the management of HRDC
grants.
We must immediately set up an independent public commission of
inquiry to get non partisan and legitimate answers. Canadian
taxpayers' money was mismanaged and there are clear indications
that it was used for political purposes.
It is not normal, for instance, for a company in the region of
Mataquac, to receive about $16,000 and then, during the same
month, to give the Liberals over $7,900, just before an election
campaign. This is not normal. We have to look into this.
It is not normal for the Prime Minister of Canada to sell his
share of a business to a friend who does not even have the money
to pay him and then, all of sudden, for that friend to receive a
grant from the government. When will Canadians wake up, once and
for all, indicate in the polls that their support for the
Liberals is much less than 60% or 50%, and tell the Liberals
that the programs are being mismanaged by the Prime Minister?
This is the same person who authorized the cuts to employment
insurance. My riding of Acadie—Bathurst loses over $65 million a
year because of these cuts to EI benefits, and people are
suffering.
Let us take an example. The riding of Vancouver East, my
colleague's riding, could not even qualify for the transitional
jobs fund, since the unemployment rate there is over 13%.
Before she was elected as an NDP member, her predecessor, the
incumbent before 1997, was entitled to the benefits of the
transitional jobs fund. Is this not an issue that should be
looked into?
1210
Last week I was at the meeting of the Standing Committee on
Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with
Disabilities. I asked the question: When was the transitional
job fund criterion changed to allow projects in regions with
unemployment rates of 8% when there are other regions with
higher rates of unemployment?
The answer was that it was changed in June 1998. How was it
that the Liberal member for Vancouver East received money
before 1997?
We are sick and tired of these lies that are offered up day
after day. We want a public inquiry to lay the matter to rest
once and for all and to save our programs. That is why the NDP
will be voting in favour of this motion and I congratulate the
Bloc Quebecois on moving it.
Is the Prime Minister afraid of the truth? Does it make any
sense that an American company such as Wal-Mart, which is making
billions and which has just set up a warehouse in Canada and
does not need money, should receive $500,000 from the
government, when this same government and the Prime Minister are
saying that Atlantic Canadians abused the EI system and that
that is why benefits had to be cut?
This sort of thing looks bad. It is the sort of thing that is
going to lose us programs. This is why it is very important
that this commission of inquiry be created, so that some light
can be shed and so that the House can be freed up to deal with
other problems facing Canadians, such as health, which is the
number one problem in this country, and the cutbacks in our
health care programs. Right now, the NDP is the only party in
the House that has risen every day and asked questions on health
since the budget was brought down.
If we did not have this problem at HRDC, maybe the opposition
parties could do their job and take their responsibilities.
If the Prime Minister of Canada has nothing to fear from
whatever was done in Shawinigan, then he should allow the
setting up of a public commission of inquiry that could finally
shed some light on this scandal and on the lack of credibility
of this government.
People in our ridings tell us “This does not make sense. These
things have to stop. It is high time this matter was cleared up
once and for all. We want you to be able to work on other
issues, such as our health care system, which we are in the
process of losing”.
I think this is very important, and I will repeat it again. They
say sometimes you have to repeat something 27 times before it
gets into people's heads.
The transitional jobs fund was created only and specifically
because of EI cuts. Today, the Reform Party would like that
program eliminated. The only reason for that is that they do not
have any member in our part of the country. In winter, in the
Acadian peninsula, the unemployment rate, can reach 40%, because
the fishing industry is closed.
Again, I am asking the House to support the motion brought
forward by the Bloc Quebecois for the creation of a public
commission of inquiry to enlighten parliament and all Canadians.
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I consider myself very lucky that I happened to walk by
the House and I overheard the comments made by my colleague, the
member for Acadie—Bathurst, who is also the whip for the NDP.
I would like to remind him that for several years the city of
Cornwall, which is the biggest city in my riding, had a
unemployment rate much higher than the national average. However,
in the last two years, thanks to the programs provided by Human
Resources Development Canada, we have been so successful that we
have managed to reduce the unemployment rate by 8%. The
unemployment rate is now at 10% in the largest city in my riding,
Cornwall, Ontario. Members opposite referred to one company in
particular, which is Wal-Mart.
1215
I will not apologize today no more than I did yesterday. I can
assure the House that if I had the opportunity I would do the
same thing all over again. In partnership with Human Resources
Development Canada which made an important contribution of
$500,000, and the city of Cornwall, we made an agreement with a
developer, Metrus Properties, which turned the site into a
commercial distribution centre for a company known as Supply
Chain Management. This company, and I say it openly and with
pride, has one customer, Wal-Mart. Today this distribution centre
in Cornwall has around 250 workers.
People will say “But, sir, would you have us believe that if
HRDC had not made this $500,000 investment, the company would not
have settled in Cornwall?” I cannot say for sure, but before,
when we did not have HRDC funding, we were never as successful as
we are now.
I would even venture to say that without this significant
investment from HRDC, this would not be such a success story.
What I am saying is what is important is not so much who gets the
money as who gets the job done and creates employment. What my
colleague from Acadie—Bathurst wants for his constituents and
every Canadian is jobs. This is a case in point.
What I am asking my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst is whether
he agrees that this outcome shows the importance of this program
which made it possible to bring 300 jobs to our area, plus all
the indirect ones?
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, this might give me the
opportunity to make another speech instead of answering a
question.
First, I want to thank my hon. colleague, the chief government
whip, who talked in his speech about Wal-Mart and another
company.
The problem is that these transitional jobs fund programs were
meant to help companies which lacked the necessary cashflow to
create jobs, not to induce a company to settle in one riding
rather than another. When Wal-Mart settled in Canada, it was
going to have stock distribution centers whether we liked it or
not. Automatically it did not really need this grant.
I do not want to take anything away from my hon. colleague. He
got it and I am happy for him.
Mr. Bob Kilger: It could have gone to Toronto.
Mr. Yvon Godin: The hon. member says the company could have
gone to Toronto. It does not matter, that is Canadian.
However, each and every day the Minister of Human Resources
Development stands in the House and says “It does not matter
where jobs are created in Canada. It does not make any difference
if these jobs are created in Toronto, in Montreal, or in
Acadie—Bathurst. What is important is that we are creating
jobs”. That is what she said.
If the minister wants to change her tune and say that we are
going to help the regions in need, such as the Acadie—Bathurst
region where our people are in a big black hole, with no
employment insurance, no social assistance and no jobs, because
that is where the money should go, I will stand up and I will
applaud her and I will tell her that she is doing the right
thing.
[English]
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
thank my colleague the member for Acadie—Bathurst for his
remarks.
I have just come from the HRD committee. The former deputy
minister of HRDC was before the committee for a couple of hours.
I managed to get in a couple of questions before coming to speak
in the House.
1220
One thing really struck me. Obviously committees are important
for questions and answers and trying to uncover what happened at
HRDC. But if anybody in the House or in the public believes that
we will get to the truth of what happened at HRDC in terms of the
internal audit and the findings that have come out of that and
what happens at this point, they are badly mistaken. It is a
very limited format. The deputy minister was there for a couple
of hours. A member gets one or two questions. The limits of
that format really prescribe that we will not get at the truth.
I wanted to say that because the Bloc Quebecois motion before us
today calls for an independent public inquiry. As my colleague
from Acadie—Bathurst has said, we in the NDP wholeheartedly
support the motion. We have been calling for an independent
public inquiry from day one, for the last six weeks when the
issue first surfaced in the House. We believe that if the
Canadian public is really to understand what has happened at HRDC
and in fact to understand how government works and how these
decisions are made, it will take an independent public inquiry to
do that job, with the resources and scope, and unfettered by the
rules of the committee and even what happens here in the House.
We support the motion.
There is another very important reason for holding a public
inquiry. We in the NDP philosophically have always strongly
supported job development programs. We support the role of the
government in intervening in the marketplace and trying to ensure
that we bring about a greater equality in our society. The
marketplace is the greatest instrument of inequality in the
country. We believe very strongly that the purpose and role of
government among other things is to provide an intervention and
to use public funds and to say that job development is a
legitimate use of public funds. We believe that.
What has happened in the last six weeks in the House has
undermined that. If there is any question about that, just look
at the Reform Party opposition day motion yesterday. What have
Reformers been doing? They have been asking questions every day
in the House about the HRDC scandal. They have chosen the path
basically to undermine these programs and now even say that they
want to divert moneys from other programs in the last federal
budget and put them back into the Canada health and social
transfer.
We have a very different view and perspective on the issue. We
want to see public programs strengthened. We want to see these
public programs have credibility.
The Liberals have played right into the hands of the Reform
Party. Because of this scandal, because they have refused to
come clean, they have played right into the hands of the Reform
Party. Now there is a great public cynicism about any
expenditure of public funds. Our job is to restore confidence.
One way to do that is through a public inquiry.
What would a public inquiry do? Two key issues need to be
looked at and as I said earlier, they will not be addressed in
any parliamentary committee.
The first is administration. There is no question that the
internal audit uncovered very sloppy practices. Paperwork was
not done. Follow up was not done. Accounting was not done. There
are the administrative issues in terms of what happens when the
public service is cut back, what happens when people are thrown
out of work and the work is loaded on to the remaining public
servants. I think it was 5,000 people who were thrown out of
their jobs at HRDC.
Issues in terms of the administration of the department, the
accountability, the hierarchy, how those decisions were made are
very important to get at because my guess is, and I think
everybody in the House would agree, that what has happened at
HRDC is probably a reflection of what goes on in other
departments.
1225
We are talking about a massive department. It is the single
largest federal government department. If those problems were
uncovered in a random internal audit, what else is there that
needs to be dealt with and brought into line?
That would be the first major issue in terms of a public
inquiry. It must look at the administrative questions in terms
of this huge department that effected cutbacks and has sloppy
administration and what needs to be done there.
The second issue and the reason for our support of the motion is
to get at something that is a lot more difficult to examine. It
has to be done very carefully and with a sense of good faith and
genuine process. It is to look at the relationship of a
parliament, a governing party and the bureaucracy. That is the
political nature of the grants and contributions.
We are all elected representatives. We are political creatures.
I have been involved in politics for 25 years. I understand
politics. I know we are political people. We make political
decisions. However something that happened at HRDC goes beyond
that. I believe that billions of dollars were being used for a
partisan political purpose. To me that goes beyond the line. The
questions that have been raised in the House day after day have
not been answered. That is another reason an independent public
inquiry is needed.
We in the NDP want to know exactly what are the rules. I asked
Mr. Cappe that a few minutes ago in the committee. The knowledge
I have is that there is a huge variation in terms of how members
of parliament were involved in these decisions. In some areas,
and I would suggest Liberal dominated areas, the involvement of
the members was massive and it was very politicized. In other
areas it was much more of a staffing decision about the
transitional jobs fund or other programs.
As one member of parliament I want to know that there are fair
rules. I want to know that my riding or my colleague's riding of
Winnipeg Centre are not being treated differently from a
government member's riding because we are in opposition. It
scares the hell out of me when we see what is coming out of the
audit and the questions that have come up. We see the
contradictions, the double standards, the different rules
depending on where people are from and who they are. That is
scandalous. We have got to get to the bottom of that.
Some members represent ridings that have very high unemployment,
yet they did not qualify for transitional jobs funds. Why? We
were told that the unemployment rate was not high enough, because
the region we are part of, such as Vancouver or Winnipeg, did not
have high enough unemployment. We said fine, if that was the
rule we could live by that. Then we found out that in other
areas exceptions were made. Fuzzy little pockets were created and
somehow lots of money slipped into areas with much lower
unemployment. Warning bells went off in my head when I heard
that.
We want there to be clear rules. We want there to be an end to
the politicization. We also want to get at some questions of
where public funds should go. I heard the government member in
response to my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst say that it is not
a matter of who gets the money, it is the jobs that are created.
I say that it is a matter of who gets the money.
I have big questions about why when we look at the 100 most
profitable corporations in Canada 49 of them including the five
major banks get public funds. Who is handing out what and to
whom? That is the question. Why would we support a program that
puts other businesses out of work? If some guy wants to create
the sock company of the world and it turns out that he is putting
every other poor little business person around him out of
business, is that a good expenditure of public funds? I do not
think so. There are some very major questions.
At the end of the day we represent the Canadian public.
Canadians have a right to feel a level of confidence in the
expenditure of their funds. It is our duty to be accountable in
the House for those funds. It is the government's duty to be
accountable.
I believe that only if there is an independent public inquiry
will the public's confidence be restored in terms of HRDC and
other departments and then we can move on. We support the
motion. We call on the government to not let politics get in the
way of this. Do the right thing and support an independent
public inquiry.
1230
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
reason I rise to ask a question of my colleague from Vancouver
East is that I want to go on record, and I want her to go on
record, with the question that I will raise with her.
All the time those pockets of unemployment were in Vancouver
East, we know that the Liberal who was in Vancouver East before
1997 received money. We just heard our colleague say that she
was not told that the riding could get money if it had pockets of
unemployment that were even higher than its own region. We heard
the minister say it existed for a period of time. I raised a
question in the committee of human resources last week and was
told it started in June 1998 and all MPs were advised of it.
My question is clear and I want the hon. member to answer. Was
she advised that if her region had pockets of unemployment it
could apply for a grant from the government to help the workers
of Vancouver East where there is a high level of unemployment? I
think this is important. If the answer is that she was not told,
then I would suggest that that is why we need this inquiry to
clear the air once and for all to save our programs for Canadians
who need it badly and to be able to help people in regions where
there is high unemployment.
Ms. Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my
colleague for the question because it is a question that is very
specific. It does address one of the big issues that we have had
with this whole process in terms of how information is provided
to members.
Like many new members, when I was elected in 1997 the first
thing I tried to do was make myself familiar with what was
available in terms of government programs and support because we
get people coming to us all the time and the first thing they
want to know is what federal funds they can access. I think all
of us make it our business to try to find out about that.
I want to say that I have a good working relationship with the
local HRDC office and staff. It is important that I know what
they are doing, that we know what the priorities of the riding
are and so on.
I remember when I heard about the transitional jobs fund that I
actually checked to find out whether or not we qualified. The
information was that Vancouver East did not qualify because of
these regions. Then we heard about pockets that exist. The
issue of how those rules were made and how that was communicated
is a mystery to me in terms of one member of parliament
absolutely not being aware that certain areas could qualify under
different kinds of rules.
Again, I think it begs the question about who makes the
decisions, how are those decisions followed through and whether
or not we have rules being made after the fact in order to cover
up where those disbursements were made. This is what we want to
get clear. We want to have fair rules for everybody. We want
the rules to be transparent. We want the rules to be clear so
that we can say to the government that public confidence can be
restored in the way these programs work.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I really
appreciated the remarks by my colleague from Vancouver East. I
would like to draw her attention to the internal audit report,
which indicated very clearly the carelessness this government
has shown in managing the transitional jobs fund.
When the internal audit report shows that there was no
indication of supervision in 87% of the projects, no indication
of financial control in 80% of them and no indication that the
expected results were obtained in 75% of them, there is a
problem.
I could go on, because the internal audit report speaks volumes
on the matter.
My question to the member for Vancouver East is very simple: In
light of these conclusions, does the internal audit report not
indicate more than ever that an independent public commission of
inquiry has to be set up right away?
1235
[English]
Ms. Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question
from my hon. colleague. Just to reiterate and affirm, we in the
NDP see two basic problems. One of the reasons we need to have a
public inquiry is because of the serious administrative problems
that were uncovered by the audit, such as the lack of
follow-through, applications not being filled out adequately,
lack of monitoring and so on. The results of the internal audit
make it abundantly clear that the implications for the government
as a whole are enormous. If this is happening in HRDC, where
else is this taking place? For that very reason alone, an
independent public inquiry is required.
I would also stress that the political nature of the decision
making is something that is very serious. It is more difficult
to get at but it also needs to be part of that inquiry. We
support the motion on that basis.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is
my pleasure to rise today on behalf of the Progressive
Conservative Party to take part in this very important debate.
Canadians have many questions about what went on at Human
Resources Development Canada.
[English]
It is certainly a pleasure to enter into the debate today
because we still have many questions that are unanswered. The
government has tried to downplay what has happened in HRDC. Not
too long ago the Prime Minister got up in the House and said that
it was only 250 some odd dollars. I said what did we do? Was
that a mistake? Obviously, on our part, it was not. Something
went terribly wrong in HRDC and something went terribly wrong
with the administration of public funds.
When it all started about six or seven weeks ago, this was
supposed to go away really quickly. This was supposed to be
buried underneath the carpet. It would take a couple of days and
we would not hear any more questions on HRDC.
The department first started auditing the grants and
contributions programs in 1999 and it came up with a report in
January 2000. We certainly were not aware that there was an
audit going on. It did well in keeping us in the dark. When the
department released it, as critic for HRDC for my party, I called
for a copy of the audit so I could go over it and review what had
gone on with HRDC and the grants and contributions programs.
When I called for my copy, I received it. Maybe 10 minutes
later I received a call from HRDC to tell me that it had sent me
the wrong cover sheet and if I would be so kind to destroy the
cover sheet, it would send me a new one. La-di-da, I still have
the original cover sheet on my desk today. I did not destroy it.
Is that not a shame? I received the second cover sheet. I do
not want to use the sheets as a prop, so I will not put up the
cover sheets. When I look at the both of them, the original one
is dated October 5, 1999 and is signed off by the director,
Gilles Duclos, and James Martin. On the other one, there are the
names of the people who signed off but no date. The date has been
deleted. This is a major cover-up. This is the biggest scandal
in Canadian history. It is scandalous to try to keep Canadians
in the dark on the goings on in a government department, a
department which is owned by Canadians. This is Canadians'
parliament. They have a right to know the truth. From the very
beginning everything that has gone on has been tainted. The
government has tried to cover up important information from the
Canadian taxpayer.
1240
When we look at and read about this issue we keep uncovering
something new everyday. Every opposition party goes through it.
We have been working hard to try to get to the truth. We even
asked for the audits for 1991 and 1994.
[Translation]
We have asked for a copy of the 1991 audit, an audit conducted
nine years ago, as well as the 1994 audit. That was three weeks
ago. Why have we not received anything yet? Let me tell you why.
Mr. André Harvey: Cheques get to Shawinigan faster than that.
Mr. Jean Dubé: Canada is a bilingual country. I think we all
agree on that.
The reason why copies of the audits were not distributed to the
opposition parties is that the 1991 and 1994 documents have not
been translated.
Mr. André Harvey: It took nine years to translate them.
Mr. Antoine Dubé: They had not been translated into French. It
is absolutely incredible. Last week, a senior official, whom we
have seen on several occasions on TV since the scandal broke
out, told us it was unfortunate they had not been translated.
In the year 2000, in this new millenium, in a democratic and
bilingual country, it is not unfortunate, it is unacceptable.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: Shame on all of you.
[English]
Mr. Jean Dubé: Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, trying to
get some money from the government to create jobs in your riding.
Forget the application, it is not needed. Many files that were
opened did not even have an application. That is terrible. As a
matter of fact some of the files were empty. I am talking about
billions of dollars.
The premiers of Canada were in Quebec City demanding—
An hon. member: Grandstanding.
Mr. Jean Dubé:—they will say grandstanding because the
government thinks that health care is secondary for Canada.
Whatever the provinces say does not matter to the government. It
is because of this type of attitude that we have such a problem
in Canada.
1245
The Canadian provinces urgently demanded investments in health
care, and guess what? The Liberal government in Ottawa turned a
blind eye and closed its ears. It is absolutely unbelievable.
Mr. John Harvard: Baloney.
Mr. Jean Dubé: In my home province of New Brunswick I
have had the pleasure of meeting with the minister of health. The
member says baloney. The minister of health certainly does
not say baloney. The minister of health from the province of New
Brunswick said that what the Minister of Finance budgeted in his
budget for health care represented $20 million for New Brunswick.
He has been reading the papers quite well. It represents three
days of hospital care for New Brunswick. Will that fix the
problem?
At HRDC in Ottawa they are throwing money out the window when
people in Canada, sick people, the most vulnerable people, need
proper health care. The government would rather throw money out
the window, not discipline people for what they have done, and
turn a blind eye to health care. That is terrible.
We all hear about the privatization of health care. The Liberal
government is forcing the privatization of health care because of
its lack of investment in it. It is even forcing people to go to
other countries for care. It is terrible. All this time at HRDC
we see mismanagement, lack of transparency and lack of
accountability.
What exactly are Canadian taxpayers looking for today? Canadian
taxpayers are looking for honesty. Canadian taxpayers are
looking for transparency. Canadian taxpayers are looking for the
truth. We have been trying very hard to get the truth for
Canadian taxpayers but it has not been forthcoming.
We have had the Prime Minister flip-flopping in the House of
Commons. We have had the minister of HRDC stating to the House
and to Canadian taxpayers through the House that she knew nothing
about the goings on in grants and contributions before October
15.
[Translation]
How can we believe this? It does not make any sense that the
Minister of Human Resources Development would be unaware of what
was going on in her own department. I find this absolutely
incredible. We are talking about the management of programs, the
management of taxpayers' money, billions of dollars worth of it,
and the minister in charge does not know what is going on.
We have every right to be upset here in the House. It does not
make any sense. Nobody knows what is going on, and even the
minister knows nothing at all. The Liberals are more concerned
about what is happening within their party.
On the one hand, the finance minister is trying to become the
leader of the party, and, on the other hand, the Prime Minister
is trying to hang on to power.
Canadians want changes, and I can tell them that we are going to
keep them informed, we will tell them what is going on in
Ottawa. And what is going on here is not nice.
1250
I am a father of two. I have a boy, who is two and a half, and a
girl, who is six. What am I doing here today? What I want to
do—like the majority of MPs I guess—is give our children—that is
what we are living for these days, our children—a great place to
live.
Looking at what is going on within the federation these days, I
have a big problem, because we do not cultivate relationships
any more. Nowadays, we have to contend with the arrogance of a
government that fails to understand how the provinces feel, and
does not listen to them.
By not paying attention to what is going on, the government is
putting our federation—ours, yours and that of our children—in
jeopardy. What we are trying to do here is to protect that
federation.
I have just come from the Standing Committee on Human Resources,
whose proceedings were televised today. We heard the testimony
of Mel Cappe. I had the opportunity to ask him questions. I am
persistent in my questions, and I asked him if he was aware of
the study. He said, as everyone on the government side has
said, that he was not. That is the usual thing we hear from the
government: they do not know, they are not aware of what is
being done with public funds.
What have they done right from the start? They have changed
nothing since they came to power in 1993.
The free trade agreement and the GST were brought in by the
Conservative government. The free trade agreement generates
$280 billion, not $80 billion, and the GST $24 billion yearly.
What are the Liberals up to? They do not know what is going on.
Mr. Cappe said he did not know. I asked him if it was not his
duty to be informed. His response was no. It was not his duty
to know what was going on. “It is the duty of the minister and
deputy minister”, he said. If the blues are checked, it will be
seen that he said “It is the duty of the Minister of Human
Resources Development and Deputy Minister Claire Morris to know
what is going on”. They were not aware either. That is what we
were told, here in the House. So hon. members can well imagine
the trouble the opposition parties have to find out the truth.
[English]
The government is out of touch. The government is arrogant, but
the HRDC scandal will stick. It will not go away. I have been
doing interviews across the land, across this great country, and
some government members across the way must be very
uncomfortable.
I am anxious to see when the Prime Minister will call the next
election. I am very anxious to campaign and tell Canadians the
truth of what has been going on here. The hard earned money of
Canadians has been ripped off. Canadians pay heavy taxes.
Canadians work hard for their money. Canadians want their money
to be well invested. Their money has not been well invested.
Their money has been mismanaged. It is a lot of money.
1255
There are priorities in Canada. I have mentioned a few: health
care, taking care of our sick, our most vulnerable, and
education, providing the tools that our children need to compete
in this global market. We have heard students from all over
Canada tell us that they do not have enough. Job creation has
not been going on in the government. We have noticed that the
government has been wasting money by not monitoring what it has
been doing.
It was a pleasure for me to share with the House and with
Canadians what has been going on with HRDC. A public inquiry is
certainly a vehicle that will enforce and help us get to the
truth. In turn, we will be supporting the motion by my colleague
from the Bloc.
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, after listening to the hon. member across
the way I get the feeling that this place is awash in crocodile
tears. The hon. member sounds to me a bit frustrated. It is
perhaps because of his recent experience a few minutes ago at the
committee where Mr. Cappe appeared.
I listened to the hon. member question Mr. Cappe. I can assure
the House that he did not lay a glove on Cappe. He did not touch
Cappe. Mr. Cappe performed extremely well. Perhaps it was
because the hon. member did not know how to ask questions, or
perhaps it was because the hon. member really was not interested
in extracting information from the deputy minister.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Question.
Mr. John Harvard: This is comments and questions.
Opposition members have not been interested in the whole exercise
that has been going on for more than eight weeks. They talk about
wanting to get to the bottom of this issue, as we do. The
minister has said on a number of occasions that they have a
management problem. She wants to get to the bottom of it but do
opposition members, as reflected in the motion today? Does one
really think opposition members are interested in getting to the
bottom? No. They are interested in hurling mud. The more mud
they can throw, the better for them. They really think that
Canadian voters will fall for it. They will not fall for it.
Mr. Jean Dubé: Mr. Speaker, I have to comment. This is
the hon. member who called the minister of health baloney a while
ago, that what he thought was not realistic. I am glad the hon.
member was at committee. It is the first time that I have seen
him there. I have never seen him there before.
Mr. John Harvard: I am not a member.
Mr. Jean Dubé: That is probably why. I have the
questions I asked of Mr. Cappe on what happened to over $1
billion of taxpayer money. Opposition members questioning top
civil servants on what went on is very important.
1300
It is obviously not important to the government. It would
rather see this swept under the carpet, and quickly. It is not
going to be swept under the carpet.
We are going to continue to ask questions every day until we get
the truth, because we do not have the truth. We are concerned
and Canadians are concerned about where the money went.
Hopefully the hon. member will ask the Prime Minister to name
him to the committee. Then we will see how productive he can be.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in
January I spent some time in New Brunswick, more specifically
in Fredericton. I heard a lot of good things about the member
for Madawaska—Restigouche, in particular in Fredericton's Daily
Gleaner. He has a very good reputation in New Brunswick. I must
admit that I have discovered this in his transparent and
convincing speech.
As we know, happily or unhappily, New Brunswick was represented
by Doug Young, who was minister of human resources development.
Fortunately for all Canadians, they taught him the lesson of his
life by showing him the way out. I congratulate the NDP member
for Acadie—Bathurst who made him bite the dust. I hope we will
not have the unpleasant surprise of seeing this man back in the
House of Commons.
To get back to HRDC, we are witnessing the greatest scandal in
modern times in the House of Commons. The party across the way
probably has mismanaged between $1 billion and $3 billion. The
Prime Minister mentioned 37 cases. There are now 19 files under
investigation by the RCMP. Out of some 495 or 500 files picked
at random, 37 were fraught with problems. Today, 19 cases are
under investigation by the RCMP. If we examined all files
thoroughly, the amount would probably be much higher than $1
billion.
Clearly, we have an opportunity to defeat the government during
tonight's vote. It appears from discussions we had this morning
that all opposition parties are going to vote in favour of an
inquiry into HRDC.
I do not expect the Liberals to do so.
I would like to ask the hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche
if he would be ready to defeat the government so that we could
all look forward to sound management on behalf of all Canadians.
Mr. Jean Dubé: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague
for the excellent comments and praise he has given me. I hope he
enjoyed his time in New Brunswick, one of the most beautiful
provinces in the country.
To return to the question, yes, together we can bring down the
government, and that is what we must do. We remember very well
that the Prime Minister said in the House “It is only $251”.
The member for Frontenac—Mégantic is absolutely right. The Prime
Minister said $251, some three weeks ago, a month ago, and today
we are up to 19 police investigations. Yes we will vote
together and hope that we will bring down the government.
1305
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened to the remarks of my Conservative colleague with
considerable interest.
I would like to put a question to him. In my opinion, in
connection with the problems at the Department of Human
Resources Development, and in the context of this motion, the
Access to Information Act is a useful tool in getting at the
truth in government management. I wonder whether my colleague
would support an update of this law.
Would he support a bill to modernize the Access to Information
Act in the context of this motion?
Mr. Jean Dubé: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised, because only rarely
do we get a good question from the members on the government
side. I would like to congratulate my colleague.
As many in this House know, it is difficult to obtain
information under this law. Often, we can wait months, or even
years.
We rarely get all we asked for. So it is difficult for us as
parliamentarians, representatives of the people of Canada, to
guarantee transparency. It would be an idea for all of us in
the House of Commons to consider such a measure in order to give
Canadians more transparency in the management of various
programs and in the management of funds in Ottawa.
I would indeed be pleased to review this law at some point. If
the member opposite would care to sit down with me to discuss
the matter, I would be pleased.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I want to
congratulate the hon. member for Wentworth—Burlington on the
incredible strides he is making in French. It is a tough road.
Unfortunately I had to compliment him in English so that we
could both understand.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc
Quebecois has moved today for debate a motion that refers
directly to the scandal at the Department of Human Resources
Development.
This motion recommends:
—the creation of an independent public commission of inquiry,
whose members will be appointed by the House, and whose mandate
will be to inquire into all practices of that Department and to
report to the House by September 19, 2000.
Several reasons have led the Bloc to move this motion for a vote
in the House at the end of the day, among others: the lack of
transparency of the government, which refuses day after day to
answer straight out questions by the opposition; the
government's cover-up of a fiasco that is still going on in the
Department of Human Resources Development; the fact that
Liberals are mixing up government and party and are using public
funds for partisan purposes; the too numerous projects under
investigation by the RCPM or the police.
Obviously, the minister received a very bad legacy from her
predecessor. Consequently, since she became aware of the huge
fiscal abyss her department is in, she tried to hide
information, problem cases, patronage cases and criminal
investigations that have been piling up since the scandal broke.
When the minister—or one of her colleagues who answers for her,
as the Minister of Veteran Affairs did yesterday—does no longer
know what to say, we hear as an answer that the Quebec
government had recommended and signed these projects. Very well.
But this information has absolutely nothing to do with the
problem raised by the opposition.
1310
Even though Minister Harel put her signature on all the
projects, neither she nor her department were responsible for
the management of the funds. It was HRDC and not Emploi Québec
that managed the funds.
The Minister for International Trade and the Prime Minister, who
talked about it in an televised interview last weekend, are
really in no position to ridicule the work of Minister Lemieux
and Emploi Québec. The hon. member for Papineau—Saint-Denis should
remember that it is easier to look at the speck of dust in a
neighbour's eye than at the plank in one's own.
One thing is clear: Minister Harel could certainly not recommend
projects that received grants from the minister of HRDC even
before any application was filed.
The serious carelessness in the management of the program made
fraud, mishandling of funds, political interference and
patronage possible.
How could the minister imagine for one moment that we believe
her? What happened to her honesty, her integrity, her good
conscience, her sense of ethics and the oath she swore when she
assumed responsibility for the department last August?
I would like to give an example that illustrates this whole mess
perfectly, the case of Placeteco. Listen carefully, you will be
enlightened.
Placeteco is a manufacturer of plastic casts. In 1996-97,
Aérospatiale Globax, the parent corporation of Placeteco,
applied for a grant from the transitional jobs fund. HRDC
approved a $2 million grant, and a first payment of $400,000 was
made.
Placeteco, owned by Mr. Giguère, a friend of the Prime Minister,
sought protection from its creditors under the Bankruptcy Act.
The balance of the grant, $1.6 million, was placed in two trust
accounts, one for Placeteco, and the other one for Technipaint,
another subsidiary of Aérospatiale Globax.
Placeteco knew that it would eventually get a $1.2 million
grant, but it kept this information from its creditors, in
violation of the Bankruptcy Act.
Through underhanded schemes—this is a bit harsh, but I cannot
find any other way to describe the conduct of the Prime
Minister's cronies—HRDC put $1.2 million in trust accounts while
the situation of Placeteco was being sorted out, in violation of
Treasury Board guidelines.
A lawyer, Gilles Champagne, was hired as a trustee for HRDC.
Ironically, Gilles Champagne is also the lawyer of Claude
Gauthier, another friend of the Prime Minister. Claude Gauthier
would eventually buy Placeteco for a cool $1 and promise to
invest $200,000 in the company. After that, Claude Gauthier
received a $1.2 million grant.
Members must not forget that grants under this program are to be
used to create jobs. What did Mr. Gauthier do with his $1
million? He paid off a loan at the National Bank, Placeteco's
main creditor.
That kind of behaviour is called misappropriation of funds.
Since the use of trusts is against the rules of Treasury Board,
Technipaint had to submit a new application for a grant that was
finally awarded to it. As for Placeteco, it did not have to make
a new application, it received a grant of $1.2 million and its
directors refused to be held accountable to HRDC.
Between 1993 and 1997, Claude Gauthier and his various companies
donated a total of $48,673 to the Liberal Party of Canada. Is it
any wonder that Placeteco was given preferential treatment?
Claude Gauthier is also the owner of Continental Paving, the
company that got the subcontract for paving the RCMP road leading
to the Prime Minister's cottage, whereas the initial contract had
been awarded without tenders to Rénald Cloutier, a building
contractor who had also built the Prime Minister's cottage in the
area.
1315
I could go on with the file on Claude Gauthier and talk about
the golf course he bought from the Prime Minister, but that would
simply add another scandal.
Let us not be naive. The Prime Minister prides himself on being
a good member of parliament. I am not in a position to assess
that statement, therefore I cannot confirm nor invalidate it. It
will be incumbent on the voters to do it in the next general
elections, if he succeeds in maintaining himself at the helm of
the party up till then.
In the meantime, with the employment insurance reform and the
billions in surpluses pocketed by the government, and in light of
what happened at HRDC with the management of the job creation
program, which is funded with savings made on the backs of the
unemployed and the disadvantaged, one is justified in decrying
this a unfair, indecent behaviour on the part of this government,
which cloaks itself in its Caesar-like arrogance.
The job creation program is a good program when it is
implemented in accordance with the existing rules. It is a good
program when it is available to eligible ridings.
However, it is a bad program when the funds are squandered left
and right, when these funds are used to make the Prime Minister's
friends or the Liberal government's friends richer, when they are
used to unduly favour Liberal ridings that do not meet basic
criteria, when these funds are set aside for some at the expense
of distributive justice, when they are mismanaged with no serious
monitoring, and when grants are given without any application
having been submitted to the department. The program must be
reviewed, but it is definitely not with a six point plan from the
minister that patronage, corruption and major violations of
ethics, justice, honesty and integrity will be eliminated.
As long as the minister will not have the courage to face these
problems, she will not be able to recognize them, let alone deal
with them.
If the minister wants to do her job, if she wants to respect her
oath and restore confidence in her department, she has no choice
but to order an independent public inquiry.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I thank the member for Rimouski—Mitis for explaining so clearly
the scandal that took place in the riding of Saint-Maurice, the
riding of the Prime Minister who is there, across the way, with
his party.
As she so rightly said, this government must at least order an
independent inquiry. According to observers, this scandal might
involve an amount of up to $3 billion. This is money that has
allegedly been handed out here and there.
I would like to ask the member for Rimouski—Mitis if, for the
benefit of all members of the House, she could explain just as
clearly what happened in the riding of Rosemont, a poor riding in
Montreal's east end, where a $165,000 grant was supposed to go
before it drifted further east, ending up in the Prime Minister's
riding.
I am asking the member for Rimouski—Mitis to give us a clear
and simple explanation, like she just did.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from
Frontenac—Mégantic.
My colleague from Rosemont, who is scheduled to speak
immediately following me, is probably in a better position to
answer that question.
However, I will take this opportunity to say that, in the case
mentioned by the member, we know that a $165,000 grant that was
supposed to go to Rosemont was transferred to Shawinigan.
When we started asking questions in the House, the minister
immediately launched an investigation. Another investigation by
someone from Toronto, whom she probably knew very well. Perhaps
it was a friend of the government, who knows? In any event, a
week later, this person asked that the matter be referred to the
RCMP. Now the Rosemont affair is in the hands of the RCMP.
1320
When we asked other questions concerning Mr. Fugère, the Prime
Minister said that, as soon as he became aware of the situation,
as soon as his office became aware of it, he referred the matter
to the RCMP and that an investigation was underway.
My question is the following: Why was Placeteco not under
investigation? Or why was Placeteco put under investigation last
Friday, if departmental officials could not give us an answer?
Since the minister knows nothing about what is going on in her
department, she did not know that it was under investigation. She
stopped the investigation so that, at 5.30 p.m., we could be told
that there was no investigation.
There has to be an independent inquiry because we no longer
trust any internal investigation this government may conduct. We
trust even less calling on the RCMP, which is a way of covering
up all the dirty dealings that are going on in that department.
[English]
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened with some interest to the member opposite and
I caught a reference to Toronto. She seemed to say it in a
manner that reflected in a way that I thought was maybe
inappropriate.
I wonder why Mr. Lucien Bouchard, when it came to health care
money, put all kinds of dollars—I think it was upward of $1
billion—into a Toronto bank. While Quebecers were calling for
good solid health care, Mr. Bouchard had money, close to $1
billion worth, in some Toronto bank.
We always have to be careful when we get into these kinds of
little tugs and pulls because it really is quite duplicitous for
the hon. member to say what she did.
The point I want to make is that the auditor general, who is an
official and an officer of the House, will look at this whole
issue and report back in the fall of this year. As vice-chairman
of the public accounts committee, I worked with Denis Desautels
and I know he will do a very thorough job when it comes to
looking at this whole issue. He will investigate it in a very
meaningful way. The HRDC committee is also doing it, as is the
minister.
My question to the hon. member is why will she not protect the
interests of Quebecers? Why will she not stand in her place
today and say that the money that the human resources development
minister has earmarked for the poor, for the disabled and for the
students is money well spent in Quebec and in all parts of
Canada?
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: In all fairness, Mr. Speaker, I believe
you must give me the time to answer and I will ask for unanimous
consent to have at least two minutes to answer.
Over the past two years, the auditor general's office has
conducted several audits of the management of the grant and
contribution programs in various federal departments and
agencies and found persistent flaws. “Persistent” is the term
used by the auditor general.
The member should stop giving me this fancy footwork about the
auditor general. It all depends on what the government will do
with the auditor general's reports. He said himself “I could
have shown a certain degree of annoyance with the management of
the grant and contribution programs”.
As for the demagoguery shown by the member concerning the
$841 million kept in Toronto, for his information—since he is
apparently not aware of this—it is now $1 billion, because the
finance minister is constantly hiding his surpluses in trust
accounts. We will use the money kept in Toronto when we really
need it. We did not need it because we had money in our coffers.
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is with great
pleasure that I speak to the motion introduced by my party,
which reads as follows:
That this House condemn the government for the poor management
seen at the Department of Human Resources Development,
particularly in the award and use of grants for partisan
purposes, and that it recommend the creation of an independent
public commission of inquiry, whose members will be appointed by
the House, and whose mandate will be to inquire into all
practices of that Department and to report to the House by
September 19, 2000.
1325
I am all the more pleased to speak to this motion today because
of the horror story I am about to tell the House in the ten
minutes allotted me. It is a horror story because not only were
lies told to the citizens I represent in the House, but because
they were also told to yours truly, the member for Rosemont.
I would like to tell the story of a numbered company, 3393062
Canada Inc. This company was formed on July 16, 1997. At that
time its headquarters were at Place Ville-Marie in Montreal. On
August 4, 1997—a mere three weeks after the company was formed
on July 16—it applied to Human Resources Development Canada for
a grant under the transitional jobs fund.
On October 21, 1997 HRDC officials faxed my office a copy of the
project, which I am now holding, a 35-page proposal to create 106
new jobs in my riding. This $2,750,230 project was supposed to
be located in Rosemont and to create 42 jobs in 1997 and 64
additional jobs in 1998-99. This business was supposed to be set
up in my riding, specifically at 5800, rue Saint-Denis in
Montreal, in what is known as Place de la mode.
On October 27, when I recommended this project, I sincerely
believed and thought I had the department's assurance that the
jobs which were supposed to be created would be in my riding,
that the jobs which were supposed to be created would serve the
riding of Rosemont, one of the poorest ridings in Montreal, one
of the ridings in the neighbourhood known as La Petite Patrie,
which has one of the highest unemployment rates in Montreal.
I personally supported the project and it was naturally
recommended by the Government of Quebec. In addition, on
December 16 Human Resources Development Canada supported and
approved the sum of $165,984, which was supposed to be used to
create these 42 jobs.
Except that on March 5, 1998, at the HRDC office in my riding in
Montreal, we learned at a meeting with the promoter and president
of the numbered company that was going to create 42 jobs that
there was no longer any space available at 5800 Saint-Denis
Street. It was therefore impossible to create jobs in the riding
of Rosemont, it was impossible to create jobs in Montreal and it
was also impossible to create jobs in the metropolitan Montreal
area. The company had no choice but to move and create these
jobs, not in Rosemont, as had been recommended by the member for
Rosemont, but in the riding of Saint-Maurice, the Prime
Minister's riding.
1330
Mr. Goldenberg indicated to Human Resources Development Canada
that there was no longer any office space available at 5800
Saint-Denis Street. I personally phoned the promoter of that
building and learned that 40,000 square feet are available at the
address where that business was supposed to settle.
Why did HRDC officials not bother to check things at the time?
Instead, they looked the other way. The fact is they preferred to
see these jobs created in the town of Saint-Élie-de-Caxton, in
Saint-Maurice, in the Shawinigan area, rather than in a riding
represented by a Bloc Quebecois member.
But there is more to tell. On March 19, a few days after the
March 5 meeting, we learned that the president of that company
had submitted invoices for the purchase of machinery and the
renting of space in a building called, guess what? Confections
Saint-Élie. Where is that company located? In
Saint-Élie-de-Caxton.
Who is Confections Saint-Élie? If members would like information
on that company, I invite them to read the election folder
distributed on the eve of the Prime Minister's election campaign.
The president of that company said “Our exports to the United
States have doubled, which means we had to increase our staff
quickly to meet the demand. The grant received with the help of
Mr. Chrétien allowed us to do that”.
This is from the president of the company called Confections
Saint-Élie. It was this company which found space for the company
which was supposed to create jobs in Rosemont, which was supposed
to create 106 jobs in my riding. Furthermore, we have learned
that the number of jobs created by this numbered company was
five, not 42. This is completely unacceptable.
There is more. We learned on March 19, less than one month
later, that officials at Human Resources Development Canada
nonetheless decided to give the $166,000 grant to the company
knowing full well that only five jobs, not 42, had been created.
What became of the money? We asked the Prime Minister and we
asked the minister. No response was forthcoming until February
25, 2000 when the deputy minister responsible for human resources
development in Quebec confirmed for me everything that the Bloc
Quebecois had been saying.
That was when the government and the minister decided to ask a
Toronto firm to look into the matter. That was when the
minister was informed of the results, one week later. On the
19th, she had to quickly recommend a police investigation into
what is now known as “Shawinigangate”.
What we are calling for today is for the minister to immediately
make public the report by the Toronto firm into the Rosemont
affair, in the interests of transparency and out of respect for
my constituents, and for members of the House to vote in favour
of the motion presented by the Bloc Quebecois today for an
independent public commission of inquiry.
[English]
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of the House
that, indeed, a public inquiry and study of grants and
contributions by the Department of Human Resources Development is
already ongoing at the level of an all-party committee, the House
of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources Development.
1335
The committee began its study of this subject matter because of
a motion put forward by the opposition. In fact, the member of
parliament for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques at the committee moved a motion, which we adopted, that
there be an interim report by the middle of April.
There was a delay in the proceedings of the committee because of
the votes that took place in the House as a consequence of the
filibustering of the Bloc. However, today the Clerk of the Privy
Council appeared before the committee. It was a televised
hearing. Speaking of transparency, an all-party committee of the
House of Commons is doing this.
I would like to bring to the attention of Canadians that it was
an internal audit of the government which unearthed the problems.
Speaking of police investigations, let us not prejudge. The
investigations indicate that, indeed, our police force is
determined to ensure the integrity of the system.
I am surprised that there is a motion before us which calls for
an inquiry, and for the inquiry to report by September of 2000,
many months later. I ask the member, would he like a report on
this issue by the middle of April, or would he like it much, much
later for political reasons?
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras: Mr. Speaker, it is good that the hon.
member has referred to the committee meeting but it is clear, if
I am not mistaken, that in all of the cases mentioned this
morning by Human Resources Development Canada, we were unable to
find evidence that there was any transparency within the
committee's criteria. We are calling for an independent public
inquiry because the committee has its limitations.
The witnesses that spoke this morning showed us that indeed the
committee does have its limitations, and in our opinion the scope
needs to be broadened in order for there to be an independent
public commission of inquiry into the entire matter.
[English]
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened to the member opposite talk of process, in
terms of inquiry and in terms of where this whole issue should be
headed. I want to remind him that an officer of the House of
Commons, the auditor general, is looking at this whole process
and will be reporting in the fall. We have the committee
process, as was alluded to by my hon. colleague from Winnipeg.
Moreover, we have the minister's commitment that four times a
year she will appear before the committee to discuss all of these
issues.
When I hear duplicitous comments from the Bloc opposite, it
really is outrageous. It almost implies that they are not in
favour of these types of grants and contributions to Quebecers
and to Canadians. I would hope that is not the intent of the
hon. member and his colleagues opposite.
I was interested in reading Le Soleil not so very long
ago—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry but time
flies.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the
hon. member's question. This morning he described the entire
Human Resources Development Canada matter as nothing but myth
and mythology.
Does the hon. member believe that the case I have just described
in Rosemont, the direct transfer of a grant for the people of
Rosemont into the riding of Saint-Maurice, was myth and
mythology? No.
According to the February 15 report, the $165,000 grant was to
be for the riding of Rosemont. Instead, in response to
unreasonable pressure, it went to the riding of the member's
leader, the Prime Minister.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I believe that the question we raised today is a serious
matter, that our motion is a serious one. We want an
independent inquiry.
Could you ask the hon. member for Waterloo—Wellington, he who is
so quick to speak and so quick to tell us that we are getting
emotional over this matter, to stop yelling out in the House, to
stop making fists, to stop saying that the matter can be
settled, to show a modicum of decorum—
1340
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry to have to
interrupt the hon. member. The hon. Secretary of State for
Children and Youth.
[English]
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Secretary of State (Children and
Youth), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, while I am pleased to participate
in this debate, I do not think that debating this question is a
very productive use of House time. The motion introduced by the
member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques
is not the best use of public resources and our time. It will
end up costing taxpayers far more than it is worth.
There has been an ongoing barrage of questions on this issue for
a sustained period of time. The issue has been recycled time and
time again, day after day, to no useful end. Members of the Bloc
have already shown how little they care for the time and effort
that should be put into productive issues when they kept the
House sitting, around the clock, for two days of voting on
meaningless amendments to the clarity bill, a bill which members
of every other party in the House supported. Nevertheless, our
friends opposite are entitled to bring issues like this. That is
one of the advantages of being part of the Canadian system. For
our part, we are willing to discuss the motion and to look at
their concerns from a broader perspective.
The motion suggests that the government does not take the
management of public funds seriously. I want to reassure the
hon. member that the government takes the management of public
funds very seriously. I want to remind him that the government
has made every effort possible to ensure responsible public
sector financial management.
Shortly after we took office the government undertook a
comprehensive review of federal spending programs. We showed our
determination to ask the hard questions about the money the
federal government was spending. We made the tough decisions to
cut back in some areas and to redirect funds to other uses when
necessary.
Program review was one of the government's toughest and most
comprehensive programs. It was one of many. As a result, we
have been successful. We took a $42 billion deficit and turned
it around for the benefit of all Canadians. Members of the
government acted decisively. There is no doubt in my mind that
the government and the Minister of Human Resources Development
are acting decisively now.
The minister has already told the House about her six point plan
to improve the management and administration of grants and
contributions in her department. It is a good plan and it is a
solid plan. It includes improved reviews of administrative
procedures. It has been reviewed by the auditor general and the
Treasury Board, as well as accounting experts in the private
sector. The plan will work, but we must give it time to work.
There is no point in looking yet again at the management
processes at HRDC. We have done that and we have identified some
areas that need to be fixed. We are fixing them. We should let
the minister and her staff in the department get on with the
business of implementing the action plan and serving the clients
who need their help.
A second issue which the member opposite raised is a concern
that HRDC funds are being used for political ends. I am glad the
member raised this issue because it gives us a chance to put some
facts on the record.
First, politics is not the criteria by which we determine HRDC
funding. The money goes where it is most needed. Indeed, a good
portion of HRDC program funds have gone to the member's home
province of Quebec. That is because Quebec is a province with a
large population and a comparatively high unemployment rate. The
people of that province need federal program support. The
unemployment rate in Quebec in 1997 was 11.4%. In 1999 the rate
was down to 9.3%. We have a ways to go.
Quebec received more transitional jobs funding and Canada jobs
funding than any other province because the need was greater. In
the period from January 1995 to the present, the number of
unemployed people in Quebec declined from 430,000 to 311,000;
that is, 119,000 less unemployed people in five years with the
help of HRDC programs.
1345
I doubt if the member opposite would seriously complain about
receiving support from a federal program that helped to create so
many jobs in Quebec. Does he feel there has been political
interference on party lines? If so, he will be reassured to know
that according to our figures Liberals represent 53% of the
population and 52% of the ridings and we have received 52% of the
HRDC funding. The numbers speak for themselves. When we look at
the facts it is pretty hard to see any political favouritism. Let
us take British Columbia as an example. Most members opposite
receive a huge part of the funding.
What about the need to inquire into the way HRDC programs
operate? Again, probably that is a big waste of time and money.
It is not only that, but it is a bit like reinventing the wheel.
There are at least three other ongoing HRDC reviews at this time.
First, the auditor general is conducting a government-wide audit
of the department's grants and contributions and will report in
the fall. HRDC will be an active participant.
Second, the standing committee of the House on human resources
development is holding hearings on these issues. The former
deputy minister, the deputy minister, the minister and the
officials have all appeared before the committee. That committee
includes members from all parties in the House. The committee
can call the witnesses it feels would add useful information.
That includes departmental officials and members of the House who
can participate in the committee and obtain information.
Third, a special unit has been set up inside HRDC to track and
report publicly on the department's grants and contributions.
After seven years in that department I know those individuals. I
know their competence and their expertise, and that is the reason
they have been chosen for this unit. I know that being headed by
an official they will do an outstanding job to this end.
In addition to these review activities the minister of HRDC
continues to be responsive to parliament. Indeed the minister
has earned high public praise for her willingness to stand and
answer questions in the House. Canadians from coast to coast to
coast support the minister of HRDC in implementing the new
administrative system. They believe in these programs. They
know there is a role for government and they want the problems
fixed. That is what HRDC is doing.
In addition, the department has set up special inquiry lines to
answer questions from members of parliament. It seems however
that not too many MPs are really serious about getting the facts.
Departmental officials tell us they have received very few calls
from MPs seeking factual information.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
As I listened to the speech by the secretary of state, I
realized we are completely off the topic of today's motion in
the House. The aim of the motion is to shed light on the HRDC
scandal, to have an independent inquiry—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion, the speech
of the secretary of state was in proper form. The hon. secretary
of state.
[English]
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, we
suspect that members opposite are more interested in playing
politics with this call for an inquiry than they are in getting
on with the facts. There is clearly no need for the inquiry the
motion proposes.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with interest to the speech and I would like to ask the
member a couple of questions.
I will not get into her answering the question with regard to
the political connections to these grants. When we pool the
information about what companies are getting the grants and what
companies are great contributors to the Liberal Party, perhaps it
is just a coincidence that they match up so well. I do not
expect her to explain that away.
A couple of things really bother me. For years and years and
years unemployment on some of the reserves in my riding has been
at 80% and 90%.
For the last six years the government has done absolutely nothing
to try to alleviate that problem.
1350
We have a group of hepatitis C victims across the country who
are being denied funds even after there was a ruling that said it
must occur. Yet the government will not move. Is it because
Indian reserves and hepatitis C victims do not donate money to
the Liberals that they cannot get the assistance they need so
desperately?
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, I am sure it is
no secret to my hon. colleague that I too have been to most of
the 600 reserves across the country. I too have contact on a
daily basis with the chiefs and the national leaders of those
organizations.
I, along with the minister, was responsible for overseeing the
development of a $1.6 billion training program for aboriginal
people from which his reserve benefits. In turn that program
allowed over 25,000 aboriginal people to get jobs. As well there
was a saving of $25 million in social assistance funding.
There is no way we could even begin to think of the benefits
that would accrue to aboriginal people if members opposite put
their complete support behind this program and ensured the line
they have taken would not jeopardize the funding for aboriginal
people.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Secretary
of State for Children and Youth tells us we could have left the
minister to conduct her inquiry, but when we see how responsibly
this inquiry was conducted by the Liberal government and
particularly by the Minister of Human Resources Development, we
are very concerned.
It took a long time to get the details of the auditor general's
report. The minister has known of the situation at the
Department of Human Resources Development since August.
The opposition parties, including the Bloc Quebecois, have
continued to raise various facets of this scandal at Human
Resources Development Canada and have taken seriously the
findings of the auditor general: mismanagement of programs, gaps,
problems of compliance with legislative provisions, program
design weaknesses, poor control and insufficient information on
results.
The minister answers our questions daily essentially pretty much
along the same lines. We are witnessing the total routing of
the Liberal government, and I think I have more faith in the
opposition parties, who saw clearly the Liberals' game of
handing out grants for partisan purposes and using taxpayers'
money for political obstruction.
I might wonder why my riding would not get some over other
ridings the government chose.
[English]
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, members opposite
could have taken the two days they wasted in the House voting on
all those useless amendments to the clarity bill to look at all
the information we released on February 21. There were 10,000
pages of hard copy.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I would ask the minister to take back her words. It was not by
voting for two days in the House that we lost and wasted time.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): That is debate. It
is hardly a point of order.
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, perhaps my words
were a little harsh. Nevertheless, better use could have been
made of their time to review the information we made available to
them. They are on the presiding committee. We are making a
concerted effort to have all the information available to them.
How they use it is entirely up to them.
1355
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have
several questions but I will limit it to one. It is very
important, in order to assure Canadians that their money is being
handled properly and honestly in Ottawa, to have total openness
and total transparency on these issues.
When commissions, studies and committees look into these
matters, over and over information is hidden from us because of
the claims of privacy. My contention is that if someone receives
public money, by virtue of the fact it is public money it no
longer is private.
Would the hon. member tell us her view on this point and whether
she would favour an implementation of the Privacy Act in such a
way that these things could actually be disclosed openly and
honestly to Canadians instead of hiding behind the Privacy Act?
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, I resent the
comment that we are hiding behind the Privacy Act. The system in
place has allowed them on February 21 to get 16 binders of
information, five and a half inches thick and containing 10,000
pages. Once members have sifted through them and if they are not
satisfied that is another question. I would like to have more
specific references than that. I believe we could not be much
more transparent and much more open than we have been.
There is a process that is fairly public. The standing
committee has members from all sides. There too they have access
to all the officials who could give them the information if they
have specific questions. We are not hiding behind anything.
There has been complete disclosure. Not everyone agreed that
disclosure was the best thing but there it is. There is the
information. How they use it and if they use it is entirely up
to them.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
TAIWAN
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
March 18 the people of Taiwan elected a new president, Mr. Chen
Shui-bian, leader of the Democratic Progressive Party.
His predecessor, President Lee Teng-Hui of the Kuomintang Party
had led the way to democratizing Taiwan and promoting peaceful
dialogue with mainland China. President-elect Chen now takes
over the important responsibility of ensuring an orderly
transition of power and, most important, he assumes the lead role
in the delicate relations with the mainland.
On behalf of the Canada-Taiwan Parliamentary Friendship Group I
wish to extend our sincere congratulations to President Chen on
his democratic electoral victory and our sincere hope for his
success in reaffirming Taiwan's intent to promote peaceful and
trustful dialogue with mainland China.
* * *
DEANNA GEDDO
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to bring to the attention of the House a very
special constituent whom I have recently had the pleasure of
meeting.
Dr. Deanna Geddo was born in Hungary and when she was but 10
days old her home was completely destroyed by bombing. He family
became refugees, escaping through Hungary, Austria and
Switzerland. At the age of six she moved to Argentina and
graduated from high school at 16. She graduated from dentistry
and became the first woman to perform implantations in Argentina.
After the coup in 1976, Dr. Geddo came to Canada bringing her
many skills, talents and professions with her. She speaks seven
languages, is a professional playwright, a noted director, and a
talented violinist. Her autobiography would be a huge volume.
During my visit I saw her warmth, kindness, hospitality and,
above all, her genuine desire to serve her fellow man. I welcome
Dr. Geddo to the constituency of Souris—Moose Mountain, to
Kenosee Lake and to Wawota where she now practises dentistry.
* * *
THE LATE LYAL HOLMES
Mr. Lou Sekora (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my good friend Lyal Holmes passed away on
March 16. I knew Lyal Holmes even before I began my political
career some 27 years ago.
Lyal was actively involved in the Burquitlam Lions Club in
British Columbia. He will be remembered as a loyal and dedicated
hard worker. My heart goes out to his loved ones and his
friends.
* * *
1ST BATTALION ROYAL CANADIAN REGIMENT
Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the greatest atrocity of war is the suffering of
innocent children. Last Tuesday, a little girl's life was saved
thanks to the 1st Battalion Royal Canadian Regiment stationed in
Kosovo.
I rise today to single out these brave men and women of the
Canadian forces who have repeatedly demonstrated their humanity
and touched the lives of many innocent victims in this terrible
conflict.
The eight year old girl was suffering from severe pneumonia and
infection but was refused admission to the hospital in Pristina.
With her condition rapidly deteriorating, members of the 1RCR
took her to the medical centre at their headquarters. She had to
be resuscitated twice, but her condition eventually stabilized.
1400
Thanks in large part to the courageous members of the Canadian
Forces, this little girl is currently in stable condition.
Once again our Canadian heroes have gone above and beyond their
duty. Their efforts to mend these shattered lives bring great
pride to our country, Canada.
* * *
[Translation]
RIDING OF SAINT-MAURICE
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
one of the greatest defenders of the Prime Minister of Canada in
Shawinigan is the local Parti Quebecois MNA Claude Pinard, who,
in an interview with Vincent Marissal of La Presse, stated the
following:
The Prime Minister of Canada is doing his duty as the MP for
Saint-Maurice. He is backing projects, answering requests,
bringing in money. The federal government is one of the
stakeholders in regional affairs, and I work along with all
stakeholders.
It is true that the Parti Quebecois MNA seems to get along
pretty well with his federal counterpart. They will, of course,
never be the best of friends, but the two sides do get along in
Shawinigan far better than in most ridings with a Bloc Quebecois
and/or Parti Quebecois representative.
* * *
[English]
NISGA'A TREATY
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, when Reform staged a voting filibuster at report stage
of the Nisga'a Treaty, it was not a protest. It was a last ditch
effort to get the government to reconsider what we believed was a
major mistake.
Many prominent people are starting to realize the error that
parliament has made. The latest to step forward is former
Supreme Court of Canada justice Willard Estey.
Our biggest concern about the treaty was the constitutionally
entrenched self-government provision that exceeded provincial and
federal powers, a concern now echoed by Estey. We support
aboriginal self-government, but at a municipal level.
Former Justice Estey states “The Senate action now proposed in
this bill could destabilize the legal framework of which the
Canadian nation is built”.
The federal government must ask the Senate to amend the
self-government provision of the bill, or at minimum delay its
implementation until the Supreme Court of Canada rules on its
validity under the Canadian Constitution.
Inclusion of that provision was a mistake. Former Justice Estey
agrees that allowing it to become law will have disastrous
consequences for all Canadians.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday Mr. Nick Parsons from Dawson Creek, British Columbia
arrived on Parliament Hill on a combine. His mission was to
underscore the plight of farm families in the west. Since I
still live on the family farm, I can appreciate a lot of the
things he is talking about.
As usual, the Reform Party shamelessly tried to turn this into a
cheap political photo opportunity instead of genuinely trying to
find solutions. It is so typical of those Reformers, who they
are and what they represent.
If Reform Party members were so interested, why did they not ask
one question yesterday in question period? Instead, they chose
not to ask even one question about this all important issue.
I am happy to report that the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food and the Prime Minister met with Mr. Parsons yesterday
to discuss farm income policy for the future. It was a good
discussion that underscored the commitment of the government to
find positive and consistent solutions. Out of that dialogue I
am confident that meeting along with with other MPs. will find
those solutions.
* * *
[Translation]
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in
the brief presented by the Coalition pour la justice des
mineurs, a coalition of Quebec organizations working with young
offenders, the following statement was made:
Before doing away completely with sixteen years of practice,
adjustment and precedent, in order to engage in an avenue that
breaks with close to a century of tradition, parliamentarians
need to ask themselves whether it is worth it. Will they have
the courage to defend legislation which is unanimously supported
by those who are familiar with it and make use of it, or will
they bow to lobbies which focus on disinformation, in order to
push ahead a program that is as petty as it is reductionist?
Will the Quebec federal Liberals take notice of this message
from the coalition? Are the Liberals aware of the harm they are
preparing to do to youth justice with Bill C-3?
There is still time. Parliamentarians must refuse to play the
Reform game. Youth justice must not became the battleground for
those in search of sensationalism.
* * *
[English]
ALEX PAUK
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to congratulate my constituent, Alex Pauk,
for being named Musician of the Year by the Toronto Musicians'
Association.
For 30 years, Alex Pauk has been championing the cause of new
music in Canada.
1405
Alex is the founder, musical director and conductor of Esprit
Orchestra, Canada's only orchestra devoted exclusively to
contemporary music.
Alex was chosen artist of the year for his work with the Esprit
Orchestra in programming, obtaining funding and commissions,
keeping musicians working during difficult times as well as
encouraging education and outreach programs.
Alex Pauk has also won acclaim for composing more than 35 works
and commissions for music and dance groups as well as writing for
film, television, radio and musical theatre.
In receiving this award, Alex's name has been added to that of
past honourees including Rush, Barenaked Ladies, Rob McConnell,
Peter De Soto and Henry Cuesta.
Congratulations, Alex. This is an award that is well deserved.
* * *
CIAU BASKETBALL CHAMPIONSHIPS
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
past weekend southern Alberta was well represented at the CIAU
Basketball Championships in Halifax. Coached by CIAU coach of
the year, Dave Crook, the University of Lethbridge Pronghorns
competed against the best in the country.
The Pronghorns were led by pride of Magrath, Danny Balderson.
Danny, a small town hero who led the beloved Magrath Zeniths to
the provincial high school title in 1993, last week was awarded
the Mike Moser trophy as Canada's top university player.
Since Danny was picked as top rookie in his first year at the U
of L, he has racked up the CIAU honours. He is now a four time
All-Canadian, two time Canada West MVP and a member of the
national student team.
Danny's teammate, 24 year old LCI grad, Spencer Holt, was
honoured as a second team All-Canadian. Sometimes rivals and
sometimes teammates, these two young men serve as outstanding
role models to all young players in Canada.
Congratulations to the University of Lethbridge, the players, to
Sandy and all those concerned. One more thing: Dave, you may be
coach of the year, but it is time for a haircut.
* * *
LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is my honour to rise today and congratulate the Liberal Party of
Canada for voting to amend clause 14.8C of its constitution at
its Biennial Convention this weekend and become the first party
to cap expenditures on nomination campaigns.
Until now, because there was no limit on the amount of money a
potential candidate could spend for a nomination, a person with
greater financial resources was always at an advantage. This
amendment, which acts on the recommendations of the Royal
Commission on Electoral Reform in 1991, rectifies such unfairness
by removing financial hurdles and levelling the playing field.
This is not a victory only for women but for everyone else who is
not part of the establishment. The amendment targets people
without deep pockets and rich friends, youth, aboriginals and
persons with disabilities by making it less financially straining
for them to seek office.
Politics should not be a sphere reserved for this country's
economic elite. Rather it should be a forum in which concerned
citizens can discuss and make decisions for their future. This
amendment makes it easier for Canadians of various socioeconomic
and cultural backgrounds to run as candidates and have an
active—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Halifax West.
* * *
[Translation]
RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today I would
like to draw attention to the International Day for the
Elimination of Racial Discrimination, which was declared
officially by the United Nations in 1966. Subsequently, Canada
was one of the first countries to show its support.
[English]
In the Halifax regional municipality this day will be celebrated
by the 5th Annual Harmony Brunch, an event held to reflect on the
problems created by racism and to look ahead to the elimination
of racial discrimination.
Over two years ago the Halifax regional council adopted a
community and race relations policy to ensure that residents from
the many diverse communities in the area had equal opportunity to
develop their potential.
Today may we all reflect upon the importance of eliminating
racism, not only by policies and actions on the part of all
levels of government but also by the attitudes and actions which
we take individually as we interact daily with each other.
* * *
RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, today is the international day to eliminate racism
and discrimination and on this day Canadians from coast to coast
will be participating in a variety of activities to mark the
anniversary of the Sharpeville massacre in South Africa in 1960.
As Canadians join together to send a message of tolerance and
inclusion, I am particularly proud of an event being held in
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.
Today the 11th Annual Run Against Racism is being held in Pictou
County, Nova Scotia. Master marathon runner Henderson Paris of
New Glasgow, along with support runners are running a total of 38
miles to raise public awareness in the fight against racism.
Henderson and his fellow runners started this morning at 8.30 and
are running through all five municipalities and the Pictou
Landing Mi'Kmaq first nations reserve, crossing the finish line
at 5.45 this evening.
I would like to commend Mr. Paris and his organizing committee
for their commitment to this event that instils hope. I believe
that the success of this event and others is reflective of an
evolving positive attitude among Canadians of all ages, sending a
clear message that discrimination of any sort will not be
tolerated and that we will oppose it wherever we find it.
* * *
1410
GASOLINE PRICES
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased that the Conference Board of Canada will be conducting an
independent inquiry into gas prices.
I favour tax reductions on gasoline, diesel and fuel oil but
fear that without price regulation the oil companies will simply
suck up the tax breaks as profit. I urge the federal government
to encourage all provinces to regulate gas prices in such a way
that tax reductions will flow directly to the consumer.
I also urge that GST rebates for fuel to all commercial users be
flowed particularly promptly this year. Further, I urge the
government to intervene where gas prices are causing clear
hardship to commercial drivers, such as rural mail couriers, who
are tied to long contracts signed before gas prices increased.
Meanwhile, let us continue to press OPEC to increase oil output
and bring down the price of gas in Canada.
* * *
[Translation]
RESERVES
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal
government has done a fine job ignoring the reserves. It was
not mentioned at all in the budget tabled three weeks ago. The
government is boasting about injecting a little more money into
national defence, but the Minister of Finance makes no mention
of the fact that the reservists got nothing.
The Liberals are praising their budget, but I cannot see why.
There is very little money in it for health care and education,
immigrants are still charged an entry fee, and there is no
funding for the reserves.
[English]
When it comes to natural disasters, reserves are the first group
called upon in the country: the Saguenay floods of 1996, the Red
River flood around the time of the last federal election, the ice
storm in Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick. I could go on. What
would Canadians have done without the reserve forces in these
situations?
The government has used the reserves on many occasions since
1993. Why were they forgotten in the last budget?
* * *
[Translation]
PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
behind the scenes at last weekend's convention of the Liberal
Party of Canada, the Prime Minister took another dig at Quebec,
adding to his already extensive track record in that regard.
This man, who is only too quick to dump on Quebec, has
overstepped the limits with his comments about the sovereignist
movement, a movement espoused by almost half of Quebecers.
“Let the sleeping dog lie”, he was urged, in an attempt to
discourage him from introducing his clarity bill.
Thinking it was safe to speak, the Prime Minister came back with
“The dog is not sleeping, it is ailing”.
In The Golden Dog, 19th century English writer William Kirby
wrote, and I quote:
I am a dog that gnaws his bone,
I couch and gnaw it all alone.
A time will come, which is not yet,
When I'll bite him by whom I'm bit.
With all his canine reflections, the Prime Minister would do
well to study this verse, for there is no doubt that Quebecers
are impatiently awaiting the opportunity to let him know for the
third time that, in politics, scorn and arrogance are a sure way
to lose votes.
* * *
[English]
RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
today is the International Day for the Elimination of Racial
Discrimination. It is unfortunate that we need a day like today
to remind us that racism still exists in Canada. This vast
country is made up people from all walks of life, many ethnic
backgrounds and personal beliefs. We need to deliver the message
every day, a message of respect, equality and diversity.
Perhaps it is best said in the lyrics of a song by Garth Brooks
which state:
When the last child cries for a crust of bread
When the last man dies for just words that he said
When there's shelter over the poorest head
Then we shall be free
When the last thing we notice is the colour of skin
And the first thing we look for is the beauty within
When the skies and the oceans are clean again
Then we shall be free
There is no question that racism exists in Canada. We have
embarked upon a new millennium. Let us all continue in the fight
to end it.
* * *
RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
rise to mark this day, March 21, the International Day to
Eliminate Racial Discrimination. It is also a new season. Spring
is upon us. It is with this optimism that I would like to share
these words of prayer. As in the teachings of our elders, we
must live among each other in harmony.
I extend this prayer to all our police officers who have
embarked on the journey to our capital to meet with
parliamentarians. In the Creator's name, give them strength and
wisdom so that they may carry out their duties in the most humble
and respectful way.
In my first language I would like to say:
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Cree and provided the
following translation:]
[Translation]
I pray to the peoples of the east, to the peoples of the south,
to the peoples of the west and to the peoples of the north, that
we may live in harmony and raise our children in peace amongst
each other and with respect to our Mother the Earth and all of
our Creator's being and gifts, the four-legged, the winged ones,
the swimmers and the crawlers that live with all of the plants
and creation.
[English]
In the Creator's name, may we live in respect.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
1415
[English]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this morning Mel Cappe, the former deputy minister of
human resources, testified at the human resources committee. He
testified that there were no explicit guidelines focusing on
pockets of unemployment when handing out HRD grants. This
directly contradicts what the human resources minister has told
the House concerning the justification for handing out millions
of taxpayers dollars.
How does the minister explain this contradiction?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said on a number of occasions, it is
the flexibility in the transitional jobs fund that has allowed
for the majority of the investments to be made in opposition
ridings. I ask the hon. leader to confer with and talk to
members on his backbenches about how much they appreciate the
investments that they have seen in their own communities.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister did not address the question at all. It was
raised by testimony at committee this morning.
The minister has been using this pockets of unemployment
rationale for handing out millions of dollars of HRD grants. This
morning Mel Cappe blew her cover on that subject.
I will again ask the minister to explain why there is a
contradiction between what she told the House today and what Mel
Cappe told the committee this morning.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the whole point of the transitional jobs
fund was to help communities where the levels of unemployment
were significantly high and where they were stagnant and were not
going to be reduced without assistance. We know that party would
just like issues that go along with unemployment to fester and
for these communities to have to struggle on their own. That is
not the view on this side of the House.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this party believes in fixing unemployment by lowering
taxes.
The simple fact is that this morning Canada's most senior public
servant contradicted the Minister of Human Resources Development
Canada. My question is, who should Canadians believe?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, clearly the Canadian public does not
believe that party. The leader said that all we need to do is
reduce taxes and everything will be fine.
Canadians know that it is not just through a reduction of
individual taxes that will ensure that Canadians with
disabilities get opportunities in this economy. Canadians know
that trickle down economics will not ensure that young people get
their very important first job in our economy. They know that
trickle down economics will not improve the levels of literacy in
this country. That is why we on this side of the House believe
in grants and contributions.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
talk about trickle down. When that money goes to Liberals and
they give money back to party, that is what is frustrating.
The HRDC minister has been picking pockets of unemployment as
her alibi for long enough. Today Mel Cappe blew the lid off her
excuses. People say that if we ask the guilty the same question
long enough and often enough, the truth is bound to slip out.
We would like to know today who is telling the truth.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, brochures describing the transitional
jobs fund were available to all members of parliament for a good
long period of time. Any member of parliament who was worth his
or her salt went to the HRDC office and talked about these
programs to see if they applied.
In the undertakings of this program we were intending and
actually did create opportunities, along with partners in
communities right across the country, for Canadians who otherwise
would not have had opportunities to work.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the minister is not answering a very specific and a pretty simple
question.
Mel Cappe said today in committee that there were no explicit
guidelines. Now the minister turns around and says that they had
all kinds of flexibility with guidelines. There are two
different stories here and Canadians deserve an answer. Who
should we believe?
1420
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, both the clerk and myself talked about
the issue and the use of flexibility in this program to ensure
that Canadians who needed the opportunities provided by this
government got them.
What is most interesting in all this is that when we look at the
investments of transitional jobs fund money we find the majority
of them in the ridings of opposition members.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human
Resources Development told us that, as regards the Placeteco
case, the original firm now exists as two companies, namely
Technipaint and Placeteco. What she did not say is that
Technipaint had to resubmit a grant application, while Placeteco
did not do so, in violation of the department's administrative
rules.
Could the minister explain why Technipaint had to resubmit an
application, but not Placeteco?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what is clear is that we have two
companies that continue to employ citizens in areas of high
unemployment. In the case of both Techni-Paint and Placeteco,
there are 170 people who are working today thanks to our
partnership with headquarters, the Government of Quebec.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, with
the grant, there is one job less at Placeteco, and the National
Bank of Canada was repaid the $1 million owed to it by
Placeteco.
Could it be that if Placeteco did not resubmit a grant
application it is because Placeteco's Claude Gauthier, who
benefited from a $1.2 million grant from Human Resources
Development Canada, is the same Claude Gauthier who bought for
$500,000 lots that the Prime Minister had paid one dollar for?
Is there not some kind of hocus-pocus between the Prime
Minister's friends and the Department of Human Resources
Development?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for the umpteenth time, I will clarify
for the House that we have received invoices from the company
which justified its investments in salaries and overheads. These
were consistent with the transitional jobs fund program.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, still in connection with the Placeteco matter,
Gilles Champagne was the Human Resources Development Canada
trustee responsible for protecting the $1.2 million grant. He
was, however, at the same time the lawyer of Claude Gauthier,
the man who nevertheless benefited from the $1.2 million grant.
Are we to understand that, if Gilles Champagne was able, in
total impunity, to act as both trustee for HRDC and counsel for
Claude Gauthier, it is because he is such a crony of the Prime
Minister and haunted the halls of the Liberal convention all
last weekend?
The Speaker: Once again, I would ask hon. members to always
stick with administrative matters which are governmental
responsibility and not those of a political party.
If the minister wishes to respond, she may.
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me reiterate the facts. In the early
going there were issues and problems at Placeteco. There were 64
people employed there. Over the course of time there were
upwards of 135 people working for this company. Today there are
78 people working there and there are prospects for increased
opportunity.
Is the hon. member saying that he would have had us take our
money away and have this opportunity taken away from those
employees?
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister also promised 174 jobs at
Placeteco.
In the case of the Canadian Institute of Tourism and Electronic
Commerce, the Prime Minister was very quick to call for an RCMP
investigation, and even boasted of this in the House. In the
case of Placeteco, however, despite some worrisome facts, there
is still no investigation under way, several weeks after those
facts have come to light, not even an administrative inquiry.
Why such a difference in the way the two files are being
handled?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have looked at these files. I have
made reference to the fact that there were incorrect
administrative application processes applied. I have made that
public in this House on a number of occasions.
Fundamentally, the important point is that we have 78 people
working at Placeteco and 170 people working in the two companies.
I remind the hon. member that the Government of Quebec supported
us in this undertaking. From our point of view, having people
working is the right thing to do.
* * *
1425
HEALTH
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister has given the green light to the health care
privatization bill, yet Canadians have grave concerns. They have
serious questions. For example, will bill 11 either directly or
indirectly erode public medicare? Will bill 11 create a parallel
system of private health care? Canadians want answers. When
will the government respond?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the first thing is that we should have a law. The bill
is before the assembly in Alberta and before a committee and is
confronted with amendments. The members of the opposition in the
Liberal Party are strongly opposing the bill. I presume that the
members of the NDP are also opposing it.
We will wait for the result. I do not know what the result will
be, but over the weekend I had my party's full support when I
said that the five conditions of medicare would always be
respected by everyone.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, while
the government dithers, Klein privatizes. First we had the
finance minister who managed a measly two cents in health
transfers for every dollar in tax cuts. Now we have the health
minister who is shadow boxing with Ralph Klein. These are
supposed to be the two flowers of the federal cabinet.
Why will the health minister not take a clear stand against
Klein's privatization?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Health was in Calgary and he could not
have been clearer when he was there. I will be in Calgary on
Thursday and I will repeat the same thing: that the five
conditions will be respected by every government. On Friday I
will meet with Mr. Klein in Edmonton and I will repeat that very
clearly.
* * *
GASOLINE PRICES
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, for weeks now Canadians have been paying record high
prices at the gas pumps. In response, the government has now
announced it will spend $750,000 to study fuel prices.
Can the industry minister tell us just how spending over a half
a million dollars of taxpayer money will in any way relieve the
escalating financial burden on Canadian motorists and truckers?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, 47 members of parliament from this caucus have worked
very hard on understanding what was happening in the gas market
and recommended to us that we perform such a study. In taking
their recommendation, we have gone to a very respected research
organization, an independent research body, once and for all, for
the first time in many years, to do a thorough study of the
market, the relationship between prices, supply, demand and the
different players in the gasoline retailing business.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, if those members have done their work and made
recommendations, why do we need a further study? It is a waste
of taxpayer dollars to do yet another study on gasoline prices.
It is more of an attempt by the Liberals to appear to be doing
something when they are actually doing nothing.
Before the finance minister is sent into exile in the foreign
affairs department, will he take some concrete steps to bring
about some reduced excise gasoline tax for Canadians?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as the hon. member knows, while the Canadian government
obviously does impose taxes on gasoline, the majority of those
taxes are imposed by the provincial government. Before anybody
looks at any taxes, both levels of government would obviously
have to meet.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, today another credibility gap opened up involving the
human resources minister. Weeks ago she justified grants to
ridings that did not qualify by saying that they had pockets of
unemployment, but she had a hard time explaining what a pocket
was. She also could not explain why other MPs were unaware of
this deviation from the rules.
Just recently an undated document appeared from her department
which for the first time mentioned this concept of pockets.
Today, however, Mel Cappe said that there were no such
guidelines. I think the minister has some explaining to do.
1430
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again the clerk talked about the aspect
of flexibility in the transitional jobs fund. As I have said a
number of times in the House, it is precisely that flexibility
that has allowed for investments in ridings of that party.
The hon. member talks about credibility. On the issue of
credibility, why has she not moved to correct the erroneous
information presented by members of that party, like the fact
that they said there was $3 billion missing and there is not;
like the fact that they reduced it to $1 billion, and it is not;
like the fact that they talk in the House about the fact that
they do not want grants and contributions but back in their own
ridings they support individual—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Calgary—Nose
Hill.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, what is missing is the smallest straight answer from the
minister to even the simplest questions regarding her department.
When asked about the notion of pockets of unemployment, the
former deputy minister of her own department, now the top civil
servant, said there were no such explicit guidelines.
If this is true, if pockets did not exist as explicit
guidelines, then where did this document come from that the
minister produced a few days ago?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again the whole intention of the
transitional jobs fund was to help areas of high unemployment, to
help build with our partners opportunities that otherwise would
not exist.
If the hon. member would just take a trip up to northern British
Columbia where many of her colleagues received this funding and
talk to the individuals who are working in these companies, she
would feel embarrassed about the question that she has asked.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on June 17,
1998, Human Resources Development Canada authorized trustee and
lawyer Gilles Champagne to pay out $1,190,000 to Placeteco for
the maintenance of 77 jobs and the creation of 42 new jobs.
How can the Prime Minister live with a Gilles Champagne, a HRDC
trustee, who receives with his right hand approval to disburse
the grant, and who then, with his left hand, as counsel for
Claude Gauthier, takes that grant and says “Yes, I accept it”?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us review the facts again.
On a number of occasions in the House I have identified that
there were administrative errors made on this file. On a number
of occasions in the House I have identified that as a result of
the continued investment in this company with our partners,
Canadians continue to be working.
I would ask the hon. member what she would have had us do,
nothing? Take the money back? If that is what she would have
liked, then why does she not say so? From our point of view, the
right thing to do was to ensure that the Canadians who were
working were able to continue to do so.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the letter
from Human Resources Development Canada authorizing payment of
the grant stipulates that 42 new jobs be created, but the
department has admitted that only one in fact was.
In this context, will Placeteco be paying back the excess grant
money, as the Prime Minister announced and as Vidéotron has
done?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again on this file I have confirmed that
we have reviewed the invoices and that the invoices have been
provided which substantiate the moneys that were invested in the
company. In this file there are two companies that continue to
employ people. As a result of these investments, 170 people are
working in areas of high unemployment.
If members opposite have further questions on these files,
perhaps they would refer them to the Government of Quebec which
also supported these investments.
1435
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canada's top public servant, Mel Cappe, told a committee this
morning that there were no explicit guidelines for the use of
this grant money in these so-called pockets of unemployment. The
minister said there were guidelines but that they were flexible.
Who are we supposed to believe, Canada's top public servant or
the politician?
The Speaker: The question is in order but I would remind
hon. members, please use our titles that we have in the House.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again there is no discrepancy between
what the clerk has said and what has actually happened.
Indeed as I have said on a number of occasions, 75% of the money
for the transitional jobs fund was to go to areas with higher
than 12% unemployment. The other 25% was to go to communities
that needed help, where investments would create spin-off
opportunities, where we found within the boundaries of a larger
community, areas of high unemployment.
Again I point out that the vast majority of communities that
received moneys in areas of less than 12% were in opposition
ridings. Many of them were ridings of the Reform Party.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
minister just said there was no discrepancy between what Mel
Cappe said this morning and what the minister has been saying. In
other words, she is telling the House and Canadians that there
are absolutely no controls on the use of this money by
politicians, by political leaders. That is unacceptable. That
is why we have a problem in the country with the minister
bungling the use of a billion dollars.
Is it the minister's position that there should be absolutely no
controls on the use of taxpayers' money?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, probably I should offer an apology to the people of
Alberta because if we did not have any flexibility in the
program, not one cent from the program would have gone to that
province. It would have been the same thing in British Columbia.
It would have been the same thing in Saskatchewan. It would have
been the same thing in Manitoba. But we knew there were pockets
of unemployment in those four provinces and we adjusted the
program to make sure that the money went into those provinces.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Michel
Béliveau, the former director general of the Liberal Party of
Canada's Quebec section, now the vice-president of the Liberal
Party of Canada, who attended the Liberal convention on the
weekend, who is a friend of the Prime Minister, is also a
consultant for Placeteco.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Is it the presence of
Mr. Béliveau, a friend of his in the Placeteco matter, that made
him slow off the mark in calling for an investigation into this
matter as he did in the case of the Canadian Institute of
Tourism and Electronic Commerce?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I categorically reject the assertions of
the hon. member. I say again, on a number of occasions we have
talked about administrative errors made on this particular file.
Those were corrected.
At the same time it is clear to us that continuing to invest in
Placeteco and Techni-Paint was the wise thing to do. These
projects were supported by the Bloc member in one case, by the
Government of Quebec in both cases, and we see today that 170
people are working at those plants.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, everyone is
wondering how the $1.2 million that went to Placeteco was given
the way it was. That is the minister's explanation.
Then there is Claude Gauthier, who received a grant of $1.2
million and who bought the properties from the Prime Minister for
$500,000; Gilles Champagne, who is a HRDC trustee and Claude
Gauthier's lawyer; and Michel Béliveau, who is a friend of the
Liberal Party and consultant for Placeteco.
1440
Does the minister not think that there are enough coincidences,
enough cronies in the Prime Minister's club, to ask what is
going on and call for a public inquiry?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The question is in order. The Minister of Human
Resources Development.
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again I would point out that it is the
very close friends of that party opposite who also participated
in this decision. The Government of Quebec supported these
undertakings. If they have questions, why do they not talk to
their government?
* * *
EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
public accounts list 10 long term loans to foreign countries made
by the Export Development Corporation worth $685 million that are
not repayable for up to 55 years. On top of that, EDC has agreed
to charge zero per cent interest on these long term loans. That
is no interest and no payments for up to 55 years. EDC policy is
better than that of the Brick or Leon's no money miracle.
How can the government which is paying $43 billion interest on
our debt at home justify giving these sweetheart deals to foreign
countries?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the EDC is a very fine institution that
has helped thousands of Canadian companies export to
international markets. It is a very fine institution that has
actually made money year after year. It made $118 million last
year. It made $124 million the year before. It makes money with
the loans it gives on a commercial basis while all the time
helping Canadian companies abroad.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. I appeal to you once again
that when it is difficult for me to hear a response it must be
more difficult for you.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
here is a case in point. The Export Development Corporation
loaned $200 million to China interest free and not due until the
year 2042. This is the government that charges interest on
Canada student loans six months after graduation of the students
but gives interest free loans to the Government of China for up
to 55 years.
Can the minister explain why a country like China which enjoys a
tremendous trade surplus over Canada cannot finance its own
expenditures?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the EDC makes money from the loans it
makes. Year after year it has helped Canadian companies sell
goods and services around the world. The EDC is a very fine
institution and is serving Canadian interests very well. That
party might very well want to destroy itself in the next few
months, but we will not let it destroy a fine Canadian
institution helping us abroad.
* * *
[Translation]
GASOLINES PRICES
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
the Minister of Industry, the one who was so quick to find money
for professional hockey players, announced the federal
government's solution to the problem of high gasoline prices: a
study, to be tabled by January 2001, to be undertaken by the
conference board at a cost of $600,000.
Does the minister realize that a study by the conference board,
with members such as Shell Canada, Petro-Canada and other oil
companies, is very much like an investigation conducted by the
wolf to find out who ate the sheep?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
conference board has existed since 1954. It is made up of about one
hundred members. Is the hon. member insinuating that the
conference board's reputation does not justify paying for the
expenses incurred by its members, including the Quebec
department of natural resources?
* * *
1445
[English]
AGRICULTURE
Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
Nick Parsons arrived on Parliament Hill. He drove his combine
all the way from Dawson Creek, British Columbia to Ottawa to
bring attention to the problems that Canadian farmers are facing
right across Canada.
Can the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food tell the House how
the government recognized Mr. Parsons' efforts?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we recognized Mr. Parsons' efforts in a
number of ways.
I personally spent an hour with Mr. Parsons yesterday,
commending him for his initiative and the awareness he has
brought to all Canadians of the importance of the family farm and
the agricultural industry across the country. We shared thoughts
and ideas about how we can do even more.
Even better than meeting with me, he met with our Prime
Minister, and they too shared thoughts. The Prime Minister
stressed the importance of the many things we have done for
Canadian agriculture and that we are looking at doing even more.
* * *
EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
prior to 1984 the Export Development Corporation published a list
of Canada account loans that included the amount and the
recipients of the loans. Today the Minister for International
Trade and the EDC rely on secrecy and confidentiality rules to
hide these controversial and high risk loans from Canadians.
Past Liberal governments chose to lay their cards on the table
regarding the EDC. Why is this Liberal government hiding the
details?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear. The EDC has earned
the auditor general's award for annual reporting three times over
the last six years. The auditor general has access to the board
of directors' minutes—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. We will hear the minister.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, some people really do
not like good news in the House.
The auditor general has given the EDC the award for annual
reporting three times over the past six years. The auditor
general has access to the board of directors' minutes of
meetings, transactions, details and financial records.
In 1998 the auditor general said “In my opinion, the
transactions of the corporation have in all significant respects
been in accordance with the Financial Administration Act”.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
EDC is a government crown corporation that relies on taxpayers'
money to fund its operations. Unfortunately for the Canadian
taxpayer, the EDC remains unaccountable to parliament and the
auditor general for its controversial lending practices.
What is the government hiding, another get rich scheme for
Liberal cronies?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this again is just another attempt by the
political right in the country to misinform Canadians about this
56 year old institution.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. I would invite the hon.
minister to be very judicious in his choice of words.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, Canadians have the
right to know. Let me be clear for the seven year old Reform
Party. The EDC does not give out money or subsidies. The EDC
lends money from its own coffers, not taxpayers' money, on a
commercial basis. That is what it does.
* * *
1450
HEALTH
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am not sure the Prime Minister appreciates the damage
he has done by refusing to take action on bill 11. His
statements have been interpreted by Ralph Klein as approval for
bill 11 and they amount to a betrayal of all of those Canadians
fighting to stop this destructive legislation.
Is this the sum total of federal leadership: sitting on the
fence with fingers crossed, hoping the problem will go away? Is
this the best Canadians can expect from their government?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister could not have been clearer. Alberta, like
all provinces in their legislation, must respect the five basic
principles of the Canada Health Act.
There is another question and it is whether this bill and the
measures it represents will do anything about the problems facing
medicare. In fact, the evidence is that it will not. With
private for profit clinics the waiting lists are longer and the
costs are higher.
We hope that Premier Klein will listen to the people of Alberta
and withdraw the legislation.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am glad the health minister answered the question
because it shows the contrast between his answer and how two
former health ministers of the Liberal government would have
responded to that question. They would have stood in the House
and said absolutely no to Ralph Klein. In fact, Monique Bégin, a
former health minister, would have said that Canadians want
leadership, they want a person of courage.
I want to know from this minister if he will get off the fence
and if he is prepared to show the courage of his convictions, the
courage of the convictions of former health ministers, and give
leadership to Canadians who want—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Health.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I invite the member to read the speech which I delivered in
Calgary, which very clearly expressed my view on the question.
Alberta, like all provinces, must comply with the Canada Health
Act, and this legislation will not help.
However, Premier Klein's challenges go far beyond me. He now
has to contend with the opposition to this bill expressed by the
Alberta Medical Association, the Association of Registered
Nurses, chiefs of medical staff in Calgary and Edmonton, the
Consumers' Association and the United Nurses of Alberta. We hope
that Premier Klein will listen to the people of Alberta. Perhaps
he might decide to withdraw the legislation.
* * *
GASOLINE PRICES
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker,
in response to the crisis in gasoline prices the Liberal
government has done what Liberals always do. It appointed a
committee to study the industry, and it is the 12th in the last
15 years. Does that make sense? The committee will cost
Canadians $750,000 and it will not report until next year.
Why does the finance minister not cut out the doggie doodle and
reduce the federal tax on gasoline that he himself raised in
1995?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would congratulate the member for reminding the House
that the excise tax is a product of his party in the previous
government. I also want to congratulate the hon. member for
finally coming to the realization of the problems that exist.
I want to congratulate the members of this caucus who for so
long have been concerned about this particular issue.
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr.
Speaker, if the finance minister is so concerned, why has he not
done anything about it? Fuel prices have gone up 40%. If
they do not come down, inflation will rise. That means
skyrocketing interest rates. High interest rates mean higher
debt service charges. When that happens the finance minister can
kiss his sorry surplus goodbye.
It is very simple. Will the government cut taxes on fuel at
least until it gets the crisis under control?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I can hardly believe my ears. The hon. member is
talking about high interest rates. When we took office our
interest rates were substantially above those of the United
States. Today they are lower.
1455
When we take a look at what the federal government has done in
terms of its own debt, our debt has come down, the deficit has
been eliminated and unemployment is down. This is a different
country from the one we took over in 1993.
* * *
NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of
National Revenue.
Members of the business community work long hours, far beyond
the traditional nine-to-five workday. The last thing they want
to hear when they call a government office is a busy signal.
What will the minister do to ensure greater access by Canadian
businesses to the resources of this key government agency?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and
Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the
Regions of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank
the hon. member for his very important question.
We all remember that we launched the agency last November 1. The
aim and goal was to provide the Canadian population with better
services. I am pleased to report today that we recently launched
a 1-800 number for the business community and that 97% of the
people which have tried to get in touch with the department have
been able to do so on their very first attempt.
I am pleased to report as well that the line is open from 8.15
in the morning until 8 o'clock in the evening. That is good
Liberal government.
* * *
EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister for International Trade has said that the
EDC is a very fine institution. Let us see what a fine
institution it really is. China's Three Gorges Dam is built on
an earthquake fault line. It was shunned for funding by both the
U.S. government and the World Bank.
What happened? The EDC stepped in and funded the Three Gorges
Dam, despite serious environmental, corruption and economic
charges.
Why is the government using taxpayers' money to support a dam
that is an environmental disaster?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us be clear about this deal. Like so
many others, the Government of Canada has certain positions which
the member knows very well. The EDC works at arm's length from
the Government of Canada. It has accepted the project. It is
not the only institution. Similar financial institutions from
France, Germany, Japan and Austria have also been onside with
their exporters in this foreign deal.
* * *
[Translation]
GASOLINE PRICES
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the June 1998
report of the Liberal committee on gasoline pricing in Canada,
stated the following:
The committee finds [...] disturbing the recent tendency of the
federal government to turn to outside authorities to obtain data
and information on the oil industry. The committee wonders if
that is acceptable.
Is the Minister of Industry not making the same mistake he made
in the professional sports issue by ignoring the opinion of the
Liberal caucus and asking the Conference Board to undertake a
study that should be conducted by an objective parliamentary
committee?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
caucus committee recommended that we undertake such a study. We
took time to find an independent organization with a spotless
reputation with respect to the quality of research that it can
perform. We are convinced that, based on facts, better political
approaches can be found.
* * *
1500
[English]
NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
The minister is responsible for economic development in the
north. Northern foreign policy has clear directions for economic
development in the north, yet the department has not done a thing
in over a decade.
However there is some hope because the Yukon government and the
chamber of commerce, all parties, are building to create a labour
sponsored venture fund, the Fireweed Fund. I ask the minister
for a commitment today to support this fund that would be an
economic initiative in the north.
Hon. Robert D. Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the member knows because
I have talked to her personally about this matter, we are looking
at this proposal very carefully. We think it is important to
work on economic development for northerners. Once we have
reviewed it I will give her that information.
* * *
GASOLINE PRICING
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, it seems
the only people commending the industry minister's recent study
are Liberal backbenchers. The Canadian Automobile Association,
the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute, the Canadian Trucking
Alliance and others have all questioned the need for yet another
gasoline pricing study.
Will the minister admit this study is simply a stall and delay
tactic to ensure that he and his government will not have to take
action and work at this question until after the next election?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am very happy to be initiating a study at the request
of Liberal backbenchers. I am glad they are happy that we are
doing it. Unlike the hon. member they are prepared to see us
understand what the facts are, how this market works, how the
prices relate to supply, and how the market functions between
independents and vertically integrated suppliers.
Those are questions that are perhaps a little too sophisticated
for the hon. member, but we on this side of the House think they
are important.
* * *
1505
PRIVILEGE
STANDING COMMITTEE ON CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
The Speaker: Last Friday the member for London North
Centre rose on a question of privilege concerning the premature
release of a confidential document that was a work in progress by
the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. At that
time I decided to reserve my decision until the committee itself
dealt with the issue. The chair of the Standing Committee on
Citizenship and Immigration presented a report on this matter
earlier today.
I also said I would hold my decision in abeyance until the
member for Lakeland had an opportunity to address the House on
this matter. I would now invite the hon. member for Lakeland to
do so.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased that you have given me a chance to speak to this
very important issue. In my presentation I will explain why I do
not believe in fact that I was in contempt of parliament. I
would like to elaborate on that a bit.
I will begin my statement by quoting from the constitution of
our country. There are a number of procedural requirements of
the House of Commons provided in the constitution. These
procedural requirements make up the rules of the House. These
rules must be respected by the House and by its committees.
Section 49 of the Constitution Act provides that questions
arising in the House of Commons shall be decided by a majority of
voices. Further, Standing Order 116 states that in a standing
committee the standing orders shall apply.
The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration did not
decide to go in camera by a majority vote. It did not decide to
go in camera as a result of a motion or a vote of any kind. The
committee did not make the decision. The chair made the decision
unilaterally. In fact it decided the opposite and reaffirmed
this on March 2, 2000.
Even though in my opinion the committee could go in camera by
way of a motion pursuant to the rules and practices, it only
confirmed what these rules are. Specifically the evidence from
the committee meeting of March 2 shows that the committee
reconfirmed the House rules and therefore committee rules
requiring a vote to pass by a majority to cause the committee to
go in camera.
At the very next meeting the Liberal chair of the committee
decided on his own and against the clear rules of the committee
to ignore the democratic process and move the proceedings away
from public scrutiny.
I think it is important to note that the reason the issue came
up on March 2 at the committee meeting and at previous meetings
is that the chair of the committee, the hon. member for London
North Centre, had unilaterally moved meetings in camera, in other
words to become secret, apparently to protect the government from
possible embarrassing comments that Liberal members might make
during discussion of what the committee had heard. That is what
the discussion was on.
The discussion was on what the committee had heard from
witnesses who appeared before the committee. There was no
apparent reason other than political considerations. After all,
all the witnesses were heard in public. I protested this
improper decision and the committee chair agreed there was no
good reason to hold these discussions secretly. I fully expected
of course then that the next meeting would be a public meeting.
At the same March 2 meeting of the House of Commons Standing
Committee on Citizenship and Immigration the committee agreed,
and I quote from the minutes of proceedings “that the draft
report be considered in public”. This is from the minutes of
proceedings of the Thursday, March 2, 2000 meeting, the very
meeting before the chair unilaterally chose to hold this meeting
in camera with no vote from the committee. I would be happy to
table this document, the minutes of proceedings.
1510
Therefore the chairman did not only breach the constitution and
the rules of the House, I would argue, but he breached the
committee's own internal rules and the clearly documented will of
the committee.
Furthermore I would like to draw the Speaker's attention to an
argument at page 10464 of Hansard. On October 9, 1997, the
Speaker ruled that committees must address their work processes
and be very clear about how they expect draft reports and other
material relating to in camera meetings to be treated. That was
your ruling, Mr. Speaker.
In my opinion the committee had set out very clearly that the
draft report was to be discussed in an open meeting prior to
meetings being held in camera and that prior to any meeting being
held in camera a vote would be taken.
The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration was in
camera illegally. If anyone were in contempt, I would charge
that the chairman was in contempt of the House for usurping the
authority of the House as provided for in the constitution of our
country, in the rules of the House of Commons, and as decided by
this committee itself. Therefore I believe the House should find
the member for London North Centre in contempt for exercising
authority beyond the authority granted by the committee.
For all these reasons I believe that I was not in contempt of
parliament. To make it clear, the committee was not in camera.
Therefore I was providing public information to the public. I am
not in contempt, in my view.
There is one important and very pertinent piece of information
which I feel I should present. The document I released was not
the final draft of the committee report. Because the committee
had gone illegally I believe in camera, this draft document was
the only record I had of the proceedings of the committee. As
the House knows the official record of the committee is not
available to the public if the meeting is declared to be an in
camera meeting.
As I have already explained, I believe the meeting was in fact a
public meeting because the chair of the committee, the member for
London North Centre, had illegally convened the committee in
secret. The final draft of the committee has yet to be tabled in
the House, but as I am sure you will find when it is tabled, Mr.
Speaker, that draft is not the same as the draft of the document
which I released in public.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. We are here on a question of
privilege. I would prefer not to have any interruptions. I want
to hear what the member has to say. I listened to the other
member before, as did the House, and I want to hear what he has
to say.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: Mr. Speaker, I really would
appreciate if the chair of the committee would allow me to say my
piece. That is the respectful thing to do.
Perhaps I could add a few more comments regarding the minister
and the chair of the committee. The committee launched at my
request into hearings on the issue of illegal migration into our
country. The chair of the committee, the hon. member for London
North Centre, assured members of this all-party committee that
our findings would culminate in a report which would be
considered by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in
developing long awaited new immigration legislation. The
minister also assured committee members and Canadians right
across the country that the report would be considered in
developing this new legislation.
How do you think, Mr. Speaker, Canadians who are carefully
following the proceedings of this committee, and especially the
people who appeared as witnesses, must feel when three weeks
before the committee presents its report I have received a draft
copy of the new act which I released in public some two weeks
ago? This new act is not to be confused with the draft committee
report which I released in a media conference last Thursday.
Not only did I receive a copy of the new act, but I also
received along with it the schedule called the critical path for
the final stages of approval and tabling of the legislation. I
have a copy of that here to be tabled, Mr. Speaker, if you would
so choose to accept that document.
1515
Of course, I would like to refer to just three dates in the
critical path. It is important. The draft bill was sent to all
the provinces on Monday, February 21. The final draft of the
bill was to be signed by the minister on Thursday, March 7 and
the act was to be introduced to parliament on March 30.
How is it that the very legislation which was supposed to have
included information from the report of the committee on
citizenship and immigration was a done deal before our draft
report was even written? What a sick joke.
Members of the committee, each witness who appeared and all
Canadians should be furious for using them like this. They
presented to the committee with the best of intentions believing
what they said would be taken into account in developing the new
act. What a complete lack of respect for democracy and what a
complete lack of respect for the Canadian public.
I am here today to answer to the government's charge that I
stand in contempt of parliament for my action of releasing to the
media, and to Canadians, a draft of the committee report which
was marked confidential.
I believe I have made the case that in fact this report was a
public document. I am here today as well to charge the chair
of the committee, the member for London North Centre, with
contempt of parliament for the reasons I have outlined in this
presentation. I ask the Speaker to rule at his earliest
convenience. I am looking forward to your ruling on both the
charges which have been laid against me, contempt of parliament,
and the charges which, Mr. Speaker, I am presenting to you
against the chair of the committee, the member for London North
Centre.
I look forward to your rulings, Mr. Speaker, and I thank you in
advance.
The Speaker: If members have new facts to share with the
House, I want to hear them. I do not want to get into a debate.
I will hear the hon. government House leader.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it was a little hard to go
through all of this and to assume that it would work. I am sure
that Your Honour probably has difficulty in that regard as well.
Mr. Speaker, on one hand we hear the hon. member say that he as
a way of defence is accusing the chairman of the committee for
having used an improper procedure and that is tantamount to his
justification for the act he has committed.
Regardless of what occurred, that is not justification for his
own behaviour. If the proper motion was not adopted by the
committee for the committee to go into camera, that is a matter
for the committee to discuss. The fact still remains that
citation 877 of Beauchesne's still applies. It says very
clearly:
No act done at any committee should be divulged before it has
been reported to the House. Upon this principle the House of
Commons of the United Kingdom, on April 21, 1937, resolved “That
the evidence taken by any select committee—
That is the equivalent of a standing committee in the British
House.
Not only was the document published and circulated by the hon.
member, but the chair of the committee informed the House and
provided both the chair and the table with written proof of a
press release in which the member for Lakeland was actually
advertising the fact that he was committing this act. I read
further where it says:
The publication of proceedings of committees conducted with
closed doors or of reports of committees before they are
available to Members will, however, constitute a breach of
privilege.
It does not say “and”. It says “or”.
1520
I believe that citation was read into the record when I was in
the House by the chair of the standing committee.
I do not know if the committee moved the appropriate motion to
proceed to in camera or if the chair concluded that there was
agreement to that effect and it was not challenged. Whichever
way it was, the fact still remains that the committee was
considering a report which of course was eventually going to be
tabled in the House. Until it is tabled in the House, the
relevant citation of Beauchesne's, 877, still applied. This was
a premature disclosure.
The final argument we heard from the hon. member is that his
disclosing this report was somehow immaterial. He says that the
minister was not going to give the report consideration because
the minister was already working on a draft of the bill. First,
those two concepts are not mutually exclusive. Second, it is
immaterial. Whether or not the member believes that a minister
would or would not have considered the report is not
justification for a breach of the rules of parliament.
If I think we are going to win a vote tonight on supply or any
other issue, would that justify me or anyone else in the House
dispensing with having the vote because we firmly believe that
based on our numbers that we would win it anyway? That is
ridiculous. That kind of defence by the hon. member clearly does
not work and I suggest that it will not wash with Your Honour.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. opposition whip was
on his feet. I will recognize him.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I just wanted to raise a point of order arising from the
intervention by my colleague from Lakeland.
During his intervention, as you noted when you tried to restore
order to the House, Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the standing
committee in question, the hon. member for London North Centre,
was heard very clearly to shout out that my hon. colleague is an
embarrassment to the House. I would ask that he retract those
words. It is despicable that he would—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. I would first like to deal
with this point of privilege. If such a thing occurred, then I
did not hear it. We will hear one side and then the other. I do
not want to get into the debate. Is there more information to
offer?
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: Mr. Speaker, I believe there is a
clarification. In his reply, the hon. House leader for the
government said that somehow I was using my complaints against
the chair of the committee as a defence, and I was not. That is
a separate issue. I only raised it at this time because the same
information applies.
If I could just also mention that the hon. House leader talked
about whether or not a committee goes in camera is a decision to
be made by the committee. That was part of my argument. That
never happened and the record will show that.
The Speaker: We are getting into debate. I am looking
for new facts on this particular matter.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, very briefly, I am on that committee. I knew nothing of
the concerns of the hon. member for Lakeland. I arrived one day
at the committee and found that it was in camera on the
discussion of the report which was very important. I moved a
motion such that the in camera committee report would be available
to the public as soon as it was tabled. I think that
would have been a way to get around the problem expressed by the
hon. member for Lakeland, but unfortunately this motion was
unable to go forward because we did not have quorum.
1525
Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I will leave it in your good judgment and perhaps the good
judgment of the procedure and House affairs committee to
determine which facts are right and which facts are wrong as put
forward by myself last Friday.
Mr. Speaker, as you know, I gave notice on Thursday, half an hour
after the member prematurely released a confidential document. I
will not recite the citations. I also stood this morning and
indicated with a heavy heart that the committee itself, in its
first report, indicated that it felt its privileges were breached
because of the premature release of a draft report in confidence
that will be made public tomorrow. Everyone's rights have been
breached. That is the additional piece of information.
I want to make one clarification because obviously an awful lot
of information has been put before you with regard to this
matter. It is an embarrassing matter.
First of all I want to say that I respectfully informed the whip
of the Reform Party two hours before the member for Lakeland was
to make this issue public. He, I might add, was as concerned as
I was as to the actions of the member for Lakeland. I point that
out to the House.
The Speaker: Order, please. I think we are getting into
debate. I will go now to the hon. member for Mississauga West.
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I have some new information that I think might be of interest to
you.
The member for Lakeland mentioned the meeting on March 2. At
that meeting he said he objected to the fact that the committee
would be moving in camera to deal with the report.
I should point out to you that he actually
threatened the committee at that meeting by saying that if we
went in camera he had a tape recorder, which he showed the
committee, and he would be tape recording the proceedings to
release the information in whatever way he chose to release it,
notwithstanding the fact that the committee would have ruled in
some form of obvious democratic way. That was the kind of
intimidation tactic frankly that we were faced with.
The member for Wentworth—Burlington has pointed out to you, Mr.
Speaker, that it was his suggestion that the minutes of the
meeting be made available to the public after the document was
completed and reported to this place.
The second point of information that I would leave with you, Mr.
Speaker, is that the member has actually admitted that the
document he released was not a completed document. In fact, this
same member has refused to participate in the amendments at
committee to finally get the document to a stage where the
committee was ready to pass a motion to present it to the House.
We know that with 301 members in this place, not all members are
able to serve on every committee. By extension, the committee is
therefore required to report to the House before it reports to
anyone else. That is understood.
I would also add that if you look in the rules and
procedures, which I am sure you do not need to do because you
know this, it also says that even if a draft report is written in
public session, it is still confidential until it is reported to
the House. Mr. Speaker, that is some additional information for
you to consider.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would just like to reinforce one thought and that is
the reason the standing orders are there. They should override
any decision contrary to them because, as has been said, every
privilege of each member of the House will be adversely affected
if a report, deemed expressly prohibited to be released, is
released. Therefore, as a member I feel aggrieved.
The Speaker: We have now heard the original claim of
privilege by the hon. member for London North Centre. We have
heard an explanation by the member for Lakeland. Now we have had
interventions by at least another five members of parliament.
The hon. member for Lakeland said that he had a document that he
would lay on the table. I invite him indeed to lay all of the
documents on the table so that I can examine them.
1530
I am going to reserve my decision and I will get back to the
House when it is necessary.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—MANAGEMENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN
RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the amendment.
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
welcome the opportunity to participate in this important debate.
It is pretty frustrating sitting here in the nosebleed section
listening to what passes for debate in question period as being
informative to the Canadian public. There seems to be an endless
amount of accusation on what seems to me to be a fairly thin
issue.
The minister of human resources apparently can never be too
transparent. It does not seem to matter that the minister has
released over 10,000 documents. It does not seem to matter that
she has established a website. It is essentially a feeding
frenzy. Regrettably it feeds into some of the most cherished
notions of Canadians who do not take the time to inform
themselves with respect to debate in the House, namely that
government is wasteful by definition, that government is
intrusive into the lives of Canadians, that government is
therefore corrupt.
HRDC is a very big department. It spends something in the order
of $60 billion of taxpayers' money on an annual basis. It
administers the pension program but I assume that members of the
opposition are against pension programs. It administers programs
with respect to people with disabilities but I assume that
members opposite are against people with disabilities. It
administers funds in all kinds of areas of interest to Canadians
including jobs funds.
Frequently government is faced with some fairly unhappy choices
in areas of high unemployment. We all wish our country could be
equally blessed and enjoy equal areas of low unemployment such as
the community from which I come, Toronto. Nationally the
unemployment rate is 6.8%, and for us it is something lower,
around 6% and possibly even under 6%. We wish that all Canadians
were able to find employment wherever they find themselves in
this country but regrettably that is simply not a reality for
many of our fellow citizens.
When government tries to address these problems, it does an
uneven job. Usually the focus is on some area of high
unemployment. Frequently the choices are social assistance,
unemployment insurance or some form of job training program.
These are unhappy choices. We look at a constituent or a fellow
citizen and ask “What do you want to do here? Do you want to
collect social assistance, do you want to collect unemployment or
do you want to try this job program?” That is what it boils
down to.
The debate on this issue has generated a great deal of heat and
very little light. I want to put on the record a number of
statistical facts which hopefully will get somewhere close to the
facts on the debate.
The money in question is something in the order of $1 billion
which by anybody's definition is a lot of money. Bear in mind
that $1 billion is out of the entire government's budget of $160
billion. What we are talking about and focusing on is 1/160 of
the government's overall budget.
The government to its great credit did an audit of about 20% of
its $1 billion program, in other words about $200 million. It
audited something in the order of 459 projects. Of those 459
projects 37 were found to have some problem, some administrative
problem, some filing problem, some this, some that.
About 8% of the projects were found to have something wrong with
them.
1535
Of the 37 projects involving some irregularities, all moneys
were accounted for except at this point something like $600.
That is not big money, but in the House it seems to be an
exaggerated amount of money. Even if we project that forward and
say that something in the order of $80 million of this $1 billion
is in question, and that is the highest it gets for the
opposition, if we say that is true, that is roughly 8% of the
overall project.
Bear in mind we are dealing with people who are in some
considerable distress. As I indicated earlier, the choices are
social assistance, unemployment insurance or this jobs fund.
Frankly it does not work all the time. What is the insight
there? I am perfectly prepared to debate hon. members opposite
if they think all of this kind of thing should be cancelled.
In my view at this point on the evidence that is available to
us, even projecting forward the $600 that is missing, we have
$3,000 in question. Members opposite think we should call a
public inquiry over $3,000. That level of absurdity even this
House has not seen in a long time.
It is never in the interests of either the media or the
opposition to talk about success stories. In my riding no one
seems to be interested in the money that the University of
Toronto spends in this program, nor is there interest in West
Hill Community Services. There are 800 volunteers on the ground
each and every week providing assistance to all kinds of
Canadians in my riding but no one wants to talk about that.
How about the West Rouge Community Centre? The canoe club
burned down and we helped to get some money together so that it
could be restored. No one wants to talk about that. It was not
in the Scarborough Mirror. It was not on the local Shaw
Cable. It was not in the Toronto Star, the Globe and
Mail and it was certainly not in the National Post. Does
anyone want to talk about the Scarborough Philharmonic Society?
All these programs in my riding make us a more civil nation.
Frankly, it gets a little tiresome listening to what passes for
debate in the House over what is utter nonsense. These are ways
in which government civilizes our communities.
Classically businesses are not interested in this sort of stuff.
To be perfectly blunt about it, businesses want to make money. I
understand that. That is their area of expertise. I just do not
quite understand why businesses should adhere to a failure rate
of something in the order of 25%, if we compare first year
businesses, and governments on the other hand have to achieve a
standard of absolute perfection or else those opposite go
absolutely nuts.
Some of the grants are problematic. I am prepared to admit
that. The government depends on the community, the province and
local businesses to generate the projects. Clearly not all
projects are equal. Clearly the conception of the project may be
different from its execution. No advocate of a project ever
starts off with a proposition that it is going to scam the
government, that it is going to be one big wonderful scam.
The best projects and the vast majority of projects are welcome
in their communities and no one ever hears about them. Good news
is no news. It does not hit the headlines.
The ones that do hit the headlines divide into two categories:
the projects that are problems that have an explanation and can
be fixed and the projects that are problems with no explanation
and cannot be fixed.
The first category is one question in question period and it
dies. What is the biggest killer on a question period question?
It is facts. No one really wants to hear the facts. When the
issue can be explained, that is it. It dies and it is gone.
The second category is more problematic for the government. The
question becomes the size and the percentage of impact. I
understand that the opposition is criticizing the spending in
HRDC. At this point in time what is known is what I reiterated
earlier. What is known is that 37 projects have raised some
question in an audit of something in the order of $200 million.
I do not see that as a big issue; 8% is not a great thing.
To be perfectly candid about it, how in heaven's name can we
expect the government to adhere to a standard of perfection
working in an area that is difficult at best?
1540
This is a category of questions and the issue is whether the
glass is half empty or half full. Hon. members opposite think
that something in the order of $600 missing, which is the only
fact that is on the table at this point, requires a public
inquiry. This is an interesting exercise. Even projecting
forward that we have only hit one-fifth of all of the projects,
this would be $600 times five which is $3,000. I do not know
whether we really want to deal with facts here because that is
not really good for politics, but the fact is that based on this
the members opposite wish to call for a public inquiry on an
issue of a missing $3,000.
I urge hon. members to vote against this motion for the very
simple reason that this is one major tempest in a very tiny
teapot.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am pleased
to have the opportunity to put a question to the Liberal member
on the opposition motion introduced by he Bloc Quebecois, but
before asking my question, I would like to remind the House of
the motion we introduced. It reads as follows:
That this House condemn the government for the poor management
seen at the Department of Human Resources Development,
particularly in the award and use of grants for partisan
purposes, and that it recommend the creation of an independent
public commission of inquiry, whose members will be appointed by
the House, and whose mandate will be to inquire into all
practices of that Department and to report to the House by
September 19, 2000.
I would like to give an example of mismanagement which is
happening right now in my riding: the closure of a plant where
several older workers have been paying into employment insurance
for 30 years, 35 years or more. The employer has been paying his
share too.
The plant will be closing at the end of the month and these
workers will probably have to go on social assistance.
Since it came to power, the government has withdrawn from a
program called POWA. Under this program designed to help older
workers, they were guaranteed $1,000 a month until their
retirement.
According to the government's own data, when a worker gets to be
45, it becomes very hard for him to find another job. These men
have worked for 30 years at the same job, in the same plant, in
the same place, they have acquired great experience. Now that
they are 50, that they still must look after their family, that
they have a mortgage, that they have children in university, if
the plant closes down, they will be left without means, they
cannot get back into the labour market. As a result of the
government withdrawing from the program for older worker
adjustment, they are pushed on social assistance.
If this is not mismanagement, I do not know what is.
I would like to ask my Liberal colleague whether he thinks it is
all right to waste money handing out partisan grants while
nothing is being done to help older workers? What is the
government willing to do for these older workers who are losing
their jobs due to a plant closure?
[English]
Mr. John McKay: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for giving a classic illustration of exactly what I was talking
about.
1545
The government is faced with an unhappy situation in that
riding. I understand that. Possibly it is a pocket of high
unemployment, one of those terrible things. Since it is a pocket
of high unemployment what is the government supposed to do? Is
it supposed to walk away and say “Well, that's too bad, you are
on your own?” There are choices. Do they want to go on social
assistance, do they want to go on unemployment or do they want to
try this program?
I do not know much about the POWA program but the illustration
is perfect. How in heaven's name that translates into some sort
of partisan exercise escapes me altogether. Presumably that
program and the transition jobs fund program are available in a
Bloc riding. Presumably, if this was truly partisan, these
programs would not be available in a Bloc riding, a Reform riding
or an NDP riding. The only places they would be available would
be in Liberal ridings.
When the facts come out—and it is a strange concept that in
fact 52% of the grants under these programs have gone to
opposition ridings as opposed to Liberal ridings—one has to ask
oneself what the basis is for this silly motion on partisanship.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate as a former
member of the human resources development committee.
First, I would like to read the text of the motion
brought forward by the member for
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques. The motion reads
as follows:
That this House condemn the government for the poor management
seen at the Department of Human Resources Development,
particularly in the award and use of grants for partisan
purposes, and that it recommend the creation of an independent
public commission of inquiry, whose members will be appointed by
the House, and whose mandate will be to inquire into all
practices of that Department and to report to the House by
September 19, 2000.
There is also an amendment, which reads as follows:
As I was saying, after the 1993 election I was a member of the
human resources development committee.
That committee toured major cities in all the provinces,
including Quebec. My colleague opposite was on that tour. If he
could talk he would certainly tell us that every place we
went the majority of witnesses who came before the committee
were against cuts in social programs. They were against cuts in
the unemployment insurance program, as it was then called.
There were several protests. I do not encourage protests but it
happened several times during that tour. My colleague is nodding
in agreement. He remembers. He may be a Liberal but he
witnessed those protests.
I remember our visit to Montreal, where people turned over
tables to protest against the government's intention to cut
employment insurance.
A subcommittee had been set up and on the last day we went to
Bathurst. I wondered why we were going to that riding, the
riding of the former minister of human resources development.
Why were we going there at the very end, as a subcommittee, without
the TV cameras? That was Doug Young's riding. Protesters were
particularly vocal there. People told us that the situation in
Acadia was similar to that in the Gaspé Peninsula. The Liberal
majority had rejected the idea of going to the Gaspé region or
the Magdalen Islands.
Nor did we go to the Abitibi or the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region,
where seasonal unemployment is extremely high. Still, even if
the subcommittee's destinations had been carefully selected, we
had to go to the minister's riding. But the minister did not
come on that day.
It was quite a surprise for me to see that the protest was even
better organized there than elsewhere.
This was because there were real problems. The wives of fishers
came to testify. They told us that switching from a number of
weeks to a number of hours of work would have a major impact in
their area.
1550
We remember that Doug Young, the former minister, was ousted, as
had been the Conservative minister before him, Bernard Valcourt,
who, at the time, had wanted to proceed with an unemployment
insurance reform. I remember—that is Quebec's motto—that at the
time the current Prime Minister had criticized the idea in a
debate against then Prime Minister Kim Campbell, saying “You
intend to cut social programs and the UI program. This is
unacceptable”. The Prime Minister has left a trail. He even
wrote a letter, using the same arguments ans stating that social
programs and unemployment insurance should not be tampered with.
These programs were necessary in the so-called seasonal
unemployment regions.
But Ms. Campbell would not promise not to follow through on her
plans, or the plans of Human Resources Development Canada
officials. So the plans went ahead and the minister made the
cuts in question, but it will be remembered that there was a
marvellous transitional fund with up to $300 million for Quebec.
The reaction was “Fine, they are making changes but, with the
transitional fund, people will be able to adapt”. But the
problem was the way in which this transitional fund was managed,
when it was realized that it would be limited to regions where
unemployment was higher than 12%.
Unemployment in my riding, and in most ridings in the Quebec
City and Chaudières-Appalaches region, was less than 12%.
They therefore did not qualify for this program but, in the
riding of the present minister, where unemployment stood at 6%,
businesses and organizations did. Why? Because, she said,
there were pockets of poverty.
All members in the House are capable of showing that there are
pockets of poverty everywhere. There are pockets of poverty in
my riding. I go to the Lauzon and, when the shipyard lays
people off, it is not long before there is a pocket of poverty.
There is still one right now.
But, oddly enough, we in the Bloc Quebecois and members of all
the opposition parties were not informed of this directive.
Only the Liberal members heard about it. Luck was on their side.
It hits even closer to home is when one realizes that 54.3% of
the sums allocated over three years through this transitional
job fund were during the six months before and the two months
after the election. Promises had been made and there had not
been time for the grants to be authorized. After the fact, when
questions were raised, it became obvious that the money was
sometimes six months or a year in coming. This is unbelievable.
The hon. member has said that there were partisan attacks from
the opposition. Why are there such attacks which he calls
partisan? Simply because the facts point very clearly to there
having been partisan action in Liberal ridings or in ridings
with opposition MPs on which the Liberals had designs.
The facts are even more worrisome.
I will not spend much time on the Prime Minister's riding, but
it is clear that, particularly in the riding of Saint-Maurice,
there was a sort of flood of grants. Sometimes grants that had
been awarded to another riding, such as Rosemont, got added to
the ones already promised. In the Prime Minister's election
literature, he was not shy about mentioning that this was the
result of his interventions. He even included a quote from the
business owner in question.
I also recall another instance, during the first mandate,
involving phone-in centres for the unemployed and other people
with problems. There were a number of these centres, more or
less everywhere, but they were reduced to two. In the Quebec
City region, there was one in the riding of my colleague for
Louis-Hébert. It was not a face-to-face service. Everything was
done over the phone. They did not receive any clients.
1555
All of a sudden, when there was not even an office, and it was
not one of the centres concerned, the number dropped from 10 to
2. There was not even one in the riding of Saint-Maurice and,
all of a sudden, they were cut to two, and one was opened in the
riding of Saint-Maurice. The one in Montreal they left there.
The one in the riding of Saint-Maurice was to serve eastern
Quebec. I can tell you that the Prime Minister's riding is a
long way from eastern Quebec. This is an example of decision
making.
The member for Trois-Rivières pointed out what happened when the
employment office in Trois-Rivières had to be moved.
They streamlined, and where did the office go? Once again, to
the riding of the Prime Minister, the riding of Saint-Maurice.
We reveal all these facts, plus those mentioned by my colleagues
before me, and the Liberal member opposite looks offended. It
seems to him that the members of the Bloc Quebecois are making
partisan interventions. These facts are never contradicted. In
19 instances, the RCMP, as the Prime Minister said repeatedly,
is investigating.
For me, the evidence is very clear. There was political
influence in the awarding of grants in the transitional jobs
fund. Since I find that scandalous, I add my voice to those who
are protesting.
[English]
Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
first want to address my questioning in the form of motive and
then put three questions to the hon. member with regard to his
presentation to the House this afternoon.
With regard to motive, Madam Speaker, you, like many of us in
the House, have had an opportunity over the past number of years
to sit with Bloc members on numerous standing committees of the
House. I certainly believe that no opposition members and no
government members have any confusion that the Bloc members bring
forward a very partisan position at the committees, the end goal
obviously being secession and to eliminate the role of the
federal government in their ridings in Quebec regardless of the
good work that comes out of the federal initiatives that do great
work for their ridings. That is an indisputable fact. I can see
heads nodding from the various opposition parties. It is a very
partisan position that Bloc members take at the committees.
My question for the Bloc member is threefold. It is very simple
and requires only yes or no answers.
First, does the hon. member recognize that more money was
actually distributed to opposition ridings through the
transitional jobs fund than there was to government ridings? This
is a simple question and the answer is either yes or no. He
either recognizes that or he does not.
If the member does not argue that absolute fact, I have a second
question for him. Is he aware that in the province of Quebec the
provincial government must sign on as a partner on every one of
those transitional jobs funds?
My last question also requires a yes or no answer. Does he
believe that Mr. Bouchard is working in collaboration with the
federal government to put in place a slush fund to support
Liberal members of parliament in Quebec? Or, is the true fact of
his argument and his presentation simply that regardless of the
good work the federal government does in supporting the Canadians
in Quebec and all across the country, he does not want a federal
role in supporting these great organizations within the province
of Quebec and, for that matter, other provinces as well?
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé: Madam Speaker, the fact that more money went
to ridings held by opposition members before 1997 is part of our
argument. For instance, the Anjou riding was held by a Bloc
Quebecois MP. The Liberal Party wanted to win it over.
An hon. member: No.
Mr. Antoine Dubé: It is a fact. We noticed how focussed it all
was.
1600
In the Quebec City and Chaudière-Appalaches region, there are ten
ridings, none of which got any money from this fund because they
were considered impossible to win over by the Liberal Party.
Those where the Liberal Party had no hope of winning did not get
any grant but those where it might win did.
An hon. member: Is he or is he not?
Mr. Antoine Dubé: The member is asking me whether or not I
believe Mr. Bouchard is creating a slush fund. We in the Bloc
Quebecois have always asked for cash transfers to finance active
employment measures.
Speaking of the transitional jobs fund, we went along with it
and we still support it in principle because of the impact of
the drastic cuts on individuals. Where there have been quotas,
in some cases they even went back five years and required
workers to reimburse so-called EI overpayments.
They have bled the unemployed dry in order to doll out grants
for electioneering purposes. This is a vicious, undemocratic
attack. I thought those days were long gone. Unfortunately the
Liberal Party came out of the same mould as the parties that
came before it under previous regimes. It wants to use public
money for partisan purposes, which is unacceptable.
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Madam Speaker, I cannot
say I am pleased to take part in today's debate because it is
not always pleasant to debate issues that reek of scandal.
However, we must do it since this is about taxpayers' money.
I believe there is a consensus here on the importance of
democracy. However, I am one of those who claim that several
elements or factors are currently threatening democracy. I will
not name them all because there are a number of them. There is
one in particular that really gets me fired up. I am often
invited in CEGEPs, universities and even high schools. The first
question that I ask at these meetings is often “If I mention the
word politics, what comes to mind?”
It is not always pretty. I hear words like “corruption”,
“money” and “liar”, and comments such as “They put money in their
pockets”.
Many words are used and this is probably the case all over the
country. Politicians have a very poor reputation. In fact, only
4% of the population support members of parliament and trust
them. This is a profession for which support is among the
lowest.
It is not that serious, because I tell these students, who would
often like to be in the House and say “You are all corrupt, you
put money in your pockets, you mishandle funds” and so on, that
they are not necessarily right, that in fact the problem is not
politics, but the way it is practiced.
As I was saying, the threat to democracy is the fact that an
increasing number of people are losing interest in politics,
because they are disappointed to see how it is practiced.
They are saying “I am never voting again. I am keeping right
out of politics. There is no point. Nothing ever changes.
Politicians are all liars”. This is a very pervasive belief and
I think it must be taken very seriously.
Today's debate is at the heart of this issue because we are
talking about the management of public money. I think that, for
many people, when the Human Resources Development Canada scandal
hit the news, everything I said earlier certainly was in many
people's minds. They saw it as one more scandal and nothing
new. This is deplorable and I think it has very negative
repercussions. People see this as politicians helping
themselves to public money. There are ramifications.
This all began with the tabling of HRDC's internal audit report
on grant programs. Approximately seven categories of programs
were investigated. These programs represented approximately $1
billion annually in grants and contributions over three years,
or a total of $3 billion.
1605
The report described important problems in the management of
these programs, grants handed out unbidden, a serious lack of
documentation showing an unbelievable laxity on the part of
officials and provided statistics.
Here are some figures to illustrate what I am saying: in 87% of
projects there was no sign of monitoring by officials; in 80% of
projects—that is quite a few—there was no evidence of financial
control; in 75% of projects there was no evidence that expected
results had been achieved; in 70% of projects, there was no
invoice or payroll to justify expenses; in 66% of projects, there
was no analysis or documentation explaining the recommendation or
approval of the project; and finally, in 36% of the cases where the
amount was increased, the reason for such an increase was not
indicated.
This carelessness in management opens the door to fraud,
mishandling of funds, political interference and patronage. This
is how the lack of integrity of the government and the
department with regard to grants and contributions began to
surface.
This situation, which I think is alarming for the majority of
Quebecers and Canadians, led the Bloc Quebecois to bring forward
this motion on this opposition day.
The motion reads as follows:
That this House condemn the government for the poor management
seen at the Department of Human Resources Development,
particularly in the award and use of grants for partisan
purposes, and that it recommend the creation of an independent
public commission of inquiry, whose members will be appointed by
the House, and whose mandate will be to inquire into all
practices of that Department and to report to the House by
September 19, 2000.
I totally agree with that. If the government has nothing to
hide, it should not be against an inquiry. I think the amounts
involved justify an inquiry, not to mention the fact that public
opinion could believe that these programs are useless, that they
are used only for partisan purposes and that they should be
eliminated, which is cause for concern. To me, this is a serious
threat.
I personally had the opportunity of working with HRDC officials
in my riding. Although we are sovereignists, that does not
prevent us from working with federal officials, far from it.
The taxes of my fellow citizens end up here in Ottawa. This is
where things are managed and, even though we do not always agree
with the way the money is distributed, I tell myself that a
dollar invested in my riding should be invested as well as
possible.
Today we are calling for an inquiry in part because of the lack
of an answer. Although we have an Oral Question Period every
day here, we do not have an answer period.
I am a bit disappointed by the responses we have had to our
questions. In fact, we have had no responses at all. It seems
that the minister is avoiding questions, that she is trying to
get round them and has been for several weeks now.
I think she has definitely honed her political sense of not
answering questions. It is deplorable.
If we cannot get answers here, where are we going to get them?
I think this issue must be brought to light. An independent
inquiry would certainly be a relevant way to get the answers the
party opposite does not want to give us.
I am disappointed by this whole scandal. In a time of plenty—I am
talking like an old hand at politics, but it is nothing—a few
decades ago, when governments were floating along on the wealth
and money flowed, which perhaps contributed to the incredible
debt our generation will have to pay all its life, there was
some limit to spending here and there.
A zero deficit and balanced budget policy was instituted. I
said to myself “From that point on, expenditures were probably
made judiciously”.
1610
As proof, in my riding, when an organization or company applied
for funding, for example under the FPCE, I saw the forms
regularly. There had to be a concrete and highly detailed
explanation of why the money was needed. There was an audit
carried out. It all seemed to be above board.
Now the scandal has broken, and I realized that the public's
money has far too often been used to win votes. I know that the
hon. member across the way is going to say shortly some
opposition members got more money that government MPs, but the
timing has to be looked at. When 54% of funds were allocated in
the six months before the election, and when there was no audit,
this is a great disappointment.
The reason why the public has less and less faith in politics is
obvious. A public inquiry, such as that being called for by the
Bloc Quebecois today, would strike me as one way of casting some
light on the matter and perhaps even bringing some peace. I
hope that my colleagues across the way will be voting in favour
of this motion.
I have no more time left. I am sorry this is so, because I
would dearly love to continue, but I will yield the floor to my
colleagues.
[English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to be able to respond. I have done this a couple of
times before, but I would like to give an immense thank you again
to the interpreters. Their brains must hurt by the end of the
day, listening to this debate and speaking at the same time the
words they hear in one language. I am actually a trilingual
Canadian, but French is not one of my extra languages and I am
totally dependent upon them.
My question for the member is actually twofold. First, in view
of the fact that the motion calls for the creation of an
independent inquiry, do Bloc members have any concerns when they
look at the history of the Krever inquiry, the Somalia inquiry
and the peppergate inquiry? These so-called independent
commissions do not really appear in the end to be very
independent. Would the hon. member have any comments on that?
Second, does he know whether in his riding taxpayers are paying
more to Ottawa than they get back, or do they get back less than
they send to Ottawa? I am not sure if he would have the answer
to that question, but I would like his opinion on it.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay: Madam Speaker, I also wish to thank the
interpreters who make it possible for us to carry out a
dialogue in two different languages.
In my colleague's question about a commission of inquiry or an
investigation, it does not matter which term is used as it is
clear that this will not solve the problems. The harm has been
done and that is the way it is.
There are already several investigations underway, particularly
in the Prime Minister's riding. I am beginning to understand
why he had the RCMP cottage renovated in Shawinigan county.
Maybe it was so he can go and take up permanent residence there
in comfort, because there are so many investigations underway.
Seriously, Madam Speaker, it is true that one cannot say that a
commission of inquiry will solve everything, but I do think that
it might cast some light on certain matters.
[English]
Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
too commend the interpreters. Sometimes I wish they could change
some of the words because some members do not make too much sense
either in French or English.
The first point I would like to make is that the hon. member
commented on his experiences when he travels throughout his
riding and what his constituents feel about politicians. My
experiences have been far different, so he might reflect on
himself, his party and the separatists as to why some Quebecers
have a feeling in that regard.
1615
He also used the words scandal and democracy. Bloc and
democracy, if that is not an oxymoron I do not know what is.
Time and time again Quebecers have said no and time and time
again the Bloc has continued to force the issue.
I was going to use the word scandal, as my hon. colleague has,
but nothing could be further from the truth. The facts are very
clear. There was no misappropriation of spending.
I want to hear once and for all, does the Bloc recognize,
regardless of calendars or dates, that more money has gone into
opposition ridings than Liberal ridings in Canada?
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay: Madam Speaker, sometimes I do not even
feel like answering certain questions. The only question the
hon. member has asked today is whether more money went to the
opposition party members' ridings. I would be delighted if that
were the case and if ridings represented by the Bloc Quebecois
had received more money, but the point is when and why.
If opposition ridings are receiving more money because the
applications coming in are perhaps more relevant and the needs
greater, so much the better. That would only make sense. But
when we find that 54% of money was spent in the six months
leading up to the election, there is something odd going on.
It may be an incredible coincidence, and it could be, but something
smells.
[English]
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and
Addington, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time
with the hon. member for York West, who is a very valuable and
active member of our all-party human resources development
committee.
I thank the hon. member opposite for bringing his motion before
the House. It gives the government an excellent opportunity to
explain to Canadians how our programs really work. The point of
the HRDC programs is to help develop our human resources to help
those Canadians in greatest need.
I totally reject the substance of this motion. Is the hon.
member being constructive? Does he really care whether we are
successful in working with Canadians to expand and build on their
opportunities for the new economy?
If members opposite really wanted more effective grants and
contribution programs they would support our ongoing work in
fixing existing programs. They would let the auditor general do
his work. They would let our all-party standing committee carry
out its legitimate role and functions.
Something should be said about the public servants in the
Department of Human Resources Development. Should we not allow
the internal audit process to fulfil its mandate? Should we not
allow the department to carry out its action plan and modernize
its administration?
One thing that is sadly lacking in this whole discussion is an
informed debate. For example, the reason for creating the
transitional jobs fund in the first place was to assist those who
needed help the most.
Members who were in the House prior to the last election,
including my colleague who brought forth this motion, will recall
that the government brought in much needed legislation to
overhaul the 25 year old unemployment insurance system. The
result was the new employment insurance, the EI system. It
brought forth a series of measures to help Canadians adjust to
program changes and, most importantly, return to the workforce as
quickly as possible.
The goal of the transitional jobs fund was to support job
creation in areas of high unemployment and generate new permanent
jobs in areas where people were having a difficult time finding
work. The TJF was designed to be flexible and to have buy-in
from all important partners. It had four basic criteria: to
create sustainable jobs; government partners must contribute at
least 50% to the cost of the projects; projects must meet local
development plans; and the provinces or the territories must
support the proposals.
Each region was allotted funds based on two specific criteria.
Seventy-five per cent of the funds were allocated to areas where
unemployment was at or above 12%. Twenty-five per cent of the
funds were allocated to a province or a territory based on a
decline in UI benefits resulting from the implementation of the
new EI fund.
1620
This process ensured that every province and territory received
program funds.
The TJF was designed to recognize that regional officials,
working with partners, were in the best position to assess the
needs of local communities. Built into the program was the need
for regional decision making and flexibility. The goal was to
meet the overall program's objectives and have a positive impact
on the community in terms of job creation and job opportunities.
Specifically, regional officials were encouraged to work with our
partners to identify strategic priorities that would benefit the
local communities. These partners included provincial and
territorial governments, community groups, the private sector and
local MPs.
Let me clarify the meaning of an unemployment rate at or above
12%. Human Resources Development Canada, which administered the
program, used the 12% figure as a guideline for TJF eligibility.
Based on the 1995 Statistics Canada regional rates of
unemployment, 18 of 62 regions were eligible for TJF funding.
Yes, to be fair, northern B.C. and Yarmouth, Nova Scotia were
also included because their rates of unemployment were 11.9% and
11.5% respectively.
However, the opposition and the media have raised a hue and cry
that the transitional jobs funds went to areas where the rate of
unemployment was under 12%. True, but within those regions were
pockets of high unemployment that exceeded 12%. Provided the
province or the territory agreed, those pockets of high
unemployment met the criteria for funding TJF projects.
There was a process for determining those pocket areas within
regions where the rate of unemployment was under the 12%
guideline. Data was compiled from various sources, such as the
Statistics Canada census, labour force participation surveys, as
well as labour market information developed by the local HRDC
offices. Decisions as to where transitional jobs funds were
allocated were based on a real need to help hard-working
Canadians adjust to the new EI program. After all, hon. members
will agree that the goal of government programs should be to help
those who require help and to help Canadians help themselves.
That is what the TJF did. Funds were allocated to regions or
pockets within regions that met the greater than 12% unemployment
rate percentage or met the program's overall objectives for
supporting areas that lacked a strong labour market.
For example, community projects were approved in regions with
under 12% unemployment. They were approved because there was a
higher rate of unemployment amongst aboriginal persons or persons
with disabilities or within the visible minority populations.
The TJF also helped regions with economically depressed
industries, such as forestry, mining and fisheries.
As I said, I am pleased to have the opportunity to clarify this
issue. However, it is not as if this information was not readily
available to all members of parliament at the time. At the time
this program was announced and implemented, in fact as early as
December 1, 1995 when the minister of HRDC announced the TJF
program, the backgrounder to the news release said: “The
regional allocation of the transitional jobs fund will target
high unemployment areas across Canada. Allocations will be
determined through discussion with provincial governments and
other relevant partners”.
In the summer of 1996 brochures were distributed to HRDC centres
in Canada explaining to people who had an idea for a project how
to apply for TJF funding.
As for the pocket issue, it was made abundantly clear in both
the 1997 EI monitoring and assessment report and in the 1998
“Services for Canadians” binder, which was distributed to all
MPs in the House. Both the report and the binder stated: “TJF
projects are targeted to areas of the country and to geographical
areas within communities that have unemployment rates of 12% or
higher”.
The bottom line is simply that Human Resources Development
Canada distributed plenty of information on the TJF and involved
MPs and community leaders as much as possible. I hope hon.
members now have a better understanding of how the TJF worked. It
was an enormously successful program that funded nearly 1,100
projects and created some 30,000 jobs between July 1996 and March
1999. Instead of unduly criticizing the grants and contributions
programs, hon. members should be explaining those programs to
their constituents and helping those who qualify make use of
them.
I want to take this brief opportunity to talk about some of the
investments of HRDC in my riding of Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox
and Addington.
1625
In my hometown of Napanee, Ontario, the county seat of Lennox
and Addington, money was invested, partnering with the town, the
county and the business improvement association. Small amounts
of funds were invested in many facets of our town.
Recently Napanee was named one of the 10 prettiest towns in
North America. Some of the funding involved local partners. As
we cleaned up our town and planted flowers with the Communities
in Bloom program, it made a great difference.
Other money invested in the riding went into literacy programs,
museums and historical sites, and a lot of money was invested in
our youth. In my office today I have more requests from the
municipalities for funding of these programs than ever before.
I do not like to see the politics that are played during Oral
Question Period. The same party that has been attacking our
minister is going around behind the cameras, asking us to get the
programs into their ridings.
As you know, Madam Speaker, more money went into many of the
ridings of Reform members than went into those of government
members. It is not justice; it is politics. They are picking on
the people who are unemployed, and I detest that.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ):
Madam Speaker, I have a few questions for the hon. member. I
took some notes and, with all due respect for the member
opposite who, I think, has been a member of the Standing
Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of
Persons with Disabilities for a while, it must be hard for him
to defend the government in the House today.
In his speech, he mentioned that projects under the transitional
jobs fund had to show that they could improve the regional
economy.
When the member says, in good faith, that projects had to
include similar arguments in their application, that means there
was an application.
How does he explain the internal audit report's observation that
there was no evidence of financial control in 80% of cases?
According to the report, some people had not even filled in an
application. I would like to believe—and this is often the
answer given by members opposite—that there were only a small
number of cases like this, because we are only talking about an
internal audit report, but why then will they not agree to a
public inquiry?
The answer we are getting is that they trust the auditor
general. However, last fall the auditor general said, in
answer to a question, that he intended to table a report in the
House in the fall of 2001 and to look into the matter at that
time. But what he said he wanted to do was make general comments
on the quality of the management of these programs across the
government.
One must know how an audit is conducted. If the auditor general
is not asked specifically to analyse the whole list, we will
never know. As far as the issue mentioned by the member in his
speech regarding the regional unemployment rate, if it is above
12%, the riding is eligible, and when it is below 12%, people
can still apply.
The population must understand one thing, the Bloc Quebecois is
not questioning the usefulness of the grants as a catalyst and a
boost to regional economies. The Bloc Quebecois is not blaming
the civil servants. It is saying “The Liberals did not set any
guidelines”.
How is it that the Canadian Union of Public Employees, which
represents HRDC employees, stated in a press release no later
that this spring that the criteria made public recently did not
exist before the program ended. The public servants themselves
are saying they only had loose and flexible guidelines to go by,
and that at no time were they informed of possible pockets, when
they were managing this program.
How can the member maintain a public inquiry into this matter is
not necessary?
1630
[English]
Mr. Larry McCormick: Madam Speaker, my colleague leaves a
little bit of room in his questions. I guess it is very natural
to point them in whatever way we would like to see them go.
However, the audit in HRDC was brought forward by the HRDC
officials themselves.
Members of all parties were present today when Mr. Mel Cappe,
the previous deputy minister of HRDC, was before our committee.
Questions were asked by members on all sides of the House. I
believe that on Thursday of this week the auditor general will
appear before us. I do not think we can have a more independent
body than the auditor general's department. There are dozens and
dozens of people there who are professionals in investigating
this.
The audit that has been done so far did not point to any
political interference. Today Mr. Mel Cappe said that he never
saw any sign of political interference during the time that he
was deputy minister in the department, and he was there during
most of this time. If any member of the House wants to challenge
that, I would suggest he or she had better say outside the House
that Mr. Cappe, who has given his life to this country, is not a
man of honour.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It is my duty
pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the
questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as
follows: the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst, Employment
Insurance Fund; the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, Banks.
Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to have this opportunity to argue against this motion
introduced by the member for
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques.
I will begin with the issue of management, which is what this
audit is all about. There is no money missing, as the opposition
would like people to believe. It is an issue of management and
administration.
The Minister of Human Resources Development has already dealt
with the member's concerns about management. She has already
announced her six point plan for dealing with the management
issues and the administration of the grants and contributions
program of her department. She has acknowledged that there are
some problems that need to be fixed and they are in the process
of being fixed.
Anyone who is seriously interested in improving public
administration should accept that and recognize that once a
problem is identified, we get on with fixing it.
The minister has shown her capacity to act decisively and those
of us on this side of the House want to get on with it and to
make sure that these programs are well managed and that Canadians
continue to benefit from them. Because, after all, it is
Canadians who benefit from these programs who we should be
concerned about.
A public inquiry will not do anything to improve the lives of
those hundreds of thousands of Canadians who are helped by the
programs delivered by HRDC. It is important to note that it is
not the people who use the programs who are calling for a public
inquiry, it is simply the opposition.
It is interesting to hear what some of the people who do not
have a political axe to grind are saying. These are the people
to whom members should really be listening because these are the
people who we were elected to represent in parliament.
I will give a couple of examples. I have quote from a letter
written by the executive director of the Child Care Connection of
Nova Scotia. The letter refers to an HRDC program that supports
child care research. It says:
Letters like this one illustrate the kind of support we have for
these HRDC programs across Canada.
Here is another example of what Canadians think. This letter is
from the Learning Disabilities Association of Canada. The
Association has written a letter to the Hon. Jane Stewart to
acknowledge the support that HRDC provides to help persons with
disabilities. The writers urge the minister to remain steadfast
in the pursuit of her mandate.
These are not government MPs that I am quoting.
These are caring Canadians who work with individuals who need our
help. These people look to us for help and recognize the value
and importance of our providing the grants and contributions.
1635
A motion like this one before us will not help these people. In
fact it will work against them. These people do not care about
the kinds of issues raised in this opposition motion. It will
simply delay any help that those families are waiting for. They
are concerned with real answers and answers to real problems.
How would a public inquiry help them?
I am tempted to say shame of those who want to make a political
issue out of this. However, I assume that those who propose
motions like this do not understand the importance of the
Government of Canada's grants and contributions to those who
receive them.
It is too bad that the opposition does not recognize that all
across Canada, including Quebec, HRDC grants and contribution
programs are working in partnership with municipalities and their
governments, with concerned Canadians who help those who depend
on the Government of Canada for support.
From every part of the country we hear from people who know how
important HRDC grants and contributions are to their well-being.
In Edmonton, Alberta we have heard from the Chrysalis Society
about the value of HRDC's help to persons with disabilities who
are trying to find work. We have heard from the Junction Day
Care Centre in the west end of Toronto about how HRDC funding is
improving the quality of child care there and for thousands of
children. An organization called the Literacy Partners of
Manitoba based in Winnipeg has also told us that improving
literacy skills, awareness and resources for adults in Canada is
vital work for all of us.
There are cases like this all across the country. They are not
asking for public inquiries and neither are we. Instead, we want
to continue to help literacy skills so that Canadians can feel
comfortable in today's information society. We want to make it
easier for a person with a disability to find work and
participate fully in Canadian society. We want to keep funding
the work to improve the capacity of our child care facilities to
provide quality care for our children. We want to help people
find jobs and meet the other needs that these programs are aimed
at.
A public inquiry would not help any of the HRDC clients become
more literate. It would not help a person with a disability to
find a job either. It would not produce any jobs for people who
really need them in high areas of unemployment. In fact, it
would interfere with our ability to do these things.
Investing in the development of our human resources is one of
the most importance things that governments can do. It is the
responsibility of the federal government to do this. I doubt if
the hundreds of thousands of Canadians whose lives have improved
because of direct support from our grants and contributions when
needed would vote for this motion either.
Our government has a responsibility to help those who are
unemployed, to help those disabled and their families to find
employment and to find usefulness in their lives. I applaud our
government. We recognize that, yes, there are issues and, yes
there are problems but the minister is fixing those problems. Let
us continue on with helping people in Canada.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Since quite a few members
seem interested in asking questions, I will allow two one minute
questions, followed by one minute for answers, and then we will
see.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Madam Speaker, I do not
know if my Liberal colleague took the time to read the motion
proposed by the Bloc Quebecois on this opposition day.
I will read it to her. It asks:
That this House condemn the government for the poor management
seen at the Department of Human Resources Development,
particularly in the award and use of grants for partisan
purposes, and that it recommend the creation of an independent
public commission of inquiry—
Let us be clear here. We are not criticizing the transitional
jobs fund. We are criticizing the mismanagement of that program.
Taxpayers' money has been used for partisan purposes. Moreover,
money was taken from workers to build up a surplus in the EI
fund. That surplus has now grown to approximately $30 billion,
but the money is being squandered and is not being used to
create programs for those who need them, including older
workers.
What does the member think of that? Does she find that normal?
[English]
Ms. Judy Sgro: Madam Speaker, in answer to those
comments, I would much rather spend the millions of dollars that
it would cost for an inquiry into helping Canadians.
In many cases, the provinces of Ontario, Quebec and all the
other provinces of Canada were partners, as this money was spent
to employ and help Canadians.
1640
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
there is no one who supports the idea of helping people more than
I. I think we need to help people whenever we can.
In light of the fact that the Prime Minister's riding received
more money in grants than the entire provinces of Alberta,
Saskatchewan and Manitoba put together, the fact that some of
these dealings in the Prime Minister's riding involved some
pretty shady characters and the fact that many of the grants were
given to billion dollar organizations like Bombardier and
Wal-Mart which are doing very well and just happen to be on the
Liberal donor list, does that not cause any problems in the mind
of this member? Does accountability not enter her vocabulary? I
am talking about accountability for taxpayer dollars. Does it
not matter that these three provinces did not receive nearly as
much money as one member's riding? Does this not bother the
member?
Ms. Judy Sgro: Madam Speaker, when we talk about
accountability and transparency that is exactly what we are doing
through the minister and the HRDC officials.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Madam Speaker, I
congratulate the member for York West for an excellent maiden
speech. I know how difficult that is and she did an excellent
job. I also want to thank her for mentioning the carpenters'
union in Manitoba, which is the union I used to lead. In fact
the program she mentioned, the literacy program for the
carpenters, is the program that I initiated.
I want to ask the member if she is aware that in the area of
Winnipeg Centre, which I represent, an area where the
unemployment rate is 14%, we were denied access to any
transitional jobs funds even though many individuals made
inquiries to my office asking how they could get in on the
transitional jobs fund. They were told over and over again by
HRDC officials that the overall regional rate of unemployment was
too low. We knew nothing about the pockets that everybody has
referred to. Is the hon. member aware of that fact?
Ms. Judy Sgro: Madam Speaker, what we are talking about
today is the CJF and TJF funding. There are thousands of other
programs that amount to millions of dollars which, from my
understanding, went to all ridings throughout the country.
Mr. Myron Thompson: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I apologize to the House and to the member for not
recognizing this as being her maiden speech. I likewise want to
congratulate her.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Even though this is
not a point of order, I think all members of the House are behind
you.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I will start off with a point that the hon. member made
during her answers to questions and comments.
The member said that she would rather spend the huge amount of
money, which it would cost for a public inquiry commission, on
job creation. I agree with that. I think the best way to have
this inquiry would be through the auditor general who already has
a mandate to investigate and who we could rely on for some
impartiality.
The government has a habit of having independent inquiries. I
think we should look at this. We do want to get some kind of
inquiry on this. We do have to come to some kind of settlement
to determine how much political interference there was on this
and how much cover up there was once the interference had been
discovered.
I have looked at some of the things the government has held
public inquiries on in the past. Does this give us an example of
something that we could rely on in the case of the HRDC scandal?
One of the things I was more directly involved with in the last
parliament was the Pearson Airport inquiry, which was an
interesting story right from the start. It began with two
internal studies that were done by the department and both
conflicting with the government's position.
I bet the Bloc Quebecois members wish they could do what the
government does. The government just hires someone else, tells
them what they should say and then gets them to say it. I am sure
the Bloc members would like to have that kind of power in
determining the next referendum where that could decide who would
vote in the referendum and then get the people to vote their way.
1645
The government named Robert Nixon, a close friend of the Prime
Minister. This is supposed to be an independent inquiry so we
are off to a good start with the word independent. He is someone
who worked with the Prime Minister and, as I say, is a close
personal friend and very heavily and closely connected to the
Liberal Party. Even at that, his original report conflicted with
that of the government.
Madam Speaker, I should have done this at the start, but at this
point I would like to announce that I will be splitting my time
with the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.
The original Nixon draft report still conflicted with the
government. He did not say exactly what the government wanted to
have him say, so there was a second report that changed that and
surprise, surprise, it said exactly what the government wanted to
say. So much for independence.
We know he is a close friend of the Prime Minister. Is there
another connection that we can use in this HRDC situation right
now? As a matter of fact there is. This is a wonderful
coincidence because Robert Nixon, the independent inquirer for
the government, is none other than the father of the current
minister of HRDC who is knee deep if not neck deep in this whole
scandal. In fact the question has been asked in the House if the
current minister of HRDC learned her tricks from the Prime
Minister and this suggests the fruit fell a little closer to the
tree than that.
With regard to Mr. Nixon from whom there was an independent
inquiry, what did he get out of it aside from his fee, which I
believe was $50,000 but I am not sure on that so do not quote me.
If during questions and comments hon. members want to say that
no it was not that, it was $70,000, I will not argue with them.
Aside from that, what did he get when it was finished? He became
the chair of Atomic Energy of Canada. An independent inquiry. We
really like that.
What did this independent inquiry cost us? Not in terms of what
we paid that individual, but how well did this work for us here
in parliament to resolve the problems of the House by having an
independent inquiry done in this manner? It cost us hundreds of
millions of taxpayers' dollars because instead of proceeding, as
all the studies prior to the independent inquiry suggested, by
getting Pearson airport going, the government instead bought out
the people involved who in fact were trying to sue the
government. It bought them out and spent hundreds of millions of
dollars just for that.
They were to rebuild terminal two at no cost to the government,
but what did we get instead? The government will have to provide
this money now. Here we are years later, and if anybody has been
in terminal two lately, they will see that it has not been
rebuilt. In fact, nothing at all has happened except that we are
out of pocket by hundreds of millions of dollars. This is the
way the government works.
This morning I would like to have intervened after listening to
the mad dog act of the hon. member for Waterloo—Wellington. It
was certainly an interesting performance.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I believe that the
hon. member is getting very close to the fine line. I will
advise him to please try to be more judicious in choosing his
words.
Mr. Jim Gouk: Madam Speaker, I will and I apologize. I
certainly should not have characterized the hon. member in the
way that he acted. That was standing to justification.
The hon. member for Waterloo—Wellington said that the House,
particularly members of the opposition, instead of what we are
saying should be praising the Minister of HRDC for attempting to
solve the problems, that she is a great minister and she is
attempting to solve the problems. There was some one handed
clapping on the other side as a result of this. It seems that the
hon. member's definition of a good minister is one who can solve
a problem which, if she had done her job, she would not have got
into in the first place.
An hon. member: That is not true.
Mr. Jim Gouk: An hon. member across the way says that is
not true, that that does not make her a good minister at all. I
bow to the judgment of the hon. member who is now basically
saying that she is not a good minister. Far be it from me to
argue with him on that point.
1650
The second thing the hon. member said this morning was that the
government was filling a need. This program is supposed to be
about job creation. There is job creation at its pinnacle. The
government is filling a need. First it creates one and then it
fills it. It creates it through its oppressive tax regime so
that companies need help just to survive. That is terrible. It
is absolutely unbelievable.
Finally, in response to some of the other comments that have
been made in the House by the government, I want to say that I am
not necessarily opposed to all of these programs. I will be the
first to say that my riding has done very well. If hon. members
would button up long enough, I would tell them about the success
of the program in my riding.
Why is it a success? I have worked with the HRDC people in my
riding. They are good people. There have been no scandals or
cover-ups. Criteria have been laid down. The first one is to
determine if there is a need and if it is going to provide real
genuine benefits. We do it to ensure that we never give a
subsidy to anybody who is going to use it to compete with a
company that is not subsidized.
What kind of things have been going on in the minister's riding?
Companies have been lured away from a neighbouring riding. That
is good job creation. Funds were used to get a company in the
garment district into the Prime Minister's riding. That is an
interesting conflict. What about a much needed subsidy for a
really oppressed company that is struggling to survive and make
ends meet, Wal-Mart? Is that not interesting.
Now we hear all the cries from the other side. The crocodile
tears are coming down. It is a sorry sight to see the few
Liberals who are crying out here because they have been caught
manipulating the system.
If the Liberals have an inquiry into this, the kind of inquiry
they want is one that they control. They want to appoint the
person who will make the inquiry. They want a draft report to
see if it is appropriately done.
The government should take responsibility for its mistakes when
it makes them. Nobody expects it to be perfect. Heaven forbid,
we certainly do not expect the Liberals to be perfect, but when
they make a mistake, they should own up. They should say “yes,
we made some mistakes but we are going to correct them. Let us
move on. We are sorry and we will not do it again”. Had they
done that, it probably would have been okay but no, they had to
deny it, blame others and cover it up. That is not the way the
government should respond to the waste of Canadian taxpayers'
dollars.
Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
wish I had more time to respond to the absolutely ridiculous
rhetoric which has been brought forward in the House today by the
member from the Reform Party. These typical ultra right-wing
positions, this rhetoric is divisive. The Reform Party is very
clearly trying to divide Canadians.
I cannot use the words I want to because they are not
parliamentary and are not supposed to be used in the House, but
when the hon. member speaks there should be exceptions in that
case. He has made statements that quite simply are not factual.
Wal-Mart did not receive one cent yet he is trying to convince
Canadians that it did. He made statements that were not based on
fact. At the same time I see him grinning and smiling. He thinks
it is okay.
What is happening is that Canadians are being misled. It is not
right. There is no scandal. The only scandal is the fact that
there is an ultra right-wing party in the House so bent on
destroying the social fibre of the nation that it will say
whatever it takes to get Canadians to support it. At the end of
the day I think we have witnessed how Canadians perceive the
Reform Party. We saw the drop it took in the polls.
1655
I would ask, in fact I would beg, the hon. member to make use of
the facts and have an open mind. There has been enough
right-wing rhetoric and political posturing. Day after day I
have sat in the House and heard the hon. members simply denounce
the facts. It is just not right.
Would hon. members please try to have an open mind for once in
this parliament.
Mr. Jim Gouk: Madam Speaker, I would be more than happy
to respond to the hon. member. He is right. I was kind of
smiling. I am sorry. I got carried away. When I hear nonsense
I do tend to laugh at it. It is considered the best defence.
Mr. Paul Bonwick: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I would suggest that although it is likely that the hon.
member does not appreciate parliamentary language, nonsense is
not an appropriate term.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I do not think that
the word nonsense is unparliamentary.
Mr. Jim Gouk: Madam Speaker, I assure you that in using
the word nonsense I was trying to be polite.
I hear things like ultra right-wing because we want to examine a
scandal that the hon. member says does not exist. He said there
is no scandal, that everything is fine in Liberal land. If that
is the case, why are there 19 RCMP criminal investigations going
into misconduct in the handling of these funds?
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and
Addington, Lib.): Madam Speaker, there are members of the
opposition Reform Party, such as my hon. colleague, the member
from Yorkton, who did a lot of good work on the HRD committee.
Members worked across the country on behalf of all Canadians. I
challenge these other members to come forth and tell us how they
also joined us in doing a lot of this good work on behalf of
Canadians.
I have a question for the member of the Reform Party who just
spoke. Members of the opposition have accused our government and
our minister of political interference. How can the member
explain the fact that several ridings held by the Reform Party
received much more money than did any riding on this side of the
House?
Mr. Jim Gouk: Madam Speaker, the hon. member's preface to
his question asks why anybody on this side of the House does not
stand and talk about the successes in the program. Obviously he
did not listen to my speech because I did just that. I said that
my riding has done extremely well and is the second highest
recipient of these funds in the province of British Columbia.
The problem in their ridings is that they are inappropriately
handed out, not all of them, but certainly in some particular
ridings.
In my riding, because of the scandal of the minister and the
Prime Minister, they had to do an audit. The audit was done
early on in my riding. It was completely clear and there was
absolutely no problem. The program has resumed.
It is interesting listening to the hon. member who spoke out
previously. He does not want to listen. He asks the questions
on behalf of his other colleagues and does not answer them.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to the Bloc motion today. At
the outset, the objective of the motion and of all of the people
in the opposition, is to make sure that taxpayers' money is being
spent wisely. That is the beginning and end of this motion. I
will articulate how and why this motion came about, and the
reason the opposition parties have been so critical of the
government over the last month and a half.
The motion condemns the government for the very poor management
of the Department of Human Resources Development which was
brought to the attention of the minister.
1700
The motion can actually be used as a stepping stone to describe
growth and widespread abuse by the government of the taxpayers'
money. This is not the government's money. It is the taxpayers'
money and I am going to demonstrate how and why that happened.
We have seen the grants put forth by HRDC supposedly to rescue
jobs, save jobs and make jobs. We would agree that has to happen
in this country, but we disagree on how it happens. Where were
those jobs created?
One example is in the minister's own riding. It has one of the
lowest unemployment rates in the country. The Minister of Human
Resources Development received grants that were three times the
national average. Why is it that the Minister of HRD, whose
riding has unemployment rates much lower than the national
average, received grants three times higher than the national
average? Why is that so?
Also, the Prime Minister's riding received more grant money than
that of any prairie province. We have seen the devastation that
has been wrought upon the farmers in the prairies. We have seen
that farmers, the salt of the earth of this country, have lost
their farms, their homes, their families, their jobs and their
futures and lost hope. Yet, HRD pours money into the riding of
the Prime Minister or that of the Minister of HRD, which has a
rate of unemployment far less than the average and far less than
in the prairie provinces which have been crying out for help for
so long.
HRD officials say that they were forced to break the rules and
instructed to approve grants in the Prime Minister's riding. If
that is not enough to make the public go ballistic, then I do not
know what is. That is part of the reason why we and other
parties have been bringing this issue to the front. We want this
problem fixed and we want it fixed now. We are sick and tired of
the half answers or no answers that we have been getting for so
long.
It is not only HRD. Let us take a look at the Export
Development Corporation. This crown corporation uses the
taxpayers' money to loan funds to Canadian companies. But who
does it lend to? It lends to 5% of the companies that export,
which represents less than 10% of the companies in the country
today.
What kind of companies? Bombardier. Bombardier received $1
billion in loans. Bombardier, which has $5.6 billion in assets
and $11 billion in revenues, received a $1 billion indirect loan
through EDC to support Amtrak. The Canadian government supported
$1 billion of the taxpayers' money to be given to Amtrak, an
American company that the U.S. government would not even put
money into because it has been running deficits for a long time.
That is what the EDC has done. That is what the government has
done with the taxpayers' money. The public should be aware that
it is out there slaving away and its money is being used to put
into an American company, Amtrak. That company has lost billions
of dollars and the U.S. government has said it is not going to
give it any money. Yet EDC steps in with Canadian taxpayers'
resources and says it is going to give money to Bombardier, which
makes $11.5 billion, so it can get a contract. What
justification is there for that?
What justification is there for the Canadian government using
the taxpayers' money to give money to China, which is building a
superheated military complex as we speak and which has a $5
billion surplus with Canada? We have given money to it to do
what? We have given money to it so it can build the Three Gorges
dam which sits on a fault line. The Canadian government is
loaning China money to build the Three Gorges dam on an
earthquake fault line. The U.S. said it would not have anything
to do with this program. The World Bank said it would not have
anything to do with it. It is rife with corruption. It is an
environmental disaster currently and waiting to happen. It is
going to displace 1.3 million people. Yet what does the Canadian
government government do? It takes millions of dollars of the
Canadian taxpayers' money and loans it to China, which is
building a superheated military complex as we speak. We do not
have enough money to buy choppers.
We do not have enough money to buy search and rescue and
anti-submarine warfare choppers. Our military people are falling
out of the sky in choppers that are 25 plus years old. On the
other hand the Canadian government is saying to China, “We'll
give you money to invest in the Three Gorges Dam that the U.S.
has walked away from, that the World Bank has walked away from”.
That is what the government is doing with Canadian taxpayers'
money. That is what the government is doing with the money that
Canadians have slaved for.
1705
What else has happened? With respect to the Three Gorges Dam
the Prime Minister violated the Export Development Corporation's
own environmental code of conduct and said “We're going to
invest money in this project”, completely ignoring the comments
by the non-governmental organizations, by international
observers, by the World Bank. When those organizations chose not
to go, and for obvious reasons, Canada chose to lend Canadian
taxpayers' money. If that is not rot, I do not know what is.
With respect to the money, there is $22 billion in outstanding
loans from EDC. Who is on the hook for this? What does the EDC
do? It loans money on the good name of the Canadian taxpayer.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton: It makes money. There is a
profit.
Mr. Keith Martin: The Minister of National Defence says
it earns a profit. Let us take a look at that. There is $22
billion in loans outstanding. The auditor general does not know
where that money is. $2.8 billion of Canadian taxpayers' money
has been forgiven. They do not know where this money has been
loaned and they cannot get it back.
Furthermore the EDC, under the rules that the government agrees
to, is forbidden to have access to information requests. We
cannot find out what is happening in EDC. The public cannot find
out what is happening in EDC with their money. Parliament cannot
find out what is happening in the EDC. Yet the EDC sees in its
good ways to lose $2.8 billion of taxpayers' money, and for what?
So it can give it to China while our people in the armed forces
cannot even put a roof over their heads half the time, while the
private married quarters are falling down.
I met with the Canadian Police Association today in my riding in
Colwood. They do not even have enough money to put their cars on
the road. The RCMP does not have enough money to put cars on the
road when they break down. In Vancouver they do not have money
to put cars on the road. In east Vancouver, which is one area
that is rife with crime, they do not have enough money for
policing.
There is an acute gross shortage of police officers in this
country. Why? Because there is not enough money. What does the
government do? The government takes the Canadian taxpayers'
money and says “We're not going to invest in our military. We're
not going to invest in our police force. We're not going to give
the hepatitis C people a package”, which is currently $95
million short. These are the people who were infected innocently
in the hepatitis C scandal that is $95 million short which the
government saw fit to exclude in its compensation package. While
the government will not even spend that for Canadians who are
sick with hepatitis C, it sees fit to lose $2.8 billion to
foreign companies, foreign governments, foreign agencies, the
Chinese government and American companies that have lost money
and on and on it goes.
I could go on and on but I welcome questions from the other
side. Suffice it to say our objective in the Reform Party is to make
sure that the Canadian dollar is spent wisely and what money is
there is going to be used for creating jobs and that the government
stop wasting Canadian taxpayers' money.
1710
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ):
Madam Speaker, I listened to the various members who spoke in
the House today. The last speaker gave another example of where the
government seems to have mismanaged taxpayers' money. It really
looks like the Liberal government is not operating in a
transparent way and in conformity with sound management
practices.
Would my colleague agree that people be
appointed by this House to conduct an independent public inquiry
into what happened? We know that the future always depends on
the past. If we want to know what the Liberals did wrong, I
think we need such an inquiry.
Mr. Keith Martin: Madam Speaker, the situation in Quebec hospitals is
currently very serious. They have no money to care for patients.
[English]
Cancer patients in Quebec who are waiting 14 weeks for treatment
are being sent south of the border because the province of Quebec
does not have the money to pay for their treatment.
If the money in HRD was spent wisely, we would not have a
problem. We hear the question: Why waste billions of dollars
through HRD, EDC or CIDA? Why not make sure the money is spent
wisely and maybe money will be left over so the patients in
Quebec will have an opportunity to receive the medical treatment
they require?
Yes, I would completely agree to a public inquiry into the
spending of HRDC. I would extend it to involve CIDA, HRDC, EDC
and aboriginal affairs.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
appreciate the comments made by my hon. colleague. I would like
him to comment on one thing.
It seems the Liberals over and over again are saying there is no
problem, there is no money missing. Yet, the question is
obvious. Why did the auditor general bring this problem to our
attention a year ago? Why did officials in the human resources
department call for an internal audit? Why have these things
taken place if in fact there is no problem?
The Liberals are probably much more engaged in damage control
and trying to smooth this issue over than to acknowledge the fact
that there is a huge mismanagement of grant money and I would
like my hon. colleague to comment on this fact.
Mr. Keith Martin: Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from
Elk Island for his very germane question. He is absolutely
right. The members on the other side of the House should have a
deep interest in ensuring that money that is available is spent
wisely.
The auditor general is an apolitical institution. The auditor
general is a man who has been giving very good advice for a long
period of time to all governments to ensure that Canadian
taxpayers' money is spent wisely. Is his advice ever adhered to?
No, it is not. In fact, that is part of the problem. Despite
the very effective solutions which the AG puts forth, the
government completely ignores them. Why? Because the
disposition of money has become highly politicized within the
government. All members in the Liberal Party should be very
concerned about this to make sure taxpayer money is spent wisely.
If it is spent wisely, they will benefit politically and, more
importantly, their constituents and all constituents will benefit
effectively from it.
I would ask them to put away the partisan padding and the pork
barrelling and use the money wisely. It would be in the
government's best interest to pursue this.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It being 5.15 p.m., it is
my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith all
questions necessary to dispose of the supply proceedings now
before the House.
1715
[English]
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 risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Call in the members.
1740
Before the taking of the vote:
The Speaker: I understand we will probably have eight votes
this evening and they will be taken in the normal fashion.
1745
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
|
Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
| Blaikie
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
| Cadman
| Cardin
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desrochers
| Dockrill
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duceppe
| Dumas
| Duncan
| Earle
|
Epp
| Forseth
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Goldring
| Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Guay
| Hanger
| Hardy
| Harvey
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Johnston
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Konrad
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Lowther
| Lunn
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Manning
| Marceau
| Mark
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
| McDonough
|
McNally
| Ménard
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Morrison
| Muise
| Nunziata
| Nystrom
|
Obhrai
| Penson
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Plamondon
| Price
| Riis
| Ritz
|
Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| Solomon
| St - Jacques
|
Stinson
| Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Vautour
|
Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis – 102
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Clouthier
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cotler
|
Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| 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
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Proud
| Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
|
Saada
| Sekora
| Serré
| Sgro
|
Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Julien
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
| Whelan
|
Wood – 137
|
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)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
|
Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
| Blaikie
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
| Cadman
| Cardin
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desrochers
| Dockrill
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duceppe
| Dumas
| Duncan
| Earle
|
Epp
| Forseth
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Goldring
| Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Guay
| Hanger
| Hardy
| Harvey
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Johnston
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Konrad
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Lowther
| Lunn
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Manning
| Marceau
| Mark
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
| McDonough
|
McNally
| Ménard
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Morrison
| Muise
| Nunziata
| Nystrom
|
Obhrai
| Penson
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Plamondon
| Price
| Riis
| Ritz
|
Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| Solomon
| St - Jacques
|
Stinson
| Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Vautour
|
Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis – 102
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Clouthier
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cotler
|
Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| 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
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Proud
| Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
|
Saada
| Sekora
| Serré
| Sgro
|
Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Julien
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Whelan
| Wood – 138
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare the motion lost.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
WESTRAY MINE
The House resumed from March 13 consideration of the motion,
and of the amendment.
The Speaker: Pursuant to order made on Monday, March 13,
2000, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
recorded division on the amendment to Motion No. 79 under Private
Members' Business.
1805
(The House divided on the amendment, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Alcock
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
| Blaikie
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
|
Brown
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Cadman
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Cardin
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Clouthier
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cotler
|
Crête
| Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dockrill
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
|
Duhamel
| Dumas
| Duncan
| Earle
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
| Fontana
|
Forseth
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
|
Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goodale
|
Gouk
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Grose
| Guay
| Harb
| Hardy
|
Harvard
| Harvey
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hubbard
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Johnston
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Lastewka
| Laurin
| Lavigne
| Lebel
|
Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| Lowther
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manning
|
Marceau
| Marleau
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Matthews
| Mayfield
| McCormick
| McDonough
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McNally
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Ménard
| Meredith
|
Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Morrison
| Muise
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Nunziata
| Nystrom
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Obhrai
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Perron
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
|
Price
| Proud
| Proulx
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Riis
|
Ritz
| Robillard
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
|
Rock
| Saada
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Skeena)
| Sekora
| Serré
| Sgro
|
Solberg
| Solomon
| St. Denis
| St - Jacques
|
St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Stinson
| Strahl
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Torsney
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vautour
| Venne
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan – 216
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Anders
| Bailey
| Benoit
|
Bryden
| Calder
| Casson
| Epp
|
Goldring
| Hanger
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Konrad
|
Mark
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Penson – 15
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare the amendment carried.
The next question is on the main motion as amended. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
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 yeas have it.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Speaker: I declare the motion, as amended, carried.
(Motion, as amended, agreed to)
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1810
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—HEALTH CARE
The House resumed from March 17 consideration of the motion and
of the amendment.
The Speaker: Pursuant to order made on Thursday, March
16, 2000, the House will now proceed to the taking of the
deferred recorded division on the amendment of the member for
Richmond—Arthabaska relating to the business of supply.
1815
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bailey
| Benoit
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Blaikie
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Cadman
| Casson
|
Chatters
| Davies
| Dockrill
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duncan
| Earle
| Epp
| Forseth
|
Gilmour
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goldring
| Gouk
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Hanger
| Hardy
|
Harvey
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Johnston
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Konrad
| Lowther
| Lunn
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Manning
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
| McDonough
| McNally
|
Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Muise
|
Nunziata
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Penson
|
Price
| Riis
| Ritz
| Robinson
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| Solomon
|
St - Jacques
| Stinson
| Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Vautour
| Wasylycia - Leis
– 67
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
| Axworthy
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brien
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Cardin
| Carroll
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Clouthier
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cotler
| Crête
| Cullen
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
|
Duhamel
| Dumas
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Finlay
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gagnon
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godfrey
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guay
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Hubbard
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Lastewka
| Laurin
| Lavigne
| Lebel
|
Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Marceau
| Marleau
|
Matthews
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Ménard
|
Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Patry
| Peric
| Perron
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
|
Proud
| Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Rocheleau
|
Rock
| Saada
| Sauvageau
| Sekora
|
Serré
| Sgro
| Shepherd
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Venne
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan – 171
|
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?
1820
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:
1825
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bailey
| Benoit
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Blaikie
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Cadman
| Casson
|
Chatters
| Davies
| Dockrill
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duncan
| Earle
| Epp
| Forseth
|
Gilmour
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goldring
| Gouk
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Hanger
| Hardy
|
Harvey
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Johnston
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Konrad
| Lowther
| Lunn
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Manning
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
| McDonough
| McNally
|
Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Muise
|
Nunziata
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Penson
|
Price
| Riis
| Ritz
| Robinson
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| Solomon
|
St - Jacques
| Stinson
| Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Vautour
| Vellacott
| Wasylycia - Leis – 68
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Assadourian
|
Asselin
| Augustine
| Axworthy
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brien
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
|
Cardin
| Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Clouthier
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cotler
| Crête
| Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
| Duhamel
|
Dumas
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
|
Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
|
Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grose
| Guay
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Hubbard
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Lastewka
|
Laurin
| Lavigne
| Lebel
| Lee
|
Leung
| Limoges
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Marceau
| Marleau
| Matthews
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Ménard
| Mifflin
| Milliken
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Patry
|
Peric
| Perron
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Proud
| Proulx
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Rocheleau
| Rock
| Saada
|
Sauvageau
| Sekora
| Serré
| Sgro
|
Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Julien
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Venne
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Whelan – 169
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare the motion lost.
ALLOTTED DAY—CANADA HEALTH AND SOCIAL TRANSFER
The House resumed from March 20 consideration of the motion and
the amendment.
The Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking of
the deferred recorded division on the amendment relating to the
business of supply.
1835
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
|
Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brien
| Cadman
| Cardin
| Casson
|
Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Duncan
|
Epp
| Forseth
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
|
Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
|
Hanger
| Harvey
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Johnston
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Konrad
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Lowther
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Manning
| Marceau
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Mayfield
| McNally
| Ménard
| Meredith
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Muise
| Nunziata
|
Obhrai
| Penson
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Plamondon
| Price
| Ritz
| Rocheleau
|
Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
|
St - Jacques
| Stinson
| Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
|
Vautour
| Vellacott
| Venne – 91
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Assadourian
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Clouthier
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cotler
|
Cullen
| Davies
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dockrill
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Duhamel
| Earle
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finlay
| Fontana
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
|
Harb
| Hardy
| Harvard
| Hubbard
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Lastewka
| Lee
|
Leung
| Limoges
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Marleau
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
|
McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
|
Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Nystrom
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Proud
| Proulx
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Riis
|
Robillard
| Robinson
| Rock
| Saada
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Sgro
| Shepherd
|
Solomon
| Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Julien
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
– 146
|
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?
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:
1840
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
|
Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
|
Cadman
| Cardin
| Casson
| Chatters
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desrochers
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duceppe
| Dumas
| Duncan
| Epp
|
Forseth
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
| Gouk
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Hanger
|
Harvey
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Johnston
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Konrad
| Laurin
| Lebel
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Manning
|
Marceau
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Mayfield
|
McNally
| Ménard
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Morrison
| Muise
| Nunziata
| Obhrai
|
Penson
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
|
Price
| Ritz
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| St - Jacques
|
Stinson
| Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Vautour
|
Vellacott
| Venne – 90
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Assadourian
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Clouthier
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cotler
|
Cullen
| Davies
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dockrill
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Duhamel
| Earle
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finlay
| Fontana
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
|
Harb
| Hardy
| Harvard
| Hubbard
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Lastewka
| Lee
|
Leung
| Limoges
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Marleau
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
|
McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
|
Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Nystrom
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Proud
| Proulx
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Riis
|
Robillard
| Robinson
| Rock
| Saada
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Sgro
| Shepherd
|
Solomon
| Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Julien
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
– 146
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare the motion lost.
It being 6.45 p.m., the House will now proceed to the
consideration of Private Members' Business, as listed on today's
order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
BLOOD SAMPLES ACT
The House resumed from December 13, 1999 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-244, an act to provide for the taking of
samples of blood for the benefit of persons administering and
enforcing the law and good Samaritans and to amend the criminal
code, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
1845
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the Chamber in
support of the hon. member and his Bill C-244 with respect to the
taking of blood samples. The bill reads:
An act to provide for the taking of samples of blood for the
benefit of persons administering and enforcing the law and good
Samaritans and to amend the Criminal Code.
This is a very important and very timely piece of legislation
that has been brought forward. The hon. member deserves a great
deal of credit for taking the initiative.
Currently police officers, firefighters, ambulance attendants,
nurses and many others involved in similar professions can
accidentally or deliberately be contaminated by another person's
bodily fluids while performing their professional duties,
emergency first aid or other lifesaving procedures; that is to
say, what is expected of them. The very nature of their jobs
puts them very much potentially in harm's way.
It could also happen to a good Samaritan, an example being in
the performance of CPR or in the performance of attending to an
individual who has been injured and where blood and bodily fluids
might be transferred accidentally. This is about encouraging the
humanitarian aid of both those in the profession where they do so
in the normal course of business and those who, as good
Samaritans, might choose to lend assistance or help to a person
in need.
We do not have to imagine in any great detail how commonplace
this has become across the country. We can all envision an
accident scene where individuals, sadly, because of the fear of
contact with disease or the fear of somehow putting their own
health at risk, might be reluctant to become involved and be
reluctant to aid an individual who is in dire straits.
This bill is a very practical approach that would, at the very
least, protect individuals who, by virtue of their good and
humanitarian acts of assistance, may have made contact with a
victim. The bill would give them the ability to find out whether
the individual who is harmed, the victim, has contracted or is
suffering from an illness that could be spread.
This is a piece of legislation that is worthy of support in the
House. It was brought forward, I am sure, with the very best
intentions and it is one that the Progressive Conservative Party
of Canada will support.
1850
I mentioned the timeliness of this motion based on the fact that
members of the Canadian Police Association were on the Hill today
meeting with members of parliament. Their lobby efforts on
behalf of the police and community have become very fruitful and
positive. They met individually with members of parliament to
raise awareness of issues that affect them. By virtue of
affecting them, it has widespread implications right across the
country.
This motion, therefore, is timely in the sense that members of
the police association are very much in support of this because
of how it affects their operations and their day to day
interactions with the general public. They are in favour of this
and other very important motions that affect not only their
profession but Canadians in general.
In the performance of their duty, police officers and people in
other professions could, either accidentally or deliberately,
become infected as a result of the actions of an unintended
victim. Sadly, there are instances where individuals, who have
knowledge of their infection, deliberately try to spread it by
biting a police officer or by using a syringe that might have
been contaminated with HIV or another such illness.
Obviously, police officers, firefighters and those in the
medical profession, such as practitioners and nurses, are
particularly susceptible to exposure and are in high risk
positions by virtue of their day to day practise.
With that said, it is incumbent on us, as members of parliament,
particularly in areas of justice where we can draft legislation
and change the existing provisions of the criminal code and other
statutes, to protect and support those brave souls who are
putting themselves in harm's way on behalf of the public.
Legislation such as this would do just that and would help to
achieve that end.
As well, a high risk person is well within his or her right to
refuse, for example, to supply a sample of blood. However, this
legislation would prevent that refusal. Obviously, there are
considerations as to privacy which certainly warrants protection
under the law.
Let us draw a similar analogy. As it currently stands with
respect to the need to protect the public, there is the ability
to take a breath sample because of the carnage that results from
impaired driving. There is the ability to get a warrant, for
example, to take a blood sample in the pursuit of a criminal
investigation. Similarly, there is the ability to demand a blood
sample with respect to impaired driving. There are provisions
that override an individual's right to protection for refusing to
give a sample.
Blood analysis or a similar type of sample has to be given where
there is a risk to an individual who has, by virtue of his or her
profession or by virtue of simple humanitarian altruistic
efforts, potentially been exposed. Why should we not do
everything in our power to ensure that person is encouraged and
supported in the effort that he or she has made?
Without the consent, the victim must undergo a series of
chemical cocktails within the first six hours of the incident in
an attempt to stop the spread of an undisclosed disease by a
person who may have transferred this either intentionally or
unintentionally. Again, it puts a much higher and onerous burden
on the person who has put himself or herself on the line in an
attempt to do his or her job or to help a struggling person.
So that everyone understands, these types of chemical cocktails
are very powerful drugs that often have serious side effects. If
it can be known at the earliest possible instance whether there
is a need to undergo this process or no need at all and that
could be determined quite quickly through a blood a sample, this
would assist in the protection of the person who has rendered
that assistance and undertaken that task.
1855
There is also the timeliness. There are six hours in which to
make the decision of whether or not it is necessary to provide
the chemical cocktail. It is not necessarily an antidote or it
is not necessarily going to do the job, but at the very least it
provides hope that it might somehow stave off the side effects
and the long term effects of contracting one of the serious
communicable diseases.
This has caused concern not only in the professional world but
obviously it is something that subconsciously now is very much in
the public's mind when it comes to acting in good faith and
rendering assistance to those in need who have been injured,
particularly where there has been bloodshed. The most telling
and obvious example is in performing mouth to mouth
resuscitation, when CPR is administered. There is the potential
to contract a communicable disease just by virtue of rendering
that breath of life. The altruistic effort to safe a person
might result in potential long term suffering or loss of life for
the good Samaritan.
Bill C-244 would at least allow the protection and give that
person the knowledge as to whether they have paid that terrible
price. It would allow them to react appropriately and try to
prevent or to minimize the effects of what disease they may have
contracted.
This has caused concern across the country. We have received
numerous letters in support of the legislation. For example, the
Canadian Corps of Commissionaires Nova Scotia division has spoken
in favour of the bill. The Canadian Resource Centre for Victims
of Crime has written in support, as have the Canadian ski patrol
system and paramedics. The list goes on and on. There is very
broad support for the bill brought forward by the hon. member.
We in the Conservative Party are in complete support of it. I
mentioned previously the support of the Canadian Police
Association and others.
No qualified medical practitioner or qualified technician is
guilty of an offence only by reason of a refusal to take a blood
sample from a person for the purpose of the act. There is no
criminal or civil liability for anything necessarily done with
reasonable care and skill in the taking of blood samples. There
are protections.
Individuals should have confidence that the system is there to
support them. Integrity and safeguards are in place. Bill C-244
is not an infringement of a person's human rights. I have already
referred to current sections of the criminal code that compel a
person to submit blood samples. For those reasons, and I am sure
more that will be sussed out in the course of this debate, we
will be in support of the bill.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to strongly
support Bill C-244, the blood samples act.
I particularly commend the House leader of the official
opposition for introducing the bill. It is very timely and
effective. I highly appreciate that the bill has been introduced
and I am sure all members in the House will support it.
The purpose of the blood samples act is to protect good
Samaritans, health professionals and the front line emergency
service providers should they be accidentally or deliberately
exposed to another person's bodily fluids while performing their
professional duties, emergency first aid or other lifesaving
procedures.
This is a very timely bill because those front line officers and
people who are there to protect other citizens need protection
themselves. The blood samples will help them. They will not
have to go through the unnecessary hardship of having to take
medicine and having to experience the side effects until a virus
and antibodies show that the person was affected by a disease
such as HIV, hepatitis C and hepatitis B.
It is very important that the blood samples which will be
ordered by a judge of the court will be taken and not used for
any purpose other than for the intended purpose.
It would not infringe on the Privacy Act or the confidentiality
of the person because under this bill the blood sample would be
used for the intended purpose.
1900
In the absence of that knowledge, not only would the person
suffer from very serious side effects, it would also put
emotional stress on the frontline emergency personnel, the police
officers and people in other agencies. They would encounter
shock. They would have to deal with the families, the wives, the
children and the co-workers.
Police officers, firefighters, emergency response personnel and
good Samaritans are at risk and should be entitled to reasonable
information, protection and peace of mind in order that they can
make informed decisions with respect to precaution and treatment
to protect themselves and their loved ones.
This legislation could be tailored to meet the concerns of good
Samaritans and emergency personnel, while respecting and
balancing the legitimate privacy and security issues of the
source person.
I strongly support this legislation and I look forward to seeing
it become a permanent fixture in our criminal code and the
judicial system.
Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
one of the joys of sitting on the private members' subcommittee
is that I get to hear detailed pitches for virtually every
private member's bill that comes to the House. I probably heard
the hon. member speak in favour of the bill long before it was
brought to the attention of the House. At the time I think he
made extremely valid arguments as to why this piece of
legislation was required.
If we give it a bit of thought, I think in the last 15 or 20
years blood related and blood transmitted diseases have appeared
that were not around when the criminal code was crafted or
amended the last time. I think it is a very timely piece of
legislation.
We have to be a bit careful in terms of describing this as a
panacea. There are cases where, let us say, someone may have
contracted HIV who was involved in one of these scuffles, but if
they are still in the incubation period it may not show up in
their tests. Issues need to be hammered out. However,
absolutely those concerns are very minor compared to the thrust
of this bill.
I congratulate the member for Fraser Valley. I believe that the
bill belongs in the committee. From what I have heard from some
of the previous speakers who are members of the justice
committee, I think they are in a good position to come to terms
with what needs to be done.
I will be supporting the bill. I would encourage the member to
let the debate collapse, because if he waits for his third hour
we will be into May and I think it is important that we get the
bill before the committee as soon as possible.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Madam Speaker, if
there are no other speakers I would like a minute or two to
summarize the debate.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Madam Speaker, it appears as a bit of a
surprise to me in many ways that the debate is likely to collapse
at this time. Therefore, I wish to thank the many speakers who
have taken part in the debate for their encouraging words. I
recognize and all along I have said that there are other issues
which need to be hammered out in committee. I do not pretend
that perfection ever comes to a bill in its first reading.
However, I thank members for their general support for the drift
of the bill, for the idea behind it.
I wish to mention two cases in particular. One is the young
gentleman in my riding, whom I named Tim, who actually spurred me
on to get this bill on the order paper. He was a young guy, 17
years old, who went through six months of intensive cocktail
chemical treatment as a precaution against becoming infected. He
was a good Samaritan who had just done his job as a good citizen.
He had helped the police in an arrest and in so doing was
covered with blood. Because of the current laws he had no way of
knowing whether the blood was contaminated.
It is his story as the first one that spurred me on to bring this
bill into the House.
1905
The other example is someone who is with us tonight, a police
officer by the name of Isobel Anderson. She has been brave
beyond belief, in my opinion, to bring this issue forward and to
use the story of her personal tragedy. She went through trauma
as an individual police officer not knowing whether or not the
blood on a needle which she had come in contact with was
infected. Her story, her bravery and her consistency in getting
this message out has been a good part of why the bill has
received such wide support. I want to thank her tonight. She is
up in the gallery.
I do hope that all parties will see fit to support the bill and
send it to committee. It is there where we can all do our work
to make this an even better bill for the protection of our front
line workers, our police officers, our firefighters, our people
on the front line and the good Samaritans who help them in the
commission of their good work for society.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to
a committee)
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
may not be very familiar with the procedure when debates come to
an end that way, but I would have liked the record to read it
was agreed to but on division. I am not too sure what happened
because it went so fast I had trouble with the translation. I
would like the record to—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): To proceed that way, I
would have had to hear one nay. I heard no objection, therefore
I declared the motion carried.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FUND
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Madam Speaker, I recently
rose in this House to ask a question to the Speaker about the
fact that in 1986 the auditor general recommended that the
unemployment insurance account be integrated with the
government's general funds.
My question was the following:
Last Tuesday, the auditor general criticized the size of the
surplus in the employment insurance fund and indicated that it
should not exceed a maximum of $15 billion, instead of the
current $25 billion.
It is now about $28 billion.
I asked:
Will the government listen to the auditor general, as it did in
1986, and reduce the size of the surplus by increasing the
number of unemployed who can qualify?
I was disappointed by the reply of the Secretary of State for
International Financial Institutions, who said:
Mr. Speaker, since the beginning we have continually lowered
employment insurance contributions. In 1993, these contributions
were at $3.07, while today they are at $2.40. This is progress
and we will continue.
That is what the government said.
I find it regrettable, because the question had to do with the
increase in the number of unemployed. In Canada, only 30% of
women qualify for employment insurance.
1910
Only 15% of young people qualify for employment insurance, and
the government says this is to encourage them to find jobs.
Do you know what this means? It means that in my region, the
Atlantic region, for example, in our fishing communities, the
Liberal government is telling young people that they do cannot
remain in Atlantic Canada and should move somewhere else in
Canada. We are losing all our young people because of
discrimination in the EI system. A young person who is a
newcomer on the labour market must accumulate 910 hours of work
to qualify, while someone who is already on the labour market
only has to accumulate 420 hours.
The auditor general said that too much money already, or
$15 billion, has been transferred from the employment insurance
account to the general funds. I saw no one in Canada take to the
streets because employment insurance contributions were too
high. Thousands took to the streets, however, because they no
longer qualified for EI.
Saturday evening, the Prime Minister of Canada admitted that he
had gone too far with his cuts to employment insurance and that
this was why he had lost the election in the Atlantic region.
I hope my colleague does not answer the same way his colleague
did during question period.
Even the Liberal caucus of the Atlantic region made a proposal,
during the Liberal convention held in Ottawa last week-end, to
change employment insurance.
Does the government not recognize that it has hurt many
Canadians throughout the country with the changes it has brought
to employment insurance? The issue is not contributions to
employment insurance, but rather the cuts to employment
insurance that have hurt Canadians and, Canadian women in
particular, with only 30% of women and 15% of young people
qualifying for employment insurance. Those people contribute to
the EI fund. They pay contributions, yet they are not eligible
to benefits.
I would like to have the opinion of the government on that. I
hope not to hear the same things I have been hearing for the
past few months.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance,
Lib.): Madam Speaker, in the Economic and Fiscal Update of last
fall, the government announced it had agreed to set the
employment insurance premium at $2.40 for the year 2000, as the
employment insurance commissioners had unanimously agreed to.
It was the sixth consecutive year that employment insurance
premiums had been reduced, from $3.07 to $2.40, for a total
reduction of 67 cents since 1994, or a $260 annual saving for
the average worker.
[English]
We recognize that we must return to the point
where EI premiums cover only ongoing EI program costs, and that
is what is happening.
The government's commitment to maintaining the EI program as a
critical element of the social safety net is clear. The EI
reforms were intended to help Canadians get back to work, and
they are doing just that.
The unemployment rate has fallen from 11.3% in October 1993 to
6.8% this past December, January and February. This is the
lowest rate since April 1976. Furthermore, over 1.8 million jobs
have been created since 1993, with 427,000 in 1999 alone.
[Translation]
The government has put great emphasis on active measures
co-ordinated with provincial programs to help Canadians return to
work as quickly as possible. These active measures are also
offered to previous recipients who have been unemployed for a
long period.
[English]
BANKS
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I rise to say a few words about a question I had asked
in the House back on December 2 of the last millennium to do with
the banks.
In 1999 the banks in this country made $9 billion in profits. I
am concerned about what the government will do to protect jobs in
the banking industry and ensure branches are not needlessly
closed in many communities around this country. Banks are
announcing the closure of branches in various parts of Canada and
many people are being thrown out of work.
1915
I was also concerned that despite these huge profits, we are
seeing closures and a lot of the profits are going to the highly
paid chief executive officers of the banks. The 24 top CEOs of
the banks in this country received remuneration in excess last
year of $250 million. That is 24 people and $250 million,
equivalent to the salaries of some 12,000 bank tellers. This
tells us the priorities of the banks.
The Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions
responded to a question, but I thought his answer could have been
a bit more forthcoming in terms of what he said. The main issue
is to protect the jobs of the people who are working in our banks
and to protect the communities that are served by some of these
banks.
I am fairly pleased with the Bank of Montreal in my province of
Saskatchewan and in the province of Alberta. The Bank of Montreal
announced a month ago that it was going to close over 30
branches. This was going to be done by selling the branches to
the local credit union.
In Saskatchewan some 17 Bank of Montreal branches in small towns
and villages in the main park have been sold to 15 credit unions.
These credit unions will expand by using some of the customer
base of the Bank of Montreal. In two of these communities a Bank
of Montreal building will be renovated and changed into a credit
union. In the other case two of them will be amalgamated into
one. The people in these communities will have service available
to the community.
There are 63 people working in these 17 branches of the Bank of
Montreal. As part of the agreement for buying this business, the
credit union will offer employment to each and every one of these
63 people. They will now be working for a credit union or in
some cases taking early retirement.
Some of these branches are very small. One only has one
employee. But the fact that it is small does not mean it is not
an important institution to a lot of people in a small rural
town. This is a move in the right direction.
I would like to see leadership from the government to make sure
that when the other banks decide to close branches, there will be
some service to the people in those communities. Maybe we should
look at what the United States has done. It has a community
reinvestment act which gives some power to direct some of the
funds which banks raise in communities right back into the
communities and indeed in some places, there is some power given
to the community to try to prevent the closure of a bank which is
serving people in a particular area. This is very important.
Also important is the protection of jobs of the people who work
in the financial services industry. This is also very important.
The banks can afford to be more generous and more flexible. They
can afford to concentrate more on service. They made $9 billion
in profits last year and those profits are still coming in very
nicely. The CIBC just announced that in its first quarter the
results are anticipated to be about 25% to 30% better than it had
expected. The TD bank has said that its earnings are up by 42%
from last year.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, my hon. friend has expressed
his concern regarding the fact that several of Canada's large
banks have decided to reduce their workforce even though their
combined profits reached $9 billion last year. He calls upon the
government to prevent job losses and branch closures.
[Translation]
The best way to create and to protect jobs is to have efficient
and competitive businesses. This goes also for financial
institutions such as banks. A strong, efficient and profitable
financial sector is essential to our economic well-being.
[English]
That is why the government announced a new policy framework for
the financial services sector last June. This is a
comprehensive, balanced and fair package of reforms that promotes
efficiency, growth and job creation in the sector. It also
fosters domestic competition and empowers consumers to ensure
that the sector remains responsive to the needs of Canadians.
This new framework includes measures to ensure that banks have
the flexibility they need to compete at home and abroad.
We expect banks to make their own business decisions, but at the
same time we also expect them to take responsibility for them.
That is why we intend to introduce a branch closure process for
banks and public accountability statements for all large
financial institutions. The branch closure process will give
communities time to react and adjust to the closure of a bank
branch in their area. It provides a minimum of four months
notice of a closure, extended to six months for the last branch
in that community.
In its annual public accountability statements, large financial
institutions will be called upon to describe their contributions
to communities, including their levels of employment and their
branch openings and closings.
This represents a fair balance between the banks' need to
compete and the needs of consumers and communities.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The motion to adjourn
the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the
House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.20 p.m.)