36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 108
CONTENTS
Tuesday, June 6, 2000
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1005
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Motion
|
1010
| PETITIONS
|
| Queen's Own Cameron Highlanders of Canada
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
| Gasoline Pricing
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
1015
| Canada Post Corporation
|
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
| Importation of plutonium
|
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
| Kidney Disease
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Species at Risk
|
| Mr. Dennis Gruending |
| Indonesia
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
1020
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| SUPPLY
|
| Allotted Day—Human Resources Development
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Motion
|
1025
1030
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1035
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
1040
1045
| Amendment
|
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
1050
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
1055
1100
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1105
| Mr. Peter Adams |
1110
1115
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1120
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1125
1130
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1135
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
1140
1145
| Mr. Peter Adams |
1150
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1155
| Ms. Libby Davies |
1200
1205
1210
1215
| Mr. Larry McCormick |
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1220
| Mr. Peter Adams |
1225
| Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
| Mr. Scott Brison |
1230
1235
| Mr. John Bryden |
1240
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1245
1250
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
1255
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
1300
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1305
1310
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
1315
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
1320
1325
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1330
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
1335
| Mr. Ted McWhinney |
1340
| Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
1345
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Ms. Judy Sgro |
1350
1355
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| COMMUNITY ACCESS PROGRAM
|
| Mr. Janko Peric |
| WORLD PETROLEUM CONGRESS
|
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
| BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGE OF CANADA
|
| Mr. Larry McCormick |
1400
| 56TH ANNIVERSARY OF D-DAY
|
| Ms. Judy Sgro |
| THE LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA
|
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
| 56TH ANNIVERSARY OF D-DAY
|
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
| BILL KIRKEY
|
| Mr. Paul Steckle |
| MALNUTRITION
|
| Ms. Jean Augustine |
1405
| THE HOMELESS
|
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
| FIGHT AGAINST POVERTY
|
| Mrs. Maud Debien |
| 56TH ANNIVERSARY OF D-DAY
|
| Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
| FRANCOPHONE GAMES
|
| Mr. Marcel Proulx |
1410
| REVENUE CANADA
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| IMPORTATION OF PLUTONIUM
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| HIGH TECH EDUCATION
|
| Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi |
| CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
|
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
| YUKON
|
| Mr. Derrek Konrad |
1415
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
1420
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| CANADA INFORMATION OFFICE
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
1425
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| WORKPLACE SAFETY
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
1430
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. David Price |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Mr. David Price |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| CANADA INFORMATION OFFICE
|
| Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
1435
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1440
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| CANADIAN HERITAGE
|
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Dale Johnston |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Dale Johnston |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
1445
| RADIO-CANADA
|
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Ms. Aileen Carroll |
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| TAXATION
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1450
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
| Mr. Scott Brison |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Scott Brison |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Ms. Sophia Leung |
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
1455
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| PARENTAL LEAVE
|
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| FINANCE
|
| Mr. Loyola Hearn |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
1500
| FORT-SAINT-JEAN CAMPUS
|
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Dennis Gruending |
| Ms. Paddy Torsney |
| PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
| The Speaker |
1505
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Mr. Bob Kilger |
| Motion
|
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| SUPPLY
|
| Allotted Day—Human Resources Development
|
| Motion
|
| Mr. Rick Casson |
| Ms. Judy Sgro |
| Mr. Paul Forseth |
1510
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
1515
1520
| Mr. Derek Lee |
1525
| Mr. Larry McCormick |
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
1530
1535
| Hon. Andy Scott |
1540
| Mr. Derrek Konrad |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
1545
1550
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1555
| Hon. Andy Scott |
1600
1605
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1610
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
1615
1620
| Mr. Rob Anders |
1625
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| Mr. Rob Anders |
1630
1635
| Mr. Mac Harb |
1640
| Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
1645
1650
| Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
1655
| Mr. Derrek Konrad |
| Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
1700
1705
| Mr. Derrek Konrad |
1710
| Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
| Ms. Paddy Torsney |
1715
1745
(Division 1334)
| Motion negatived
|
| IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROTECTION ACT
|
| Bill C-31. Second reading
|
1755
(Division 1335)
| Motion agreed to
|
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT
|
| Bill C-206. Second reading
|
1805
(Division 1336)
| Motion negatived
|
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2000
|
| Bill C-32. Third reading
|
1810
(Division 1337)
| Motion Agreed to
|
1815
| CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION DIVESTITURE
|
| Bill C-11. Report stage
|
1820
(Division 1338)
| Motion No. 1 negatived
|
1830
(Division 1339)
| Motion No. 2 negatived
|
1835
(Division 1340)
| Motion No. 3 negatived
|
1845
(Division 1341)
| Motion No. 4 negatived
|
1850
(Division 1342)
| Motion No. 5
|
1900
(Division 1343)
| Motion No. 12 negatived
|
(Division 1344)
| Motion No. 6 negatived
|
(Division 1345)
| Motion No. 7 negatived
|
1910
(Division 1346)
| Motion No. 8 negatived
|
1915
(Division 1347)
| Motion No. 16 negatived
|
1925
(Division 1348)
| Motion No. 13 negatived
|
1930
(Division 1349)
| Motion No. 14 negatived
|
1940
(Division 1350)
| Motion No. 15 negatived
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
1945
1950
(Division 1351)
| Motion agreed to
|
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| International Trade
|
| Mr. Walt Lastewka |
1955
| Mr. Bob Speller |
2000
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION DIVESTITURE
|
| Bill C-11. Third reading
|
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
2005
2010
2015
| Mr. David Chatters |
2020
2025
2030
2035
| Mr. Serge Cardin |
2040
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
2045
2050
2055
2100
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
2105
2110
2115
| Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
| Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
2120
2125
2130
2135
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
2140
| Division deemed demanded and deferred
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 108
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, June 6, 2000
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1005
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to 10 petitions.
* * *
[English]
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations
among House leaders, and I believe you would find unanimous
consent for the following motion:
That, at the ordinary time of daily adjournment on Tuesday, June
6, 2000, proceedings pursuant to Standing Order 38 shall be taken
up, but, at the conclusion of such proceedings, the motion to
adjourn shall be deemed to have been withdrawn and,
notwithstanding any standing order, the House shall continue to
sit for the purposes of considering the third reading stage of
Bill C-11, an act to authorize the divestiture of the assets of,
and to dissolve, the Cape Breton Development Corporation, to
amend the Cape Breton Development Corporation Act and to make
consequential amendments to other acts, provided that during this
consideration the Chair shall not receive any dilatory motions,
quorum calls or requests for unanimous consent and that, when no
member rises to speak, every question necessary for the disposal
of the said stage of the bill shall be deemed to have been put, a
division thereon requested and deferred to the time of expiry of
the time for consideration of Government Orders on Wednesday,
June 7, 2000.
1010
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The House has heard
the terms of the motion as presented by the government House
leader. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
PETITIONS
QUEEN'S OWN CAMERON HIGHLANDERS OF CANADA
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I am honoured today to present petitions which were presented to
a number of Manitoba MPs on April 20 at Minto Armouries in the
regimental museum of the Queen's Own Cameron Highlanders. These
signatures were gathered by the St. Andrew's Society of Winnipeg.
A number of other Manitoba MPs over this day and the following
few days may well be presenting similar petitions.
The petitioners ask parliament to reject the Department of
National Defence plans to abolish the Queen's Own Cameron
Highlanders of Canada or to amalgamate it with another militia
regiment.
They believe that Manitoba's only highland kilted regiment must
be retained as an important symbol of the province's great
Scottish heritage. The Camerons are extremely useful to all
citizens of Manitoba. Beside their excellent record in war and
peace keeping missions, they protect Manitobans on the home front
in events like the great floods of 1950 and 1997.
They also believe that a strong militia is the base on which
capable national defence is built. Therefore, any necessary cuts
in government spending should be done in other ways.
I might note that today is a particularly appropriate day to
present such a petition. This is the 56th anniversary of the
invasion of Normandy, the anniversary of D-Day. It was during
the Normandy campaign that many Cameron Highlanders returned to
Europe to seek the liberation of their comrades who had been
captured in the Dieppe raid on August 19, 1942.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
too rise, as did the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona, to
present a petition on behalf of the Queen's Own Cameron
Highlanders.
The 42-page petition contains 2,684 signatures. Again, as was
most eloquently noted by the member for Winnipeg—Transcona, the
Department of National Defence currently is looking at ways of
rationalizing its defence budget. We are saying that the militia
regiment in particular is not one of those area in which the
Department of National Defence should be looking. I speak with
some knowledge having a CFB in my constituency, as well as the 26
Field Regiment.
On the bottom part of this petition, it does say quite
succinctly that a strong militia is the base on which capable
national defence is built. Therefore, any necessary cuts in
government spending should be done in other fashions.
I support that and table the petition before the House.
[Translation]
GASOLINE PRICING
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the privilege of presenting two petitions.
The first relates to the excessively high gasoline prices. This
petition is from the René Goyette “L'essence, c'est essentiel”
team.
Since it is impossible for Canadian consumers to take any action
to protect themselves from rising gasoline prices, these
petitioners from Rimouski, Victoriaville, Sainte-Hélène-de-Chester,
Arthabaska, Pointe-au-Père, Saint-Donat, Châteauguay, Terrebonne
and Laval, are calling upon parliament to adopt a resolution to
thwart the world oil cartels and thus reduce exorbitantly high
crude oil prices.
The second petition comes from the René Goyette “L'essence,
c'est essentiel” team in Montreal, and also addresses the
excessively high price of gasoline.
1015
Petitioners are from Saint-Basile-le-Grand, Magog,
Saint-Bruno-de-Montarville, Saint-Gabriel, Chambly, Sainte-Julie and
Mont-Saint-Hilaire.
Since it is impossible for Canadian consumers to take any action
to protect themselves from rising gasoline prices, these
petitioners are calling upon parliament to adopt a resolution to
thwart the world oil cartels and thus reduce exorbitantly high
crude oil prices.
CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to table two petitions. The first was given to
me by people who wish to support rural postal carriers.
The petitioners are asking that subsection 13(5) of the Canada
Post Corporation Act be withdrawn because it deprives these
rural carriers of their right to collectively negotiate their
working conditions.
Several of those who signed live in my riding and I support them
completely in their efforts to make it possible for rural
carriers to negotiate an acceptable contract so that they are
not working for less than minimum wage, as some of them are now
doing.
IMPORTATION OF PLUTONIUM
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition has to do with the importation of MOX fuel,
Russian plutonium.
This could cause serious, irreversible harm to Canadians, and
especially Quebecers, because, as is well known, the route used
is the St. Lawrence River. If an accident were to happen, we
would hold this government responsible.
[English]
KIDNEY DISEASE
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to present three more petitions from citizens of the Peterborough
area and, in fact, from across Canada who support the development
in Canada of a bio-artificial kidney. This brings the number of
signatures to well over 10,000 on petitions which I have
presented to the House on this subject. This petition was
started by Ken Sharp, who lives in my riding.
The petitioners point out that more than 18,000 Canadians suffer
from end-stage kidney disease and that, although kidney dialysis
and kidney transplants help and they are important life saving
treatments, there are difficulties with providing sufficient
dialysis service and difficulties in providing sufficient organs
for transplantation. Therefore, the petitioners call upon
parliament to support research toward an alternative to kidney
dialysis and kidney transplants, and that is the bio-artificial
kidney.
Research is being conducted at various places in the United
States and the petitioners call upon parliament to work in
support of research toward the bio-artificial kidney which will
eventually eliminate the need for both dialysis and
transplantation for those suffering from kidney disease.
SPECIES AT RISK
Mr. Dennis Gruending (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by approximately 375
people, consisting of 25 pages, regarding Bill C-33, the species
at risk act, which is before the House at this time.
The petitioners ask that the bill be strengthened and they make
the following suggestions. A legal listing of species should be
done by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in
Canada, COSEWIC. Politicians should not make this decision.
Habitat protection should be automatic. When the provinces fail
to provide protection for species at risk, the federal power to
step in must be mandatory and not discretionary as outlined at
the moment in Bill C-33. Finally, they ask for a guarantee of
available and adequate funding to support stewardship options,
which of course are attempts to protect habitat for animals and
plants.
The petitioners are really saying that they have looked at Bill
C-33 and it is not adequate. I mention in passing that our NDP
caucus also feels that the bill as it exists is not adequate and
we fully agree with the petitioners.
INDONESIA
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise in the House to present a petition signed by 300
petitioners of the Vancouver area who want to draw attention to a
very desperate situation on the Island of Ambon in Indonesia
where there has been continuous violence since January 1999
between Muslim and Christian groups.
1020
The petitioners draw attention to the loss of life, the damage
to property and to civil society, and the fact that the
Indonesian army and police force have not acted in a responsible
manner, thus aggravating and perpetuating the clashes between
these groups.
The petitioners call on parliament to appeal to the Indonesian
government to protect its citizens without regard to their
religion and ethnicity and to bring justice to those who have
perpetuated the atrocities in Ambon.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would
ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance) moved:
That this House call for the
establishment of an independent commission of inquiry into the
mismanagement of grants and contributions in the Department of
Human Resources Development, and into any attempts to control the
disclosure of this mismanagement to the public.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am not entirely happy that this motion
had to be brought forward today. I would have hoped after all
these weeks that the government would have been able to provide
clear and satisfactory answers to the very difficult and
troubling situation in the human resources department, the
largest department of government. The department handles huge
amounts of public money, up to $60 billion a year. It handles by
far the most public money of any department. It is a department
which is more focused than almost any other on meeting the needs
of Canadians in theory and in principle, but unfortunately not in
deed.
Our motion today calls for the establishment of an independent
inquiry into the mismanagement of grants and contributions by
this department and also, unfortunately and sadly, attempts to
control the disclosure of this mismanagement to the public.
We first called for an independent inquiry on February 8 in a
letter from the Leader of the Official Opposition to the Auditor
General of Canada. Since then there have been repeated calls
from the opposition and the public for an independent inquiry, as
very troubling discrepancies and lack of full disclosure
continued to surface.
There are three reasons we believe an independent inquiry is
necessary. The first reason is that enormous public interests
are at stake. The grants and contributions program in HRDC
spends over $3 billion a year. That is $3 billion which is hard
earned by Canadians and taken from their pockets by the
government. That is $3 billion which could be spent on a variety
of initiatives that are of importance to Canadians, including
health care, but this money is not spent on those types of
things. That $3 billion really represents the tip of the iceberg
because almost every other government department has grants and
contributions spending totalling over $13 billion each and every
year. That is $13 billion which is not available to Canadians
for other priorities.
This is not a small matter when it comes to the public interest.
An independent inquiry is very necessary if the public interest
is not being well served by the grants and contributions
management and programs.
The second reason we believe there needs to be an independent
inquiry is to restore trust in parliament and in the institutions
of government.
1025
Even the Liberal surveys are now showing that government
mismanagement of public money is looming large in the public
concern. There has been a serious and troubling erosion of the
public's trust and confidence in the way their money, their
affairs and their interests are being managed and looked after by
the government, and, by extension, all of us in the House of
Commons who were elected to serve the public, to manage their
affairs and to act in their best interests. The public is
clearly questioning, and rightly so, whether their interests are
being protected, cared for and looked after. They have a right
to have their questions laid to rest.
The third reason we believe an independent inquiry is needed is
because there is a long and unfortunately growing list of
fundamental unanswered questions and discrepancies without full
disclosure of relevant information. To be blunt, there is an
information management strategy on the part of government to
withhold, to cover and to keep full information and full
disclosure about the situation not only from members of the
House, but the public. There have been many examples and
instances of that.
I could give a very full and comprehensive history of what has
happened in HRDC. Unfortunately, my time does not allow it.
However, my colleagues and others in the opposition will be
bringing forward many of those concerns today.
In the time I have, I would like to focus on the withholding of
very basic information about the mismanagement of grants and
contributions in HRDC and why that is so troubling. I would like
to emphasize that the audit which uncovered this terrible
situation had the most damning rundown of statistics about the
lack of controls and safeguards on the spending of public money
in that department.
To name two figures: in 80% of the projects files there was no
financial tracking of public money released into the hands of
grant recipients; in 87% of the files there was no supervision of
the projects. Any auditor or any common sense person would tell
us that when there is no oversight, no controls, no safeguards,
no supervision of the way money is spent, the potential and the
actual likelihood of fraud, abuse and misspending is very high.
There have been many instances which have come to light, in spite
of the choke hold the government has placed on access to
information requests and other documents, to show that this is in
fact what happened.
This audit has not been a new phenomenon. On June 14 the
interim audit results were presented to the department.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Did the hon. member
for Calgary—Nose Hill indicate that she was splitting her time?
I do not recall. If so, I need to give her a two minute warning.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: I am in fact splitting my time with
the member for Kelowna.
1030
This audit first came to light on June 14. Although it was an
interim result, it was obviously very explosive. The deputy
minister herself wrote to the minister some weeks later saying
that since the interim audit results were released in June there
had been very vigorous efforts to come up with some kind of a
plan to deal with this. That has been confirmed by the deputy
minister herself.
On June 14 the time bomb started ticking. By July 14, a month
later, there was a proposed action plan. On July 19 briefing
notes were e-mailed to all HRDC managers. On July 27 and 28
there was a two day meeting of 40 top HRDC officials.
The present minister was sworn in on August 3. On August 9 she
asked for a briefing but she said, and I commend her for this,
“I do not want to know all about the nuts and bolts of this
department. I want to know what the hot issues are, what balls
are in the air, what the key difficulties are”. That was on
August 9. She claims in spite of that she knew nothing about
this audit until November 17. She waited for two further months
before she breathed a word of this to the public and did so only
two days after we put in an access request for this audit.
This circumstance alone demonstrates to members of parliament
and to the public that there is a culture and attitude of
cover-up, of hiding, of denying problems and of whitewashing that
cannot be allowed to stand. I urge members of the House for the
sake of the public and for the sake of the integrity of our
system and our parliament to support this motion to establish an
independent inquiry into this matter.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to take up too much of question
and comment period because I would prefer to hear what the hon.
member has to say. I know that she has extensive experience on
the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the
Status of Persons with Disabilities, on which I have also sat
for a number of years.
What I find interesting in this whole situation is that, since
the crisis first hit, there has been one piece of evidence after
another of the need to get to the bottom of things.
I am not saying that everything that has been done is deserving
of criticism, but there is no doubt that we must get to the
bottom of this, because the Canadian public has completely lost
faith in the present and previous ministers and in the process
itself.
Could the member enlighten us a bit on what she thinks of the
fact that, after engaging in a partisan spending operation, the
government is now carrying out a cover-up operation
designed—this is the only reason I can see—to get ready for the
next election. This strikes me as a very bad decision, given
public opinion.
Could the hon. member please elaborate on this?
[English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, one of the very
interesting circumstances is the unity of the four opposition
parties in this whole matter. This matter is not one in which
partisanship has played a big role. It is one in which
reasonable, thoughtful and professional representatives of the
people have grown increasingly uneasy, then alarmed, and then
outraged at the non-answers in dealing with the HRDC grants and
contributions audit file.
I could go on for at least an hour on the unanswered questions,
the instances where the minister's story has changed, the times
where undated documents have come forward out of thin air when
the minister has been in a tight corner unable to explain some of
the dealings with public money that took place under her watch.
1035
One instance is the Modes Conili grant where three-quarters of a
million dollars was given at the behest of a Liberal member. That
Liberal member then got $7,000 for her election war chest. That
three-quarters of a million dollars created not one new job. It
was simply given to a company which hired all the workers from
another company. It was the most transparent shift of workers
from company A to company B greased with
three-quarters of a million of our dollars.
When the minister was asked about it, she went through four
stages. She asked what we were complaining about, that people
are working. Then when it came out that no new jobs were
created, that it was simply a shift of workers, she said, “I did
not say that jobs were created. I just said people had applied
and they were working”. Then it came out that this had been
questioned and that an internal investigation had been done. The
minister then said, “Oh well, the investigation said that there
was no problem with this”, but then she refused to release the
documents of the investigation to the House. If the documents
cleared the situation, why were the documents never tabled? They
were hidden. They have been withheld to this day. Then finally
the minister said, “The RCMP have been called in. Now there is
going to be an investigation”.
That is only one instance of the outrageous lack of transparency
and credibility the minister has shown.
This is my opinion only but I believe the best way to get to the
bottom of this is by an all party committee of the House, the
same number of members of parliament from each party, delegated
to look into this matter with full authority to look at any and
all documents they consider relevant. I suggest that it be MPs
because we are accountable to the people of Canada. This is what
we have been hired to do, to look after their interests. The same
number from each party would mean that no party would dominate,
partisanship would not carry the day. It would be done right in
the public eye because we are in the public eye. The sooner we
get on with that job, the better.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member who preceded me. She
laid the groundwork and foundation for the reason a public
inquiry is needed.
This issue involves virtually every Canadian. It involves every
member of parliament. It is an indictment not only of the
minister of HRDC, but the Prime Minister and every other member
of the governing party in the House today. By reflection, there
is an indication, almost a draining over to any politician which
makes us look as though we are all like that. I want to make it
abundantly clear that we are not all like that. One of the
reasons we want this inquiry is to be sure that the public
understands clearly what it is the minister did not do.
We have to ask ourselves why the inquiry is needed. I would
like to put it this way. The minister was supposed to respond in
a way that was courteous and helpful, to provide service to her
clients and to give a clear accounting to the taxpayers for the
money that she or her department dispensed.
What did she do? She bent the rules and generally administered
in a manner that was in no way accountable to the taxpayers. That
means her work was pointless. Her work was supposed to be
accountable to the people and it was pointless. When people do
pointless work, the production of whatever it is that is produced
is pointless. In the dictionary that is known as a boondoggle.
That is what there is in this particular department.
The hon. member indicated what the audit found on the first
instance. The auditor general then made a concluding statement.
He observed that there had not been proper financial monitoring
and there had not been an application of clear and transparent
reporting to parliament. Because of that the auditor general
said on March 23, 2000:
Large amounts of public funds were spent without the appropriate
controls, making it difficult to know whether the funds were used
as intended, spent wisely and produced the desired results.
1040
At this point I cannot help but read into the record some of the
examples of what has happened. I have before me 28 examples. We
do not have time to go into each of them. We will only go into
three of them.
One example is very interesting. Harding Carpets in Brantford,
Ontario received over $400,000 in job creation grants in 1997-98
and went bankrupt in 1998. Did this produce the desired result?
Clearly not. The jobs that were created, if any were created,
were of very short duration and today the company is bankrupt.
There are two other examples. The first has to do with 80% of a
$1.6 million job creation grant that is in support of a project
to revitalize the riverfront in the Deputy Prime Minister's
riding of Windsor West. Actually 80% of that money is being
spent on materials. It is supposed to be a job creation
contribution. It is not for materials in the first instance, yet
well over half, in fact 80% which is four-fifths, is being spent
on materials. It is mismanagement and misapplication of funds.
The hon. member referred to the MP for Ahuntsic in Montreal who
received $7,000 in campaign contributions in 1997 from a clothing
company called Modes Conili for which she had helped secure
$719,850 in transitional jobs fund grants. She gave it the grant
and two months later she received a $7,000 contribution for her
campaign. We begin to wonder. The hon. member pointed out that
no new jobs were created. In fact it was a transfer of existing
jobs from an existing company into a new company that had just
been created.
Those are three examples of why we believe a public inquiry
should take place. It is so we all know what really happened.
As a consequence, treasury board has come up with a new set of
guidelines. I said new guidelines but actually if we read the
document, they are not new guidelines at all; they are a revision
of existing guidelines. I would like to read a couple of the
headings and a few descriptions of what the revised guidelines
say.
There has to be effective management practices. This means due
diligence to ensure assistance is approved only for eligible
recipients and that payment is made only once all the required
terms and conditions have been met. It shall be a results based
management and what is the first word? Robust. A robust results
based accountability framework must be provided when seeking
treasury board approval of program terms and conditions including
program objectives and expected results, performance indicators
and milestones.
The spending shall be responsible which means increased
transparency. The assessment criteria used to assess recipient
eligibility and entitlement must be determined in advance,
communicated to the public and applied consistently.
There shall be effective control. What does this mean?
According to treasury board it means a more rigorous review of
the proposed terms and conditions of grant and contribution
programs will be undertaken by treasury board secretariat prior
to submission to treasury board.
Those are beautifully revised guidelines. Very similar
guidelines already existed while the minister was running the
department and she did not use those guidelines. She bent those
guidelines. The question is will she bend these guidelines or
will she observe them? The issue is not whether they are good
guidelines. These guidelines are good ones. The issue is whether
they are being observed and practised. That becomes the issue.
That is where the accountability has to be registered.
We need to recognize very clearly that some very serious
questions have been raised on the performance of the minister.
This has caused the treasury board to begin to react. It is a
reflection not only on the operations of HRDC but also on the
operations of the treasury board and the Prime Minister.
1045
What did the official opposition have to say when it presented
its report and responded to the report of the committee? It is
very worth while to look at some of its 14 recommendations. I
certainly do not have time to go into all of them, but I do wish
to deal with a couple of them that primarily concern political
interference.
When the committee reviewed all these grants and contributions
it discovered that there had been direct and implied political
interference in the granting of some of the contributions. The
official opposition has shown that the number of project
approvals and the amounts approved rose sharply at election time.
Lo and behold, could it possibly be true that the number of
contributions made to the various communities had something to do
with an election? They happened to go to ridings where the
elected MPs were Liberals and part of the present government.
Could it possibly be? That is exactly what we discovered and
that is what the committee discovered.
We do not have time to get into all the other things, but I
should like to refer to a speech made just recently by the Prime
Minister in Europe. I will read a few sentences. He said:
One of the challenges all countries must grapple with is ensuring
that all children get a good start in life and that families are
given the support they need for the healthy development of their
children, so that they are ready to learn and to seize
opportunity later in life. Some argue that large,
across-the-board tax cuts are sufficient. The Government of
Canada has chosen a different path. While parents and families
have the primary role in raising children, governments have a
responsibility to ensure that the necessary supports are also in
place.
He went on to talk about the child benefit program. The big
point here is not economics. There is a totally different issue
at stake here: the integrity of people, the character of
individuals. We need to develop character so that people live by
principles which clearly differentiate between that which is
right and that which is wrong. What the minister has done
reflects that it is not right to do the kinds of things he is
doing. Therefore I should like now to amend the motion that was
just presented. I would move:
That the motion be amended by adding after the word “public”
the words “and that the Commission be required to lay before the
House of Commons a final report no later than December 11,
2000”.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The amendment is in
order. Debate is on the amendment.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened with some interest to what the member
opposite was saying. On behalf of the constituents of
Waterloo—Wellington, and indeed other Canadians to whom I have
talked over the course of this discussion, I wanted to say that
whenever members opposite, and more to the point, the reformed
alliance people, run out of steam on an issue such as this one,
it seems to me that one of their last tricks is to call for a
public inquiry.
What they have done over the course of time on this very
important debate is quite shameful.
They have repeated the nonsense about a billion dollars missing
and the business about a boondoggle, which is totally groundless,
totally false, totally inaccurate and totally without base. They
have continued to repeat that mantra in the most egregious
fashion.
1050
What I find objectionable is that they are not even big enough
to admit that they were wrong. What they try to do now is to
spin it out. The member for Calgary—Nose Hill, with her 15
seconds of fame in the whole issue, wants to keep spinning it out
and is in the process of doing a job on the whole grants and
contributions business that is inconsistent with what the
regions, the provinces and the communities of this great country
want.
I want to ask a question of the member opposite who just spoke.
Why is it that in your usual extremist fashion, which is always
consistent with the reformed alliance position, you cannot be big
enough to admit that you were wrong and that you should apologize
to the Canadian people?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Order, please.
Members know that it is not necessarily just the custom but is
obligatory to address each other through the Chair. It exists
for a specific reason. I think this question indicates the
necessity of addressing each other through the Chair. With that
admonishment, we will go to the hon. member for Kelowna.
Mr. Werner Schmidt: Mr. Speaker, I believe the evidence
speaks for itself. We have absolutely nothing to apologize for
as far as the management style of members of this party are
concerned. The hon. member for Calgary—Nose Hill has done her
homework well. She has been very thorough in her study and in
her analysis of what has happened.
The hon. member opposite suggested that as a last trick we
resorted to the request for a public inquiry. As a matter of
fact an independent inquiry was asked for as early as February 8,
2000. It is anything but a last minute affair. The hon. member
needs to know that what has happened here is that the minister
thumbed her nose at parliament and said members of the House do
not matter and that the people of Canada do not matter. The real
issue is that the hon. minister should have been given permission
to resign her position and her portfolio.
The minister in charge is actually protecting the Prime
Minister. A lot of it points to the Prime Minister because he is
responsible for what his ministers are doing. If his ministers
are not doing what treasury board and the Prime Minister say the
guidelines should be, and if he does not permit the minister to
admit that she was wrong and will either change her ways or
resign her portfolio, he is the one who is to blame.
The hon. member opposite should recognize that before he makes
blatant statements on extremism he should look in the mirror and
ask who is extreme.
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be
splitting my time with the member for Peterborough. I am very
happy to have the chance to take part in this debate because I
would like to help set the record straight.
For almost five months now, the House has witnessed the same old
story being trotted out almost on a daily basis by the
opposition. The government has been subjected to all kinds of
hearsay and all kinds of claims. I would like to ask the House
to step back and take a look at the reality.
The motion before us calls for an inquiry into grants and
contributions at Human Resources Development Canada. The first
reality is that the issue of grants and contributions has already
been subject to an inquiry, that is an examination by the House
through its Standing Committee on Human Resources Development.
1055
The committee has spent almost four months on this project, day
after day, and just last Thursday tabled its report with its
recommendations. The government will respond to that report
within the 150 days provided by the rules. That is the first
inquiry.
The second reality is that the issue continues to be thoroughly
examined by the auditor general, an independent officer of
parliament. The auditor general has promised to report to
parliament in the fall. That is the second inquiry into this
situation.
The third reality is that it has been examined by treasury board
and by independent private sector firms. As a result, the
President of the Treasury Board announced the implementation of a
revised policy on grants and contributions, strengthening the
management of public spending.
From three separate angles the public interest is being
protected by parliamentarians, by the auditor general and by the
officials of treasury board measuring all spending against their
strengthened guidelines.
We would not have had this issue if not for the fact that the
government is always looking for ways to do a better job. That
is why HRDC, like other departments, does internal audits looking
for opportunities to improve what it does and how it does it.
Last year one of those audits focused on the management of grants
and contributions. We all know what it said, but I will repeat
it because the opposition seems to be incapable of remembering a
few simple facts.
The audit found paperwork missing, not money but paperwork. It
found this fact to be far too common across the department.
Paperwork matters, particularly when it relates to ensuring
accountability for the proper spending of Canadians' money. The
department appreciated this and put together a number of steps to
respond. When it took those steps to the minister, she said they
were not strong enough and asked for a stronger response to
ensure full accountability to Canadians. The department
understood the priorities the minister placed on the matter and
brought forward a six point action plan that the minister
announced on January 19.
From one end of Canada to the other, HRDC staff began by
reviewing the 461 files covered by the audit. Then they reviewed
17,000 active files and made sure they were all in line with the
new guidelines of the six point plan. The result of this file by
file review was that out of $1.5 billion in projects, $6,500 is
still left as overpayments to be recovered. That is only a
fraction of 1%. The department did not just look at the projects
already in place. It put in place new conditions to make sure
that every payment meets all the financial and administrative
requirements before it goes out.
HRDC also set about to train staff on the new guidelines and to
make the new expectations clear. That training has reached about
3,000 employees across Canada. There has been accountability for
the action plan. The minister has already released a progress
report as she promised. There is a special team in place to
track performance. The minister has already told the House on
various occasions that the auditor general and others would carry
out their own reviews.
The department wanted to get the best advice on making the
action plan a success, and that is why it worked with the auditor
general, Price Waterhouse, the private sector blue ribbon
committee, the Standards Advisory Board of the Comptroller
General, and Deloitte & Touche. The minister said the department
would report to Canadians and to parliamentarians regularly. Even
the most meanspirited critic would have to say that commitment
has been met.
Has there ever been an issue in parliament where the information
has been more open and transparent than this one? Let us take
access to information requests. In the year 1998-99 HRDC got 531
access to information requests. In 1999-2000 that jumped to
1,073 or twice the volume of the previous year. Fully half of
those requests came in the last 10 weeks of the fiscal year. It
is not surprising that as a result HRDC released almost 115,000
pages of documentation under access to information.
A researcher in the office of the Leader of the Opposition told
CPAC that the department had one of the best access to
information offices in Ottawa.
He is not the only one who believes that to be true. The
information commissioner has also cited HRDC as an example of a
department that takes its access obligations seriously. Those
accolades make sense because this is the minister who put more
than 10,000 pages of detail on specific grants and contribution
projects onto the Internet. All that transparency is a far cry
from the histrionics and wailing that goes on among the
opposition about information.
1100
To summarize, a substantial set of reviews of the work of HRDC
on grants and contributions are already taking place. HRDC is
working hard to meet the avalanche of access requests. Reporting
to Canadians on the progress of the action plan is taking place
on a regular basis.
All that adds up to a clear and sincere commitment to give
Canadians the facts about grants and contributions and a
determined effort to get the management of these programs up to
the level where it ought to be.
Is this just about paper? Of course not. It is about
accountability. It is also about continuing the effectiveness of
some very special programs and services. We believe grants and
contributions are useful ways to put some taxpayers' money to
work in partnerships; that is, to leverage it to get better
results for Canadians.
I am proud to stand up and defend programs that build
partnerships with other governments, with community agencies and
with many other groups in our society to get some important work
done, work that Canadians want their government to do.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary does a
manful job of trying to whitewash this situation. I commend her
for carrying out her duties so diligently. Unfortunately, she is
not able to cover many of the unanswered questions and concerns
that have been raised on this whole issue.
One of the more troubling aspects of the grants and
contributions mismanagement is that new information and instances
of questionable administration and dealings in the department
keep coming up day after day. We do not even have to go back and
revisit some of the issues that have not been resolved in past
weeks because something new comes up each week. Yesterday, a
briefing of the minister came to light where the minister
apparently asked her officials to brief her on hot issues. We
knew that the audit was a hot issue at the time yet the minister
claimed that her officials did not bother to tell her about it
and that was okay with her.
A direct request from the minister was completely disrespected
by the officials and the minister says “I asked for hot issues.
This was a hot issue and they did not mention it, but that is
appropriate. I did not need to know. My leadership was not
important even though there was a ticking time bomb”. That
happened just yesterday. I could go back on all the days where
the most incredible, outrageous circumstances came to light that
were completely unanswered by the government or the answer was
absolutely ridiculous.
How can the parliamentary secretary explain the fact that access
to information requests to this department are now not given to
the opposition within the 30 days required by law? They are
routinely—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I must interrupt the
hon. member. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Human Resources Development.
Ms. Bonnie Brown: Mr. Speaker, starting with the end of
the member's question first, one of the reasons that it is
becoming almost impossible to get access to information requests
out within 30 days is because of the avalanche of requests that
are coming forward. We do not know exactly where these are
coming from, but from the tone of some of the requests one could
guess that many of them are coming forward from the opposition.
1105
Why is that? Does the opposition want to look forward? Does
the opposition want to take advantage of the new accountability
measures around spending on grants and contributions? No. The
opposition is focused, as usual, backwards, looking back into the
past.
I am really glad the member described what was bothering her
which came out in the news yesterday. It gives Canadians the
opportunity to see what went on in the committee. While members
on the government side were trying to fix this particular
situation so it would never happen again, the members of the
opposition were acting like children in a schoolyard wondering
who said what to whom and who was at what meeting. It was like
the gossip capital of the world. It did no one any good as far
as making sure that Canadian tax dollars are well spent and
invested in Canadians, as they are supposed to be.
This whole thing about who did what to whom, on what day and
what day a memo was sent is just so wasteful. In a way it sort
of dirties up the whole process.
I have been accused of whitewashing. I am trying to state the
facts as I know them in a clear way and keep my vision on the
future as to how to make things work better for Canadians. I am
not obsessed with looking backwards. If that is considered to be
a whitewash, then so be it.
I think Canadians want to march toward hope. They want to know
that their government members are working hard on their behalf to
make sure things work out well with their tax dollars. That is
exactly what we are doing and we are being assisted by the
auditor general.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
delighted to join in the debate this morning, although I have to
say that I regret that I have to do so.
Today the House of Commons will be spending a full day of
activity considering a motion that there should be a full public
inquiry into the grants and contributions matter at HRDC when
only last week the largest standing committee in the House of
Commons tabled a report in the House based on hearings begun in
January.
I do not think it would be possible for the House to conduct
more open and full public hearings for four or five months than
has taken place on this matter.
Responding, for example, to opposition requests, virtually every
one of those public hearings, only in the sense, as are all our
committees, that records were kept and published, but they were
also televised and run on several occasions in real time on more
than two channels, in every case run more than once following the
closing of the House of Commons itself, and ran a full four or
five months of public inquiry.
I would say that the vast majority of witnesses who appeared
before that committee, and given the time constraints we
certainly met with many witnesses from various parts of the
country, were there at the request of the opposition members of
the committee. All parties were able to submit lists. We went
through as many of those lists as was possible. The majority of
people were opposition witnesses.
Going back to this public inquiry that we have just finished, I
have to say that it attracted an enormous amount of public
attention. I cannot imagine a public inquiry that could have
received more coverage on the front page of newspapers, on the
editorial pages of newspapers, as the first issue in television
and radio newscasts and so on.
Here we are debating whether there should be a full and
independent inquiry on something which is very important, but to
which parliament has already allocated an enormous amount of
time.
In one way today's motion can be looked at, and people watching
this debate can say “Oh yes, they are looking for a full and
public inquiry into another of these great big government
departments”. By the way, I am one who is of the view that HRDC
unfortunately, now we can tell after some years, is too large and
too diverse. However, this debate is not about that.
1110
This $1.3 billion worth of grants and contributions goes out to
thousands of individuals and organizations who work in all our
communities. These are organizations that are devoted to
literacy at the community level and to the full inclusion of
disabled persons in our society. These are organizations that
are involved with the training and retraining of people in the
workforce, young people, older workers, disabled people and so
on. These are groups that help to rehabilitate persons who have
been released from prison and help get them back into the
workforce. These are the sorts of things we are actually
debating today.
We are not debating a full public inquiry into a very large
government department. That inquiry has just been completed.
Witness after witness in the full public hearings that we held
warned us. By the way, these were not simply social do-gooders
or people like that. They were people who understood the
importance of the proper management of files and money. Knowing
needs of the organizations I have just tried to describe, they
warned us about overcompensation.
The expression overcompensation kept recurring. What they meant
by that was that we should, by all means, get fully to the bottom
of the serious mismanagement of those files, but that we should
also put in place better systems for the future to ensure that
the organizations, which, in partnership with other areas of
funding support, depend on this type of funding, are not put at
risk.
One of the large national organizations for rehabilitation which
deals with the rights of disabled people told us that it was
close to being bankrupt, not because it depended entirely on the
federal purse but that the federal contributions that it received
allowed it to go out and get matching funds elsewhere. The reason
its funds are not flowing at this time is not that there is
something wrong with its file, but that there is so much concern
in HRDC about these inquiries, which have been going on for five
months, that overcare is being taken and the funds are not
flowing.
When these inquiries began in January and February, as soon as I
possibly could I arranged for the full list of HRDC grants and
contributions in my riding to be published in our main daily
newspaper and in our main bi-weekly newspaper. I have to say
that once I did that, my phone stopped ringing on this issue. It
was not that the people in my riding were not concerned about
HRDC moneys being properly managed. It was not that at all.
They knew that we were engaging in a very full and public
inquiry.
Once those people saw which organizations we were dealing with,
such as the Trent Valley Literacy Association, the Housing
Resource Centre and the Emergency Preparedness Organization in
Peterborough which watches out for future problems like the ice
storm, they said to themselves that, yes, there was improper
handling of these government files but that they would wait to
see what the House of Commons would to do about it. In the
meantime, they knew that these were not the sorts of
organizations that would rip off the taxpayers of Canada.
I would suggest that while we go through what I believe is a
wasted day of debate—and, yes, it is right that we look at
federal departments all the time—that today's debate is about
those organizations that deal with things such as literacy,
apprenticeship, pre-apprenticeship, employment programs,
entrepreneurial programs and things of that type.
I want to point out to hon. members that the full public inquiry
completed last week tabled a report which I have here. It
contains 30 detailed recommendations dealing with what the
department is doing, what the department should do with respect
to grants and contributions and what Treasury Board is doing.
1115
I am glad to see that treasury board has already released new
guidelines for across the federal system on grants and
contributions and on what should be done. The committee looks
forward to the auditor general's report, another report which my
colleague just mentioned, which will be coming out in a few
months.
The committee itself is committed to revisiting this issue. We
have recommendations which suggest that the system can be
improved, that the tracking of grants can be more effectively
carried out without slowing or reducing the flexibility at the
grassroots where we are dealing with thousands of small
organizations.
We suggest the idea of an advisory committee in the ridings,
which would be comprised of citizens who would deal with the
larger grants, where the grants deal with the private sector. We
think that would help.
We have suggestions with respect to third party accountability.
Remember, the federal government delivers these grants, in some
cases with provincial governments and in some cases with not for
profit organizations. There are various partners. Those
partners have to be accountable, as well as the federal
government, and we have recommendations for that.
We are glad that HRDC has completed its review of the active
files and will now proceed to deal with the closed files.
This is about HRDC, yes, but much more significantly it is about
human resources development in a real sense; how we develop the
fantastic human resources of 30 million Canadians. I oppose the
idea of yet another review of this matter. As the chair of the
committee, along with my colleagues on the committee, I commit
myself to following through on the report which the committee has
tabled in the most thorough fashion.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat surprised to hear the chair of
the standing committee on human resources development intervene
in this debate today when last week he was boasting about
chairing the committee and remaining neutral.
I think by speaking today that he is proving the need for an
independent public inquiry. The member chairs the standing
committee on human resources development. Today he rises in the
House and defends the position of the government. I think he is
in conflict with himself.
I want him to know as well why I think an independent inquiry is
necessary.
Is it not true that all the witnesses called, who were involved
in the matter of the use of funds for partisan purposes, were
rejected out of hand by the committee, by the majority, and not
heard?
Does he consider it relevant to leave Human Resources
Development Canada employees in the very awkward situation of
not being exonerated? It was not the officials who misused
public funds during the electoral period. It was the MPs, the
Liberal candidates, the ministers and the Prime Minister who
initiated a system to use funds for partisan purposes.
Does this situation not warrant an independent public inquiry so
we may finally know just why the government is systematically
hiding the situation?
I heard the member's words. He said “This has to be the last
inquiry. It has to be settled here and we have to stop talking
about it”. That is not what the people are saying at home.
They are saying that this whole issue must be studied in depth,
because otherwise, the next election will be like the last, and
elections will continue to be won with public money. What does
the hon. member say to that?
[English]
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the
member opposite is a very devoted and hard-working member of our
committee.
The report I am referring to, and I would say this to anyone
watching, is the report of the majority. At the back of the
report there are four different dissenting reports. It is the
importance of this report which encouraged me to stand today.
The purpose is not to close down discussion, but to continue
proper discussion to carry through with the committee process
which we just finished.
1120
Our standing committee met for four or five months. Its report,
after all that time, would be washed aside with the calling for
an independent review.
We could spend today debating whether there should be an
independent review before the report has been fully digested by
HRDC and before the House of Commons has seen what sort of response
there is to it, but that would not be fair to the committee
process and the work which I do as chair. I do my best to be an
independent chair. I am not some sort of political eunuch. I am
here to defend the committee process. I am not here to say that
we will not talk about this issue any more, but that things are
in progress. The committee itself should revisit this issue.
This is a waste of the time of the House today and it would be a
waste of the resources of the House of Commons to conduct yet
another independent inquiry.
With respect to the HRDC employees, we called as many witnesses
as we could. The vast majority were on the opposition lists. If
I might say, personally, I have great concern for the stress
which frontline, devoted HRDC employees in our communities have
already experienced during the public hearings. That is one of
the reasons I do not think we need another independent review. We
should follow through fully with this process.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today on the motion
presented by the hon. member of the Canadian Alliance. I will
repeat it so that people will be clear on what we are debating.
This is a call for the establishment of an independent
commission of inquiry into the mismanagement of grants and
contributions in the Department of Human Resources Development,
and into any attempts to control the disclosure of this
mismanagement to the public, with a report by December 2000.
Mr. Speaker, before I continue, I would like to inform you that
I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for
Frontenac—Mégantic.
Why do we have a call today for an independent inquiry? The
Bloc Quebecois called for one back on March 21, 2000, and this
motion was voted on in the House. Since then, we have come to
realize that this public and independent inquiry is still being
called for, in both the interim report of the standing committee
on HRD and in its final report. The position remains unchanged.
Why are the opposition parties not satisfied with what has been
done to date? Because the government has systematically hidden
behind the committee in order to avoid having to get to the
bottom of the main issue, that is the use of funds for partisan
purposes.
The conclusion of the departmental internal audit was that the
Minister of Human Resources Development had totally lost control
over all of her department's grants and contributions programs.
There is talk of $1 billion in public funds over which the
government could no longer give assurance that it had control.
The administrative causes of this situation were sought out and
certain conclusions were reached. But there is another side to
the analysis that was not done by the government, and that is to
know why it is that, during this time of loss of control, the
political machinery, the partisan machinery of government, knew
how to take full advantage of the money available.
There were several instances.
First of all, we realized that, during the 1997 election
campaign, a whole series of grants had suddenly been handed out,
particularly in ridings the government wanted to win in the 1997
election.
During the campaign, 54% of the transitional job fund, a program
that was supposed to extend over three years, was spent in
Quebec. In Bloc Quebecois ridings, the figure was 63%. This
means that ridings suddenly became very interesting because
there was an opportunity to win them over in an election.
This is something that should be looked into so that it does not
happen again in future.
After the interim report, the Placeteco affair hit the news.
It involved $1.2 million paid out by a bank in the absence of any
invoices, and the government is still unable to produce invoices
for us showing that payment was justified.
Then there was the case of Conili Star. The Bloc Quebecois
brought this case to light and got to the bottom of it. This
forced the government to take action, because, left to its own
devices, it would have done nothing in this case either.
1125
There was also the case of the company that moved from the
riding of Rosemont to the riding of Saint-Maurice, for no
apparent reason. The opposition parties had to conduct
investigations, as though they were the police, to sort all this
out.
In the meantime, more than a dozen cases are being investigated
by the RCMP, following information that came out in the House or
was revealed by other sources. The government is still denying
that it used funds for partisan purposes. What is more, it is
denying the right to get to the bottom of what happened.
An election is in the offing.
In a few months, we will have another election. If we end up
with the same situation, if the federal government, the party in
power, uses public funds for partisan purposes, it will debase
our country's democracy. This strikes me as totally dangerous
and unacceptable. This is why is it is so important to get to
the root of the issues on the table.
Two things need analyzing in this matter. There is the
disastrous period when the new Minister for International Trade
was the Minister of Human Resources Development, when there was
a total lack of control over the use of funds. During that
time, a lot of grants were handed out on the q.t. during the
election.
Since the arrival of the new minister, operation “camouflage”
has been in effect to cover the previous situation and because
the minister is trying to convince that she was the minister for
several months without being responsible for anything, that when
she came to the department no one informed her about the most
important administrative activity in process, the internal
audit, and that she did not learn of it until last November.
If the present minister had really assumed her responsibilities,
we would not be faced with the current situation. We would be
having an independent and public inquiry. We could say “Things
in the past were not right, certain behaviour was unacceptable,
now we will correct the situation and return to the quality of
our democratic life”. In the end, this is the issue on the table.
I believe it is important for us to have this independent
inquiry. It is important for us to have it as soon as possible.
Since the parliamentary majority on the human resources
development committee systematically arranged things so that the
witnesses involved, the buddies of the regime, were not heard,
those who were really connected with the use of funds for
partisan purposes, the entire matter must be investigated
thoroughly. That was not possible in committee.
It seems to me that, as long as there is no satisfactory
appearance of justice, we must continue, as opposition parties,
to call for a public inquiry. It is important to point out that
this is not a partisan approach by one of the parties, but all
the opposition parties together who share the belief that an
independent public inquiry is called for.
There are some who have made different choices, some who would
like to see job creation programs abolished, others who want to
see them maintained. They may hold widely divergent social
views, but all have joined together, with the same concern for
honesty and justice, in order to expose to public view whether
public funds have been properly used.
I believe that today's motion is highly appropriate in this
connection. As long as we do not have the invoices from
Placeteco, as long as we have not got to the bottom of other
matters, as long as we do not have an accurate picture of the
responsibility of the present minister, there is a large chunk
of information missing. The public must know what is being done
with their tax dollars.
It is one of parliament's responsibilities to be in a position
to provide the answer to that question.
An auditor general investigation is not the only way that this
can be done, nor one by members of parliament. There is one
part of this that concerns the role of members; they must be
asked to evaluate themselves, to reach a judgment on their own
behaviour.
Would there not be grounds for an independent public inquiry so
that we may cast light on the role of members, and on whether or
not they should continue to play that role? As far as the
parliamentary majority is concerned, it did not say much on this
in the report. There was much attention given to the
administrative problem, but it went along with a systematic
avoidance of the political problem. As long as this matter has
not been settled, we will have unfinished business on our hands,
and this reflects badly on those who sit in this House.
There is the issue of the quality of public finances. There is
the guarantee for voters that they have a government that can
have opinions different from theirs. That is not a problem;
they are all prepared to accept that.
1130
What I find unacceptable is that the government is trying to
pass the buck, as though everything has been resolved and now
everything is back to normal. It is normal that politicians are
using public money for partisan purposes. It is part of the
system that the Prime Minister has set up and that he has used
himself in the riding of Saint-Maurice to get himself elected.
Whether we are federalists or sovereignists, left or right
leaning, we do not have to put up with this kind of situation,
because it basically undermines democracy. It is unacceptable
in a country such as this.
I would like the Liberal members who considered the matter in
the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the
Status of Persons with Disabilities, and others who saw the
whole situation develop to ask themselves today, after several
months have gone by: Is this not a situation where we should
make up our mind to hold an independent public inquiry?
Would it not benefit both the government and the opposition
parties? Would it not benefit all members of the House, all
Quebecers and all Canadians to finally get to the bottom of this
misuse of public money and especially this denial of democracy
by the Liberals?
[English]
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with great interest to what my colleague had to say. I
am concerned by his apparent disillusionment with the committee
process.
I understand the opposition has a role to play. I understand
that government members, people like myself, have a role to play.
I do have some faith in the standing committees, but I have my
own views on how they might be strengthened. When they have the
benefit of the spotlight of the media and appear on television, I
believe individual members of parliament and the committees can
be very effective.
I referred the House to the report. I am interested in some of
the opposition recommendations in it. What does the member think
of recommendation No. 30 in the majority report?
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Speaker, no, I am not denigrating the work
of the committee, but I think it is incomplete. In committee,
we analyzed the administrative problem in depth, but failed to
analyze the political aspect of it, the aspect that was hurting
the government, the aspect that revealed the Liberals had used
public funds for partisan purposes. This is the aspect we
failed to consider.
The report contained valuable recommendations, such as “It is
time this department was managed like all the others”. The
report said, among other things, that money should not be
squandered at the end of the fiscal year simply because it would
no longer be available in April or May. This kind of
recommendation seems important to me.
But for the root of the problem, which we explained in our
minority report—even if I proposed the dismantling of the
department—as I have always said, an independent and public
inquiry would be necessary. We continue the battle today, and
the matter has been brought before the House, because the
committee, with its government majority, has ignored the will of
the people as expressed by the opposition parties.
This is why I want to get to the bottom of things. We are
talking about the integrity of all parliamentarians in this
country.
[English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask my colleague
about the committee process. I recall a number of instances
where the chair of the committee intervened to prevent
questioning of witnesses, particularly the minister and the
officials. I recall very limited time. We were given a few
minutes each to ask questions so that no committee member could
really get to the bottom of any issue. I recall documents
requested which were not—
1135
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
It is out of order to discuss committee matters in the House of
Commons because committees are masters of their own affairs. The
reason for that is that it is impossible for someone like me, the
chair of the committee, to debate the issue. The member is out
of order.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): That may well be,
but the member has the opportunity to put her question.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, that intervention was
surprising from a member who spent his whole—
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The standing orders prevent the discussion of committee business
in the House of Commons. I am not being awkward about this. I
would be glad to debate it if you would so rule, but my
understanding is that I cannot.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It is for the hon.
member for Calgary—Nose Hill to put a question to the member for
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques. In the
course of debate things spill over from committee
responsibilities back and forth. This is not the first time and
it will not be the last time.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, I find that
intervention surprising—
Mr. Larry McCormick: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. The member should withdraw her comments about committee
time. I have sat on that committee for six years, along with my
hon. colleague, and the opposition always had its fair share and
more.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I guess everyone has
put their oar in the water and should feel that everything is
even. The hon. member for Calgary—Nose Hill will please put
her question.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, the member for
Peterborough spent his entire intervention talking about the
committee. I am a little surprised that he would not want any
questions mentioning the committee.
I recall information being withheld that committee members had
requested. I recall very highly partisan reports coming from the
Liberal majority. I recall the last committee meeting where we
were expected to ask questions on a document that was not even
provided to committee members by the minister until after the
committee commenced. I recall the chairman of the committee
cutting off—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry, but we
are running out of time for this intervention. I ask the hon.
member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques
to respond to the question.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Speaker, we will not debate the committee
itself, but I recall in particular the minister's reaction when
she left for a press conference in order to comment on our
report, which had come out at 10 a.m. At noon, she called a
press conference, and all she could say was “I have not read the
report”. Two hours after it was released, and she had no
comment on it.
I find this completely unacceptable, and the only explanation I
can come up with is that either the minister is totally
incompetent or this is a machiavellian exercise in camouflage.
From all that I have seen of the government's operation to date,
I would lean toward the second solution. I think the government
is indeed trying to hide an unacceptable situation, which an
independent public inquiry would reveal.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
sometimes we have difficult situations to deal with as
politicians.
When I agreed to run for a seat in this House, one of my friends
showed me a magazine article reporting on a cross-Canada survey
which asked people to rate the credibility of professionals and
other workers. Politicians were close behind used car salesmen
as far as public credibility was concerned.
1140
Looking at what is going on in the House of Commons at the
present time in connection with Human Resources Development
Canada, it is easy to see why the credibility of elected
representatives is dropping every day in the eyes of Quebecers
and Canadians.
We in the Bloc Quebecois support the Canadian Alliance, of
course, in calling for a wholly independent inquiry so as to
restore politicians' lost credibility. There is an
unprecedented scandal going on within Human Resources
Development Canada at the present time. Unfortunately for the
minister, who has held the portfolio since last fall, it is up
to her to undo the damage done by her two predecessors.
I would like to remind hon. members of what happened to Douglas
Young, who represented Acadie—Bathurst in New Brunswick. He
thumbed his nose at everybody. He was the Minister of Human
Resources Development. He laughed right in the faces of the
unemployed, those who were paying into employment insurance but
could not even qualify. The electorate of Acadie—Bathurst taught
him a good lesson, such a good one that he barely got 25% of the
vote in the last election.
The member for Papineau—Saint-Denis who succeeded him literally
devastated the Department of Human Resources Development, and
shamelessly moreover. Scandals came out that had been hidden
until then. He asked the Prime Minister for a change of
portfolio and now the poor minister who took over from him has
to defend her predecessor constantly. Again in this morning's
National Post, we read that the minister must step down.
The Canadian Alliance is calling for an independent inquiry,
with a report to be tabled in the House on December 11, 2000.
Right now, the Prime Minister is considering a fall election.
He could use this to duck the issue, and hold an election before
the results of this scandal are known to the general public.
Nonetheless, I would like to remind the House of what is going
on at HRDC. Let us go back to a few months before the June 2,
1997 election, when a Montrealer, Pierre Corbeil, was travelling
all over the province visiting companies which had applied for
transitional job funding. On many occasions, before grants were
approved, he went fishing for funds for the Liberal Party of
Canada for the June 2 election.
The contributions he received from companies were not $100 or
$200 amounts, but more on the order of $5,000, $10,000, $15,000,
$20,000 or $25,000 in certain cases and, generally speaking,
Pierre Corbeil demanded cash, not cheques. It is therefore not
always possible to determine what he did with it. Did he tuck
some away in his car? Did it change hands on the way to the
Liberal Party office?
There is no denying that such situations are sad. It is for
reasons such as these, the way in which Pierre Corbeil and the
Liberal Party of Canada acted, that Canadians and Quebecers are
increasingly losing faith in their elected officials. The
minister is responsible today for allowing money to continue
flying out the window by refusing to let us get to the bottom of
this and to put an end to all this wrongdoing once and for all.
I am anxious to see what side the Liberals opposite will take
this evening when they are asked to vote in favour of creating
an independent commission of inquiry.
1145
The scandals are not limited to Pierre Corbeil. They also
concern the riding of Saint-Maurice, the Prime Minister's riding.
There was this little trust company, as in the case of the
Minister of Finance and his ships in a tax haven, that bought a
golf course from a paper company for $1. Shortly afterwards, it
sold an infinitesimal part of this golf course for $550,000.
That is quite a figure for a bit of rough on a golf course. So
this $1 paid off handsomely, and only a fraction was sold.
The person who bought the bit of rough for $550,000 received
contracts from our federal government worth nothing less than
$6.4 million in the following months.
Members will understand that this $550,000 was very well
invested by this client of the Prime Minister.
René Fugère earned over $1 million as a lobbyist, even though he
is not even registered. He is a friend of the Prime Minister.
Worse yet, public money was used to get Liberal candidates
elected in the latest election. This was the case, among
others, in the Quebec riding of Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, when
the candidate chosen was the former head of the CEQ, a friend of
Colonel Gaddafi, who visited him regularly to discover the
directives he wanted to impose on Quebec and Canada.
This member that the CEQ lost to the Liberal Party of Canada
obtained for his riding—although he was not yet a MP, as hon.
members will recall—$20 million for one riding alone, from the
transitional job fund. By far the majority of the recipients of
these funds were very generous contributors to the Liberal Party
of Canada. That is why I say that public funds were used to buy
Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies.
The riding of Saint-Maurice, the riding of the Prime Minister,
got $7.3 million just for re-electing him. Often these funds went
to buddies, to party organizers, in the case of Placeteco
particularly. Placeteco received $1.2 million, of which
$1,020,000 was used to pay off an increasingly dubious debt to
the National Bank. One job was created, with $1.2 million.
There was misappropriation of funds in this case.
There are no fewer than 13 RCMP investigations.
We know how that will turn out. You know the solicitor general
better than I. Thirteen RCMP investigations are currently under
way, nearly all of them in the riding of Saint-Maurice. That is
what “job creation” means in that riding. RCMP officers have to
be imported in order to investigate misappropriation of funds
and find out where the transitional job fund money went.
I would like to take a few minutes to refer to a few cases, such
as the fact that unregistered lobbyist René Fugère got
$1 million. But since I see that my time is nearly up, I will
say the following in closing: Please, Liberals, help us improve
the credibility Ottawa politicians have with the electorate.
That can start this evening with a vote to authorize an
independent inquiry.
[English]
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with great interest to what my colleague had to say. I
am very interested in the full report of the standing committee,
the report of the majority and the four minority reports.
The 30 recommendations are very serious attempts to deal with a
very important and serious matter.
1150
[Translation]
What does the hon. member think of recommendation No. 30, which
reads: “The government should divide HRDC into several more
homogeneous and focused structures”—
Mr. Antoine Dubé: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I was here
when the member rose on a point of order to say that the House
could not debate committee business. This same member raised
the point again after his intervention. It seems to me that
this is totally irrelevant.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): No, the Chair ruled
that the interventions were in order and that there was no
problem. If it was in order for the member for Calgary—Nose
Hill, certainly it would equally be in order for the member for
Peterborough.
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I point out that my concern
was with discussing the business of committee, not the
recommendation of reports which have been tabled in the House of
Commons.
[Translation]
I simply want to ask the member what he thinks of recommendation
No. 30.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, as you know I have memorized
all the recommendations. However, I fear I may confuse
recommendation No. 30 with recommendation No. 31.
So that I do not get too muddled, I would like to point out to
the chair of the human resources development committee that the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs visited my riding a week
and a half ago. I was very surprised to see, and I have to look
into this more, that he was accompanied by the director general
of Human Resources Development Canada in Thetford Mines.
Are Human Resources Development Canada personnel being
politicized to the point of serving as political organizers or
advance men or confidants of the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs? This is called using the public service for partisan
purposes.
You are bleeding the coffers of Human Resources Development
Canada in order to get re-elected and now you are going to
require the representatives of the department in each of
Canada's regions to accompany Liberal candidates. This is a
scandal. And we wonder—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry to interrupt the
hon. member.
[English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to defer
to the other questioners.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I was hanging on every word uttered by the member for
Frontenac—Mégantic. He was going to present three or four cases,
but unfortunately he ran out of time.
I would like to give him an opportunity to finish his speech and
to speak about the three or four cases to which he wished to
draw the House's attention.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, in the riding of
Saint-Maurice, many of the jobs created involve the RCMP, but
these are temporary jobs for people who do not live in the
riding; i.e. RCMP officers.
So, Groupe Force in the riding of Saint-Maurice apparently
obtained $1.5 million, and it is also under investigation.
There is some extremely disgraceful misappropriation of money
going on.
Modes Conili, $720,000; its owners and the use actually made of
the grant are being investigated. Is this related to hidden
patronage?
1155
This case, as is very well known, involves a Liberal from Cape
Breton, Nova Scotia, who received a contribution of $1.3 million
for job creation, but things did not go very well. No real jobs
were created.
In the Toronto area, the Community Alliance for Neighbourhood
Development apparently obtained $100,000 fraudulently. The
figure may even be as high as $1.15 million.
Elsewhere, in New Brunswick, Atlantic Furniture Manufacturing
received $280,000 and not only did the plant not create any
jobs, but it did not even open its doors. It is an unbelievable
fiasco, a misappropriation of public money.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry to interrupt the
hon. member, but his time is up.
[English]
Before we go to the next intervention, I would like to
compliment the translator. I know how difficult it is and the translation
has been absolutely remarkable. I am talking about French to English.
Thank you very much.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased to rise in the House today on behalf of the New
Democratic Party as its spokesperson and critic for HRDC, to
speak in support of the motion by the official opposition.
It has been rather a perplexing and ironic debate. The member
for Peterborough has challenged other members that they should
not be discussing the business of the committee and yet he
himself raised recommendations from the HRDC committee. I do not
see how we can debate this issue and the motion without getting
into the business of the committee and the recommendations that
have come out of that committee. I hope we can get on with the
debate and deal with some of the very important questions that
are before us.
Today's motion is very important because the four opposition
parties have been united in their focus on what has become the
central question in the HRDC scandal. On June 1 the four
opposition parties issued a joint statement which reads, “We
have no confidence in the government's response to the scandal at
HRDC. Therefore today we reiterate our grave concerns and call
for an independent public inquiry to investigate and report on
the alleged partisan interference and wrongdoing in the awarding
of HRDC grants and contributions. It is crucial to restore
public confidence and only an independent public inquiry can
accomplish this”.
It is ironic that earlier today the chair of the committee, the
hon. member for Peterborough, said that another public inquiry
would be a waste of dollars. Another public inquiry implies that
we have already had one. Certainly there have been committee
hearings. Certainly we have heard some witnesses. But to
characterize that as an independent public inquiry is doing a
grave injustice to the whole idea of what an independent public
inquiry is about and why we need to have one.
There have been weeks of hearings, committee meetings and
questions in the House. Independent investigation work has been
done by members in the opposition parties. The minister released
10,000 pages and volumes of information have come out. Despite
all that, Canadians are still no closer to understanding what
happened in the department, how decisions were made and how it is
that today we have ended up with a dozen or more investigations
that possibly could lead to criminal charges if there is found to
be wrongdoing.
Canadians have not received answers to some very basic questions
that have been put in the House of Commons as well as in the
committee, as well as by the media day after day since we
returned to the House in February.
1200
That is why the opposition parties issued a joint statement.
That is why the opposition parties, from day one, have called for
an independent public inquiry. That is why today this motion is
before us again. I believe it is actually the second opposition
day motion on a public inquiry. Members from the Bloc also put
forward a motion a couple of months ago.
It deserves some closer examination as to why the insistence or
the pressure is still being kept up by those of us in opposition.
Perhaps the government's line is that this is about playing
politics. I beg to differ. This issue is about trying to
restore confidence in public expenditures. It is about trying to
restore confidence in public decision making. It is about trying
to restore confidence in the way our parliament and the way our
government work.
I should like to say at the outset that from the New Democratic
Party's point of view we have always defended the purpose and
intent of the kinds of programs now under investigation. In
terms of the principle of what those programs stand for as far as
job creation in areas of high unemployment and training people to
sustain the local economy are concerned, those are things that we
in the New Democratic Party have always supported. We do not
take issue with them.
Historically we have been on record for many years since our
inception as saying that there is a legitimate role for
government to play in job creation, in youth training, in
providing literacy programs and in all the things we have seen go
on. However the issue is the way those programs have been
managed and the fact that we have mounting evidence that funds
have been used for political partisan purposes.
It is sad to note that the people who have taken the flack, the
people who end up paying the cost of this mismanagement and of
the political partisan use of these funds, are the very people
these funds and programs are designed to help. That is the sad
irony of what has taken place here.
From our point of view in the New Democratic Party we want a
public inquiry to get at the truth, to restore a sense of balance
and to say it is important that we look at each of those
investigations and get answers. I was very interested to hear
the exchange a few minutes earlier by my hon. colleague from the
Bloc who was trying to put on record a few of the cases that have
come up. There are so many it is impossible to detail them in a
debate such as this one. We on the opposition side are all aware
that we need a thorough examination of them.
Clearly the mandate and scope of the committee dominated by
government members are completely inadequate and limited in
ability to passively or even willingly take that job on. We in
the NDP want a public inquiry precisely to get at the truth but
also to restore confidence in these programs. I do not think
that can be underestimated.
All members have commented on the point at one time or another
that through the whole debate and the developments which have
taken place the workers and staff people who actually deliver
programs on the frontline in local HRDC offices have taken a
beating. It is not just as a result of what has unfolded since
February. They have taken a beating because they have suffered
years and years of cutbacks in the public service, some 5,000
people alone in the Human Resources Development Department.
The issue of the undermining of the public sector workforce and
the undermining of public services is a recipe that comes from
the Liberal government. It is something that is contributing now
to the very low morale and sense that this department is simply
falling apart. It has lacked leadership. It has lacked
accountability. It has lacked transparency. It has also
suffered from very low morale.
1205
Who would blame the people working in that department for
feeling thoroughly cynical and depressed about all these goings
on. They are still delivering the services yet have less and
less resources to do so as a result of all the cutbacks.
We in the NDP see a very serious matter that needs to be
addressed by the government. It must be taken up to restore
confidence in this operation and the various things the
department does. I am referring to increasing the staffing
resources and recognizing that the people who deliver those
programs do it with a sense of public interest, a sense of public
mission.
Somehow we have to separate the function of government in
carrying out operations and programs from a political culture
that is so pervasive that we heard time and time again in
committee from various witnesses that the political atmosphere
dictated everything else.
Today I think it is very important that we continue with this
debate and continue to press for an independent public inquiry
because there are critical questions that still must be
addressed. There are issues on which we do not yet have answers.
For example, as recently as June 5, reports are surfacing
suggesting that the minister knew, possibly in October 1999,
about the internal audit that was done of the transitional jobs
fund and that those programs being mismanaged.
There are serious issues about when information was known and
whether or not we are getting the full goods and the full answer
on when it was that the minister or her staff were involved and
had disclosure about the ongoing problems.
We still have continuing evidence that the transitional jobs
fund was used as a slush fund. A 1998 independent review
conducted by Ekos Research Associates suggested that transitional
jobs fund grants were approved for political reasons.
A 1997 audit done by Consulting and Audit Canada, which examined
25 transitional jobs fund grants in Quebec and Atlantic Canada,
warned that the fund was “political”. In particular, in the
awarding of a $6 million grant to a tree planting project in New
Brunswick, the firm reported:
Pressures on staff to expedite the approval process have come
from the political level and commitments have been made that HRDC
staff must then follow.
I am pulling this information from public documents and from
some reviews which were done in previous years. This is now a
matter of public record but the problem is they were never
followed up. The systemic problems within this department in
terms of the politicization of the process and the political
interference are questions that we have to get answers on and
questions that have never been addressed.
In my office we received information about the way grants were
disbursed in the Kenora office in northern Ontario. There were
allegations of political interference on the part of the current
minister of Indian affairs who was previously the parliamentary
secretary to HRDC. People who worked in that office said that
they were very concerned about the partisan nature of how these
grants and contributions were awarded.
Then we have the situation of Scotia Rainbow. In February the
member for Bras d'Or—Cape Breton blew the whistle on the Scotia
Rainbow allocation funds. She questioned how a $750,000 grant
approved to Scotia Rainbow, a company owned by a Liberal
contributor, was increased in the same fiscal year to $2 million.
More than that, as a local member of parliament she was never
approached to give concurrence to the transitional jobs fund
beyond the initial $750,000 in September 1998.
In fact the member for Bras d'Or—Cape Breton has now asked the
auditor general to conduct a thorough review of Scotia Rainbow's
applications and the grant from the transitional jobs fund. To
add insult to injury, the organization went into receivership by
defaulting on its obligations on a $10 million loan from the Bank
of Montreal.
1210
Our member from Bras d'Or has raised this issue continually in
the House of Commons and has been absolutely stonewalled by
various ministers in the government in trying to get some
straightforward answers.
Other critical questions need to be addressed so I will continue
with my list. Everybody has a list of questions they want to
have answered. One of the questions we have that pertains to my
own riding and the riding of the member for Winnipeg Centre is:
Why is it that some of these funds were supposedly improved in
areas of high unemployment when the unemployment rate was
actually lower than the criteria? Why is it that for the
minister's own riding funds were approved when its unemployment
rate was lower than the criteria?
We suddenly heard about the existence of pockets. The
government explained this practice with fuzzy, warm rules that
pockets of unemployment—
Mr. Larry McCormick: A lot of money went into your
riding.
Ms. Libby Davies: No. One transitional jobs fund went
into Vancouver East just before the election when it was held by
a Liberal member.
Why were all members of the House not aware of this loophole?
Where did this rule come from? How was it applied across the
country? Why in some areas like Vancouver East did the riding
qualify under the pocket rule just prior to an election but after
the election apparently did not qualify any longer?
Why did 49 of Canada's most profitable companies receive grants
and contributions from HRDC, including all five of the big banks,
Canadian Pacific, Loblaws, Shell Canada, Investors Group, Fairfax
Financial, Bombardier, Power Corporation, Onex Corporation and
Southam. This is a who's who of corporate Canada.
It strikes me as ironic that major profitable corporations are
receiving grants and contributions apparently without question
and sometimes without adequate paperwork or follow-up. Why are
we giving money to these hugely profitable corporations? Why are
these public funds not being invested in local communities where
real job development is taking place?
I remember a sock company, although I forget its name. The guy
wanted to create a world monopoly in socks and put other sock
companies out of business. Why did that company get a
transitional jobs fund? I do not know. I can only guess.
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill: Maybe he made a donation to the
Liberals.
Ms. Libby Davies: My colleague says “Maybe he made a
donation to the Liberals”. These are serious questions. In fact
we in the NDP have called for a code of conduct. This is
something we have included in our minority report. It is very
important that there be transparency in the decision making
process.
We do not object to members of parliament being involved in a
process by signing off on a particular grant or contribution. A
member of parliament should be involved. The question is: Are
the rules being applied fairly, consistently and without an
overriding political culture? That is where we have a problem.
We in the New Democratic Party have recommended to the
government that the treasury board, in conjunction with the
Auditor General of Canada, develop a code of conduct for all
departments, not just HRDC, that award grants and contributions.
We believe this code of conduct should incorporate transparency,
disclosure, fairness and standard practices. That is something
Canadians could agree with. Everyone in the House would agree
that the same rules should apply for everybody. The government
side should not be favoured because it is using the funds for
partisan purposes to bolster its re-election efforts.
If we are genuine about wanting to invest in job creation, let
us do it on an objective basis. Let us do it on a basis that we
can all live by. Then Canadians could see where the funds are
going, that they are being put to good use to create real jobs
and not just a political slush fund.
1215
Again I come back to the motion that is before us today and
reiterate our support and our ongoing call for an independent
inquiry, which we have called for from day one. We will continue
to do that until there is accountability, until there are answers
to the questions, some of which I gave today, many of which we
have put in our report and many of which have been put at
committee.
The last matter I want to speak to is the future of the
department. The NDP, as well as Bloc members I think, agreed
with the main report, with some reservations. Because there has
been such a spotlight on the department, one of the things which
came to light is that this massive department, which is the
largest federal department, needs to have a further review in
terms of its ongoing mandate and structure. I want to be very
clear that we want to do that to restore the confidence in the
programs that have been delivered and should be delivered. We do
not want to use the people who work there as scapegoats, nor do
we want to use them as a further reason for cutbacks or massive
layoffs. For that reason we would support a further review.
We cannot escape what needs to be done in the House. There must
be an independent public inquiry to really get to the bottom of
what happened in the department. We will not rest until that
happens.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): As several members wish to
speak, I am going to ask members to limit themselves to one or
two minutes for questions and comments.
[English]
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and
Addington, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am grateful to have the
opportunity to ask a question of the member for Vancouver East,
who is a hard working member of our committee. However, first I
wish to point out that my colleague must have sat at a different
committee meeting than I. She mentioned that she heard people
repeatedly talking about interference in the grants and
contributions process. I would ask my colleague to table any
evidence she has with respect to political interference, or
interference of any kind.
This debate concerns having an independent public inquiry. I
believe that my colleague is late on the issue. We had an
inquiry and we heard witnesses from many walks of life.
Does my colleague not recognize the honest work and effort of
the auditor general and his department? I do not believe we
could get any person or department which would be more
independent.
Ms. Libby Davies: Madam Speaker, in reply to my hon.
colleague's question, when I mentioned the examples or evidence
of political interference I was going by what I heard at
committee. I read to members of the House reports from outside
consulting firms, which brought forward information from the
people they interviewed during their reviews, and they said there
was political interference and they were concerned about it.
Those documents have already been tabled.
I strongly believe that there are lots of other instances that
we do not yet know about. I have an inkling about them, but we
do not yet have the full evidence of what took place.
If the member is saying let us table the documents and get that
information, then that is another reason I would say yes, let us
have an inquiry to do that.
In terms of the auditor general, he has played a very good role.
In fact, I was hugely concerned by what I heard at committee from
the auditor general. He made it quite clear to members that for
years and years he has made recommendations about changing
procedures on how these disbursements are made and following up
on problems within the department. Those recommendations were
basically ignored.
The NDP is recommending that there be rules that are
enforceable. How many more reports does the government have to
get from the auditor general? He said that he has made reports
since 1974 on these kinds of issues. Yes, we want enforceable
rules.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Madam
Speaker, I listened carefully to the NDP member. She supports
the idea of a public inquiry, as we do.
I would like get her views on what criteria would ensure that
such an inquiry is truly seen as an independent inquiry.
1220
There have been so-called public inquiries in the past, but it
was the government that appointed those in charge of these
inquiries. How does the hon. member think that the members, the
commissioners on the board of inquiry, should be appointed?
Also, I greatly appreciate the idea of not only shedding light
on this issue but, to avoid such scandals—and this is truly an
unprecedented scandal at HRDC and in some ridings, including the
Prime Minister's riding—the member's suggestion that a code of
ethics, or something similar, be drafted. I wonder if the hon.
member could elaborate on that. It is fine to diagnose a
problem, but solutions must also be found.
What, in her opinion, are the ethical solutions that should be
proposed to correct the situation?
[English]
Ms. Libby Davies: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank
the hon. member for his question.
In terms of what framework a public inquiry could take, there
have been a couple of suggestions made already. One suggestion
was made by the Canadian Alliance. The member for Calgary—Nose
Hill suggested earlier that we could have an inquiry made up of
equal numbers of members of parliament from each of the five
parties, so there would not be any partisanship. That is
something which could be agreed to by all parties in the House.
I would think that another framework could be to have something
completely outside the involvement of members. That might
involve someone from the judiciary, or a panel of civilians, or
people who have a lot of credibility in the community, but again
on the basis that there would be an all-party agreement. As we
know, it is very easy to appoint friends to such places and say
it is independent.
I have a brief response in terms of the code of conduct. What
we have said in our report, and I would urge the member to look
at the report, is that we believe a code of conduct should be
developed by treasury board and should include a number of
principles concerning the disbursement of grants and
contributions: that disbursements should be made in a way that
is transparent, that there should be full disclosure, that there
should be fairness, and most important, that there be a standard
practice. What we envisage is that this would be developed as a
document which departments would be required to live by in terms
of making decisions about awarding grants and contributions.
I do not think it is mutually exclusive to a member of
parliament having some involvement in that. One of the things
that has been suggested by witnesses is that there could be
advisory committees in local areas.
We want the departments to live by this kind of code so that we
do not have this kind of scandal in the future.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
like the member, I too look forward to the next report of the
auditor general. It will be an important one. He is conducting
an inquiry into this very matter now, which is one of the reasons
I will not support today's resolution.
I ask the member for her comments on the recommendation in the
majority report, to which she referred, concerning the breakup of
the department. The suggestion is that the statutory transfers,
the Canada pension plan, the old age supplement, the disability
pension and so on, that huge financial side of the department, be
handled separately, that employment and labour be handled
separately, and that there be a minister of state, a special
overview department—which I think would involve many of the
employees she is concerned about in HRDC—to deal with grants and
contributions in these important social areas; not only in HRDC,
but in health, justice and the other government departments where
they exist.
I wonder what the member thinks of that particular scenario and
that recommendation in the majority report.
Ms. Libby Davies: Madam Speaker, very briefly, I am a bit
worried that the member has already in his own mind, perhaps in
debate with other government members, gone down the road so far
in terms of articulating how the restructuring of HRDC might take
place. I think that is something that has to be done in a very
public way, with a lot of public debate.
1225
What we call for in our report is that there be an independent
review of the restructuring of the department, which would
include the public and private sectors, and which would include
labour, because obviously the unions involved would be affected.
I believe very strongly that there have to be principles
involved. This must not be used as a cover for any privatization
of services or contracting out. This is about making a
department more manageable and accountable.
I agree that there are some areas where a particular function of
the department in terms of its statutory obligations could be in
one area and then other areas dealing with social policy could be
put under another department or secretary of state. However, it
seems to me that the real issue is, if the government is going to
take that up, then there has to be a commitment that there will
not be privatization or contracting out, and that the debate will
be held in public and not behind closed doors.
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP):
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for her comments
this morning. She spoke about one of the TJF projects in my
riding, Scotia Rainbow, for which I have not been able to get any
answers. God forbid me to say that maybe it could be because the
owner of the business has a very close relative who is a sitting
Liberal member of the Quebec legislature.
What is really important is this. We have heard the minister
day after day saying “We found out there was a problem. We
recognized there was a problem. We told Canadians there was a
problem and now we have fixed it”. Unfortunately, just in the
last two weeks in my riding, I have been asked to concur in
projects when the money was already spent in November.
Does the hon. member believe, if the government agrees to look
at the department and look at an inquiry, that these initiatives
could truly help Canadians in the way they should?
Ms. Libby Davies: Madam Speaker, I really appreciate the
comments from my colleague because I know she has had the most
difficult time in getting very basic information. It is pretty
outrageous that projects have been approved without her
concurrence.
Again, I would say that is why we in the NDP are calling for a
code of conduct. We want to have enforceable rules through
treasury board. We want there to be very clear rules about how
these grants and contributions are made.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Madam Speaker, it is
with pleasure that I rise today to support the motion that the
House call for the establishment of an independent commission of
inquiry into the mismanagement of grants and contributions in the
Department of Human Resources Development.
I will be splitting my time with the hon. member from
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.
We in the PC Party are supportive of this motion. The PC Party
filed a dissenting report to the HRDC committee report. The
committee report did not ask for an independent public inquiry.
At this juncture, with all the controversy over the HRDC
debacle, Canadians have lost confidence in the Department of
Human Resources Development. It is time for an open and
transparent process and inquiry to re-establish that trust
between the department—in fact between the government and the
Canadian public, who have clearly lost confidence in the ability
of the department to manage this very important part of public
policy in Canada.
As the information commissioner, John Reid, said “Governments
have no money of their own. They are trustees for our money and
trustees for the various programs and activities they undertake
for us”. Clearly, the government has not acted as an effective
trustee of the public money, in this case HRDC.
The whole disclosure of the crisis within HRDC did not come
about as a result of the government seeking greater transparency,
openness and accountability. It came about based on the minister
being dragged, kicking and screaming, to disclosure by the House.
In fact, the opposition has worked collectively and effectively
to ensure that light was shone into the dark space of HRDC to
ensure that Canadians were aware of the degree to which public
trust between Canadians and their government, in terms of the
management of public money, had been broken by the government.
1230
The government has been working assiduously to minimize the
impact and degree to which the HRDC department was out of
control. Clearly it had not maintained an accountable system to
manage these funds. Overall I see no reason why any member of the
House, on the government side or on the opposition side, would
have difficulty with a full and transparent public inquiry into
the HRDC department's difficulties in managing public funds.
Clearly, on looking at the history of HRDC and what we know now
versus what we knew even a few years ago relative to employment
support programs, there is some recognition that many of the
programs and the types of involvement which were thought to be
appropriate by individuals involved in public policy to develop
and grow employment are less effective. On looking at these
programs in hindsight, we have seen that the record of actually
creating long term sustainable employment for Canadians by HRDC
and many other direct government employment creation agencies has
been littered with the corpses of failed programs and initiatives
and poor investments.
Even the Minister of Finance in a speech a few months ago said
publicly that government should not pick winners or losers and
should not make direct investments in business. Far too often
when the government gets involved in direct investments in
individual businesses, the reasons behind those investments have
little to do with economics or job creation. In many cases they
are more about rewarding political friends or trying to help a
minister or an individual member maintain his or her status in
the riding.
We have heard of significant investments that were made. I
believe there was $500,000 to Wal-Mart. We have heard of HRDC
money going to companies to effectively move them from one riding
to another with no net gain in employment. The focus of HRDC
investment should be on investing in job creation.
Quite frequently when the political processes get involved there
is a tendency and temptation for the political elites on the
other side, particularly on the front benches, to interfere and
to push money toward one cause or another that would directly
benefit themselves and their colleagues in the next election.
There is a consensus among people involved in public policy
today that quite possibly the best way to develop and grow
employment in Canada, particularly in terms of the new economy
and the knowledge based industries, is not by pouring government
money into specific businesses at the whim of the governing
party. Instead it is to reduce the tax burden for all Canadians
by focusing on areas of the new economy and looking at the taxes
that impede progress and productivity most significantly in the
new economy. They would be capital gains taxes and corporate
taxes. Also Canada's middle class must be readjusted and
redefined through significant personal income tax reform. Those
are the types of efforts the government should be pursuing in
developing policies to actually create jobs, employment and
economic growth for Canada in the new economy.
The government needs a creativity boost in addressing some of
these issues. Largely the government has coasted since 1993 on
the policies of the previous government. It has not addressed
some of the very important issues in the context of the new
economy and where we are today.
1235
It is time for the government to look at the old style solutions
which have not worked that effectively in the past, clearly are
not working in the present and most certainly will not be
successful in the future. It should take some political risks,
do the right thing and develop some vision. It should have a
vision implant or something like that.
If the government were to look at these issues realistically,
perhaps it would not be so defensive about protecting its slush
funds. It could face the electorate with some interesting,
innovative policies and defend them on their own merits and not
base them on slush funds to buy people's votes outwardly with
their own money.
We support the motion. We hope all members will speak in
support of the motion.
There cannot be public policy change unless there first is
enough transparency and openness to realize what we are indeed
trying to fix. The inquiry process would identify more clearly
than has been identified previously the real problem within HRDC.
It would shine a greater level of public light on this
significant negative issue which has faced Canadians and
embarrassed them for several months.
Another issue the government needs to address in the context of
providing greater levels of economic opportunity to economically
depressed areas is a re-engineering of Canada's equalization
system. Our current equalization system treats recipient
provinces like single parents on social assistance who actually
want to get a job and when they do get a job they end up making
less money. That is the single parent analogy. When recipient
provinces of equalization pursue economic development activities
that are focused on realistic, long term sustainable industries,
they end up taking in less money and ultimately hurt themselves
by pursuing more active and innovative economic approaches.
The government should be studying very seriously the issue of
equalization. It should work with the provinces to develop long
term strategies where recipient provinces could use tax
strategies and research and development strategies to become have
provinces within a very short period of time. Maybe that would
achieve more than what has been achieved by equalization or HRDC
in its current sense.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, one of the things that seems to be constantly overlooked
in this debate about HRDC's problems is the fact that the
minister did not have to release the 10,000 or so documents that
revealed the management problems with HRDC. The reality is that
the current Access to Information Act in section 21 gives broad
powers to the government to withhold audits, to withhold the kind
of information that the minister did release. In the one sense
the minister deserves credit for having had the courage to
release the documents that led to the kind of controversy that
did ensue.
There is a whole other segment that is also exempt from the
Access to Information Act that I would suggest to the member
opposite contains even worse examples of mismanagement, nepotism
and problems. That is the area of crown corporations.
Currently, under the existing Access to Information Act, all
crown corporations are exempt.
Does the member not agree that surely we should be looking to
changes in the access act to bring crown corporations under the
same scrutiny that is now available to HRDC?
Mr. Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his erudite and perspicacious interventions. He is alone
over there battling it out in a caucus that is not interested in
greater levels of access to information and more accountability
for parliament.
1240
I credit him for slogging it out in the trenches over there
surrounded by people who really are not interested in change and
in improving the accountability of government and parliament. He
is a lone voice. Perhaps he would be better suited over here
working with like-minded people who are truly interested in
change.
His question about crown corporations and government agencies is
an important one. One of the disturbing trends is that more
essential services of government are being provided by arm's
length agencies. In terms of accountability the arms are very
long but in terms of direct political intervention when it is
deemed necessary by the government, the arms are very short.
There should be significant—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Excuse me, the hon.
member for Frontenac—Mégantic on a short question.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
motion before us, and upon which we will be called upon to vote
this evening, is about whether or not we authorize the House of
Commons to establish a commission to conduct an independent
inquiry into the misappropriation of funds at Human Resources
Development Canada.
From what I see, all of the hon. members on this side of the
floor are going to vote in favour of this motion. It must be an
embarrassment to the Liberal members to have to vote against a
motion that is intended to get their fat out of the fire.
According to this morning's papers, the Minister of Human
Resources Development is in a hopeless mess from which there is
no escape.
The Canadian Alliance is offering this government a way out of
this mess. I wonder what the hon. member's intentions are in
this connection and whether we could not help the Liberals out
of the mess they are in by inviting them to support this motion
for an independent inquiry.
[English]
Mr. Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, I am certain the intention
behind the motion was to offer a lifeline to the government. It
clearly needs some help in creating an exit strategy from this
embarrassing issue that has paralyzed it for some time.
The government has not been paralyzed by HRDC. The government
has been paralyzed since 1993 by its own inaction and lack of
vision. HRDC has focused the attention of Canadians on one
specific issue. I would argue that it really has not paralyzed
the government because it is hard to paralyze a corpse. The
government has been acting like a corpse in terms of its
inability to develop cohesive, coherent and visionary policy.
I understand the hon. member probably shares with me a desire to
help the government in any way we can by offering a lifeline like
this motion so that the government can crawl out from underneath
the weight of the debacle it has brought on itself. Unfortunately
members opposite probably do not understand the importance of
dealing with Canadians openly and transparently.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in these hallowed halls to
take part in this debate over an issue that has preoccupied this
place for many months.
It comes about as a result of what came to light months ago. An
internal audit that began in March revealed that there were
serious issues of mismanagement of taxpayers' money as they
pertained to grants and job creation schemes that were put
forward by the government. The minister has made a concerted
effort to distract, deflect and focus Canadians' attention
elsewhere in her responses in the House and through the media.
The issue is very much about public trust and responsible
behaviour by government. No one is suggesting that at the end of
the day in this billion dollar boondoggle that the money is gone,
that it has evaporated into thin blue air. The suggestion is that
the money has been mismanaged, that there has not been a
sufficient follow-up as to how the money was being spent.
There certainly has not been a degree of accountability or
forthrightness on the part of the government to take its
responsibility for the administration of this department, whether
that fell upon the previous minister, who has basically escaped
responsibility unscathed, or upon the high level bureaucrats who
were rewarded for their incompetence and placed in higher
positions up the government ladder in the wake of what has
perhaps been the biggest and most disturbing mismanagement of
taxpayer money in recent history.
1245
That certainly contributes to a growing trend of cynicism and,
even worse, a growing trend, I would suggest, of apathy toward
the functions and the legitimate efforts of parliament. What
reflects on government reflects on parliament as a whole.
This motion that has been brought forward is timely. It allows
us to perhaps delve into the matter in greater detail, to
disclose and, as my friend from Kings—Hants put it, to shed
greater light on what has taken place as to why there has been to
a large extent a complete and utter focus on this issue when I
think most Canadians would prefer that we were focusing our
attention elsewhere, such as on the growing crisis in health
care, on the high taxes that Canadians are currently labouring
under, or on our low productivity that stems from some of these
oppressive and extremely weighty tax schemes that currently
exist.
I heard a revelation today that came from the United States
congress. Congress is raising the envelope of immigrants, which
will apply to Canada, to attract more Canadians, our best, our
brightest, our most educated and our most motivated, to go to the
United States and contribute to its economy by taking part in the
growing IT industry where productivity is rewarded.
In Canada we are suffering under a very repressive and
regressive government that does not recognize some of these
fundamental issues. Unfortunately, because of the revelation
that came about as a result of this audit, we in the opposition
have been trying to bring about some degree of accountability and
refocus the priorities of the government.
Turning back to the motion, what came about, as is often the
case when these issues come to light, was bad enough that we were
made aware of what had taken place and the degree of
mismanagement. The audit indicated that there was insufficient
follow-up. It indicated that there was poor decision making at
the front end, but equally that there was poor follow-up. When
evidence came to light suggesting that poor decisions may have
been made as to where the money was spent, nothing was done.
There was no investigation and no legitimate attempt made by the
government or the human resources department to recover that
money. To suggest otherwise is complete folly.
In the wake of this revelation, when it came to light that this
was taking place, what was the government's response? That is
something that I would like to focus our attention and Canadians'
attention on for a moment. What was the government's initial
response?
Sadly, we have become accustomed to it. The government's
immediate and almost knee-jerk response was to deny that the
problem was there. When it could no longer do that, it tried to
deflect and blame the opposition. It tried to make the
opposition somehow complicit in what was taking place. It tried
to point a finger and say to the member opposite “Well, thank
you for that penetrating question but you got money in your
riding too”, and somehow that makes it all right.
In very basic terms, the reality is that the hon. member who may
have asked the question did not have final decision making
authority over where those contributions and grant programs were
going to be set up. That is what adds to undermining and further
bringing down into the subterranean levels public confidence in
government, in government programs and in parliament as a whole.
This is very unfortunate because we are at a pivotal time in our
country's history. We are at a point in time where we are
starting to lag behind other countries, relative to other
countries in the G-8 in their economic performance and relative
to other countries in steps that they are making toward
transparency, openness and direct accountability to the people
who elect them.
1250
On that score, I want to refer to something that has been
referred to before in the House in the context of this debate. I
want to quote from Hansard, House of Commons Debates,
June 12, 1991, wherein the hon. member for Saint-Maurice, the
current Prime Minister when he was leader of the opposition,
stated in the context of an issue of the day:
—I would like to tell the people of Canada that when we form the
government, every minister in cabinet that I will be presiding
over will have to take full responsibility for what is going on
in his department. If there is any bungling in the department,
nobody will be singled out. The minister will have to take
responsibility.
Those are just words that seem to evaporate into thin blue air.
They have no significance and no relevance to the current Prime
Minister's view of what has taken place on his watch. He is not
holding his ministers responsible. It seems that he is prepared
to let the ministers twist in the breeze and take the daily
volley and barrage of criticism not only from members of the
opposition but from the public at large.
This is a very disturbing trend. It reflects an attitude of
arrogance and disconnect from the Canadian people. The Prime
Minister has given us ample reasons to believe that he does not
care what the public thinks. However he will care when he goes
to the polls the next time because Canadians will have the final
say.
This incident, this long drawn out debacle over the
mismanagement of money, is a sad indication of the government's
arrogance and its attitude toward the public right now.
The context of the debate itself and the chronicling of what has
taken place throughout this affair is well documented and has
been referred to throughout. Just like those comments that the
Prime Minister made, we saw the government crow and preen itself
over its red book promise to be transparent and open and that it
would put in place an ethics counsellor. Just like the red book,
the faces of the Liberal government members are certainly red
when faced with questions as to how they can let this type of
thing happen and then not own up to the problem.
The minister in her wisdom should have come before the House
shortly after being made aware of the problem, although I do not
think we will ever know when she was made aware of the problem as
she refuses to answer the direct question. She says that it was
November 17. However, there is every reason to believe that in
the course of being briefed after taking over the new ministry
she would have been told, certainly orally, that there was a huge
problem coming and that this audit was going to disclose it. She
denies that and has married herself to the date of November 17, a
date which I suggest is completely unbelievable.
I know we cannot use the word hypocrisy in this place. We are
never allowed to use the word hypocrisy.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Having made the
point, then it is a good idea not to use it.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I would say that the
responses we are hearing are Clintonesque, Nixon-like. That may
or may not be parliamentary.
It is cynical repositioning when a government says one thing to
get elected and then completely turns its back on what it has
said. We saw it with the GST. It has been chronicled. The sky
would fall if we entered into a free trade agreement. The Prime
Minister took his pen and wrote zero when it came to helicopters.
We know the words mean nothing after an election as far as the
Liberal government is concerned. That is unfortunate because it
does add to the cynicism and the public's lack of confidence that
we have seen.
The red book promises have dissipated. The Liberals are
preparing for a third volume, chapter and verse of what they will
do now. Canadians can only shudder as to what that end result
might be.
The Conservative Party supports this motion and encourage all
members to do so. We look forward to the retorts and I am sure
the reasoned debate and response that we will be hearing from the
government on this score.
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, as was reported in the media this morning, the
government's solution to this bureaucratic bungling, this whole
scandal that has plagued the House since last summer, seems to be
following a recommendation to split this ministry into three, to
in fact increase the size of government and to spend more money
as opposed to going to the root of the problem and finding the
cause.
Some people have called it a rescue mission for the minister. It
comes back to the Prime Minister's comments on accountability
where he made a commitment in 1991 to hold ministers accountable,
which clearly is not being done.
1255
It now appears that the government is on a rescue mission for
the minister. It is going to spend more money and create two
more ministries. It has been suggested that this idea was put
forward by the Prime Minister and advocated by some of his
backbenchers who hope to get one of the new positions.
Would the member make some comments with respect to what we read
in media this morning about the creation of two new ministries?
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, it appears that there
really is no great plan. It is as if there is a new revelation
every day. It appears that for a long time the government has
been flying by the seat of its pants. Had it perhaps in the
early days of this scandal reacted in a forthright and open way
and come to the House with clean hands, there may have been more
sympathy for what it is trying to do now.
Dividing up the department when we know there is a huge problem
is like dividing a big manure pile into three piles. It is still
a big problem. It smells and it is rotten. I do not think this
is the answer at all.
This is similar to the problem we saw with respect to the
gathering of information on Canadians by this department and
trying to keep it separate and solo, but we knew it leaked. It
is information that is being spread around and the problem is
being spread around. It is not being addressed in a significant
way despite the assurances of the minister that everything is in
hand and that Canadians should trust her and have faith in her.
Sadly, that time has passed.
If we were dealing with a situation where the minister had come
to the House and made full disclosure in the first instance, we
might have had some faith, but the time has passed. I have a
great deal of confidence that there are good people within the
human resources department who are trying to deal with this issue
under very difficult circumstances.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
in the present debate, what we are dealing with is an escape
route for the Prime Minister and his government.
I would like to ask the House leader of the Progressive
Conservative Party whether he might not agree to invite the
Liberal Party, with the Prime Minister at its head, to call a
general election for early autumn, the main theme of which would
be Human Resources Development Canada and its minister, his
little favourite, the daughter of the former leader of the
Ontario Liberal Party.
[English]
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the government
of the day is in no great hurry to go to the Canadian people and
seek a mandate based on its performance throughout the past
number of months, in fact, the past seven years. I would suggest
that in many ways it has betrayed the interests of Canadians.
The government has given Canadians very little reason to believe
in it or have confidence that it will do what it said it would
do, let alone act in their best interests given the deception and
deceit that was involved in the handling of this file. What we
truly need is some sort of public inquiry.
I spoke with the auditor general this morning. His office is
embarking on the very difficult task of trying to sort out some
of what has taken place and mull over the entrails of a program
that was fatally flawed and administered in a very deficient and
faulty fashion.
There are people in the HRDC department who are being forced to
deal with public scorn on behalf of the minister. There is a
political element to all this that has raised the ire and raised
the stench, but it is not those in the department and those who
are tasked with trying to fix this problem that we should be
lashing out at. We should be lashing out at the government and
the administration for their lack of responsibility and the
arrogance they have been displayed in a fashion that we have
sadly become accustomed to.
1300
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I returned from committee a few moments ago and had the
opportunity of hearing part of the speech of the hon. member, as
well as the questions and comments, and I did note your
intervention. I am not raising a question of privilege at this
point, Mr. Speaker, but I wonder if in fact the Chair might
review the blues to determine whether there were expressions that
the hon. member used that he should be asked to withdraw. I
heard the word deception used with respect to the minister.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Yes, of course, the
Chair would be happy to do so.
As a preliminary comment, I have been in the Chair for the
debate today and have paid close attention, because we are from
time to time on thin ice. In my opinion, so far there has not
been anything untoward or anything that has not already taken
place here in many instances. However, I think that the
intervention of the deputy government whip is apropos, insofar as
it is quite right to be able to cast doubt on the government, but
not on individual human beings. Because we are all of us here
charged with a responsibility, and we are all human beings, it is
our responsibility as legislators, not as individual human
beings.
I take the admonishment, and I am certain other members will
take that to heart. It is a good reality check.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I acknowledge that intervention. I realize that in the
heat of debate there are often times when words are chosen that
perhaps might be inappropriate. I do not mean to cast personal
aspersions upon the minister herself. It is her department, her
actions and her handling of this file that are very much the
subject we are discussing today.
Shame on me if I have overstated the case, but I would suggest
the threshold of indignation is on the part of government members
when it comes to the nuances, the special choosing of words and
the careful selection of words. They must look in the mirror to
see if they are not guilty of the same.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
at the outset
I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with the
honourable, the esteemed, the illuminating member for
Saanich—Gulf Islands. If hon. members think my speech is
exciting, they ain't heard nothing yet. Wait until he speaks.
I would like to remind the people who are watching, especially
that sea of eager Liberals over there who have the power of
government in their hands, what we are talking about today. We
are talking about accountability, openness, transparency—all of
the things which the now Prime Minister promised in the election
campaign of 1993, and probably re-promised in 1997, although I do
not remember it explicitly at that time.
In 1993 it was a promise of the Liberal Party that it would
restore integrity to government. It would cause people once
again to have trust in public institutions. It would have an
ethics counsellor. There would be all sorts of things. The
Liberal government, if nothing else, has an almost perfect record
of inaction on its promises.
Do we have an ethics counsellor? Oh, yes. Is that ethics
counsellor independent? No. That ethics counsellor reports to
the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister says “We have a little
problem. Please look into it for us”.
I have a lot of respect for our present ethics counsellor. I am
sure he is watching this debate today because part of his
responsibility is the ethics of government. I have a lot of
respect for him personally, but his hands are tied.
He, unwittingly, with or without his consent, becomes part of the
damage control team. He is part of what it takes to make the
government look as if it is doing the right things, when there is
a mounting sea of evidence that it is not doing the right things.
1305
There are two main themes that I think of when I approach this
subject. One is the whole concept of accountability. I need to
watch my words very carefully because we have this tradition in
the House that none of us is capable of doing any wrong or saying
any wrong or thinking any wrong, although we have no way of
reading each other's minds, and for that I am frequently
grateful. We have this tradition, which really stifles debate,
because we are all fallible.
I suppose this will come as a surprise to the House, and I think
I am within the parliamentary rules, even though I am overtly
criticizing a member of parliament in the House, but I am going
to confess right here that once I made a mistake. It was
actually last week. I told my friend who was nearby that this
was really a blow to me because it was the end of May and usually
I make my first mistake of the year sometime in October, so I
will be under a lot of pressure for the rest of year.
Mr. Speaker, you know of course that I am being totally
facetious. How many of us do not make one, two or three errors a
day, or maybe even an hour? It is really quite unrealistic of us
to tie up debate in this place and make it unparliamentary to
even suggest that another member may have made a mistake.
I know that we want to do that in the good spirit of honest
debate. We want to do it in a congenial fashion, in the same way
we correct each other in our families. If my wife happens to be
aware of when I make an error, she takes it upon herself to
correct me. Wives have a strange way of pretty well knowing
everything that their husbands do that is done wrong. I do not
feel rejected by her when she suggests to me that I said
something I should not have. In fact, I take it as a positive
and constructive criticism. That is what we are trying to do
here, within the confines of the language of the House of
Commons.
There is an old phrase that I remember. I was a math-physics
major when I was at university. I always loved the sciences.
This is really quite out of context for me, but I liked a bit of
literature and history too in my youth. I hope I have this
phrase close to being right because I am speaking totally from
memory. I think it went something like this: “Oh, what a
tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive”. I do
not remember who said that. I am sure there are thousands of
Canadians who are bemoaning my ignorance of important literature,
but that was not my specialty. However, I remember that. I
think that is part of the nub of this problem.
We have a problem in HRDC, in the grants granting business, in
terms of accountability and reporting. Evidence shows that
mistakes are being made. What we have now is an inability to
really say it as it is in the House because of the rules.
Meanwhile, the minister and/or the upper echelon of the
department are in full damage control. They are doing everything
possible.
Again, I did not bring this with me, so I speak from memory. I
am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong. If I remember
correctly, our party issued an access to information request on
January 17. On January 19 the minister called a press
conference. With great fanfare, she made public the audit which
was called for in our request for access to information.
1310
Subsequent to this we made mention of the fact that the minister
did not disclose this audit, did not make it public until it was
apparent that due to the ATI, the access to information request,
it would become public anyway. To minimize the damage, the
Liberals said it would look better if it looked as if they had
done it voluntarily, instead of being forced to do it by the
official opposition.
The Liberals denied that it was our access to information
request. They said that they had released it before the request
came in. Again, I am speaking from memory, but it threw itself
at me. Being a person who is mathematically oriented, numbers
throw themselves at me, and I remember seeing a copy of this memo
that was circulated, and there it was.
In trying to cover this up, I do not think it was the minister
who would have requested it of the upper management levels in the
department. I cannot believe it was the other way around. I do
not know where it came from, but there was obviously an attempt
to cover this up. Here we have a memo dated, say, January 18. I
think it was dated January 19. It says “Your request for
information was received January 20”. One would have to be
clairvoyant to speak on January 18 of January 19 as if it were in
the past tense. It is obviously a case where the Liberals tried
to change the facts retroactively.
This is the type of thing that an independent inquiry would lay
to rest. An independent inquiry, which is what the motion of the
day calls for, would go into these details and find out who did
what, when, and perhaps even a certain amount of why, and
Canadians would be able to find the truth of the matter.
I will do my usual begging routine, which I do at the end of
every speech. We have a very important motion before the House.
I appeal to all Liberals over there, those who have the power of
government in their hands because of their slim majority, I
appeal to all of them, from one end of the Chamber to the other,
when the vote is called on the motion tonight, to stand and vote
in favour of the motion; else Canadians will be saying again that
if government members are against a public inquiry, then they
really are trying to hide something and do not want it to be made
public. Voting against the motion would be ill-advised. I
appeal, I beg, I cajole members opposite to vote in favour of
this motion. They should show their independence from their
whip.
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question of the member for Elk
Island, who has given us his thoughts on this subject and who is
obviously very frustrated.
I cannot help but focus on the solution to a problem. I think
it is important that we also recognize that when there are
problems, there have to be solutions.
One of the most frustrating things for me is when I pick up the
morning papers and I look at the government's solution to this
issue. The Prime Minister's solution seems to be focused on
dividing this ministry into three. That is the government's
solution. It is absolutely mind-boggling that the Prime Minister
would have the gall to take his solution of splitting this
ministry into three, send it off to his backbenchers to study
at committee, and for them to put the solution forward in the
hope that they might get one of the new posts.
I want to get the member's comments on the government's solution
to this problem by dividing this ministry into three.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker,
it is interesting how the government, when faced with a problem,
comes up with some sort of solution that can give the appearance
of solving it without ever exposing any wrongdoing.
1315
The Prime Minister has said over and over that his is a fine
government that is totally free of scandal. The fact is that
under Mr. Mulroney as prime minister these ministers would have
been gone. This government does not even have the standards of
the Mulroney Tories when it comes to ethics and accountability
despite the promise in the 1993 election campaign.
With respect to dividing this into three parts, a pie can be cut
it into many pieces and each piece still has the same
ingredients. If the solution is to divide HRDC into three or
more new departments, my question would immediately be: What
will be the changes in the components of those new departments?
What will be the changes in the procedures for accountability?
What will be the changes in transparency? Will these new
departments actually give out information more freely than the
current department which does it only when we basically sit on
it? What will be the change? If that change can be produced in
three new departments individually, why can it not be changed in
the department as it is now?
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask my colleague a
simple question with respect to the grants and contributions in
the Prime Minister's riding.
My colleague will know that the amount of grants in the Prime
Minister's riding alone is greater than those grants given to
Manitoba, greater than anything given to Saskatchewan and greater
than anything given to Alberta. In other words, one riding got
more than any of those provinces. Would my colleague like to
comment on that?
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to comment on
that because it is a really sore point with me. I wrote a column
in our local newspapers recently in which I talked about health
care. I said that the problem would not be fixed nationally
until we had a government in Ottawa that was more interested in
buying MRI machines than in building a fountain in Shawinigan.
That is exactly what I wrote in my column. That is the essence
of the situation. Far too many, not all, of the grants and
contributions are simply about politics.
I speak from memory and could be corrected, but I think recently
the Prime Minister travelled to Cape Breton Island to make a big
announcement about money the federal government was pouring into
the area. If it is not about politics why did the Prime Minister
have to go?
I had the same situation in my riding in terms of the
infrastructure program. If the money was coming to my riding from
taxpayers via the federal government, why do they not just get
the cheque? It was required that the neighbouring minister, one
of the two Alberta Liberals, make a trip into my riding to
deliver the cheque. That is about politics. That is what is
wrong about it. When these things are motivated by politics they
get totally skewed.
I remember also in Prince Edward Island the person receiving the
grant made a statement: “Mr. Prime Minister, you were here when
we needed you and I can assure you at the next election we will
be there for you”. That is on the public record.
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the Canadian Alliance
supply day motion which calls for the establishment of an
independent commission of inquiry into the operations of the
Department of Human Resources Development. This is all about
accountability. It is about holding ministers and the Government
of Canada accountable.
1320
We have seen this story on the front page of newspapers since
last summer. Canadian people are becoming increasingly
frustrated. That is becoming evidently clear. They are
absolutely beyond belief as to what has gone on.
We see the stories about the various grants. The Prime
Minister's own riding receives more money in grants and
contributions than any of the prairie provinces. There has to be
something wrong. It is all about politics.
I am speaking on behalf of the residents of Saanich—Gulf
Islands, but I think it goes much further than that and includes
all Canadians. For months and months and months the government's
only answer has been to deny, deny, deny. It absolutely refuses
to accept that there is anything wrong.
For days we sat in the House of Commons and listened to the
Prime Minister tell Canadians that $149 or $650 were missing when
$1 billion were unaccounted for. It has cost, I would guess,
hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions, as the
government tries to spin the issue and attach projects to the
money that has gone askew.
We learned that something in the neighbourhood of 15% of all
grant applications did not even have paperwork. They could not
even find to whom the cheques went. They were in absolute panic
mode trying to find solutions. That is why there has to be an
independent inquiry. There needs to be answers.
I read this morning's paper in which the government says that
this issue is absolutely exploding out of control once again. It
just cannot seem to get control of this department. What is the
solution? Its solution has been to deny, deny, deny. Now it
seems most interested in creating a soft landing for the current
minister.
Nevertheless the Prime Minister stood in the House in 1991 when
he was leader of the opposition and said that ministers in his
government would be held accountable if there is any boondoggle.
There were to be no exceptions. They would be held accountable.
I have been following what has been going on in the House of
Commons for the last 20 years. I do not think there has been a
prime minister, for as long as I can remember, who has ever
defended the indefensible. It is absolutely unbelievable. The
Prime Minister will go to any length to protect his own.
What has he done now? The Prime Minister has decided that the
best way to try to cover all this up, and that is what is the
motivation, is to split the department into three. As one of my
colleagues said in the House a few moments ago, if we take a pile
of manure and split it into three we still have three piles that
stink. This stinks. There is no other word for it. It is
absolutely rotten.
The government is arrogant. It laughs. It smirks. It grins.
It refuses to answer questions. The minister has been asked
questions in the House of Commons by every opposition party, by
all four opposition parties. The government laughs. It does not
take it seriously.
Throughout the history of Canada, when governments start acting
arrogant, refusing to answer questions and thinking they are
above it all, there has been one consistent result. The voters
throw them out. We watched it with the Tories in 1993 when one
of the largest majority governments in the history of Canada was
reduced to two seats. Why? It was because it believed it was
sitting on a pedestal and did not have to answer to anyone, that
it was completely unaccountable. It became arrogant. It forgot
about the people who sent it here and whom it was representing.
It did not take it seriously.
I am in absolute disbelief that we have a department with
billions of dollars in its annual budget and the stuff that goes
on is incomprehensible.
It is unbelievable how this can go on and the government comes up
with a nice fancy little talk about having a six point plan. Its
six point plan seems to be deny, deny, deny. That is about the
only thing the government seems to come up.
1325
I sat in the House of Commons yesterday during Oral Question
Period. When the minister was asked specifically if she knew
prior to November 17, she refused to answer. The arrogance is
incredible.
It is time that we have an independent inquiry. When four
opposition parties of very diverse backgrounds agree 100% that
this should happen so that Canadians can have some answers, it is
time for it to happen.
Of course we know that government backbenchers will get their
marching orders. The Prime Minister will probably stand on a
chair in the government lobby tonight at 5.15 p.m. or 5.30 p.m.
after the bells have rung and wave his finger at every government
backbencher and tell them they know how they have to vote if they
want him to sign their nomination papers. A great big club is
held over their heads. That is wrong. It is absolutely
undemocratic.
I am sure there are members on the opposite side who probably
have a lot to offer, as do opposition members, to the governance
of the country and the debates, but they have no voice. They do
not have a voice, Mr. Speaker. You can look shocked, but you and
I both know what really happens in this place. That is what
needs to change.
This motion is about Human Resources Development Canada. That
is just the tip of the iceberg. As many of my colleagues will
say, it is rampant throughout other departments. We can see it
in Canadian Heritage in the grants that go out from there. It is
absolutely enough to make one's skin crawl, hanging dead rabbits
in trees and many grants for other things.
It is about accountability and respect: accountability to the
people who sent us here and respecting them. Change needs to be
brought to this institution. There is no question that we are
less than a year away from an election. The Canadian people will
judge the government on what it has not done. It believes it is
above everyone else. We need to elect a government which can
change that and will be accountable.
I am proud to be a member of parliament with the Canadian
Alliance because I truly believe that we can offer the vision and
change the country so desperately needs. It will be interesting
to listen to the Prime Minister's answers today on the latest
revelations in the media that they want to take a pile of manure,
split it into three and see if it still stinks. I would suggest
that anyone would be able to tell them that they have not gone to
the root of problem and have not done anything about solving it.
I encourage every government member to rise above the Prime
Minister's finger, do what is right, show that they actually have
some guts and principles, and vote in favour of this motion, as
they know it needs to happen.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Before we go into
questions and comments, I would note that the use of the term
guts in referring to other members of parliament has time and
time again been ruled unparliamentary. I just bring that to the
attention of all hon. members.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I was interested in my colleague's
remarks about the credibility of the House and members of the
House and how the billion dollar boondoggle and the mess in HRDC
have cheapened and diminished that credibility.
The hon. member mentioned the need for all members of parliament
to show the Canadian public that this is a serious issue and one
which they are determined to deal with in a vigorous manner on
behalf of Canadians.
Because the hon. member has now been a member of parliament for
a few years, I wonder if he would tell the House his own
observations about the power and the influence that could be
exerted by members of parliament on behalf of Canadians in a
situation like this one if the majority on the government side
would but choose to do that.
1330
Mr. Gary Lunn: Mr. Speaker, with reference to your
comment, I would quite happily change that to courage. I
apologize to all members of the House.
The member is quite right. It gets down to the amount of
influence we can have. It does not seem to matter whether we are
in committee, in the House of Commons or wherever we are. I have
been on committees and have spent countless hours with some
members who are now ministers. The former chairman of the
fisheries committee is now the Minister of Veterans Affairs.
Those committee reports sit on shelves and collect dust. I doubt
if they are ever looked at unless the Prime Minister somehow gets
his recommendations planted in those reports. He does not want
to be seen as the mouthpiece pushing them. He wants someone else
to do it, as we have seen in HRDC.
I have said this often before and it can be summarized in one
sentence. One of the biggest problems in this institution is
that we go to the polls once every four years or thereabouts to
democratically elect a dictator. That is the democracy we have.
We have to change this institution so that there is
accountability and respect, so that all members of the House can
have meaningful input on the governance of the country. We are
democratically elected to represent our constituents.
In some cases the government's own backbenchers have less input
than the opposition MPs and we do not have very much. The Prime
Minister cannot stand in our lobby and wave his finger in our
faces, telling us how to vote or he will not sign our nomination
papers. He cannot do that, but he can sure do it on the other
side. We can see them walking out of the House after votes,
sometimes almost in tears that they had to vote. We have seen it
time and time again.
This institution needs to be changed. It is time to elect a
government that will bring about meaningful change and show
respect for Canadians who have sent us here.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I commend the member for his remarks
on this subject.
I have also listened to the Liberal members this morning who
talked about how the money goes for such things as literacy and
rehabilitation. What we are talking about is the misuse of the
money. Money may be spent in the constituencies, as the minister
has said. Wherever we spend money we can create jobs but can
those jobs be sustained. The Liberals talk about the number of
jobs that have been created but they have not necessarily been
sustained. I regret to talk about constituents who have told me
stories of their own employees receiving grants to go into
competition with them.
As we talk about this commission and going beyond that to the
election, could the member respond by describing the benefits of
this $1 billion as it may be usefully used or left in the
taxpayers' pockets for them to invest it?
Mr. Gary Lunn: Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize that I am
sure some of the money has gone to legitimate purposes, but very
little of it. I do not know the exact numbers.
The Liberals have given one or two examples, that it has gone to
some underprivileged people in our society, whom I agree should
get government funding. I absolutely support that 100%. We are
a caring and compassionate nation and it is an appropriate use of
public funds.
What we are opposed to is building fountains in the Prime
Minister's riding, the unconscionable grants that are given
sometimes under Canadian citizenship, the grants that go into
building hotels in the Prime Minister's riding. It is those
types of grants across the country.
That is what we are opposed to. That is the irresponsible,
unacceptable use of taxpayer dollars.
1335
I would favour the select few programs that they have brought
up, maybe not under this program but under some other program
that has accountability and is not a political slush fund.
However it is the other hundreds of millions of dollars that are
used for political patronage and to buy votes. That is what we
are so vehemently opposed to.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this has been a somewhat barren debate to date. It reminds me of
the last several months of questions to the minister in the
House. I am reminded of an old fashioned phonograph needle stuck
in its place on a turning disk; it is the same sound with the
same absence of ideas and the absence of scope ideas. This is
regrettable.
I will note as I did in the debate on February 8 that the
minister was still discussing Indian affairs and making changes
in the federal enacting legislation which rendered, in my view, a
much sounder constitutional measure, as late as August last year.
She had not been in office very long. She faced a litany of
complaints which might better have been addressed to previous
ministers and previous governments. I will come back to that in a
moment.
I note that the minister has made interim changes which I think
are constructive and helpful and are a great credit to her staff
for bringing them forward. The accountability of managers is an
important principle in business. It should certainly be applied
to government operations that are affected with the business
interests where government competes in many ways and areas where
private enterprise also operates. Another change is disciplinary
action, meaning personal accountability of managers where there
is mismanagement, fraud or gross incompetence. The creation of a
special new audit group is another change. The review of all
active files is being done intensively with a checklist of
contracts and requests for payment.
I commented on the intellectual poverty of the contribution of
the opposition to this debate. Let us go back into history. What
is the history of HRDC? I listened with interest to the
contributions made by the members of the Progressive Conservative
Party. Of course they created HRDC. The Lady Jane Grey of
Canadian politics, the queen for six days—remember the hiccup
between the Mulroney government and this government—Kim Campbell
decided to give trendy new titles to new government ministries.
There was a haphazard, hasty grouping and regrouping of
departmental portfolios. The department of human resources was
created without any real thought of a rational structuring
process for the new ministry.
It is a matter of record that the new government elected in
October 1993 immediately considered restructuring HRDC. However,
it concluded correctly with the economy in the use of time, as we
were trying to balance the budget after inheriting the $42.8
billion deficit from the Mulroney government, that our priority
was to get fiscal integrity back. It was decided that it would
not be a good expenditure of government time to attempt the
restructuring at that stage. The moment has arrived where we must
consider doing that.
Much has been made of the majority report of the HRDC standing
committee. I thought they were interesting proposals. I can see
no Machiavellian plan here. If my colleagues put forward
proposals, I tend to say that they have a good idea or that it
needs more thought. It should not be taken as government policy,
but as an interesting idea which I hope the government will
study.
I will put the recommendations into the record. The functions
of the HRDC ministry grouped together somewhat unnaturally three
different areas of policy, statutory transfers and entitlement
which really is old age security, Canada pensions, labour,
employment and employment insurance, and social development
programs.
It is elementary that special technical skills are required for
each of these. It is unusual to find a complement of the skills
extending all across the department. This is one of the things
we have to examine in this situation.
1340
Anybody approaching new government as we enter the 21st century
would agree that we have stood still in terms of administrative
law reforms and structuring for the last 40 years. With the
consent and engagement of all parties the main pre-emptive
concern has been with issues of national integrity, the
sovereignty issue, as in Quebec. It has killed off the
modernization that should have gone on with the administrative
processes. I reproach the opposition parties, including the Bloc
which claims to be a reform party inside Quebec, with having no
new ideas on governmental structure.
One very obvious issue is the breakup of the overly large
departments. It is a reality that this government and the
Mulroney government let some key ministers handle what might be
called four or five different portfolios. It is too big a task.
The McRuer commission in Ontario some years ago attempted to
approach a solution to this problem. The Hoover commission in
the United States is a great model.
Simply, we should be considering issues such as a uniform
administrative procedure act applying to all government
departments, but especially the spending departments or those
with spending responsibilities and a conseil d'état special
administrative law tribunal with jurisdiction over all such
ministries. There is also the principle which is well accepted
in civil law of the personal liability of civil servants and
managers where they engage in misconduct that could either be
described as delictual in itself or gross negligence in the
administration of their office. I would have thought these would
be issues that an opposition party, particularly the Conservative
Party, which was the mother of the human resources ministry in
its present form, should have put forward to debate.
They are available now. I hope we have some debate in the
forthcoming election campaign, whenever it is, on this issue.
This generation of Canadians has a rendezvous once more with the
constitution, not the constitution narrowly defined in sections
91 and 92 or limited to the Quebec issue, but the fundamental
modernization of the administering of processes and the study and
perfecting of techniques for control of relationships of
governmental authority with the citizen. That is a target for
reform. That is a target or challenge which opposition parties
could bring to us.
I am happy to raise the issues on the government side. Put in
this perspective, the majority report of the HRDC committee
offers interesting suggestions but they are no more than that.
The matter is open for debate, but we cannot postpone the
decision any longer.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I thank you
for giving me the opportunity to question the member for
Vancouver Quadra, who knows that, in this House, I have never
lacked for praise in his regard, emeritus professor of law that
he is, he is very knowledgeable about Quebec and he has taught
from time to time at Laval University in Quebec City, where I
myself did my law.
I listened attentively to his remarks. I know he is concerned
about respect for order and good government, except that he has
said nothing about the fact that a criminal investigation is
underway into the activities of the management of Human Resources
Development Canada concerning action taken in the past.
1345
As a man concerned about respect for democracy, could he tell
us, I would like to know, how democracy can be abused by a party
in power—at the moment the Liberal Party, it could be another
party at another time—which uses public funds collected from
members of the public of all political stripes in order to put
pressure or promote a single political viewpoint, in this case
that of the Liberal Party of Canada.
How can democracy suffer in the 17 cases before us at the
moment, the ones being investigated?
Mr. Ted McWhinney: Mr. Speaker, I readily accept the challenge
of the hon. member, who has a lot of technical training in this
area.
This is why I said that French thinking in administrative law is
way ahead of Anglo-Saxon thinking. I regret, for these reasons,
that Quebec's quiet revolution has not yet led to the
development of a modern system of administrative law that would
apply not only to Quebec, but to all of Canada.
We need a modern process for administrative law, for the
monitoring of any government. This is why I pay attention to
ideas in that area, to the concept of councils of state,
patterned on the great model of Paris, created by Emperor
Napoleon, a system in which public officials are accountable
before the courts for their actions as members of the
administration, for their wrongdoings and even for their
negligence in administering the laws.
We need Quebec's thinking—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Calgary—Nose Hill.
[English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I too would like to draw on my
colleague's expertise.
In his remarks he mentioned the personal liability for
misconduct of people who serve the public trust. As he is aware,
the Financial Administration Act and the treasury board
guidelines were routinely flouted in the way public funds were
managed by HRDC. This was confirmed by memos from officials in
the department and by the department's own talking points which
say that the rules now have to start being honoured. It was
confirmed by the circumstances of a number of these grants where
funds were held over past year end contrary to the Financial
Administration Act, trust funds set up contrary to the Financial
Administration Act, et cetera.
Section 37 of the Financial Administration Act not only says
that this is illegal, but section 80 sets out some pretty stiff
penalties for individuals holding public office or serving in the
public service who allow the law to be broken.
Does the member think that the penalties in section 80 ought to
be applied? Would he also give us his opinion as to why no
penalties or consequences have ever been applied so far.
Mr. Ted McWhinney: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, as a
very thoughtful graduate of law and a practitioner with some
experience, knows that I cannot comment on individual cases.
However, I think I could direct her attention, as I have tried
to direct the attention of the House, to the need for a more
comprehensive system of administrative law responsibility and the
need therefore for an administrative procedure code. It is not
difficult to draft. Many countries have it but it would involve
our collection in comprehensive form of the rules and
responsibilities.
I also believe we need, and this is one of the problems of the
Anglo-Saxon common law world where we feel we do not need it, I
do think we need a special administrative law tribunal. The
Conseil d'État is the model around the world. I hope that the
member, with her professional background, will endorse that sort
of proposal.
Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very
pleased to have the opportunity to offer my comments on the
opposition motion calling for an independent commission of
inquiry into the grants and contributions activities of the
Department of Human Resources and Development.
I am pleased to participate because it seems to me that after so
many months of relentless attack from the other side of the House
it is about time for some sanity to prevail in this debate.
1350
This latest motion is little more than a vain attempt by the
opposition to try to keep the issue alive and in the press for a
few more hours or days. The old adage, if a story is repeated
long enough and loud enough, maybe enough people will believe it.
That has certainly been the tactic of the opposition parties.
Day after day in question period they say the same things. Day
after day they repeat the same old questions: Where is the
billion dollars? How come the minister will not resign because
she has lost a billion dollars or more, and so on. Over and over
they ask where the billion dollars is that is missing.
I do not think there are too many Canadians left who think the
opposition really wants any answers to anything. They are
ignoring Abraham Lincoln's famous script “You can fool some of
the people some of the time and all of the people some of the
time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time”.
Canadians are very smart and astute people. At some point the
truth does comes through. This latest ploy to call for an
independent commission of inquiry is not about the real issues
that play to Canadians, it is about nothing other than cheap
politics. What the opposition does not tell people is that we
already have an independent review going on right now by an
officer of parliament.
The Office of the Auditor General of Canada is on this case. It
is working closely with the Department of Human Resources
Development to address the issues. Who does the auditor general
report to? He does not report to the minister or to the Prime
Minister. He reports directly to the House, to all of us in the
House. He reports to me and he reports to the opposition. He is
independent of government. He is an independent officer of the
House. He says what he wants to say. He investigates what he
wants to investigate. He will report in the fall.
Does the auditor general sound the alarm? Is there a clarion
call for the immediate suspension of all government operations
and the appointment of a 10 year long royal commission into
everything? Not at all.
Here is what the auditor general's officials had to say about
the new regime HRD has put in place to rectify the current
situation. They said that in their opinion the proposed approach
represented a thorough plan for corrective action to address
immediate control problems. They also said that some longer term
actions were also included that would further strengthen the
approach.
Those are the words of the people charged with the
responsibility of auditing government programs and reporting this
audit to the House.
However, that is not good enough for the opposition. It wants
somebody's head on a plate. Solutions do not make headlines,
only problems make the headlines. As we and the minister have
all acknowledged, it was not an insignificant problem. In fact,
it was the minister who brought this problem to the attention of
the House. It was the minister who stood in her place and said
that books on grants and contributions needed to be fixed because
an internal audit showed that the procedures were not followed
properly, that complete records were not kept and that forms were
not filled out in the entirety.
What was the bottom line? After all the sound and fury from
opposition benches about billions of dollars gone missing and
after the department reviewed an audited 17,000 additional files,
what was the result? The result was that $6,500 remained
outstanding, not in money but in documentation for $6,500. All
the boondoggle that continues to be talked about was never a
boondoggle to begin with.
What is particularly important is that the minister and the
department, rather than responding to the great controversy over
the way the records were kept with a kind of easy response, a
kind of grants and contributions chill that would have seen
hundreds of excellent and worthwhile projects go waiting for
funds, took steps to rectify the situation which balanced the
need for grant recipients and the need for proper accountability
and financial controls. In other words, they took the difficult
plan. They rolled up their sleeves and got down to business.
Where the audit said that the paperwork was unacceptable, they
set about to put it right and to get the right forms in the right
places. That was what this is all about. Where the audit said
information was missing, it was obtained. Where approvals were
not recorded or were carried out incorrectly, they were
corrected. Where further monitoring work was called for, it was
done.
However, let us remember again what the audit said. The audit
said that important paper was missing, not money. In response to
that, it went through one file at a time to ensure that
everything was done exactly right.
Despite the repeated claims of the members opposite, that has
not been the issue since day one. The Canadian public was
clearly misled. If that is the role of the opposition, then at
some point they owe an apology to the Canadian public, as well as
to the minister.
1355
As the minister has said, the paperwork is central to the
accountability of her public funds. What is also central is
the fact that these programs are there for a reason. They are
not just political window dressing, as many of the critics claim.
These are programs that help people; programs that members on
both sides of the House have long agreed are both necessary and
worthwhile; programs that help people get and keep jobs;
programs, for example, that have helped reduce the unemployment
rate from 11% in 1993 to below 7% today; programs that have
contributed to the fact that over two million jobs have been
created since 1993; programs that focus on the needs of
individuals in all regions of this country and create practical
and results oriented ways to help them become productive and
contributing members of society and the economy.
The members opposite can sneer at these support programs and how
they are administered and they can try to turn Canadians to their
real agenda, which is that government should abandon those in
need and provide more tax concessions to those better off in our
society. I do not believe their plan will work. I do not
believe the majority of Canadians would agree with that narrow
vision.
The vast majority of Canadians believe in helping our fellow
citizens when they are in need. The vast majority of Canadians
believe in a sane and levelheaded approach to how we provide that
support. I think the vast majority of Canadians will see this
motion for what it is: Just another attempt by the opposition to
grab some headlines; just another attempt by the opposition to
undermine a whole series of worthwhile programs.
I sincerely hope that the House will reflect the opinion of the
majority of Canadians and reject this motion.
I just want to say something about the comments made earlier by
some opposition members about those of us on the government side
being whipped into supporting the motion. I will not be
supporting the opposition motion that is before us. I sat on the
HRDC committee and listened to all the allegations from the
opposition. I listened to the staff and the witnesses. I will
be voting against the motion because the work has been done and
the corrections have been put in place.
The Speaker: We will have five minutes for questions and
comments, but I was just wondering if we might begin the
statements now and then members will have a full five minutes for
the questions and comments after that.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
COMMUNITY ACCESS PROGRAM
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today the
federal and Ontario governments agreed to work together to
establish up to 258 public Internet sites in the Ontario public
libraries.
This agreement expands the Community Access Program into 35
Ontario communities and represents a federal contribution of
$4.4 million for a total $8.8 million.
The Clemens Mill, Hespeler and Preston branches of the Cambridge
Public Library and the Pioneer Park branch of the Kitchener
Public Library are eligible to expand their Internet access
points.
A program of Industry Canada, the CAP, is a key component of the
federal government's Connecting Canadians initiative.
The CAP shows that the government is committed to equipping all
Canadians with the tools necessary to lead and succeed in today's
knowledge based economy.
* * *
WORLD PETROLEUM CONGRESS
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, from June 11 to June 15, Calgary will host over 3,000
delegates from over 80 countries at the 16th World Petroleum
Congress in my city's new Telus Convention Centre.
The congress is dedicated to the application of scientific
advances in the petroleum industry, environmental issues and to
the use of the world's petroleum resources for the benefit of
mankind.
This is the first time that the congress will be held in Canada
and Calgarians are determined to set a new high standard while
hosting this international event.
As evidence of Calgary's strong community spirit, more than
1,300 people have signed their names to the volunteer roster for
the congress. In fact, my own twin daughters, Beverly and Gina,
will be singing the national anthem with the Calgary Children's
Choir at the opening ceremonies.
I offer my congratulations to Jim Gray, the chairman of the
Canadian organizing committee, and to all the hardworking men and
women of Calgary who are involved in making this event a great
international success.
* * *
BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGE OF CANADA
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and
Addington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the
House today to bring your attention to, and applaud the efforts
of, the Board of Governors of the Royal Military College of
Canada who are in Ottawa today for their quarterly meeting.
This group of prominent Canadians works tirelessly and with
little compensation to review and approve the strategic direction
of one of Canada's finest post-secondary institutions.
1400
Please join me in honouring the Chairman of the Board, the hon.
Gilles Lamontagne, former minister of defence; Vice-Chairman
Major-General J. R. Pierre Daigle; Colonel Bill Brough; Dr. Roch
Carrier; Dr. John S. Cowan; Mr. Willian Coyle; Colonel Mel
Dempster; Dr. Gwynne Dyer; the hon. Mme Paule Gauthier;
Brigadier-General Kenneth Hague; Mr. William Johnson; Captain J.
A. Denis Rouleau; Mr. Kenneth A. Smee; Rear Admiral David C.
Morse; and the Executive Secretary of the board,
Lieutenant-Colonel, retired, Peter N. Dawe.
* * *
56TH ANNIVERSARY OF D-DAY
Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on this day
56 years ago, young men from across the country and part of the
Third Canadian Infantry Division were landing on Juno beach in
Normandy, many of them never to return home.
Today, names like Utah, Omaha, Gold, Juno and Sword Beaches are
but briefly mentioned. We often forget that each and every one
of these men had a family, a story and dreams for the future.
Although many of them perished on those bloody beaches, some
like Dr. Bernard Laski are still with us. On June 6, 1944 Dr.
Laski was with the troops in Normandy. After the war he chose
Toronto as his home and has since been a devoted and well
respected pediatrician.
Today we pay tribute to those who fell and gave their lives, but
we should also take a moment to say thanks to all the veterans
who are still with us. Today we must all remember them.
* * *
THE LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it seems the Prime Minister's latest proposal, the
Canadian way, has very little to do with Canadians.
One of his own backbenchers has exposed how dismal the
democratic process sometimes is in the Liberal Party. Liberal
MPs feel that they have become voting machines, that most of the
important decisions are made behind closed doors, in backrooms.
Voting machines? Backrooms? Important decisions made behind
closed doors? Is this progressive government?
The dissatisfied rumblings of the Liberal backbenchers are only
the beginning. Canadians have had enough of politics done the
backroom way and are getting ready to show the government the way
out.
In the next election Canadians aim to take back the decision
making. They will begin by showing the government what they have
known for some time, that the only way is the Canadian Alliance
way.
* * *
56TH ANNIVERSARY OF D-DAY
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, 56 years ago today, as dawn was
breaking, thousands of young Canadian soldiers in northern France
were struggling to fight their way on to the beaches of Normandy.
They faced murderous fire and hundreds died on those beaches.
Well disciplined, properly equipped and magnificently trained,
they penetrated the defences of the Axis and moved inland. The
Canadians pushed farther inland that day than any other allied
unit.
The Royal Canadian Navy provided 109 ships and 10,000 sailors in
direct support. The Royal Canadian Air Force attacked coastal
defences and contributed to the battle for air supremacy, so
essential to the success on the ground below.
Victory on the beaches of Normandy was critical in the struggle
to free Europe. Let us today remember and honour those who gave
everything, including life itself, in that struggle.
* * *
BILL KIRKEY
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, small
rural towns are often described as a family. With this in mind,
it is an honour for me to recognize one of my brothers, Bill
Kirkey, for his outstanding community spirit and involvement.
Bill was born in November 1935 and, although he was born with
cerebral palsy, he worked hard and beat the rather bleak odds
forecasted by his doctors in the medical community of the day.
With his determination forged by fire, Bill has since become a
highly respected and productive member of his community. Indeed,
it would be very difficult to find anyone in the town of Goderich
who does not know and respect Bill Kirkey. I would suggest that
this is primarily due to the thousands of volunteer hours that
Bill has invested in the community.
For the past several decades, numerous charities and community
minded initiatives have been the benefactors of Bill's selfless
generosity and devotion to his fellow man.
As Bill prepares to celebrate his 65th birthday, I along with
all the citizens of Goderich pass on our sincere appreciation for
his hard work. Happy Birthday, Bill.
* * *
MALNUTRITION
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is estimated that 6 million children under five die
each year of causes associated with malnutrition, and that over
2.5 billion of the world's 6 billion people consume inadequate
amounts of micronutrients, that is, tiny amounts of essential
vitamins and minerals that are not produced by the human body but
are essential to human health.
1405
Malnutrition leads to blindness, decreased learning capacity and
productivity, stunted growth, below average weight,
susceptibility to common infections such as diarrhea and
pneumonia, and increased rates of maternal and child death.
I take this opportunity to compliment CIDA through its strategy
in partnership with United Nations agencies, IRDC, governments
and NGOs on tackling specific nutritional deficiencies and
working to end micronutrient malnutrition.
* * *
[Translation]
THE HOMELESS
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on June 2,
the Canadian government announced that $56 million would be
allocated over a three year period to deal with the issue of
homelessness in Quebec.
With a budget of $305 million, the community action partnership
initiative is a key component of the $753 million national
campaign launched by the federal government to help the
homeless.
That program must be really effective, since even the Quebec
Minister of Health was pleased with this announcement. There are
12,666 homeless people in Montreal alone.
The Canadian government cares about providing these people tools
to help them help themselves and improve their quality of life.
This initiative will help us elicit the Quebec government's
co-operation, so that we can unite in our efforts on behalf of
those who need help.
* * *
FIGHT AGAINST POVERTY
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister
of Finance's false outpourings of compassion for the
disadvantaged during the meeting of international institutions
held in Washington in April did nothing to cover up the fact that
the minister is much more interested in passing legislation to
protect his fleet of ships than ending poverty in Canada.
What the minister did not say at the meeting, but did do in his
last budget, merits our attention: he took $30.5 million out
health care, education and social services.
Despite a surplus of $140 billion, the minister did not earmark
any funds for social housing or for the thousands of families
that must spend more than 50% of their income on accommodation.
He continues to exclude six out of ten unemployed workers from
benefits in order to better serve his friends.
That is why the Bloc Quebecois is making a solemn pledge to
Quebecers living in precarious situations and isolation on the
fringes of society to do what it takes to get the federal
government to put right the wrongs it has committed.
* * *
[English]
56TH ANNIVERSARY OF D-DAY
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can
think of no better way to honour our veterans on this 56th
anniversary of D-Day than to share my late father's
recollections.
He was a member of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders. He
said: “We had mixed feelings on that late spring day. Some
were apprehensive, some with zeal, but all had a prayer on our
lips as we huddled in our assault crafts. The sky was blanketed
with allied aircraft and the great ships fired continuous salvos
at the French coast. It is a wonder how the enemy could have
survived. The noise was deafening. The channel was very rough.
A destroyer came close to us. The waves from her bow were higher
than our craft and she looked the height of the Queen Mary
to me”.
Many of the soldiers were seasick and just wanted to get to
shore, no matter what was waiting for them.
“Finally we neared the beach, and then my assault craft hit a
mine or was hit by a shell, I am not sure, but I was thrown into
the air and then into the water, semi-conscious, weighted down
with my grenades and bandolier. I struggled free and then passed
out. I was picked up and was in hospital in England when I
awoke. I was one of the lucky ones”.
We are the lucky ones because they left us with a lasting
reminder of their courage and devotion to their country—freedom.
* * *
[Translation]
FRANCOPHONE GAMES
Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on May
26, we learned that all levels of government involved had
confirmed their financial contributions for the next Francophone
Games.
This is good news for the Ottawa-Hull area, because we are
seeing an excellent example of co-operation and partnership to
the benefit of the francophone population.
Let us remember that the 4th Francophone Games will be held in
Hull and Ottawa in July 2001. The Government of Canada is
contributing over $12 million for the event.
1410
The organizing committee and the signatory governments are
satisfied with the agreement concluded. This important step
shows that, when efforts are united in one cause, great things
can be achieved. The francophone and francophile population, as
well as participating athletes, will be the beneficiaries.
We wish all participants in, as well as organizers of, the
Francophone Games the best of luck.
* * *
[English]
REVENUE CANADA
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, in 1991 a Revenue Canada tax ruling allowed one of the
wealthiest families in the country to avoid a $700 million tax
bill by transferring a $2 billion family trust out of the
country.
In 1996, on behalf of all Canadians, George Harris charged
Revenue Canada with failing to enforce federal law by not
collecting the taxes it was owed. Last week the federal court of
appeal tossed out the federal government's appeal and allowed
this case to proceed. Four judges have now ruled that Mr. Harris
has standing in this case.
The government should stop obstructing this case with appeals
and let the matter proceed so that a ruling can be made before
the 10 year agreement with the family in question runs out and
Ottawa is unable to collect the taxes owed.
Canada's tax system must be fair for everyone. Revenue Canada
should not be allowed to act illegally to give special favours to
some taxpayers and not to others.
* * *
[Translation]
IMPORTATION OF PLUTONIUM
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in
1996 the Prime Minister gave the OK for up to 100 tonnes of MOX
plutonium to be burned in Canadian CANDU reactors. We will
shortly be receiving a second shipment of this radioactive
material from Russia.
The attitude of the government is deplorable, especially during
Environment Week. With no public consultation whatsoever on
importing this dangerous substance, it is acting in an
underhanded manner, to the detriment of both human and
environmental health.
The Environmental Assessment Panel to Nuclear Waste Management
and Disposal Concept indicates that the Minister of the
Environment and the Minister of Natural Resources had promised a
full environmental study, including a public investigation by an
independent panel. So far, nothing has been done.
Knowing that close to 50% of the initial mass of MOX will remain
in the form of radioactive waste, and that plutonium has a life
of 24,000 years, this is enough to have the public shaking in its
boots.
* * *
[English]
HIGH TECH EDUCATION
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is essential that our education system
keep up with the growing demand from the high tech sector for
technically skilled workers.
In Ontario, in the automotive industry alone, it is estimated
that 14,000 new skilled workers will be needed over the next 10
years.
To help train more workers for the value added manufacturing
sector, the city of Brampton recently proposed the establishment
of a high tech training centre.
By partnering with Sheridan College, Humber College and various
local firms, the city of Brampton hopes to create a
post-secondary institute of technology.
As the MP for Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale, it is my
sincere hope that this worthy proposal will be approved this year
and ready for students in the near future.
* * *
CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, last
week the federally appointed arbitrator tasked with determining
whether the severance and pension packages available to the Devco
coal miners were equitable made his ruling public.
Mr. Outhouse ruled that 246 more miners will be eligible for the
early retirement package by stating that anyone with 25 years of
experience in the coal mines would qualify. This was in contrast
to the federal government's position that only miners with a
combination of 25 years experience and a minimum age of 50 would
qualify. This brings the benefits package in line with those
offered to other crown corporations when they were privatized.
The arbitrator also ruled that medical benefits will be paid as
long as employees receive severance payments.
The arbitrator's ruling closely follows what the PC Party has
been calling for to improve the Devco bill. The PC party noted
the need for improved medical provisions and for more inclusive
severance packages. The federal government ignored those ideas,
but the arbitrator's ruling shows that the PC Party was once
again on the right track.
* * *
YUKON
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, at the end of the 19th century the '99ers created an
economic boom in Yukon when they took part in the Klondike gold
rush.
Now the economy of Yukon is in ruins, a victim of total
mismanagement by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development.
Consider these facts. Since 1996 the mining industry has
declined by an incredible 87%. It is currently sitting at a 30
year low and is expected to drop even further this year.
The population has dropped 10% and the stagnant economy is
imploding.
1415
Yukon is rapidly becoming almost entirely dependent on
government transfer payments and a 90 day tourism season that
contributes little to a sustainable economy.
Yukon needs mineral development and the Department of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development's policy of suffocating
developers in red tape is turning them away.
The evidence is clear: The minister and his bureaucracy have
failed Yukoners. It is time for a change.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I just thought of a great comedy
series. The main character would be a political figure, say a
minister, who was in charge of a huge department. She would be
responsible for billions but she would have no idea what was
going on because those bureaucrats would keep her in the dark.
Sinister officials would funnel millions into fountains, hotels
and canoe museums, the crazier the better. The minister could
just sort of doodle happy faces on those boring old internal
audits.
Does the minister think this is a plot she might star in or
should we just turn it over to Leslie Nielsen?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. These comments are getting
too personal. I would ask members to temper their language. I
think we are getting a little bit out of hand.
I will permit the minister to answer the question if she would
like to, but we will not have any personal attacks on one side or
the other today.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, all I would like to say is that no
accusations and no insults will change the facts in this case.
What is clear is that the department has taken the work of the
internal audit very seriously. We have provided that information
to the Canadian public. We have shown them how we are going to
make improvements and we have actually shown them that we have
made improvements.
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, what I would like to make clear is
that her top bureaucrats, officials and personal staff spent much
of last fall in a frenzy trying to prepare for the fallout that
was going to be coming forward because of this now famous audit.
Damage control plans were in full swing last August to prepare
for the fallout but that did not phase the minister. Between
August and December she shovelled another $500 million out in
programs, the very programs that bungled the first billion
dollars.
If everyone else around the minister knew the results and the
damage, why did they let her keep that chequebook in her hand?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member makes reference to the
top bureaucrats and the people in my department. I just want to
say to the House, and particularly to that member, that the
members of the Department of Human Resources Development have
been working around the clock, 24 hours a day, to improve the
administration of grants and contributions because they agree
with the government that those contributions make a difference in
the lives of Canadians in every part of the country, including
the hon. member's riding.
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I would also like to credit the HRD
people and officials with doing great work. It is a pity there
is such political interference from the top that they are not
allowed to do their jobs.
While the Philippines were collapsing, Imelda just kept on
buying shoes. Poor Imelda, she was the last to know about any
disaster happening in her country.
It seems to me that the film idea Yes, Minister was a
great take-off on this, except that it was fiction in Britain. It
was supposed to be a spoof that was funny. It is reality here
now in Canada.
In spite of the government's billion dollar bungle, the minister
carried on and flushed another $500 million out in programs. Was
the taste of that first bungle just—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Human Resources
Development.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talks about flushing $500
million out in programs. Do members know what those programs
included? They included programs that gave young people who were
on the streets the opportunity to come into a place with a roof
over their heads and to get some training and self-respect. In
this particular case, I am thinking of the Servants Anonymous
Society in the city of Calgary where a young woman turned to me
and said “Without this grant I would be dead”.
Is the hon. member suggesting those were tax dollars that were
unwisely spent? If she is, she should say so.
1420
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, here is the minister's story. She said that on August 9
she had a briefing from her officials on the hottest issues but
that somehow they forgot to remind her of the hottest issue of
all, the internal audit. By October 20 everyone in the
department, from the mailroom clerk on up, knew about the
internal audit except for the minister who, like a mushroom, was
kept in the dark.
I know this is all very painful for the minister but I wonder if
she could tell us what her bureaucrats told her to say about why
she was out of the loop for those three disastrous months.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have been over this countless times
and we will go over it once again.
More than a year ago the department identified that it should do
an internal audit on its grants and contributions. Over the
course of a period of time the audit was undertaken. The audit
was not even complete during the timeframe to which the hon.
member has made reference, which was the summer. The auditors
were still in the field collecting information.
As I have said before, as a result of the preliminary findings
the department took action, which is as it should be. I can tell
the House that the first time I was briefed on the internal audit
was on November 17, and that was appropriate.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the minister does not even have the good sense to be
embarrassed about her ignorance of the situation.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I want the member to go directly to his
question.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, how can Canadians have
any confidence in a minister who stands up and proudly proclaims
“Hey, how can you blame me? I was out of the loop for three
months?”
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, perhaps you have noticed, in the tone of
the question from the opposition member, that yet again it is
really nothing but an insult. I remember that it was that party
in 1993 that said it was coming to the House of Commons to
improve decorum. Whatever happened to that?
* * *
[Translation]
CANADA INFORMATION OFFICE
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we
learned that, in 1997-98, another friend of the government,
lawyer Richard Mongeau, now a judge, received $160,000 from the
Canada Information Office, while working for the firm
Administration Leduc et Leblanc, which was awarded a $50,000
contract without tender to provide communication services, after
contributing $15,000 to the Liberal Party fund.
Could the minister tell us why Richard Mongeau received that
money? Is it as a political analyst, legal counsel or
contributor to the party fund?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, during its first few years, the
Canada Information Office, which is a small body, had to rely on
outside professional services, until there were enough public
servants to allow it to do its job. Mr. Mongeau was paid for his
professional services.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, let
us look at an example of professional services.
Here is the kind of analysis made by Mr. Mongeau for the firm
Administration Leduc et Leblanc. The memo reads as follows “A
review of Quebec's weeklies shows that the member for Verchères
again criticized the federal government's decision to withdraw
its annual contribution of $7.2 million to the Tokamak project,
in Varennes”. Incidentally, these criticisms were made in the
House.
Are such analyses worth $50,000, not to mention the amount of
$160,000 received as legal counsel by that person, who was
appointed a judge by the government during the same period?
1425
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again, Mr. Mongeau was asked to
provide services to the CIO and I believe he provided these
services according to the treasury board's rules and guidelines.
I realize that the member, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois, may
not agree with all the things we do to improve the situation in
Quebec and to be in touch with Quebecers to explain what the
Canadian government does for them. I know they are not pleased
with this situation, because they are only here to destroy the
country, while we are here to build it for all Canadians.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, allow me to
read you a message addressed to Jean Pelletier, the Prime
Minister's chief of staff:
An analysis of the regional press review reveals that the
following businesses from the Saguenay region participated in the
team Quebec trade mission to China: Le Centre Québécois de
recherche et de développement de l'aluminium, Alumiform,
Microvel, Groupe conseil Saguenay.
The message was signed by Richard Mongeau, information service.
Why did the CIO, the Canada Information Office, have to pay
Richard Mongeau $50,000 to send this sort of note? Are there not
already enough professionals to monitor the print media in
Quebec—
The Speaker: The hon. minister of public works.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said at the outset, in its
early years, the CIO lacked the organization it needed to fulfil
its mandates internally. So it turned to professional firms, and
that is what Mr. Mongeau did.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
remind the minister—and he must be aware of it—that Mr. Mongeau
is a lawyer, not an information analyst. He in fact pays him
$160,000 as the CIO's legal adviser.
Why did the minister pay Mr. Mongeau $160,000 to be the CIO's
legal adviser and $50,000 to be an information officer at the
same time, in the same year? Were so few resources available in
all of Canada and Quebec that only Richard Mongeau could do all
the jobs?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member should
look to the mother house and grasp the fact that the Government
of Quebec, with its great organization, is handing out contracts
to individuals to do analyses.
I can tell you about a contract worth $10,000 that they handed
out for an analysis of sponsorship agreements signed by
departments over the past three years, develop a policy and a
table of comparison and make recommendations.
Perhaps he should put the question to the Government of Quebec
and their mother house.
* * *
[English]
WORKPLACE SAFETY
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it has
been eight years since the Westray disaster, three years since
the Westray inquiry recommendations and yet hundreds of workers
still die on the job in this country every year because of
employer indifference or outright negligence.
The Westray bill would strengthen the criminal code and bring
Canada's law in line with other countries.
My question is simple. Will the Minister of Justice finally and
urgently introduce the necessary amendments to the criminal code?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Standing
Committee on Justice and Human Rights considered the issue this
morning. I understand that it will be reporting back to the
House very soon. Obviously I will seriously consider any
recommendations in that report.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is
discouraging that the justice department has been studying this
issue for three years and yet the justice committee took less
than three hours to call for urgent action. The legislative
drafting is done, the bill is prepared and Canadians support it.
What we need is the justice minister's support.
I want a straight answer from the minister. Does the Minister
of Justice support the measures in the Westray bill, yes or no?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me give the hon. member a
straight answer. I understand that the standing committee will
report to the House in the coming days. I will receive that
report, study it and take very seriously any recommendations
found in that report.
* * *
1430
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker,
senior Canadian air force officers have spoken out about the
Prime Minister's decision to deploy combat aircraft to Kosovo.
While our aircrews performed admirably, these very experienced
officers complain of the lack of adequate equipment which put our
air force personnel at extra risk and of burnout. That was
because of political decisions to understaff our ground crew.
Would the Minister of National Defence explain why he allowed
the PMO to make this decision when clearly they were not properly
equipped for the job at hand?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, they were properly equipped for the job
at hand. We knew full well what the capabilities of the CF-18s
were. In fact they performed admirably. They were involved in
over 600 missions. They were asked by the U.S. general in charge
of the air operation to lead half of those missions. That is a
clear indication of the kind of expertise, training and equipment
they had.
That equipment needs upgrading and is going through an
incremental modernization program at this time. However, when it
came to the call in Kosovo, they performed exceptionally well.
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker,
we will not mention the communications equipment.
The Minister of National Defence has a responsibility to stand
up for our armed forces personnel. He has the responsibility to
tell the PMO when it is making unrealistic demands. He allowed
the Prime Minister to commit underequipped troops. He helped
make the political decision to understaff our ground crews at
Aviano. Why did he not tell the Prime Minister that they were
not adequately equipped for the task at hand? For once why did
he not just say no?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is simply not true. The chief of
the air staff made it quite clear at each stage of the way as we
engaged in the Kosovo air campaign that he had the people and the
equipment that could do the job.
They were not asked to do anything they were not capable of
doing. Safety precautions were always kept in mind and in place
to ensure that they could do the job, and they did the job in an
outstanding fashion.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, even if we strained credulity to the
breaking point, we still could not swallow the story that a
ticking time bomb the size of the boondoggle audit could escape
the notice of any reasonably competent minister of the crown.
However, the HRDC minister maintains that she was unaware of the
explosive audits for over a quarter of a year. Is that because
she was completely out of touch with her department or because no
one thought her input would be worthwhile?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us look at what my input did do. It
strengthened the management response. It made sure that the
internal audit was made public. It helped write the six point
plan that is supported by the auditor general and is now being
implemented. And it made sure that 17,000 active files in my
department were reviewed.
What we have shown today is that it has never been about money
as that party always suggests. It is not about money. It is
about making sure we have a strong administrative platform on
which to support these important grants and contributions.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, Canadians want to advise the minister
that a billion dollars is money.
HRDC deputy minister Claire Morris acknowledged “intensive and
sustained management attention” to the internal audit report
since June. All this went on for months without any leadership
from the minister who said she did not have clue about what was
going on until November.
Is the minister simply a figurehead parroting storylines in the
House of Commons?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again I would point out that the
department undertook an internal audit. The audit was not
complete until late fall. It was brought to me with the
completion of the review as well as a management response on
November 17. When I reviewed it I insisted on a stronger
management response. When that was completed, the whole thing
was made public and now of course the rest is history.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADA INFORMATION OFFICE
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the following
memo from Richard Mongeau is funny, but it is not a joke:
As agreed, we have reviewed the spelling and punctuation of the
Quebec regional files. In addition, we have gone over the
suggestions from certain departments with Linda Cameron. This
was done so as to keep costs as low as possible, as discussed
with Roger on Wednesday, December 10.
1435
How does the minister explain that the CIO feels the need to
hire a lawyer of the calibre of Richard Mongeau to correct the
spelling and punctuation of its documents?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The Minister of Public Works and
Government Services.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I know that the Canada Information
Office is creating problems for the Bloc—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano: It bothers them that the Canada
Information Office tells Quebecers about everything the Canadian
government is doing. At the same time, it is collecting
information in order to be able to create programs that meet
people's needs.
Now they are reduced to looking for commas and periods.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano: The question is completely absurd.
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we are not the
ones looking for commas; Richard Mongeau is.
Yesterday, we saw that Michèle Tremblay, a friend of the
minister, was paid twice. Today, we understand that Mr. Mongeau
was also paid twice by the CIO, as a lawyer, as an editor, and as
a press clipping officer.
Will the minister admit that the only thing Ms. Tremblay and Mr.
Mongeau have in common is that they are friends of the minister,
friends of contributors to the Liberal Party of Canada's coffers?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker. Every contract was awarded
according to treasury board guidelines.
Certain contracts were put out to tender and I think that the
CIO hired professionals according to needs and requirements.
I repeat, it bothers them, but we are going to continue telling
Quebecers everything that the Government of Canada does, and why
it is worth belonging to this great Canadian federation.
* * *
[English]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the minister said she took no action on the problems in
her department because how could anyone know, the audit was
incomplete, how could anyone taken any action?
The spin doctors in her own department in a document entitled
“Communications Approach” knew about it. They said that there
will be administrative shortcomings that will be revealed and
they had better be up for that. And in what must be the best
understatement of the year, they said that the report will
indicate that the administration of grants and contributions in
her department could do with improvement.
If the communications department knew about it in August, how
can the minister say that she cannot do anything until the audit
is complete?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is talking about taking
no action. What is clear is that party cannot accept the action
that we have taken. That action included making the internal
audit public. That action included talking with the auditor
general to get the remedial plan just right. That action
included a full review of all files in my department to ensure
that the paperwork was there for the future.
As always that party remains stuck in the past talking about old
news, trying to change the facts. None of its huffing and
puffing will change the facts as they have been presented over
the course of the last five months.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the amazing part is I wonder if she could explain which
government was in charge of the boondoggle in the very beginning.
When senior managers in her department found out, no changes
were made. That was back in July. When her media consultants
found out about the problems, nothing happened. When the deputy
minister found out, got the word, no changes were made. When the
Clerk of the Privy Council found out, nothing happened. I
imagine even the janitor knew about it. Nobody made any changes.
The question is how can we trust the minister's administrative
abilities when she does not do anything? Even after she found
out on November 17, nothing else happened.
1440
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member would do the
local human resources office in his riding the courtesy of
visiting it to see how much has happened.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN HERITAGE
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we have
already learned that Bell Canada Média served as a front for the
program “Le Canada du millénaire”. Now we learn that the
“Heritage Minutes” of Heritage Canada have a link with the CR
Bronfman Foundation.
My question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Why is
this government, which is so keen on gaining visibility most of
the time, with the millennium scholarships for instance, hiding
behind Bell Canada Média and the CR Bronfman Foundation?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will follow the hon. member's suggestion to gain more
visibility for Canada, and we will put our wordmark on this.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
government has made use of Bell Canada Média and the CR Bronfman
Foundation as fronts for the “Heritage Minutes”.
Are we to understand that the government is using the frontman
technique to disguise information that is, in reality, nothing
but propaganda?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, allow me to say a few words about what is being called
propaganda.
We have told the legend of Maurice “The Rocket” Richard. We
have told people about the singer La Bolduc, about Paul-Émile
Borduas and Joseph Casavant, not forgetting Jacques Plante and
his innovative goalie face mask. Is that propaganda for Canada?
* * *
[English]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, before the current HRDC minister was sworn in,
departmental officials were in full spin mode over the billion
dollar boondoggle. They held secret meetings and they hatched a
plan on how to release this damaging information. Then the new
minister arrived and it was business as usual. Between August
and December under her watch HRDC spent almost $500 million on
grants and contributions.
Why did the minister continue to approve expenditures of nearly
half a billion dollars when the interim audit clearly stated that
there was a potential for internal or external fraud?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, clearly from all these questions, that
party opposite wanted action taken. Clearly, those members
should take the time instead of looking at drafts and bringing
bits and pieces to the House and see that action has been taken.
Why do they not spend time looking at the results of the last
report to the standing committee that went through the 17,000
files, that improved the administration and identified quite
clearly that no money was missing? Indeed it continues to be
spent wisely and widely across Canada to help the citizens of
this country.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the minister is absolutely right. The money was spent
widely.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Dale Johnston: Mr. Speaker, the minister asked us to
look back at the record. We did and what we found was that from
July to December, while the time bomb was still ticking away in
her department, she denied that the problem even existed. There
were more grants and contributions funded out of that office in
November than in any other month in 1999. The minister has
clearly put partisan politics ahead of her personal integrity.
Why would she abuse taxpayers' dollars in such a way?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again the members of that party opposite
have not taken the time to understand the impact of these grants
and contributions. Perhaps they should have come with me to
Montreal where there, in partnership with the city, young people
who were on the street—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
1445
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. Minister of Human
Resources Development.
Hon. Jane Stewart: I was suggesting how nice it would be
if members of that party opposite could have been with me in
Montreal at a project where we are in partnership with a city
where young people who have not been able to find their way are
now working productively as animateurs in a park, providing
historical background to those who choose to visit that park.
Perhaps they could have been with me in Winnipeg where young
people who have not been able to succeed in the formal education
system are now working in a very tough part of downtown Winnipeg
in a 100 year old house on a lane that was called Murder Lane,
refurbishing that house. They are actually connected to the
world again.
* * *
[Translation]
RADIO-CANADA
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as he
was investigating the matter of the “Heritage Minutes, the
Bronfman foundation and Robert-Guy Scully”, journalist Normand
Lester of Radio-Canada has just been shunted off.
Mr. Scully, however, remains on the job, although he contravened
journalistic standards and practices on advertising.
How else can such a difference in treatment be explained but by
the fact that Robert Rabinovitch, now the president of the CBC,
was still recently an associate of the Bronfman foundations?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I know the member for Rimouski—Mitis well, and I do
not think she wants the government to meddle in matters relating
to jobs at the CBC. At least, I hope so.
* * *
[English]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government recognizes very much that water and air
quality are vital priorities for Canadians. Recently the
Canadian Federation of Municipalities has met with the minister
wherein there was an announcement regarding infrastructure
programs with an environmental component.
Could the President of the Treasury Board tell the House how the
new infrastructure program will work and, more important, how it
will improve air and water in Canada?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as the Prime Minister said yesterday, nothing is more fundamental
than to protect and preserve the quality of air and water.
Therefore the priority of the municipal infrastructure will be
on green infrastructure, which includes water, the waste water
system, solid waste management and public transit.
[Translation]
This choice of priorities arises from our discussions with the
Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Quebec coalition
of municipalities. We hope therefore to have an opportunity to
promote our air and water improvement objectives.
* * *
[English]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
the HRDC boondoggle goes on and on. Witness the recent bungle in
which HRDC raided an elderly widow's bank account of some $8,400
because of an administrative error.
I understand the officials have apologized and the money has
been returned, but my question goes back one step. Since when
does HRDC have the authority to raid the bank accounts of private
citizens?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, indeed I sincerely regret any
difficulties in this circumstance created for the family in
question.
I want to let the hon. member know that the circumstance has
been reconciled, that an apology has been issued to the family,
and that the apology has been accepted.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, as I said, I acknowledge that, but my question goes back
one step. By what authority does HRDC reach into the bank
accounts of private citizens? Every person who has money in a
bank account deserves to know the answer to that question.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in fact the appropriate approach would
have been to deal with the family directly. As I have said, an
apology has been issued to the family and the apology has been
accepted.
* * *
TAXATION
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue.
Last week George Harris from Winnipeg won in the Federal Court of
Appeal the right to challenge the legality of a tax break that
was given to the Bronfman family trust.
1450
The case involves a $700 million tax break. The trust has given
Revenue Canada the right to reassess its decision within a 10
year period that expires in 2001.
Given that this may end up in the supreme court and indeed may
be brought by the federal government, will the minister now do
the right thing and reassess his department's decision
immediately so that Canadian taxpayers will not be shortchanged?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and
Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the
Regions of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the decision was
tabled not long ago. It has been received by the department. The
department is going through the decision. It is analyzing the
decision and then a course of action will be taken.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, Mr. Harris has now won two different court decisions,
including one in the Federal Court of Appeal last Friday, June 2.
This involves a $700 million tax break. That is a lot of money
in terms of fairness to the Canadian people.
Given that, could the minister now assure the House that he will
not ask for an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, that he
will not appeal this case?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and
Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the
Regions of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member
should know that we are talking about a case pending in court.
The decision was rendered not long ago. The department will
have a look at it and then we will take the normal course of
action.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker,
Canada's current 13% capital gains tax disadvantage with the U.S.
is hurting our high tech sector and is feeding the brain drain.
The Liberal dominated House of Commons industry committee as
well as the Senate banking committee have both recommended
reducing our capital gains tax burden to the U.S. levels or even
lower.
Will the finance minister heed the advice of his own colleagues
and reduce Canada's capital gains tax burden to U.S. levels or,
even better, why not scrap Canada's personal capital gains tax
altogether?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member will certainly note that in the last
budget the government for the first time in a long time reduced
the capital gains taxes.
I congratulate the industry committee, the finance committee
before it and the Senate committee for the great work that they
have done and are doing. The hon. member can rest assured that
we will take the recommendations and give them every due
consideration.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, even
after the recent budget and the movement by the minister toward
reducing Canada's capital gains tax burden, we still have a 13%
disadvantage with the U.S., a 13% disadvantage in the
hypercompetitive global economy.
We cannot afford to be a nanosecond behind. Why does the
minister not help all Canadians, in particular the high tech
sector, do the right thing and eliminate the unsound and unjust
capital gains tax burden that is holding our high tech sector and
all Canadians back?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member will note that whatever disadvantages
may exist within the tax system they were introduced by the
previous Tory government, but we have in every budget eliminated
and reduced those taxes.
The member can rest assured that we will continue to eradicate
the terrible, terrible mistakes that were inflicted upon the
country by the Tory government.
* * *
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
many Canadians are concerned with irregularities in recent
elections in Peru. Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Foreign Affairs tell the House what action is being
taken by Canada to bring greater levels of democracy to Peru?
[Translation]
Mr. Denis Paradis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the OAS countries meeting
in Windsor this week have unanimously agreed to send a high
level mission to Peru. This mission will be headed by our
Minister of Foreign Affairs and the secretary general of the
OAS.
The aim of this mission will be to find ways to improve
democracy in Peru, for example, through a reform of the election
process, a reform of the law and constitutional courts and
reinforcement of the freedom of the press.
* * *
1455
[English]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on the question of the member
for Elk Island because HRDC has just helped itself to the bank
account of a private citizen. I want a straight answer and not
the apology. We know about that.
By what act or authority can HRDC reach into someone's bank
account and help itself? That is the question. I do not want
the apology. I want the answer to that question.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will know that when
overpayments are established the government has the authority to
collect them. In this case, as I have said, an error was made in
going directly to the bank and not to the family. I reiterate my
apology to the family for that.
I want the hon. member to know that apologies, both verbal and
written, have been offered to the family and have been accepted.
I have directed the department to ensure that this does not
happen again.
* * *
[Translation]
PARENTAL LEAVE
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today, the Quebec government
introduced a bill that will allow Quebec parents, including
self-employed workers, to benefit from a generous parental leave
program accessible to all.
Will the minister pledge in this House to undertake negotiations
as quickly as possible with her Quebec counterpart, to allow the
quick implementation of that long awaited parental leave program
in Quebec?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
a few years ago, we tried to negotiate with the Quebec government
regarding this issue, but it was not interested.
Since then, the Minister of Finance has decided to include in
the budget parental leave benefits for all Canadians. These
benefits will apply across Canada, including in Quebec.
I believe this is how things should work in Canada. Canadians
who contribute to the employment insurance system must receive
the same benefits everywhere in the country.
* * *
[English]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the Canadian
Alliance for paying attention to New Democratic Party press
conferences. I also wish to thank the Minister of Human
Resources Development for personally apologizing to Mrs. Parry of
Ottawa when an HRDC official inadvertently dipped into her
account.
I have a question for the minister. Those types of headlines
scare seniors across the country. Can she assure members of the
House of Commons and Canadians from coast to coast to coast that
this was an isolated incident, that it is not a systematic
problem throughout her department, and that it will never happen
again?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, ensuring that we provide the best service
to Canadians, particularly those who are on fixed incomes, has to
be a priority, and it is for this government.
I want to recognize and thank the hon. member for his commentary
and say that for me the approach that was taken here is
unacceptable. To the best of my ability I will ensure it does
not happen again.
* * *
FINANCE
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance. When the minister was
in Newfoundland during the recent campaign, and I thank him for
his help, he promised to look into the present equalization and
clawback arrangements with the province. He said he would
discuss the present formulas with the other provinces.
What progress has the minister made in ensuring that provinces
such as Newfoundland can get on their feet by allowing them to
benefit economically from the development of their own resources?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member has asked me this question and I told
him that the matter was under discussion by officials.
It is under discussion by officials. Since he has asked me the
question I have not had an opportunity to meet with my
colleagues, the other ministers of finance, but as soon as I do
so I will be able to provide him with their reaction.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the minister still has not explained
to Canadians how HRDC has access to private bank accounts.
Is it because each citizen has to give his or her SIN number to
the department and it uses that to access bank accounts? How
does the department know and how is it able simply to reach into
a private citizen's bank account? I ask the minister to explain
that.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again, the hon. member will know that the
government has a responsibility to collect on overpayments.
Indeed over the course of the issue of grants and contributions
they have been demanding that.
In this particular case, however, an administrative error was
made. Certainly we should have gone to the family first. I have
said on a number of occasions already that we have talked to the
family and it has accepted the apology. I am working hard to
ensure that this does not happen again.
* * *
1500
[Translation]
FORT-SAINT-JEAN CAMPUS
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the lease of
the Fort-Saint-Jean campus, the old Collège militaire royal,
expires on August 31, 2000, just two months from now. There are
persistent rumours to the effect that officers will come back to
the site of the former military college.
In light of this extremely tight timetable, when will the
Minister of National Defence announce the signing of a new lease
and does he intend to also announce, before the end of the
current session, the return of officers to the former Collège
militaire royal de Saint-Jean?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are developing an officer development
program that could involve facilities in Saint-Jean. We have the
base in Saint-Jean, called the Megaplex, as well as the campus of
the former military college, which is still used for various
programs and could be used in an expanded way.
We have started discussions and negotiations with the operators
of a campus for Saint-Jean. We hope to come to an agreement
very shortly that will be satisfactory to both them and the
Canadian Forces.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Dennis Gruending (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment recently said that
our drinking water is in danger but he cannot do anything about
it because it is a provincial responsibility. We now learn, in
fact, that the Canada Water Act has been around for 30 years and
gives the government all the authority it needs when water
quality becomes a matter of urgent national concern.
If the quality of our drinking water is really a priority for
the government, then I ask the Prime Minister why the government
has not bothered to issue an annual report since 1996, as
required by the Canada Water Act.
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the
Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the issue of safe drinking
water is important to all Canadians. The ministers who met in
Quebec City yesterday, who are meeting again today, have
discussed the issue of water.
All of us express our sympathy to the people of Walkerton and
hope that the provincial governments will fulfil their
responsibility to Canadians to ensure that environmental
standards are enforced.
* * *
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to
the presence in the gallery of another of my brother Speakers in
Canada, the hon. Kevin O'Brien, Speaker of the Legislative
Assembly of Nunavut.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
1505
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a procedural matter.
I want to advise the House that discussions have taken place
between all the parties and the hon. member for Calgary Southeast
concerning the taking of the division on Motion No. M-160,
scheduled for the conclusion of Private Members' Business later
today, and I believe you would find consent for the following
motion:
That at the conclusion of today's debate on M-160, all questions
necessary to dispose of the said motion be deemed put, a recorded
division deemed requested and deferred until Wednesday, June 7,
2000, at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders.
(Motion agreed to)
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the amendment.
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, I am glad I was able to be in the House to listen to the
hon. member's earlier comments. She talked about cheap politics.
Cheap politics is the fact that there was more money spent in the
Prime Minister's riding through grants and contributions than was
spent in the province of Alberta, Saskatchewan or Manitoba. To
me, that is cheap politics. When they can build fountains in the
Prime Minister's riding and then reach into a senior citizen's
bank account to take money out of her account without her
authority, that is cheap politics.
At the time when health care and education budgets were being
cut, grants and contributions were going up. How can the hon.
member stand in the House and justify that kind of action by the
government?
Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I would
remind the hon. member that one of the roles of HRDC is to get
people off unemployment and back into the workforce, as well as
to ensure that opportunities are there for the disabled, the
handicapped and many other Canadians who look forward to a
positive future.
The unemployment rate was reduced from 11% to 7% as a result of
the work done through HRDC. I think that is very important.
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Canadian Alliance): Madam Speaker, I would like the hon.
member to respond to what we know. We can go to any school of
public administration at any university across the country and
read the literature. We know that this type of expenditure
probably hurts more than it helps the Canadian economy. Study
after study it shows that.
Why would the government continue in the face of the academic
literature? Is it because it knows there is a payoff
politically? Even though it is not efficacious to the economy,
it may be helpful in the voters' eyes, and it could misspend the
money and get away with it because in the short term it could buy
votes.
Ms. Judy Sgro: Madam Speaker, my opportunity to sit on
the HRDC committee and hear from the various agencies the great
things they did with the help of HRDC grants flies in the face of
the comments of the hon. member.
We all know that the intention of our government, the Government
of Canada, and Canadian taxpayers is for people to be helped in
society. Cutting taxes is not supposed to be the primary goal
for anybody; it is to provide good services to the people of the
country. That is exactly what we were doing with the HRDC
grants.
1510
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, one of the things the member stated in her speech was
that she thought we were just bringing up over and over again
needless and unfounded accusations against the government, or
something to that effect.
I would like to point out in the comments part of my statement
that this was first raised by no less than the Auditor General of
Canada. He raised serious questions about mismanagement in the
department. All we are doing is following up on what he started
and trying to get some accountability.
I would like the member to respond to a very simple question. Is
she really convinced that there is nothing wrong in HRDC, or will
she admit that there is and that it needs to be fixed?
Ms. Judy Sgro: Madam Speaker, I would point out as a
member of the committee that the committee held many, many
meetings and heard lots of witnesses. We recognize that the
recommendations in the report came from all of us; that we look
at finding a way to make the department slightly smaller,
modernizing the department and streamlining it. It is a very big
department and it deals with huge amounts of money. All the
recommendations in the report are there because we, the
government, also wanted to see some change and some opportunities
to stay on top of some of the issues. Those are the
recommendations that came out of the HRDC committee.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, I am very pleased today to have a chance to speak to
this important motion. To remind people of what the debate is
about today, the opposition motion put forth by the Canadian
Alliance reads in part:
That this House call for the establishment of an independent
commission of inquiry into the mismanagement of grants and
contributions in the Department of Human Resources Development—
Anyone who watched question period today would understand that
the motion should definitely be accepted by all members of the
House. What we saw today was the minister responsible for HRDC
avoiding direct questions from members of the opposition. Then,
after she could no longer avoid the questions, she avoided
answering the questions.
An extremely important and direct question was put by several
members. The question was: What is the authority that the
minister used to allow her to take money out of a private
citizen's bank account? It was a very direct and straightforward
question. The minister never provided an answer to the question.
The reason the minister did not provide an answer is because
there is not a good answer.
We must establish a private, independent commission of inquiry
to look into issues such as that.
There are three reasons we should establish a commission of
inquiry. The first is to serve the public interest to ensure
that what is best for the taxpaying public will be what happens
in the future. That would be the result of an inquiry which
would look at all that is wrong, so much that is wrong, with the
Department of Human Resources Development.
The second reason is to restore public confidence, not only in
parliament, but to restore public confidence in the Government of
Canada generally. What has happened in this department and what
has happened in other departments has led Canadians to become
even more cynical than before when it comes to trusting the way
the government spends their hard earned tax dollars.
The third reason is to provide the Canadian public with answers
for all of the unanswered questions that have come up as a result
of issues being raised by opposition parties into what has gone
on in that department.
These are the reasons for which we clearly must establish an
independent inquiry. It should be obvious. A government which
really wants to be responsible to the people of this country,
knowing the reality of what has gone on, should on its own
volition, on its own initiative, call for such an inquiry to
clear the air.
1515
When a government is under siege, like the Liberal government is
on this issue, what possible reason could there be for not
wanting to establish a public inquiry to clear the air? I would
argue that the only reason would be that it has even more that it
wants to hide.
This is an extremely serious issue. It is not going to go away.
It has added to the cynicism of the general Canadian public
toward government. They feel they cannot trust government, and I
understand why. For the sake of trying to help re-establish some
of that trust in government and in politicians generally, we need
this inquiry. That is not too much to ask. That is what the
Canadian public ask.
I will read some of the things that my constituents have said on
this issue, but I first want to say that I will be splitting my
time with the hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia.
I will quote a constituent from Vermilion who said:
I am, as many Canadians are, disgusted with the ongoing fiasco of
our current government. Minister Jane Stewart and Prime Minister
Chrétien insist there is no fire on their burning ship. No doubt
they have cast their life boats out for themselves, but have no
problem sending their bureaucrats off the plank to lighten the
load.
I want say that it is wrong to blame the people working in the
civil service for what has happened here. The fault lies with
the government. The minister of that department and the
government are responsible for how the departments are run. This
constituent has expressed concern that the government is not
respecting that responsibility.
My constituents are also pointing out that they are concerned
that this minister and this government have tried to blame civil
servants on several occasions for the problems in that
department. That is just not right.
My constituent goes on to say:
Only a swift independent look at each “donation” that HRDC
distributed and the roles played by the HMS Squander crew will
put closure and accountability to this fiasco. It is sad though
that we have to spend more taxpayer money to prove
accountability. I paid a lot of taxes this year and my family
looks to each pay cheque to keep afloat and to build a future.
It's time the government admitted fault, fixed the problem and
helped to start building Canadian's future rather than sinking
its own ship and letting the taxpayer clean up the mess.
This is from one of my constituents who is responsible for
supporting a family and who is fed up with the wasted spending
and the lack of accountability.
My constituents are saying that they are accountable for their
families and that it is very difficult to just stay afloat due to
high tax levels. Wasted spending is a real concern to these
individuals.
Another constituent from Lac La Biche sent me a copy of an
e-mail he had sent to the Prime Minister. The e-mail reads:
Sir: You have to get rid of this albatross running the Human
Resources Department of your government...One (or is it three?)
billion dollars, is a staggering amount of money. She is
obviously not up to the task of ensuring the taxpayers money is
treated with the care and respect it deserves. Public
officials...must remember, tax money doesn't grown on trees.
Elected people have a very important responsibility, no, a trust
to guard against wasteful squandering of what should be
considered a precious resource. I know there seems to be a
shortage of common sense these days, but do we have to keep
reminding you to maintain some restraint and accountability in
your fiscal dealings?
This was sent to the Prime Minister from someone who is
absolutely tired of the way tax money is being squandered.
Another one of my constituents from Ryley, Alberta says:
There appears to be between one to three billion dollars that was
doled out to grant recipients without proper administration or
following accepted accounting practices...The general public
needs to have faith that the government agencies spend our tax
dollars wisely and prudently. This controversy will only lower
our perception of the federal government's ability.
1520
This constituent is saying that proper accountability is
critical to maintaining some sense of confidence in government,
and that this problem is shattering what confidence is left.
A constituent from Vermilion wrote to me saying:
Dear Leon, I am very concerned about the billions of dollars that
has gone missing while under Jane Stewart's keep. I just don't
understand this system that seems to think—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I must interrupt the
hon. member. The hon. member knows very well that we do not
refer to members of parliament by their names. Even if you are
citing a letter, you must editorialize.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: Madam Speaker, it just slipped my
mind. Of course, I was talking about the Minister of Human
Resources Development. I was reading from a letter I received
from a constituent.
The constituent goes on to say:
I just don't understand this system that seems to think that it
is okay to have a billion dollars that just goes missing...I am a
mature woman who has been trying to get a degree...and I have had
to borrow money under the guise of earning a university degree to
have some income so that I can raise my 4 children. Maybe (the
Minister of Human Resources Development) should try living on
less than $12,000 a year. She would soon learn how to keep track
of every penny.
This is a letter from a mother of four who is trying to raise
her children on $12,000 a year while watching the Minister of
Human Resources Development and the government squander money.
How do we expect people across the country to feel when their
hard-earned tax dollars are being spent in such an irresponsible
way?
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
listening always attentively to the comments and speeches
opposite, I could not help but notice that as the member read the
letter, the writer of the letter has come to believe that somehow
a billion dollars has gone missing.
I was curious about whether or not the member himself believes
that a billion dollars has gone missing, because I do not think
that is factual. It may actually be the case of the adage, that
if something that is not factual is repeated often enough,
perhaps with the use of that rhetoric, people may be convinced
that what is not factual may be the truth. It is regrettable
when that type of rhetoric and exaggeration goes on but I suppose
that is part of the political rhetoric of this place.
My question is for the member who just spoke and who just read
that statement into the record as though it were factual. Maybe
the hon. member is not prepared to answer the question, but does
he believe that a billion dollars has gone missing or does he
just want people to believe it because he says it might be so?
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: Madam Speaker, I was of course
reading from correspondence sent by my constituents. Some of
them did point out that they felt there had been no proper
accounting for the money.
Roughly $13 billion a year are given out in grants and
contributions. Has a billion dollars gone missing? I cannot
answer that because there has not been proper accounting. So
many things have been done improperly that in fact we do not know
what has really happened with the money.
Asking me to account for what certainly the member himself
cannot account for, because there has been improper safekeeping
of taxpayer money, is an odd thing to ask. I think the member
ought to ask the Minister of Human Resources Development, the
minister responsible for this department, and the ministers
responsible for the other departments that make up this $13
billion in spending. Hopefully, they will eventually arrive at
the truth.
This independent public inquiry, a commission, would certainly
go a long way to at least answering the questions with regard to
the human resources department. Those are the answers we are
looking for and those are the types of questions to which
Canadians want answers.
1525
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and
Addington, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is probably too much to
ask my hon. colleague, but I do wish that members on all sides of
the House would take the time to respond to their
constituents and to put some of the facts out: the fact that
there is not a billion dollar boondoggle; and, the fact that
there is not $1 billion missing. However, they take all their
facts from their national tabloid which is under some other name
on the news stand.
That same party and those same members talk about political
interference. My question is, how can my colleagues stand in
their places and say that there is political interference when
more than 50% of the funds from grants and contributions went to
opposition ridings?
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: Madam Speaker, I think the hon.
member knows that the money was spent leading up to elections in
constituencies where the Liberal Party felt it had a legitimate
chance to win. Many of them it did not win, and as a result
these ridings are represented by opposition members.
However, I would suggest that it is improper to use taxpayer
money to fund that type of election campaigning before an
election is officially called. Part of the problem is that too
much of this money has been allocated for political reasons
rather than for the purpose of benefiting the whole country.
I hear the members opposite getting really excited. They should
be because this issue and their complete disregard for proper
accountability could lead them to lose the next election. I hope
it does.
They can help their own cause by supporting the motion for a
public inquiry to look into the issue with regard to HRDC. Let
us get some of the answers to the questions and then we will all
know what is going on.
Right now it is factual that billions of dollars have been spent
in a way for which there has been no proper accounting. I and
the general public want those answers.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I would again just like to briefly read the motion
before the House that we are presently debating. It reads:
That this House call for the establishment of an independent
commission of inquiry into the mismanagement of grants and
contributions in the Department of Human Resources Development,
and into any attempts to control the disclosure of this
mismanagement to the public.
Madam Speaker, you may recall an unfortunate incident that I was
a part of in the House, where I ended up using an unparliamentary
word to describe the assertions of the minister. I commit that I
will not use that unparliamentary word again. It does not change
the fact that indeed the minister's statements were factually
inaccurate and incorrect. It is what has driven me to request
the time to be able to speak to the House about this issue.
Before I get into the specific situation with respect to my own
constituency, I would like to say that in taking a look at this
entire issue, it has been quite revealing. If we were to take a
look back in time, we would discover that the starting point of
this entire debacle, at least the debacle of the minister
constantly doing cover-ups and constantly attempting to deflect
responsibility for her culpability in this issue, all started
when the Canadian Alliance asked for an access to information to
her department with respect to an inquiry on an audit that had
been conducted in her department.
Then, by some strange magic, the people of Canada were asked to
believe that the day following our request for that audit
information, the minister suddenly discovered that it was just
about time that she revealed that information to Canadians.
Some of us found it rather un-credible that she would attempt to
have Canadians believe that when we became aware of the audit and
we asked for the audit, that the very next day, by some strange
magical coincidence, that she was going to reveal the audit.
Right from the very beginning, right from that point forward, we
have had the minister doing a constant deflection of
responsibility.
I heard a Conservative member of the Chamber earlier today
quoting the Prime Minister, who, at the time when he was the
opposition leader in 1991, said that every one of his ministers
would be accountable to the House, accountable to him and
ultimately accountable to the people of Canada.
1530
The Prime Minister's words that he gave Canadians in 1991 ring
absolutely hollow. They are an absolute mockery of even the
intent of the words he uttered in 1991. It is absolutely
shameful that the Prime Minister would allow his government to
have reached a point where the HRDC minister is constantly trying
to deflect responsibility.
The whole parliamentary system of Canada is based upon the
parliamentary system of Westminster. It is based upon
accountability and responsibility of the ministers of the
government and the minister is constantly trying to deflect
responsibility.
Even today, as she was questioned about the fact that clearly
there was an interim audit, going back to June the officials in
her department at the time that she took over the department were
fully aware of the implications of this audit, the implications
that her department had fundamentally lost control of $1 billion
in spending. She would have us believe in spite of the fact that
when she was advised of all the so-called hot issues in August
1999, when her officials had in hand an interim audit, that those
officials chose to keep her in the dark.
She can play with words until she is blue in the face. She can
stand up and perhaps factually tell us that she was not
officially informed until November 17. But those words do not
mean anything because it is not feasible, it is not possible, it
is not credible that her officials would have kept her in the
dark from August through September into October and until
November when she was finally told. As has been pointed out by my
colleagues in questions in the House, during that period of time
she had a chequebook out of which she wrote almost half a billion
dollars of Canadians' money to various projects.
Any responsible, reasonable Canadian looking at the way in which
the minister is constantly trying to duck, weave, dodge and get
around the facts as they are presented would see that it is not
credible. The minister is not accepting her responsibility and
not accepting her authority over her department.
The reason I became as upset and exercised about this issue as I
did, and the reason I went to the extent of having the Speaker
remove me from the House for using unparliamentary language, was
that when the minister stood up in the Chamber, she did so as
part of her process of deflection, as part of her way of getting
around the responsibility that is only hers to have.
She said that I personally had been constantly in touch with her
office in a way that would promote these grants and funding to my
constituents. In fact, I have a very competent staff who advised
me and made me fully aware that indeed members of parliament
should not be doing that, because if members of parliament do
that, they give up the arm's length basis of being able to hold
the government accountable for the funds that it is in the
process of disbursing.
What basically happened was that we were approached by a
business in my community which had put in for a grant. I believe
it was in the neighbourhood of half a million dollars. It was
for retooling an operation. When it got to a particular point in
the process, no matter what those people did, they could not get
any information back from the department.
Doing the job that any good MP should do, my office contacted
HRDC on my behalf, and I take full responsibility for that, and
said that this business was having this difficulty and would they
please converse with these people and inform them of exactly what
is going on. A second time it was the same thing.
It lurched a little forward from that point. Again that business
came to us saying it could not get any information out of the
department and would we give it a hand. In this instance we just
left a message on the voice mail saying, “Would you please
contact these people and let them know what is going on. Are the
forms filled out correctly and we understand that they have been
approved. What is happening?”
1535
The president of the treasury board came to my constituency. I
recall saying to her when she was in Cranbrook, “Madam Minister,
the frustration for this company is that we keep on hearing that
indeed leases have been approved. There are other capital
expenditures that will be happening. I am not advocating that
they be approved or not, but we are told that they are approved.
Please simply inform this company what in the world is going
on”.
That is the position I took. That is the reason when the
minister said I had been advocating, pushing, shoving or doing
whatever it was that she said I was doing, I was so incensed
because I had stayed within what I considered to be a very
important boundary. Indeed the auditor general substantiates the
position that I and my office have taken. I quote from an
article:
Mr. Desautels said he feels MPs should not be involved in
approving job creation grants to companies and groups in their
own ridings, as they currently do under the transitional jobs
fund and Canada jobs fund programs, because their participation
blurs the lines of public accountability.
“If members of parliament are involved in the decision making
process for [job creation grants], that blurs the line and makes
it hard for them to play their oversight role of government”.
As the official opposition, we are holding the minister
accountable. We are trying to get the facts from the minister,
not the facts as constructed in the precise wording she is giving
the House, but the facts as to her responsibility and the fact
that she is not taking responsibility. That is clearly why every
member of the House must vote in favour of our motion this
evening, that the House call for the establishment of an
independent commission of inquiry.
Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
have a simple question for the hon. member. If members on the
government side make an inquiry on behalf of a constituent in
exactly the same manner that the hon. member suggested, because
those members throw around language about approvals and so on
quite freely, the fact is that no member on this side approves
these programs. We are asked our opinion or we make inquiries
just like the hon. member suggests that he made.
However I can make such an inquiry and the member should be
aware of that. Were that particular organization successful in
whatever application it may be, and God forbid, were that
organization to make a donation to my campaign, completely
unrelated to this, as happens all the time, that would be a
subject of considerable angst for hon. members opposite. I have
heard it in the House all the time. It is unfair to the companies
and so on. If the hon. member made an inquiry on behalf of a
company in his constituency and it happened that the company made
a donation to his campaign, would there be anything wrong with
that?
Mr. Jim Abbott: Madam Speaker, it is very clear that I
was making an inquiry as to process. I was inquiring as to where
it was in the process. I requested that they report back to my
constituent because my constituency did not understand and could
not get the information. That is the job of a member of
parliament.
What the member is talking about by contrast is a totally
different issue. He is making an inquiry as an advocate for that
business. That is the difference. The surprising coincidence of
the level of contributions that occurred after those grants and
funds were given by the government to the firm in the
constituency of one of the members who happens to be in the House
today is what raises eyebrows.
1540
It is a very simple difference. I do not understand why the
member and the minister do not understand. There is a total
difference between inquiring as to process and inquiring as an
advocate for the company.
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague said that every member must vote
for this motion. I note that the Liberal member for
Broadview—Greenwood is concerned that the power of the Prime
Minister's office has turned members into voting machines. In
the ridings they are nothing but patronage machines. The member
for Waterloo—Wellington said that MPs should roll up their
sleeves and go to work and do whatever they can to effect change.
I would like my colleague to comment on what he thinks the
chances are of those people living up to those kinds of
commitments. Is it just all talk, talk, talk?
Mr. Jim Abbott: Madam Speaker, the whole issue of
discipline on the part of the government is fairly chafing for
many of the members on the back bench. The vote tonight will be
yet another indication of just how much restraint and chafing
there is. This is a worthy motion that clearly should have the
approval of the House considering the gross mismanagement and the
dodging and weaving the minister has done over this issue.
The minister must be held accountable. If the Prime Minister
will not hold the minister accountable, then maybe the House
could. However, as my colleague has pointed out, the Prime
Minister has such restraints on the Liberal members in the House
that realistically, I do not see any way that the motion will go
forward.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the
member for Fredericton.
I feel compelled to speak to this very misguided motion. It
talks about attempts to control the disclosure of the
mismanagement to the public. I want to make clear to the House
and certainly to the Canadian people that my approach in this
whole affair has been to be fully transparent and open and to
disclose to the Canadian public the issues that are within and
about my department.
I would like to remind the House that it was on November 17 when
I was briefed on the results of an internal audit which looked at
all the programs and our grants and contributions and found that
there was significant improvement needed in the management of our
grants and contributions. I received the initial results; I
received the results of the internal audit and the initial
management response.
Upon receiving that, I identified that I took this very
seriously. I told the department that I wanted a stronger
management response and I also indicated to them that we would be
making the results of this internal audit public.
For me it is extraordinarily important that the government
respect the people of Canada and that we let them know when we
have problems. Certainly we let them know when times are good
but we also let them know when we have problems. At the same
time we would indicate to the Canadian public how we would fix
the problem and when we would do that.
In January the work of the department was completed. The
management response was fully reviewed and that is when we
presented it. We made it public. The government made it public.
This is very difficult for members of the Canadian Alliance to
appreciate and to accept. From their point of view government
should be managed behind closed doors. They think we should
sweep things under the carpet. Clearly that is what they have
been indicating over the course of questioning in these last
months. From our point of view, that is not the appropriate way.
That is why for me it was terribly important to make this
information public.
That is not all we have done to disclose the information
associated with this. To me, one of the best places to be
questioned by parliamentarians, those who are here elected on
behalf of Canadians, is at the standing committee.
1545
Since Christmas I have been to the Standing Committee on Human
Resources Development three times. Once was to talk about issues
of disabilities and our support for Canadians who are disabled. I
recognize my colleague who will speak after me for the work he
has done in that regard. The work of the government builds on
his study and his recommendations.
I went two other times to talk specifically and only about
grants and contributions. Members from all parties, including
members from the government side, had the freedom to ask me
anything they wanted about grants and contributions. I gave them
two complete opportunities to do that. To my way of thinking,
that is about being transparent, about being open and about
disclosing information.
If we look at some of the things that the standing committee
members asked for, we see another example of how open and
forthcoming we have been on this side with regard to this issue.
Members talked about grants and contributions specifically.
Certain members, not on this side but on that side of the House,
talked about grants and contributions being found only in Liberal
ridings. That is so false that nothing could be further from the
truth.
The committee asked to see where the grants and contributions
had been made. Out of respect for the committee, out of respect
for Canadians and out of respect for disclosure, transparency and
openness, my department prepared over 10,000 pages of information
that itemized line by line by line where the grants and
contributions were made. We invest those moneys in support of
Canadians with disabilities, Canadians who are learning to read
and want to improve their literacy skills, and young Canadians
who have not been able to find employment and want to find their
way so they can contribute to this great country. If hon.
members took the time to look at that paper they would see that
grants and contributions are found not only in Liberal ridings
but in ridings held by members of every political stripe.
Members of the opposition, those who present the motion today,
continue to talk in the House about grants and contributions as
something to be found only in Liberal ridings. The 10,000 pages
of information we provided prove categorically that they are
wrong. Have they stood and apologized? Have they disclosed their
true motive, which was not to improve the system of grants and
contributions but to undermine it? No, they have not. Instead
they present misguided motions like the one we have in the House
today.
Let us look at other ways that I have insisted on being open to
the Canadian public. We worked with the auditor general on our
six point plan. He gave advice on its efficacy and will make a
report to the House in the fall on our grants and contributions.
I note that there will be a review by an independent third party,
an officer of the House. We already have that piece of the
motion covered. In that six point plan we agreed that we would
present to the Canadian people on a quarterly basis the results
of our work.
I was fortunate enough to make a presentation on the first
quarterly report to the standing committee. What was in that
report? It was an explanation of the work of the department over
the last few months focused totally on improving the
administration of grants and contributions. It included a
fulsome review of 17,000 active files across the country. What
did that review find? It found that we had to improve our
paperwork in those files. That is being done because they are
active files.
It did not find, as that party opposite continues to indicate,
that money was missing. It confirmed what we had said from the
very beginning. This is not about money being lost. We know
where the money is. It is in those grants and contributions
itemized in the 10,000 pages we presented to the House of
Commons. It is out in communities working to ensure that
Canadians have the opportunity to participate in our increasingly
fast and effective economy.
In my report to the standing committee I made it clear that we
had reviewed these files and that we were on a go-forward basis
in implementing our six point plan to ensure that the
administration is strong.
What I clearly indicated again, because I have done it so many
times before, was that $1 billion were not missing. In fact out
of 17,000 active files we identified $6,500 that have not been
paid and that we will continue to try to obtain.
1550
It seems very strange to me that the members of that party
opposite asked questions in the House month after month. Let us
not forget that. My heavens, I am in the House virtually every
day answering their questions, talking about the information that
they want. Yet, no matter how often they question, the facts
remain the facts. It was this side of the House that undertook
the internal audit. It was this side of the House that made it
public, disclosed the results of that audit to the Canadian
public. It was this side of the House that implemented an action
plan to ameliorate the difficulties in the department because on
this side of the House we believe absolutely that the grants and
contributions in which we invest are vital to the people of
Canada.
What becomes clear in the questions from the opposite side is
that this is not about improving the system. It is about getting
rid of all grants and contributions. Members on that side of the
House are not interested. Nor do they believe that the
Government of Canada has a role to play in helping Canadians. If
there is anything I want to make clear in this speech today, it
is that they are wrong to suggest we are not forthcoming in
disclosing the information Canadians want to have. They are
wrong to suggest that grants and contributions are a waste of
money, because they touch the lives of individuals.
I will stand here and defend against the simple minded,
mob-like, nasty mentality of the members of that party opposite
who are doing nothing but trying to undermine the institutions of
Canada and undervalue the Canadian values of generosity, sharing,
tolerance and diversity.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Madam Speaker, first I would like to ask for
unanimous consent of the House to extend the time for the
minister to answer questions on this important issue.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there agreement in
the House to extend the time?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Madam Speaker, it somehow does not
surprise me that the Liberals want to limit the minister's
exposure here. The minister has just talked at some length about
the fact that she has made all this disclosure. Just in the
short time I had, and I could not make a comprehensive list,
there are five things the minister has not disclosed. I might
think of more as I am speaking.
The 10,000 pages simply said that x number of dollars went
to x company in x riding. It does not disclose what
the dollars were intended to fund. It does not disclose whether
the intended results for the expenditure of that money were
obtained.
The minister hid the Deloitte & Touche criticism of her six
point plan. Scores of access requests have been unlawfully
delayed by her department, a department by the way that has over
20,000 employees but somehow cannot find the bodies to deliver
the documents that are requested by law within 30 days to the
opposition and other members of the public. In fact, the
information commissioner told the committee that delay was
actually deliberate.
There was no disclosure of the audit itself until the opposition
put in an access request for it. There was no disclosure of the
progress report of the six point plan to the committee until
after the committee proceedings started. Then the minister said
we had lots of time to ask her questions. We had not laid eyes
on the report, but we were supposed to ask her searching
questions about it. She had time to give it to the media.
She has not disclosed the investigation into the Conili grant
that she said cleared the member for Ahuntsic and the department
of any wrongdoing in this grant that did not create jobs, but she
will not give us that report. She censored six pages of an
Arthur Andersen audit of a grant that criticized her department.
The minister has a whole history of non-disclosure of important
information, and these are only samples of what I am able to
bring out in a short period of time. How can the minister have
the nerve to stand in the House and pretend to Canadians that she
is being honest and open when her record indicates otherwise?
1555
Hon. Jane Stewart: Oh my goodness, Madam Speaker, where
do I want to start? Let us go back to the myth that it was the
Reform Party which forced our hand through access to information.
Categorically that is wrong. I say again: I made this internal
audit public.
The member talks about the 10,000 pages and about the
itemization of grants and contributions. I wonder if the hon.
member has taken the time to go to her local office and ask them
about those individual projects, or maybe even to visit them and
see the impact and the difference they make in the lives of
Canadians. Somehow I doubt it when I read her comments in the
press. She just ignores that as if this money is not about
people at all. That is one of the most insulting things about
the approach from that side.
They are basically telling Canadians who have been the
beneficiaries of these grants and contributions that they are a
waste. There is nothing that could be further from the truth. On
this side of the House we believe in ensuring that every Canadian
counts and that every Canadian has the opportunity to participate
in this great country through grants and contributions.
Let me look at some of the other things the member talked about.
She talked about access to information. Let me quote from the
special report to parliament of the Information Commissioner of
Canada tabled last month. Here is what he said about the
Department of Human Resources Development Canada:
During the review period every access request received by HRDC
was answered within 30 days—no extensions were claimed. This
show of respect for the rights of Canadians to timely responses
represents an outstanding feat of good leadership, good
management and hard work. Kudos to HRDC are well deserved and
unreservedly given by this Commissioner.
Let me point out that we have been inundated by access requests,
given the grants and contributions question. We remain firmly
committed and are working with the information commissioner to
ensure that those requests are met because, as I pointed out, we
are in this to ensure that we are disclosing information and that
we are being transparent and open with the Canadian people.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
again seek the unanimous consent of the House to ask the Minister
of Human Resources Development, who is responsible for this
department, which has been in a state of crisis for several
months now, to deign to give us five more minutes so that we can
perform our duty as representatives of the public in this
parliament.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there agreement to
extend the period provided for questions of the minister?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to join in this debate as it gives me an opportunity to
add my support to those who recognize that there is absolutely
nothing to be gained from an independent, politically motivated
commission of inquiry as proposed by the official opposition.
We have been over this ground before. The opposition is a one
trick pony on this file. We tell opposition members about the
benefits that individual Canadians derive from HRDC programs, and
they call for an inquiry. We tell them about how important HRDC
programs are to strengthening the social fabric of the nation,
something of which I am sure they know little, and they call for
an inquiry. We read to them the letters and comments from
Canadians from every part of Canada who support the government's
approach to human resources development, and they call for an
inquiry. Now we give them an opposition day to discuss the
nation's business, and they call for an inquiry. That is the
only line that party has.
The rest of us have moved on. Those of us on the government
side have gone past inquiring. We are working on this issue. We
have already agreed that problems were identified with the
administration of HRDC grants and contributions. We have
accepted that. We have already agreed that corrective action
needed to be taken to address the problem. We are moving forward
with the kinds of action that are needed to do just that. In
fact, the government is taking this issue extremely seriously, as
can be seen in the six point plan announced by the Minister of
Human Resources Development in the House.
1600
Let me quickly remind the House what the minister committed to
do. The minister committed to ensure that the payments meet
financial and program requirements; to check and correct the
program files; to equip and support the staff, who are working
tirelessly I might add; to ensure accountability; to get the best
advice available; and to report on progress.
This is a comprehensive, responsible plan. It is a plan of
action that has been endorsed by the auditor general, who is only
quoted from the other side with criticism, but remember the quote
“This action plan is a very thorough plan for corrective
action”. “A very thorough plan for corrective action” is what
the auditor general said. That should be good enough to move
forward.
The real question should be: What is being done to carry out
this plan? We do not need an inquiry to answer that. We need
to look at what is being done to address the deficiencies that
have been identified.
Canadians want to know that they can continue to depend on these
programs and they want their accounts to be properly
administered. That is why the appearance of the minister before
the standing committee was so important.
The minister used the occasion to bring committee members up to
date on the progress being made in the implementation of that
well received plan. During her appearance she tabled a report.
It provided a wealth of important information for those who are
genuinely concerned about this issue.
For example, the report confirms that all documentation for HRDC
active grants and contributions is now in order. The minister
pointed out that close to 17,000 active files were reviewed in
addition to those audited. The total contract value was just
over $1.5 billion. Of that $1.5 billion, a total of $6,500 was
owed to the Government of Canada. That is $6,500 out of $1.5
billion researched.
The work to clean up and review these files has been
extraordinary. Many public servants have been working night and
day, turning in a lot of extra effort for which they deserve our
thanks. They have been going through file after file. I would
point out that is because those dedicated public servants believe
in programs around literacy and disability and young Canadians
getting into the workforce.
Much of the information in the past was not adequate. The
government learned from that. We know that proper paperwork is
central to the accountability of public funds. We have moved
decisively to deal with these deficiencies in manners that are
earning the praise of the auditor general. That is not all. The
department is also making progress on other elements of the plan.
For example, it is better equipping and supporting the staff who
administer the programs. The minister has already called for
more training of the staff at HRDC, and since January more than
3,000 program and finance employees have received training. A
training strategy has been developed to ensure that all
appropriate staff receive mandatory training on the delivery of
grants and contributions.
The department has also improved its organizational
accountability by restructuring so that it can better accommodate
the challenge of balancing national standards with regional
program delivery.
The Human Resources Investment Branch has been split in two.
One branch is responsible for nationally delivered programs, and
the second branch is responsible for those that are delivered
regionally.
Departmental officials continue to draw on expert advice from the
auditor general, as well as others, as required.
On every one of these aspects of the plan significant progress
is being made.
The department is also being open and transparent in reporting
on its work. The minister has stood in the House and answered
questions for months. She has appeared before the standing
committee. She has tabled a full report on the progress to date.
In addition, she has undertaken to respond to all legitimate
requests for information from members of parliament, so much so
that when the information commissioner appeared before the
Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights he gave her an A+.
The privacy commissioner, to some extent on the other side,
also told her that she was doing an extraordinarily good job on
that side of the equation. It is not an easy balance to find.
1605
There were 10,000 pages of project information tabled before the
standing committee.
The government believes that the best interests of all Canadians
are served when we strike an appropriate balance between clear
accountability to taxpayers and getting results for Canadians.
Indeed, this will always be a fundamental challenge of good
governance. Obviously there have been weaknesses in the
department, but they have been identified. We have established a
plan to correct them and we are working to implement that plan.
As far as I am concerned, the process is working. I fail to see
how a politically motivated inquiry such as that proposed by the
opposition could add anything useful to this process at this
stage and I will not be supporting it.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Madam Speaker, from what my colleague says, a
person would think Human Resources Development Canada was a model
department.
Among the 10,000 sheets of paper we are supposed to have been
sent, we asked for an invoice from Placeteco justifying the
spending of $1.2 million. The minister herself came to the
committee to tell us everything is fine in the active files. But
she said nothing about the inactive ones where it is not. We have
asked repeatedly for records on Conili Star and Placeteco.
I will tell you why the Liberal majority does not want to change
the rules of the game. In the next election, they will be able
to take advantage of the same system they did the last time. That
is the only reason they are refusing to hold an independent
public inquiry.
They know full well that some of the funds were used for
partisan purposes, particularly in the time of the predecessor of
the present minister, who is now Minister for International
Trade. He systematically put the funding program at the service
of the Liberal Party of Canada.
Does the main responsibility for the poor image of the job
creation projects not lie with the present Minister of Human
Resources Development, who is herself in the process of taking
away all credibility from programs which could be credible
undertakings? Her behaviour is stripping them of all
credibility.
I wish to ask the hon. member, who sat on the standing HRD
committee, what he thinks of the attitude of a minister who, two
hours after the release of a report, calls a scrum just to
announce “I haven't read the report. I am not familiar with the
recommendation for dismantling”.
The minister is here, and the hon. member is here. Might we
have his opinion on the dismantling of the department? He signed
the report. What are his thoughts on the minister's response?
[English]
Hon. Andy Scott: Madam Speaker, I welcome the reference
to my high regard for the minister because, ultimately, as a
partisan, he may not recognize my being less than biased.
I am sure the comments of the information commissioner or the
privacy commissioner, and the comments that have been made by
those people who are in the business of keeping an eye on the
government, and the fact that the minister scores so high on both
fronts, is worthy of comment and I appreciate the opportunity to
repeat it.
I have great regard for the member who asked the question. One
of the reasons I have that regard is because I know he is
effective in his riding in getting things for his constituency.
Are the programs that are represented by this department not so
important as to be tainted, perhaps not by this member but by
others, by what is obviously a politically motivated assault on
the kinds of programs that members across the way simply do not
believe in? It is that simple.
I know that is not the case with the member across the way. I
believe he supports these programs. We sat on the committee
together for a long time. We have made great progress,
particularly since this minister became the minister responsible
for this department, and the member knows that. The report that
was written by the committee was an important report. The member
has been talking about the kinds of things which are in that
report for many years.
It is important to recognize when progress is made, and progress
has been made. I would ask the member if he does not fear that
by being party to this politically motivated assault may have the
effect of jeopardizing programs which I know have been very
generous to him. I would want him to think about that.
1610
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Madam Speaker,
it is unfortunate that not all opposition parties could put a
question to the minister, but I will put a question to the hon.
member who just spoke.
One of the real issues that needs to be addressed is to ensure
that there is a code of conduct within all departments for the
disbursement of grants and contributions to provide an assurance
to Canadians that there is not partisan decision making.
Would the hon. member support something like that, to ensure
that there is fairness, transparency and consistency of practice
in the decision making process for grants and contributions?
Hon. Andy Scott: Madam Speaker, absolutely I would
support it because it exists now. The problem with members
opposite is that when I call it is political interference, but
when members opposite call they are making an inquiry.
It is not fair. We are elected by the people of Canada to
represent the interests of our constituents, the same as members
opposite, and we have every bit as much right to make those calls
of inquiry that have been supported on the other side.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Calgary
West.
It is a pleasure to rise to address this issue, calling for an
independent inquiry into human resources development. It would
be an understatement to say that the minister's handling of HRD
has been a disaster. That does not come close to describing it.
After having heard the member for Fredericton speak, I am not
surprised it has been the disaster it has been. I just heard him
compliment a member from the Bloc, saying—and this would be a
high Liberal compliment I guess—that he is very effective at
getting things for his riding. Government is Santa Claus to the
Liberals. It is this endless pit of money.
Is it any wonder that they have made this great contribution to
driving our debt to its present height of $577 billion. It is
not surprising at all.
I want to talk about what actually happened. The whole modus
operandi of the member who just spoke, the minister and the
Liberal government has been to cover up this issue, and then when
they get exposed they downplay it.
Let me run through what has happened. We heard the minister in
the House today trying to justify how it was that months after
her own officials knew about the disaster at HRD she was merrily
writing cheques to the tune of half a billion dollars on a
program that was so fundamentally broken that the internal audit
had shown that about a billion dollars had been issued without
proper accounting, in some cases without records indicating what
the money was to be used for and without grant applications. It
was a nightmare.
Between the time when this was first exposed by the interim
audit and officials in the government knew about it, and three
months later when the minister acknowledged that she knew about
it, and even after she knew about it, she continued to write
cheques, even though there were no controls in place. The money
poured out.
As we mentioned today in question period, the most money poured
out in the month of November, the month that she allegedly knew
about this for the first time. There was $165 million which
poured out in that month and there were no proper controls. It
is unbelievable.
When we raised these things, of course the government said that
it had been transparent. I want to hit that on the head right
now. The truth is that the government had no intention of
releasing anything until such time as the official opposition,
the Canadian Alliance, at that time the Reform Party, submitted
an access to information request on January 17. Lo and behold,
on January 19 the government called a hasty news conference to
say there were problems in human resources development. It said
that there had been an audit and there were problems.
That is exactly what we asked for in our access request, a copy
of any internal audits. Amazingly, this turned up two days
later. The government was trying to do damage control.
1615
The minister said she had been transparent all along. Why was
it that she got the full briefing on November 17 but nothing was
released until January 19 if she wanted to be completely
transparent? Why did it take those two intervening months? I do
not understand that if she was completely transparent. We have
documents that show that the spin doctors in the minister's
department were saying that nothing should be released until such
time as someone thought to ask for the information through an
access to information request.
When she says that she is fully transparent, that is only true
in one sense. The sense is that we can see right through her
when she says that.
The truth is the minister was not transparent. She is still not
transparent. The member for Calgary—Nose Hill, the official
opposition critic for human resources development, did an
outstanding job of providing case after case after case to show
that the minister is anything but transparent.
We are seeking all kinds of information that is completely
relevant to this $1 billion mismanagement, this boondoggle, that
the Liberals will not release. It was a misrepresentation both by
the member for Fredericton and the minister when they said that
all the access to information requests were being processed. Then
they got up and read something from the privacy commissioner
saying that everything has been done on time. That was before
the audit was released.
Ever since then all of our access to information requests get
submitted and it takes longer and longer to get information back.
I am sure that the strategy is to put it off at least until the
summer, to try to get to the summer so the Liberals can get this
issue off the front burner and on to the back burner.
It is disingenuous, insincere talk that we get from the
government about how transparent it is. The opposite is the
case.
There are 20 police investigations. I heard the minister say
that this was about $6,500. If that is not the most ridiculous
laughable statement that I have heard in this place today, I do
not know what is. The truth is that there are now 20 police
investigations probing what has gone on in HRD. That tells us a
little bit about how serious this situation is.
There are four investigations in the Prime Minister's riding
alone. There are all kinds of accusations about money being used
improperly and there are many questions about the Prime
Minister's office skipping normal procedures to ensure that money
went to people he favoured. It is unbelievable. The Liberals
have somehow brushed this off: it is only $1 billion with which
all this mismanagement is occurring so why be concerned?
Then the Liberals move into downplay mode. Now that the
cover-up has been exposed, they want to downplay it. They say it
is ancient history, that was before and they are looking to the
future. In truth, if the government is to be the least bit
responsible, people have to be held accountable for this type of
incompetence on one hand and blatant political pork-barrelling on
the other hand. If there is to be any sense of justice in this
place, then people who have made major mistakes have an
obligation to own up to them and to be punished for them.
In the private sector people do not escape these things. I
would argue that in situations like this people would go to jail.
And here we have that kind of unbelievable negligence with the
public's tax dollars to the tune of $1 billion. It is
unbelievable.
The time has long passed for the government to accept that there
were major, major problems in this department, but it continues
to stonewall. The Liberals want to look forward. The most
interesting example of that was when the Prime Minister was in
Germany the other day. He said that he wanted the upcoming
election to be about ideologies. It was obvious by what was not
said, that he did not want to talk about the record.
If the Liberals talk about the record, they will have to talk
about probably one of the worst scandals in terms of government
misspending that we have ever seen under their watch.
There are 20 police investigations and $1 billion has been poured
out the door plus another $500 million in the months since August
and in some cases there is absolutely no accounting for it. This
is unbelievable.
1620
The Liberals do not want to talk about their record and who
could blame them. We would be happy to take them on on the issue
of ideology, but the trouble is they would have to find one.
Their party does not seem to stand for anything except trying to
get elected.
What we have seen in HRDC is a perfect example of the situation
when we talk about the administration process. The transitional
jobs fund is a clear attempt by the Liberals to lever themselves
back into power by pouring money into certain key ridings hoping
that the public will be bought off by political pork-barrelling.
It is to the point where the HRD committee itself has recommended
that the department be broken up without fully saying that it is
the result of this boondoggle.
We must have an independent inquiry. What we have seen so far
is stonewalling from the government. The Canadian public
deserves some answers.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon.
member for Mississauga South, International Trade.
[English]
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, my colleague has done a lot today to open people's eyes
with regard to the type of swindle that is going on particularly
in places like Shawinigan. I would like to ask him about some
businesses that I know get funding out of HRDC and whether or not
he thinks that is appropriate.
I happen to shop at Wal-Mart. It gets a lot of my money and I
know it gets a lot of other people's money too. That company
makes enough money from Canadians by what they voluntarily choose
to buy. I do not think it is fair that Wal-Mart gets subsidies
from HRDC but that is exactly what is going on. It is not just
Wal-Mart because the list goes on.
In my riding alone the list includes Shoppers Drug Mart, another
profitable company that is getting HRDC funds, taxpayer money.
There are private accounting firms in my riding that have access
to these government funds. Canada Safeway is another profitable
company that has access to HRDC funds. These big companies are
getting access to HRDC funds.
Canadians who may not be making much money are paying taxes so
that the government can subsidize these private corporations.
What does the hon. member think of Canadian taxpayer dollars
subsidizing private companies with HRDC funds as the Liberals are
doing?
Mr. Monte Solberg: Madam Speaker, I share my colleague's
concern about what is happening with these funds.
I remind the House that in Canada today the Liberal government
takes $7 billion a year in income tax from people making less
than $20,000 a year. Then it turns around and funnels that money
through HRDC and puts it back into funding friends of the Liberal
Party and members of the Liberal government. In some cases the
money goes to huge corporations. That is fundamentally wrong. I
cannot believe members on that side of the House would stand for
it.
In Canada today under the Liberal government, taxpayers pay
income tax after they have earned $7,031. That money goes to the
finance minister and then over to the human resources development
minister who in turn sends it to companies.
I applaud my friend for pointing out that there are people in
his riding who are getting this money. I applaud him for exposing
this. It is quite unlike the member for Fredericton who thinks
that government is Santa Claus and the purpose of government is
to distribute goodies. That is not the purpose of government.
1625
Government should be there in a limited way, not to interfere in
the economy. We all agree that government should be there to
keep the peace to ensure that we have criminal courts and decent
defence for our country. Those are the things the government
should do. It should not try to micromanage the economy. I
cannot believe that at the beginning of the 21st century the
government still thinks the role of government is to try to pick
winners in the economy, when all of history shows it simply
cannot be done.
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Madam Speaker, my
colleague can ramble on for the whole day, but the agenda of that
political party is to get rid of government support for people in
high unemployment areas. I want him to stand and tell 30,000
Canadians who are in high unemployment areas that he wants to
cancel programs and assistance that are provided to the private
sector to create jobs. I want him to tell the 15,000 Canadians
with disabilities who have benefited from these programs that he
wants to cancel them. I want him to tell the over 300,000—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am afraid I must
interrupt the hon. member so the hon. member for Medicine Hat can
respond.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Madam Speaker, there is the difference
in the vision. The Liberals want to hand out grants. We want to
get people jobs, opportunity and a future. That is the big
difference between the Canadian Alliance and the Liberal Party.
The Liberals seem to think the only way they can help people is
to cut a cheque. Shame on them.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, for the folks back home I want to make sure they clearly
understand what we are talking about. We are talking about human
resources development and the massive boondoggle that the whole
department is.
All the opposition parties have requested an independent inquiry
into the ongoings at HRDC. I would like to add that the first
committee I sat on when I was elected to the House of Commons
barely three years ago was human resources development.
Oftentimes I sat there with my jaw to the floor when I recognized
exactly where taxpayers' funds were going in that $57 billion
monster. I came to this job thinking there were problems in
government, but when I sat on the HRDC committee I got a bigger
shock than I was expecting.
There have been 20 different investigations with regard to what
has been going on with HRDC. The worst part of it is that it is
thickest among the benches of the cabinet ministers. There are
four investigations in the Prime Minister's riding alone.
There is a system right now whereby things are being rubber
stamped for the Prime Minister and other cabinet ministers'
ridings or in ridings where the Liberals think they have the
possibility of losing a seat. Right before elections and during
elections they are pumping untold sums of money into those
ridings so they can salvage them. They are doing it with
taxpayer dollars. They are trying to buy votes. It is the most
blatant abuse we could possibly imagine.
All of the opposition parties have been calling for an
investigation into this blatant vote buying by the Liberals with
taxpayer dollars. They should be ashamed of themselves.
The Canadian Alliance put out a dissenting opinion with regard
to HRDC and the grants and contributions on Thursday, June 1. It
was pointed out that there has been a lack of transparency with
regard to the HRDC fiasco and the Liberal boondoggle and waste.
There has been insistence that there be an audit and that it be
made public.
1630
The minister and her officials wanted to wait. They said that
the audit would be made public. That is what they told us. That
is what the minister said. She said that it would be a public
audit and that everyone would have a look at it. However, when
the audit was done did they make it public? Did the minister
make it public even though that is what she promised to do? No.
She broke her promise.
Instead, the minister waited until an access for information
request had to pry it from her fingers. That is exactly what the
minister did. She was trying to cover up the audit, even though
she said that it would be a public audit.
It gets worse. An opposition MP finally received a copy of the
audit dated October 5, 1999. When he got a copy of the audit he
was asked to destroy it. Can we believe it? He was asked to
destroy a copy of the audit and to accept a copy that was dated
later in January 2000.
Let me trace the chain of events one more time. The minister
said the audit would be made public, but when the audit was
finally done she and her officials sat on it. Only because of
access to information was that audit finally released. When the
audit was finally released, the opposition members who got copies
of it through access to information were told that they should
destroy them and not use them. They were asked if they would be
willing to accept one that was done later. If that is not a
blatant cover-up, I do not know what is. That is what the
Liberals are up to.
It goes on. I wish the story ended there but it does not. When
members of parliament asked for details of HRDC grants by riding
we were told they did not exist. The minister stood in her place
in the House and said day after day that we as members of
parliament could not get riding by riding breakdowns with regard
to HRDC.
We were asking simple questions in the House with regard to what
was happening in our individual ridings. We were told that we
would have to go through access to information. That was it,
that was the way we had to go.
The minister well knows that many times with access to
information it means that money out of our budgets has to be
spent, just because we were asking for a riding by riding
analysis which the minister refused to provide even though she
could. Or, we were told to put something on the 45 day order
paper process rather than receive information directly from the
minister. That is type of stuff we have been putting up with.
There has been a very clear cover-up of evidence of
mismanagement with regard to HRDC, but there is more yet. It
goes on. An employee of HRDC in New Brunswick received a phone
call from Ottawa and was told that if there was anything missing
in the HRDC files she was to review them, fill them out and
backdate them.
The minister knew that there were problems with the files. She
was denying it, standing day after day in the House of Commons
and saying that there were no problems. However, she had the
gumption, the public relations savvy, to phone the offices across
the country, namely one in New Brunswick. She knew there were
things missing from the files. We were asking questions about
it. They knew there were things missing from the files. What
did they do? They looked to cover it up. Once again it was
another case of cover-up.
These employees were ordered to review them, fill them out and
backdate the files. In a sense they were told to misrepresent
and go ahead and alter the documents so that the real public
record would not be known. That is what the Liberals were up to.
It goes on beyond that because there was a very blatant
contradiction. The minister stood in the House of Commons on
December 16 and said “No moneys flowed until the appropriate
approvals were in place”.
1635
It sounds so noble for the minister to say that no moneys flowed
until the appropriate approvals were in place. How does that
statement fit with the statement “there was anything missing in
these files, review them, fill them out and backdate them?” That
clearly indicates a contradiction.
The minister and her officials knew that there were things
missing. They knew that those forms were not filled out. They
knew that indeed those things would be backdated and that they
were ordering their employees to do so. However the minister had
the gall to stand in the House and say that no moneys flowed
until the appropriate approvals were in place. How could the
appropriate approvals be in place when she was ordering her
officials to backdate the files, fill them out and review them?
That is a pretty obvious abuse. I would say that is a pretty
clear contradiction.
If we have a contradiction between what the minister is saying
and what her employees are being ordered to do, it means that one
person is telling the truth and the other person is telling
something else. That is exactly what that means. It is
something other than the truth.
I would side with the employee rather than with the minister in
this case. We have $22 billion spent as grants and contributions
in HRDC, a disingenuous communication strategy on the part of the
government, and an absolute absence of controls and
documentation. This reminds me of what happened with regard to
APEC. We heard a member over there ballyhoo much about that, but
he knows all too well there was a cover-up in that regard. He
paid a price. He lost his job for that. He is no longer a
cabinet minister.
It was not only APEC. It was also Somalia. The government did
a cover-up with that when it got a little too close. That is
exactly what it is doing with this. It knows it has problems and
it does not want to admit that it is misusing taxpayer funds to
buy votes with HRDC money.
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Madam Speaker, my
colleague stood to attack government programs in areas of high
unemployment. He stood to attack the government for assisting
people with disabilities. He stood to attack the government for
assisting first nations people. He stood to attack the
government for trying to assist over 300,000 young Canadians
across the country who benefit from government services and
programs.
All the rumbling that has taken place from my colleagues on the
other side has nothing to do with the issue at hand. It has to
do with the mere fact that they wanted to shut down government
operations when it comes to the government trying to assist those
who are in need. They wanted to shut down the programs, and they
are on the record as saying that over and over. The bottom line
is there is a philosophical difference between what we stand for
and what they stand for.
The House of Commons is the best public inquiry in the country.
It is right here where for over eight months they had the floor
of the House of Commons to make their case day after day after
day.
There is no case. They have nothing to show. Of all these
allegations that $1 billion were missing, there were in fact six
overpayments totalling $3,229 in the 16,971 projects that were
reviewed and of this amount $803 have been recovered to date. We
are talking about approximately $2,500 being missing. Frankly my
colleagues should be ashamed of themselves for standing on the
floor of the House of Commons to request a public inquiry into
something that has already been in the public domain for eight
months and more. Now they want to spend $20 million as we have
spent on other inquiries.
At the end of the day the conclusion is fairly clear that no one
has benefited from these programs except the people who need it
the most, the disabled, young Canadians and people who are
unemployed in different parts of the country. The bottom line is
that these guys do not want to see the government functioning.
They do not want to see the government assisting people who are
in need.
1640
Mr. Rob Anders: Madam Speaker, the hon. Liberal member
across the way has asked who is needy. That is basically the
nature of the question. I would like to make a list of some of
the people who have received HRDC funding. I would like the
taxpayers to determine whether or not this is list of needy
individuals. That is the question the Liberals have posed. Are
these people needy?
Is Wal-Mart needy of taxpayer subsidy? Is Canada Safeway needy
of taxpayer subsidy? Is Shoppers Drug Mart needy of taxpayer
subsidy? How about private accounting firms? Do they deserve
hard earned tax dollars? What about the 20 police investigations
that have gone on? Surely 20 police investigations with HRDC
would indicate the police have questions about whether or not
HRDC fund recipients were needy as the Liberal member likes to
ask.
Were fountains in Shawinigan needy? Taxpayer funding of golf
courses, is that what the Liberals call needy? How about hotels
in the Prime Minister's riding of Shawinigan, ones where the
funds went to foreigners and lined the pockets of businessmen in
Belgium, people who had track records and histories of doing
improper things with funds? Is that needy? Is it needy when a
businessman who has a bad track record with funds was getting
taxpayer subsidy? Is that the Liberal definition of needy?
Is it needy to go ahead and set up a database that can raid the
bank accounts of the elderly? Is that what the government calls
needy, taking somebody who is retired, going into the person's
bank account and stripping it dry by taking out thousands of
dollars? Is that needy? Does the government need the thousands
of dollars in an elderly person's bank account? Does it really
need them?
Shame on the government for raising the question of need. The
Liberals know nothing about need. They only know about a lack of
priorities and buying votes.
[Translation]
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, thank you
for this opportunity to speak to the motion by the hon. member
for Calgary—Nose Hill regarding the administration of grants and
contributions programs.
The hon. member would like to see a commission of inquiry into
the grants and contributions in Human Resources Development
Canada. I do not really understand her reasons, because we know
today, after what we have heard, that she does not really have
any. This is just a political game which began in the House in
October.
The auditor general is looking into the administration of grants
and contributions programs. The Standing Committee on Human
Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities
is also looking into the grants and contributions programs. The
department itself has called upon the best expertise available
from outside, independent resources to look into these programs.
All that this investigation is finding, and will find, is the
truth—the truth that has already been laid out in detail by the
department and by the Minister of Human Resources Development,
i.e. the truth that was told by the minister when she first
disclosed the results of the internal audit which was
commissioned by her own department and which she herself chose to
make public, as she has already stated in the House on more than
one occasion.
The minister has appeared three times before the standing
committee and, each time, she has answered all questions. During
Oral Question Period in the House, she has answered the same
questions. This has been going on since October.
The truth that this motion chooses to ignore is that the
file-by-file review of 17,000 grants and contributions projects
across Canada and the review of all the audited files, having a
total dollar value of $1,581,000, revealed an outstanding debt to
the government of $6,500.
1645
I want to make a point of repeating this, because I think it is
important. The opposition's criticism over HRDC's grants and
contributions programs has an air of absurdity that is expressed
by that figure—$6,500. When all is said and done, once again,
the amount outstanding is $6,500, and not $1 billion, as members
of the Canadian Alliance have always maintained.
As the original audit found, and as the minister openly stated,
documentation was clearly inadequate. And this was pointed out
by everyone in the House. The department moved to devise and
implement a corrective action plan. The department is working
with the auditor general on these corrective measures. The
department has consulted and continues to seek expert input.
This week, we received the committee's report and
recommendations. The minister has said that she will examine the
recommendations and give her response to the committee's report.
Does the hon. member for Calgary—Nose Hill really believe she
can justify to her constituents the burden of an independent
inquiry in addition to the already considerable resources of the
auditor general, the treasury board, independent expertise and
the Department of Human Resources Development itself? How much
more expertise is required to shed light on truth that is already
known to the House and to all members?
[English]
Today I want to talk about my riding because I think it is
important. Innuendos and all sorts of things have been said in
the House about my riding and I would like to tell the Canadian
public what my riding is all about and what a member of
parliament does in his or her riding.
A member of parliament visits non-governmental agencies, small
and medium size businesses and speaks with the people who run
those businesses. The member looks at the needs of the people.
For those who do not know, my riding of Ahuntsic has the largest
textile manufacturing sector in Montreal. That used to be where
most of the textile and most of the clothing manufacturing
businesses were situated.
Because of the free trade agreement a lot of these companies had
to look for funding to do research and buy high tech equipment.
These same businesses went out to financial institutions in the
private sector and looked for funding so they could become
competitive and able to participate in exports and in other
developments within their sector. These companies spoke to me
about their needs.
When the Canada jobs fund was created it responded to the needs
of 15 manufacturers in my riding. They received over $1 million
under the jobs fund. What did these companies do with that money
which the opposition says has been lost because they did not
create jobs? In my riding of Ahuntsic 488 jobs were created
through this fund, jobs that would not have existed if the fund
did not exist. The private sector was able to give those
manufacturers and businesses part of their financing, but not all
of it. The rest came from government grants.
Those companies created jobs, but they did more than that. One
company developed a fabric for bathing suits that is considered
to be the best in the world.
From a small basement in one section of my riding, a
manufacturer now distributes his product all over the world. With
the money he received he bought high tech equipment worth
$500,000 in order for him to be competitive and sell his Canadian
products overseas. This is what these business people did with
the money that was given to them with the grants.
I repeat for the Canadian public that 50% of the financing came
from financial institutions in the private sector for each one of
these files. I am convinced that those 488 jobs which were
created in Ahuntsic would not have existed if it were not for the
fact that they received grants from HRD.
Those people would have been unemployed at the present time, and
those manufacturers would not have been able to compete or to
export Canadian products overseas.
1650
Let us not forget something that the opposition members continue
to neglect. Whenever a member of parliament is elected, he or
she is elected to represent the needs of constituents. Those
were some of the needs in my riding, but there were other needs
as well.
Under HRD there are non-governmental agencies in my riding that
work with the handicapped. Recently the minister and I had an
opportunity to visit one of the projects that does recycling.
That project, by the way, recycles all of the paper in all of the
schools in Montreal. What did this project accomplish? Eight
young people, many of whom were illiterate and had no skills,
were trained in recycling paper so that later on they would be
able to find jobs.
Of those young people, about 90% are now employed. Because of
contributions made through HRD young people find jobs,
handicapped people manage to work, and during the summer students
are able to work because of a job creation program for students.
I am very proud to be able to support those projects in my
riding, to continue to work with the business community, to work
with the non-governmental organizations and to be able to provide
them with the assistance they need to help ordinary Canadians.
Another thing I want to put on the record is something that the
member for Medicine Hat continues to say. Of course, he is only
one of a number of members on the Reform side who keep alluding
to votes being bought.
I take great offence to that. I do not think the Canadian
public can be bought. No one on this side of the House believes
the Canadian public can be bought. I believe the Canadian public
is intelligent enough to make a decision and elect the best
member to represent them in this House of Commons.
I am very proud to say that the constituents of Ahuntsic and the
constituents of Saint-Denis elected me to represent their
interests. I take great objection to the fact that members on
the other side seem to feel that when one is a good member of
parliament, one is buying votes. The fact is that those
constituents and those businesses decide in the end who they will
support as their member of parliament.
I also want to put on the record that I find it very abusive of
the right of privilege that we enjoy in the House for members
opposite to make innuendoes and accusations about members of
parliament. The member for Medicine Hat was asked outside the
House about certain allegations and innuendoes he made about me
inside the House. I quote an article that appeared in the
Montreal Gazette:
But Solberg admitted his party had no evidence that Bakopanos or
any of her supporters had demanded the donation in exchange for
her support for the grant.
Members opposite use their cloak of immunity in the House all
the time. When they are put on record outside the House they
withdraw those allegations.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the Canadian public for actually knowing
that in this place there are members of parliament who work very,
very hard to ensure that their constituents do get grants that
lead to creating jobs in their ridings and lead to allowing the
unemployed, the handicapped and other constituents to be
productive members of Canadian society.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened
with interest to the member for Ahuntsic. I think that, had she
had a few more minutes, she might have convinced me of what she
was saying.
Unfortunately, she fools no one here. Even the Liberals on the
other side of the House do not agree on the figures. Earlier,
the member for Ottawa Centre said on this subject that there had
been a minor fraud or that there was an imbalance of $2,500. The
hon. member just said it was $6,500.
I would ask the hon. member, who values the work of the member,
and I am well aware of that, if she is comfortable with the 20
criminal investigations currently being conducted by the RCMP.
How is it that these investigations are not in the ridings of the
members of the opposition, but are nearly all concentrated in the
ridings of the members of the government?
I understand that they must represent their electors and must
give them satisfaction, but, when they do so out of the
employment fund solely for the benefit of their constituents and
to the detriment of the population as a whole, which has
contributed to the fund and which never benefits from it because
it did not vote for this gang, where do their morals lie in this
case? This is my question for the hon. member.
1655
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Just before the
member answers the question, let us try to keep the questions
impersonal in their nature.
[Translation]
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Mr. Speaker, there are several
subquestions to the hon. member's question.
First, I want to tell him that the role of a member of
parliament is to represent everyone. We simply cannot represent
only a specific group among our fellow citizens, as the member
said at the end of his speech. I represent everyone in my riding,
those who voted for me and those who did not. This is the first
thing I wanted to say.
Second, I believe that everyone on this side of the House thinks
like me. What is happening now—and I think the minister already
said it—is that the RCMP is conducting investigations. We
welcomed these investigations. After all, we are the ones who
asked for them. The minister asked for these investigations. We
welcome them, precisely because we want to make sure that the
truth will come out. Again, out of all the files reviewed, less
than 1% are problematic.
[English]
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, we understand that the hon. member who just spoke
got quite likely up to 10% of her war chest from a company
centred in her riding. What we are wondering is how that helps
the hon. member's riding.
Is she so terribly necessary to the solution of problems in her
riding that it is better to take money from the poor and give it
to the wealthy to ensure that the wealthy have jobs in this
country? Or, is there some other motive that she can ascribe to
it?
Surely one would not believe that her motives were so pure that
accepting money from a company that had received a big donation
from the federal government by way of the fund, meant to shovel
money into ridings for the purpose of buying votes, would benefit
her riding.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Mr. Speaker, I believe I have
already answered that question, but I will repeat exactly what I
said earlier.
The member for Medicine Hat, who first raised that question in
the House, was asked outside the House about it. I will read
exactly what was written in the article:
But Solberg admitted his party had no evidence that Bakopanos or
any of her supporters had demanded the donation in exchange for
her support for the grant.
That is not what a member of parliament does. Members of
parliament do their jobs and when election time comes, if any
constituent or company, under Elections Canada, wants to give a
donation, those donations are audited by Elections Canada, not by
the member of parliament.
Elections Canada declared that I was duly elected as a member of
parliament to represent Ahuntsic. Again it was non-partisan.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the official opposition's motion calls for an
independent commission of inquiry into grants and contributions
in the Department of Human Resources Development Canada. Even
before a rebuttal opportunity had been given to the government
side, the same official opposition amended its own motion to add
“that the commission be required to lay before the House of
Commons a final report no later than December 11, 2000”.
Why would the official opposition, the Canadian Alliance, amend
its own main motion as though its own two members of parliament
did not communicate with each other before the main motion was
tabled? Was there gimmickry behind it? I leave the answer to
Canadians listening to this debate.
One other opposition member in the New Democratic Party claims
that all opposition parties are united behind the amended motion
on the basis that “outside authorities should investigate HRDC
mismanagement”, as stated in a written dissenting opinion to the
final report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources
Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, entitled
“Seeking a Balance”, which was issued this past June 1.
The HRDC committee, over the last four months, did precisely
that. It investigated this issue in full.
Is the opposition party trying to discount the months of hard
work, time and money that was put into the committee? Are we now
hearing that the committee's work, in which all opposition
parties participated fully, was an exercise in futility simply
because the allegations and assumptions were not for the most
part substantiated by the witnesses who appeared before the
committee?
1700
Most of the witnesses were recommended by the opposition
parties. To my recollection not one witness, whether individually
or as a group, called for an additional public inquiry. Only the
opposition did. Witness after witness testified before the
committee that we on that committee should ensure a balance when
addressing the administrative and management problems identified.
In his caution against overreacting to the 1999 internal audit,
the Auditor General of Canada told the committee, “It would not
make sense for necessary changes to lead to excessive tightening
of the system and unnecessary red tape. HRDC has a varied set of
programs to deliver. A balance will need to be established to
meet the demands of recipients, ensure adequate controls, assess
risk, and deliver results for taxpayers”.
Yet the opposition seems bent not only on not heeding this
advice from an independent officer of parliament, but also on
detracting from or paralyzing the work of the department for
purely partisan purposes.
The diagnosis of mismanagement was arrived at by the internal
audit, ordered and released on its own by the department itself.
The department promptly acknowledged the audit's findings of
fact. These are serious administrative issues but not money
lost. Thereafter it issued the overall management response. The
auditors themselves acknowledged that the management response
“comprehensively addresses these issues”. The opposition
believed the report of the internal audit but would not believe
it later on.
Let me add that the minister of HRDC, in her appearance just
before the committee concluded its work, once again acknowledged
the management problems that were identified in the audit and
presented the up to date response of the department based on a
six point action plan.
I could not recall any difficulty on the part of the opposition
as to the adequacy of the department's response to date.
What we have seen today is a department which has admitted its
mistakes of whatever size as compared to the total benefits of
the grants and contributions and the total value of the program
to Canadians. It has taken the necessary steps to correct the
mistakes and prevent their recurrence in the future. This is
boldness. This is humility.
On the contrary, members of the opposition have not acknowledged
they have made a mistake in their grandiose assumption of the
gravity of the problem. Worse, they have offered no specific
constructive approach. If this is allowed to continue, it is a
sad commentary on our parliamentary system.
While the opposition members would only imagine a seemingly
grievous malady, they fail to consider the whole patient. Have
we heard them speak of the value and importance of the HRDC
grants and contributions? Have they said they are about
supporting Canadians in their aspirations for economic prosperity
and social equality? Have they said that there is a definite
role for the Government of Canada in the lives of the citizens of
our nation by helping people train and retrain, giving equal
opportunities to those with disabilities and those burdened with
the absence of literary skills, and creating job experience for
youth?
This is the very purpose of HRDC. The very essence of its being
is to advance the dignity of every individual citizen so that
collectively they can make our nation stronger an enduring.
The purpose of any inquiry or investigation is to identify the
problem and to suggest solutions. The problems have already
been identified. The extent is 16,971 grants and contributions
files with a total value of $1.581 billion examined and $6,500 in
outstanding debt to be reclaimed by the department.
That is less than a mini-fraction of the total and not $1 billion
as alleged by the opposition.
1705
The six point plan of action has been implemented and a progress
report satisfactory to the committee has been presented by the
minister. I quote from the final report of the standing
committee, “The committee commends HRDC for developing and
commencing the implementation of its six point plan of action”.
Time will not allow me to detail the six point plan.
Are these six steps not good enough for members of the
opposition? From the lips of the Auditor General of Canada, the
committee heard, “This action plan is a very thorough plan for
corrective action to address the immediate control problems that
were identified. Some longer term actions are also included that
further strengthen the approach”. The auditor general
continued, “As we conduct our own audit in HRDC, we intend to
assess the department's progress in implementing the plan”.
Not only will the auditor general audit the department's
progress with respect to its action plan, but his audit will
include a value for money component. I remind the House, in
particular the so-called united opposition, that the Auditor
General of Canada is an independent officer of parliament who
conducts an external, unbiased, non-partisan audit and reports
directly to parliament. May I remind all opposition parties, who
may have already forgotten the testimony of the auditor general
before the standing committee on March 23, barely 10 weeks ago,
that his office intends to report on the results of his audit
this coming October.
For faith in his work, the Government of Canada has annually
budgeted for the auditor general's office as called for in our
law. Are the opposition parties united as well in wanting to
duplicate the work of the auditor general and thereby spend
additional taxpayers' money? Are they united as well in
undermining his forthcoming report and in professing lack of
faith in his office?
There is no need for the motion before us nor for the amendment
to the motion. What is needed is vision, not blindness on the
part of the opposition, and we can anticipate a stronger and
greater Canada. What is needed is a dose of humility, not
arrogance, and we can anticipate progress and greatness. There is
strength in humility on the part of the government. There is only
weakness in arrogance on the part of the opposition.
I therefore urge the House and appeal to the conscience of this
institution for the sake of our citizens and country to defeat
the amended motion before us. Then we shall have done our duty
to Canadians as their loyal servants.
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I get really offended when people such as the hon.
member who just spoke talk about people who are handicapped being
the beneficiaries of this program or other things. They use it
like people in wars who use women and children as human shields.
That program that is run by HRDC is rightly being criticized. It
is right that we call for an independent investigation. For
members opposite to say it benefits women, it benefits children,
it benefits the poor, it benefits the handicapped, so we cannot
possibly ask the government even a question about it is
completely offensive. I would like the hon. member, the
minister, the parliamentary secretary, the chair of the committee
and all Liberals to understand that when they run a program that
spends billions of Canadian taxpayers' dollars it is subject to
scrutiny. If they deny it, the Canadian public will have the
last word on it.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan: Madam Speaker, the member was not
listening at all to my debate. The scrutiny had been done not
once but more than once.
When I heard the member speaking about handicapped Canadians, I
was reminded of ignorance of knowledge. We no longer in this
century call people handicapped Canadians. We call them
Canadians with disabilities. They are not handicapped. This is
the member's type of knowledge. When this happens I feel sad. It
is a sad commentary for our parliamentary system.
1710
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Madam Speaker, I want to
make sure I clearly understand the member for, I believe,
Winnipeg North Centre. He says that through its grants, Human
Resources Development Canada has helped the needy, people with
disabilities and others.
Were the people at Placeteco handicapped? Were those who
received $720,000 to change the name of their sewing business
people with disabilities? Will the fountain in Shawinigan benefit
people with disabilities? Were those who moved their business
from the riding of Rosemont to the riding of Shawinigan people
with disabilities?
I realize that the member, who, I believe, is a doctor, may
have his own definition of people with disabilities, but in this
case, was not the biggest handicap of these people the fact that
they were well-known Liberals?
[English]
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan: Madam Speaker, the member from the
Canadian Alliance used terminology and I corrected him. He
indicated to me his apologies. He has a member of his family
with a disability. I apologize for being very straightforward in
wanting to correct the terminology. I did it in the context of
recent times.
The member of the Bloc addressed me as the member for Winnipeg
North Centre. Again, I will make a correction. I am the member
for Winnipeg North—St. Paul. It is a minor correction but it
has to be corrected. If we are careless in what we say, we can
be careless in many things. The Latin saying is, falsus in unus,
falsus in omnibus.
Now to the point of the question. Have we always helped all
Canadians with disabilities and all Canadians who need help? I
guarantee that we have tried at all times to help all Canadians
with disabilities and those who need help. Whether we have
succeeded 100% of the time, humility dictates that we cannot
claim that. There is still a challenge for this government and
that we shall continue to address.
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I wonder if the member
might comment on whether or not he thinks it is intellectually
dishonest for the members to come here and pretend that they are
concerned about the paperwork administration. They go on about
boondoggles instead of specifically talking about what these
programs do.
In fact, are they not a bit intellectually challenged themselves
when they do things like deny students jobs in the riding of
Calgary West and do not approve funds for student jobs? They
have internal fights among themselves. The local Conservative
MLA agreed with the minister who had to override the stupidity of
the member opposite in not allowing young people in our ridings
to get the very jobs they need to get that start in the world.
Mr. Ken Epp: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
am certain that it is unparliamentary to refer to another member
of the House as having the characteristic of stupidity.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I understand the hon.
member's point of view. It may not be unparliamentary but I am
sure the parliamentary secretary would withdraw the word.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Madam Speaker, I would be happy to
withdraw the word stupidity. I am sure ignorance would also
qualify.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan: Madam Speaker, the parliamentary
secretary was talking about ignorance and my only comment is that
sometimes ignorance is bliss. But when it is ignorance about
facts and about points of debate, there is no excuse.
When one tries to exploit the situation, it reminds me of one
who said let us not exaggerate the death of a being because one
day that being will be the continuing leader of the nation.
1715
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It being 5.15 p.m., it is
my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every
question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.
The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour of the
amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the nays
have it.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I declare the amendment
lost.
(Amendment negatived)
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): 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 Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour of the
motion 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.
1745
[English]
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
| Blaikie
|
Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
|
Brison
| Cadman
| Cardin
| Casey
|
Casson
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Davies
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
|
Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
|
Dumas
| Earle
| Epp
| Forseth
|
Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Gouk
| Gruending
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Hanger
| Harris
| Hart
|
Harvey
| Hearn
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Konrad
|
Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
| Lill
|
Loubier
| Lowther
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mancini
| Marchand
| Mark
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Mayfield
| McDonough
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Muise
|
Nystrom
| Penson
| Perron
| Plamondon
|
Price
| Proctor
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
|
Riis
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Schmidt
|
Solberg
| St - Jacques
| Stinson
| Stoffer
|
Strahl
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Venne
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 99
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
| Duhamel
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Gagliano
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
|
Limoges
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Normand
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proud
|
Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Sgro
| Shepherd
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Julien
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
| Vanclief
|
Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 136
|
PAIRED
Members
Bradshaw
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Lefebvre
| Nunziata
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion lost.
* * *
IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROTECTION ACT
The House resumed from June 1 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-31, an act respecting immigration to Canada and the
granting of refugee protection to persons who are displaced,
persecuted or in danger, be read the second time and referred to
a committee.
The Speaker: Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 1,
the House will now proceed to the taking of the recorded division
on the motion at the second reading stage of Bill C-31.
1755
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Bigras
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Brien
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Cardin
|
Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Crête
|
Cullen
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Dromisky
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
| Duhamel
|
Dumas
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Gagliano
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Guarnieri
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
|
Laurin
| Lavigne
| Lebel
| Lee
|
Leung
| Limoges
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
Loubier
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Marchand
| Marleau
|
Matthews
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
| Perron
|
Peterson
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Plamondon
| Pratt
| Proud
| Proulx
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Rocheleau
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| 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
| Vanclief
| Venne
|
Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 172
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Benoit
|
Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brison
| Cadman
| Casey
| Casson
|
Davies
| Desjarlais
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Earle
| Epp
| Forseth
| Gilmour
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Gouk
| Gruending
| Hanger
|
Harris
| Hart
| Harvey
| Hearn
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Konrad
| Lill
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
| Mark
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
| McDonough
| Meredith
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Muise
| Nystrom
|
Penson
| Price
| Proctor
| Ramsay
|
Reynolds
| Riis
| Robinson
| Schmidt
|
Solberg
| Stinson
| Stoffer
| Strahl
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 63
|
PAIRED
Members
Bradshaw
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Lefebvre
| Nunziata
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. Accordingly
the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Citizenship
and Immigration.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT
The House resumed from May 11 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-206, an act to amend the Access to Information Act and to
make amendments to other acts, be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
The Speaker: Pursuant to order made on Friday, June 2,
the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded
division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-206
under Private Members' Business.
1805
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Anders
| Assad
| Beaumier
| Benoit
|
Bonin
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brison
|
Bryden
| Caccia
| Calder
| Casey
|
Casson
| Comuzzi
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Easter
| Epp
| Forseth
| Harvey
|
Hearn
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hubbard
| Karygiannis
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Marleau
| Mayfield
|
McTeague
| Morrison
| Muise
| Murray
|
Penson
| Price
| Proctor
| Ramsay
|
Schmidt
| Solberg
| St - Jacques
| Stinson
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Wappel
| White
(North Vancouver) – 44
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anderson
| Assadourian
|
Asselin
| Augustine
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
|
Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Brien
| Brown
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Cardin
|
Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Copps
| Crête
| Cullen
|
Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
|
Desrochers
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dromisky
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
|
Duhamel
| Dumas
| Earle
| Eggleton
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
| Gagliano
|
Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Guarnieri
| Guay
| Guimond
| Hanger
|
Harb
| Harris
| Hart
| Harvard
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jaffer
|
Jennings
| Johnston
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Knutson
| Konrad
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Laurin
|
Lavigne
| Lebel
| Lee
| Leung
|
Limoges
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| Loubier
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Mancini
| Manley
|
Marchand
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
|
McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McWhinney
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Meredith
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mitchell
| Myers
|
Nault
| Normand
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Perron
| Peterson
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Plamondon
| Pratt
|
Proud
| Proulx
| Provenzano
| Reed
|
Reynolds
| Richardson
| Riis
| Robillard
|
Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Sgro
| St. Denis
|
St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Ur
|
Vanclief
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
|
Williams
| Wood – 178
|
PAIRED
Members
Bradshaw
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Lefebvre
| Nunziata
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion lost.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2000
The House resumed from June 5 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-32, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget
tabled in parliament on February 28, 2000, be read the third time
and passed.
The Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking of
the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading
stage of Bill C-32.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree, I
would propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who
voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the
motion now before the House with Liberal members voting yea.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, Canadian Alliance members this
evening will be voting against this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc
Quebecois oppose this motion.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, the members of the New Democratic
Party will vote no on this motion.
[English]
Mr. Norman Doyle: Progressive Conservative members, Mr.
Speaker, will be voting no to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, I will vote no on this motion.
[English]
Mr. Jack Ramsay: I will be voting no, Mr. Speaker.
1810
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, I would simply draw to
your attention—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. There are three points of order I
want to hear.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, I would simply point out
that the leader of the Bloc Quebecois and member for
Laurier—Sainte-Marie, and our colleague from
Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok were obliged to
be withdrawn for this vote.
[English]
Mr. Jim Abbott: Mr. Speaker, as I did not vote on the
previous motion I wish to have my vote recorded as opposed on
this vote.
Ms. Wendy Lill: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be
registered as voting no on this bill.
Mr. Dennis Gruending: Mr. Speaker, as I did not vote on
the last motion I would like to be recorded as voting no on this
one.
Mr. Jim Gouk: Mr. Speaker, I also did not vote on the
previous motion but I want to be recorded as opposed on this one.
Mr. Chuck Cadman: Mr. Speaker, as I did not vote on the
previous motion I want to be recorded as opposed on this motion.
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I also did not vote on the
previous motion and I want to be recorded as voting with the
government on this motion.
Mr. Janko Peric: Mr. Speaker, I did not vote on the
previous motion and I want to be recorded as voting with the
government on this motion.
Mr. Alex Shepherd: Mr. Speaker, I did not vote on the
previous motion and I wish to vote in favour and vote with the
government on this one.
Mr. Tony Ianno: Mr. Speaker, I also did not vote on the
last motion and I want to have my vote recorded with the
government on this motion.
Mr. Larry McCormick: Mr. Speaker, as chair of the
subcommittee on Private Member's Business I did not vote on the
last bill but I need to vote with the government on this one.
The Speaker: Is there anyone else who did not vote?
Please stand so that I can do this in an orderly fashion.
Mr. Bob Speller: Mr. Speaker, I wish to vote with the
government.
Mrs. Karen Redman: Mr. Speaker, I too did not vote in the
last vote and would like to vote with the government on this one.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Mr. Speaker, I did not vote on the
last vote and would like to be recorded as voting with the
government on this one.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
| Duhamel
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Gagliano
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
|
Limoges
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
|
Proud
| Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
|
Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Sgro
|
Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Julien
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
|
Vanclief
| Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 137
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
|
Bergeron
| Bigras
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
| Brison
|
Cadman
| Cardin
| Casey
| Casson
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Davies
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dockrill
|
Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dumas
| Earle
|
Epp
| Forseth
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Gouk
|
Gruending
| Guay
| Guimond
| Hanger
|
Harris
| Hart
| Harvey
| Hearn
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Konrad
| Lalonde
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
| Marchand
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
| McDonough
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Meredith
| Morrison
| Muise
|
Nystrom
| Penson
| Perron
| Plamondon
|
Price
| Proctor
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
|
Riis
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Schmidt
|
Solberg
| St - Jacques
| Stinson
| Stoffer
|
Strahl
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
|
Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 96
|
PAIRED
Members
Bradshaw
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Lefebvre
| Nunziata
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed)
* * *
1815
CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION DIVESTITURE
AUTHORIZATION AND DISSOLUTION ACT
The House resumed from June 5 consideration of Bill C-11, an act
to authorize the divestiture of the assets of, and to dissolve,
the Cape Breton Development Corporation, to amend the Cape Breton
Development Corporation Act and to make consequential amendments
to other acts, as reported (without amendment) from the
committee.
The Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking of
the deferred recorded divisions at report stage of Bill C-11. The
first question is on Motion No. 1 in Group No. 1.
1820
(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Blaikie
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Cadman
| Davies
| Desjarlais
|
Dockrill
| Earle
| Epp
| Forseth
|
Gilmour
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Gouk
| Gruending
|
Hanger
| Harris
| Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Konrad
|
Lill
| Lowther
| Mancini
| Mark
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
| McDonough
| Meredith
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Nystrom
| Penson
| Proctor
|
Reynolds
| Riis
| Robinson
| Schmidt
|
Stinson
| Stoffer
| Strahl
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Williams – 45
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Asselin
| Augustine
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Bigras
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Borotsik
| Boudria
| Brien
| Brison
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
|
Cardin
| Carroll
| Casey
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Crête
| Cullen
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desrochers
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Doyle
| Dromisky
|
Duhamel
| Dumas
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
| Gagliano
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Guarnieri
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Harb
| Harvard
| Harvey
|
Hearn
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Lee
| Leung
|
Limoges
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| Loubier
|
Lunn
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marchand
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Mifflin
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mitchell
| Morrison
| Muise
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
| Perron
|
Peterson
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Plamondon
| Pratt
| Price
| Proud
|
Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rocheleau
| Rock
|
Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Sgro
|
Shepherd
| Solberg
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
|
Ur
| Vanclief
| Venne
| Wappel
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 183
|
PAIRED
Members
Bradshaw
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Lefebvre
| Nunziata
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 1 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 2.
1830
(The House divided on Motion No. 2, which was negatived
on the following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Benoit
|
Blaikie
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Cadman
|
Davies
| Desjarlais
| Dockrill
| Earle
|
Epp
| Forseth
| Gilmour
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Gouk
| Gruending
| Hanger
| Harris
|
Hart
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Konrad
| Lill
| Lunn
| Mancini
|
Mark
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
| McDonough
|
Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Nystrom
|
Proctor
| Reynolds
| Riis
| Robinson
|
Schmidt
| Solberg
| Stinson
| Stoffer
|
Strahl
| Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 48
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Asselin
| Augustine
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bergeron
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
|
Boudria
| Brien
| Brison
| Brown
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Cardin
| Carroll
|
Casey
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Crête
|
Cullen
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Doyle
| Dromisky
| Duhamel
| Dumas
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Gagliano
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godfrey
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Guarnieri
| Guay
| Guimond
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Harvey
| Hearn
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Laurin
| Lee
|
Leung
| Limoges
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
Loubier
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marchand
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Mifflin
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mitchell
| Muise
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Normand
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Plamondon
| Pratt
|
Price
| Proud
| Proulx
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rocheleau
| Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Sgro
| Shepherd
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
|
Ur
| Vanclief
| Venne
| Wappel
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 175
|
PAIRED
Members
Bradshaw
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Lefebvre
| Nunziata
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 2 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 3.
1835
(The House divided on Motion No. 3, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Asselin
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brien
| Brison
| Cadman
| Cardin
|
Casey
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Davies
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
|
Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dumas
| Earle
|
Epp
| Forseth
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Gouk
|
Gruending
| Guay
| Guimond
| Hanger
|
Hart
| Harvey
| Hearn
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Konrad
|
Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lill
| Loubier
|
Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
| Marchand
|
Mark
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
| McDonough
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Morrison
| Muise
| Nystrom
| Plamondon
|
Price
| Proctor
| Reynolds
| Riis
|
Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Solberg
| St - Jacques
|
Stinson
| Stoffer
| Strahl
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams
– 86
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Assad
| Assadourian
| Augustine
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Brown
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
| Duhamel
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Gagliano
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| 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
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Proud
| Proulx
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
|
Sgro
| Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
|
Vanclief
| Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 129
|
PAIRED
Members
Bradshaw
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Lefebvre
| Nunziata
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 3 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 4.
1845
(The House divided on Motion No. 4, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Asselin
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brien
| Brison
| Cadman
| Cardin
|
Casey
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desrochers
| Doyle
| Duceppe
|
Dumas
| Epp
| Forseth
| Gauthier
|
Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Gouk
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Hanger
| Harris
|
Hart
| Harvey
| Hearn
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Konrad
|
Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
| Loubier
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Marchand
|
Mark
| Mayfield
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Muise
|
Perron
| Plamondon
| Price
| Reynolds
|
Rocheleau
| Solberg
| St - Jacques
| Stinson
|
Strahl
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
|
Venne
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 75
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Brown
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Charbonneau
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
| Davies
|
Desjarlais
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dockrill
| Dromisky
| Duhamel
|
Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Folco
|
Gagliano
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Gruending
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Hubbard
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
|
Lee
| Leung
| Lill
| Limoges
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Mancini
| Manley
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
|
McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proctor
| Proud
|
Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Riis
| Robillard
| Robinson
|
Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
|
Sgro
| Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Stoffer
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Vanclief
| Wappel
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood
– 144
|
PAIRED
Members
Bradshaw
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Lefebvre
| Nunziata
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 4 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 5.
1850
(The House divided on Motion No. 5, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Blaikie
| Davies
| Desjarlais
| Dockrill
|
Earle
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Gruending
| Lill
|
Mancini
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
| Nystrom
|
Proctor
| Riis
| Robinson
| Stoffer
|
Wasylycia - Leis – 17
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alarie
|
Anders
| Anderson
| Assadourian
| Asselin
|
Augustine
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Benoit
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brien
| Brison
| Brown
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Cadman
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Cardin
| Carroll
|
Casey
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Crête
| Cullen
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Doyle
|
Dromisky
| Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Dumas
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Epp
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Forseth
| Gagliano
| Gauthier
|
Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Goodale
| Gouk
| Graham
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Hanger
| Harb
| Harris
|
Hart
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Hearn
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hubbard
| Jackson
| Jaffer
|
Jennings
| Johnston
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
| Knutson
|
Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Lee
| Leung
|
Limoges
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| Loubier
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Marchand
| Mark
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Matthews
| Mayfield
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Meredith
| Mifflin
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Mitchell
| Morrison
|
Muise
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
| Perron
|
Peterson
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Price
| Proud
| Proulx
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
| Reynolds
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rocheleau
| Rock
|
Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Sgro
|
Shepherd
| Solberg
| St. Denis
| St - Jacques
|
St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Strahl
| Szabo
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Ur
|
Vanclief
| Venne
| Wappel
| Whelan
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Wilfert
| Williams
| Wood – 196
|
PAIRED
Members
Bradshaw
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Lefebvre
| Nunziata
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 5 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 12.
1900
(The House divided on Motion No. 12, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
|
Brien
| Brison
| Cadman
| Cardin
|
Casey
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Davies
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
|
Dockrill
| Doyle
| Duceppe
| Dumas
|
Earle
| Epp
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Gouk
|
Gruending
| Guay
| Guimond
| Hanger
|
Harris
| Hart
| Harvey
| Hearn
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Konrad
| Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lill
|
Loubier
| Lowther
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mancini
| Marchand
| Mark
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Mayfield
| McDonough
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Muise
|
Nystrom
| Perron
| Proctor
| Reynolds
|
Riis
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Solberg
|
St - Jacques
| Stinson
| Stoffer
| Strahl
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Venne
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams
– 87
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dromisky
| Duhamel
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Folco
| Fontana
| Gagliano
|
Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lastewka
| 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
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mitchell
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Normand
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proud
|
Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Sgro
| Shepherd
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Julien
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
| Vanclief
|
Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 132
|
PAIRED
Members
Bradshaw
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Lefebvre
| Nunziata
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 12 lost.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find
consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to Motions
Nos. 6 and 7.
The Speaker: I want to make sure I understand. If the
question had been on Motion No. 6, this would also apply to
Motion No. 9. Is the government whip aware of this?
Mr. Bob Kilger: I think we have an agreement to apply.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on Motion No. 6, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
|
Brien
| Brison
| Cadman
| Cardin
|
Casey
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Davies
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
|
Dockrill
| Doyle
| Duceppe
| Dumas
|
Earle
| Epp
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Gouk
|
Gruending
| Guay
| Guimond
| Hanger
|
Harris
| Hart
| Harvey
| Hearn
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Konrad
| Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
|
Lill
| Loubier
| Lowther
| Lunn
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
| Marchand
| Mark
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
| McDonough
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
|
Muise
| Nystrom
| Perron
| Proctor
|
Reynolds
| Riis
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
|
Solberg
| St - Jacques
| Stinson
| Stoffer
|
Strahl
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
|
Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams
– 88
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dromisky
| Duhamel
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Folco
| Fontana
| Gagliano
|
Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lastewka
| 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
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mitchell
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Normand
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proud
|
Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Sgro
| Shepherd
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Julien
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
| Vanclief
|
Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 132
|
PAIRED
Members
Bradshaw
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Lefebvre
| Nunziata
|
(The House divided on Motion No. 7, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
|
Brien
| Brison
| Cadman
| Cardin
|
Casey
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Davies
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
|
Dockrill
| Doyle
| Duceppe
| Dumas
|
Earle
| Epp
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Gouk
|
Gruending
| Guay
| Guimond
| Hanger
|
Harris
| Hart
| Harvey
| Hearn
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Konrad
| Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
|
Lill
| Loubier
| Lowther
| Lunn
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
| Marchand
| Mark
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
| McDonough
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
|
Muise
| Nystrom
| Perron
| Proctor
|
Reynolds
| Riis
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
|
Solberg
| St - Jacques
| Stinson
| Stoffer
|
Strahl
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
|
Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams
– 88
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dromisky
| Duhamel
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Folco
| Fontana
| Gagliano
|
Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lastewka
| 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
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mitchell
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Normand
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proud
|
Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Sgro
| Shepherd
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Julien
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
| Vanclief
|
Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 132
|
PAIRED
Members
Bradshaw
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Lefebvre
| Nunziata
|
The Speaker: I declare Motions Nos. 6 and 7. Therefore
Motions Nos. 9 and 10 are lost.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel: Mr. Speaker, I was absent during the last
vote. I wish to be recorded as voting in favour, along with the
other members of my party.
The Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 8. The vote
on this motion also applies to Motion No. 11.
1910
[English]
(The House divided on Motion No. 8, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
| Asselin
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
|
Brien
| Brison
| Cadman
| Cardin
|
Carroll
| Casey
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
|
Desrochers
| Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dumas
|
Earle
| Epp
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Gouk
|
Gruending
| Guay
| Guimond
| Hanger
|
Harris
| Hart
| Harvey
| Hearn
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Konrad
| Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
|
Lill
| Loubier
| Lowther
| Lunn
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
| Marchand
| Mark
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
| McDonough
| Mercier
|
Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Muise
| Nystrom
|
Perron
| Proctor
| Reynolds
| Riis
|
Robinson
| Solberg
| St - Jacques
| Stinson
|
Stoffer
| Strahl
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Turp
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(North Vancouver)
|
Williams – 85
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Boudria
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Caplan
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
| Duhamel
|
Eggleton
| Folco
| Fontana
| Gagliano
|
Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lastewka
| 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
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mitchell
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Normand
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proud
|
Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Sgro
| Shepherd
| St. Denis
|
St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Vanclief
| Wappel
| Whelan
|
Wilfert
| Wood – 126
|
PAIRED
Members
Bradshaw
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Lefebvre
| Nunziata
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 8 lost. I therefore
declare Motion No. 11 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 16.
1915
(The House divided on Motion No. 16, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
| Asselin
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
| Blaikie
| Brien
|
Brison
| Cadman
| Cardin
| Carroll
|
Casey
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Davies
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
|
Dockrill
| Doyle
| Duceppe
| Dumas
|
Earle
| Epp
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Gouk
|
Gruending
| Guay
| Hanger
| Harris
|
Hart
| Harvey
| Hearn
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Konrad
|
Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
| Lill
|
Loubier
| Lowther
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mancini
| Marchand
| Mark
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Mayfield
| McDonough
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Muise
| Nystrom
|
Perron
| Plamondon
| Proctor
| Reynolds
|
Riis
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Solberg
|
St - Jacques
| Stinson
| Stoffer
| Strahl
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Venne
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams
– 87
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Caplan
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
| Duhamel
|
Eggleton
| Folco
| Gagliano
| Godfrey
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
|
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
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Normand
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Proud
| Proulx
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
|
Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Sgro
|
Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Julien
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
|
Vanclief
| Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 125
|
PAIRED
Members
Bradshaw
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Lefebvre
| Nunziata
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 16 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 13 in Group No. 3.
1925
[Translation]
(The House divided on Motion No. 13, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Benoit
| Blaikie
|
Brison
| Cadman
| Casey
| Davies
|
Desjarlais
| Dockrill
| Doyle
| Earle
|
Epp
| Gilmour
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Gouk
|
Gruending
| Hanger
| Harris
| Hart
|
Harvey
| Hearn
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Jaffer
|
Johnston
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Konrad
| Lill
|
Lowther
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
| Mark
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
| McDonough
| Meredith
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Muise
| Nystrom
| Price
|
Proctor
| Reynolds
| Riis
| Robinson
|
Solberg
| St - Jacques
| Stinson
| Stoffer
|
Strahl
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Williams – 51
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
|
Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Bigras
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Brien
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Caplan
|
Cardin
| Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Crête
| Cullen
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desrochers
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dromisky
| Duceppe
| Duhamel
|
Dumas
| Eggleton
| Folco
| Gagliano
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Guay
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Laurin
| Lee
|
Leung
| Limoges
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
Loubier
| Lunn
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
| Perron
|
Peterson
| Phinney
| Pillitteri
| Plamondon
|
Pratt
| Proud
| Proulx
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
|
Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Shepherd
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Julien
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
|
Ur
| Vanclief
| Venne
| Wappel
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 155
|
PAIRED
Members
Bradshaw
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Lefebvre
| Nunziata
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I declare Motion No. 13
lost.
[English]
The next question is on Motion No. 14.
1930
[Translation]
(The House divided on Motion No. 14, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
| Blaikie
| Brien
|
Brison
| Cadman
| Cardin
| Casey
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Davies
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dockrill
|
Doyle
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Earle
|
Epp
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Gouk
| Gruending
|
Guay
| Hanger
| Harris
| Hart
|
Harvey
| Hearn
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Johnston
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Konrad
| Lalonde
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
| Lowther
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
| Mark
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Mayfield
| McDonough
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Muise
| Nystrom
|
Perron
| Plamondon
| Price
| Proctor
|
Reynolds
| Riis
| Robinson
| St - Jacques
|
Stinson
| Stoffer
| Strahl
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 82
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Adams
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Benoit
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dromisky
| Duhamel
| Eggleton
|
Folco
| Gagliano
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jaffer
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
|
Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| Lunn
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mitchell
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Normand
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proud
|
Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reynolds
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Sgro
| Shepherd
|
Solberg
| St. Denis
| St - Julien
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Vanclief
| Whelan
|
Wilfert
| Wood – 130
|
PAIRED
Members
Bradshaw
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Lefebvre
| Nunziata
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I declare Motion No. 14
lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 15.
[English]
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour
of the motion 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:
1940
[Translation]
Before the Clerk announced the result of the vote:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Order, please. I am
concerned that Progressive Conservative members have voted twice.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am going to have to ask
them—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): At this point I will
have to ask the hon. members to indicate how they want to vote.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Madam Speaker, we voted yes both times.
(The House divided on Motion No. 15, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
| Blaikie
| Brien
|
Brison
| Cadman
| Cardin
| Casey
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Davies
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dockrill
|
Doyle
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Earle
|
Epp
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Gouk
| Gruending
|
Guay
| Hanger
| Harris
| Hart
|
Harvey
| Hearn
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Johnston
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Konrad
| Lalonde
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
| Lowther
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
| Mark
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Mayfield
| McDonough
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Muise
| Nystrom
|
Perron
| Plamondon
| Price
| Proctor
|
Reynolds
| Riis
| Robinson
| St - Jacques
|
Stinson
| Stoffer
| Strahl
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Turp
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(North Vancouver)
|
Williams
– 81
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Benoit
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dromisky
| Duhamel
| Eggleton
|
Folco
| Gagliano
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lee
| Leung
|
Limoges
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| Lunn
|
MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Proud
| Proulx
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
|
Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Sgro
|
Shepherd
| Solberg
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Torsney
| Ur
|
Vanclief
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 128
|
PAIRED
Members
Bradshaw
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Lefebvre
| Nunziata
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I declare Motion No.
15 lost.
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.)
moved that the bill be concurred in.
1945
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour
of the motion 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:
1950
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Anderson
| Assadourian
| Augustine
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Boudria
| Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Casey
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Doyle
| Dromisky
| Duhamel
|
Eggleton
| Folco
| Gagliano
| Godfrey
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Harvey
| Hearn
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lastewka
| Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mitchell
|
Muise
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Price
| Proud
| Proulx
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
|
Sgro
| Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Vanclief
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 133
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
| Blaikie
|
Brien
| Cadman
| Cardin
| Chatters
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Davies
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dockrill
|
Duceppe
| Dumas
| Earle
| Epp
|
Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Gouk
| Gruending
| Guay
|
Hanger
| Harris
| Hart
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Konrad
| Lalonde
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| Mancini
| Mark
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
| McDonough
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Nystrom
|
Perron
| Proctor
| Reynolds
| Riis
|
Robinson
| Solberg
| Stinson
| Stoffer
|
Strahl
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Venne
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 75
|
PAIRED
Members
Bradshaw
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Lefebvre
| Nunziata
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I declare the motion
carried.
[Translation]
I wish to inform the House that, because of the delay, the hour
set aside for Private Members' Business will not take place this
evening. The order is therefore deferred to a future sitting.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I am pleased this evening to have the opportunity to call on the
Minister for International Trade to take action on the market
access to Canadian wines.
Canada has been proactive on export issues. We work one on one
with Canadian businesses through team Canada trade missions. We
actively participate in world trade issues and we provide
financial and other support for businesses. The results have
been positive with a record $410 billion trade surplus last year.
Not only was that a record but it was an 11.3% increase over the
year before.
While we have had overall success with exports we have not
experienced the same success with wine exports. We have serious
market access problems with trade imbalances. At a time when
Canadian wines are winning international awards and being enjoyed
by wine lovers the world over, we have some serious export
shortfalls. Let me be more specific.
In 1999 Canada imported more than $565 million worth of wine
from Europe. At the same time Canada's exports to the European
market were just over $400,000.
1955
We are allowing a huge amount of EU wines into Canada. In fact
the LCBO in Ontario is the world's largest export market for
French wines. Unfortunately we are not getting equal access to
their markets. We have a huge trade imbalance of over one
million to one. That is unacceptable.
Let us look at another example. In 1992 the GATT panel ruled
against the United States on its anti-importation barriers for
wine. The panel said that the U.S. discriminated against imports
at both the federal and state levels.
Today most of these barriers still exist. A recent report from
foreign affairs and international trade says that there are new
trade distorting measures affecting Canadian exports that have
been added by American states since the GATT panel ruling of
eight years ago, all of this while Canada remains the largest
export market for American wine. This is not a record we can
take pride in.
At a time when exports are high, our trade surplus is larger
than ever. Canadian wineries are making excellent products. We
have been unable to break into two of the most important markets,
the United States and the EU.
This debate is about helping businesses to succeed. It is about
providing Canadian entrepreneurs, farmers and business people
with the best possible chance for success, and that means access
to markets, increased exports and jobs.
Canada's wine industry is a growing, thriving success. Canadian
wineries have outdone themselves in creating excellent products
in a very short amount of time. Our industry is new but it is
excelling. This growth has happened without the huge
subsidization which occurs in Europe and even in the United
States. Now we need to give our wine industry the chance to grow
and export around the world.
Earlier this year a vintner's enterprise study was completed on
the wine industry in Niagara called “Jazzin' in the Vineyard”.
I would like to summarize my remarks with a quote from that
study. It says:
If the wine industry is to become internationally competitive, it
needs a level playing field in which to participate.
I think that sums it up nicely. I urge the Minister for
International Trade to give this issue his full attention and
make it a number one priority.
Mr. Bob Speller (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of wine
producers of Ontario I thank the member for his tough stands on
the issue. He always lets us know the views of his constituents,
in particular wine producers in Ontario.
Canadian wine producers are making world class wines, as the
member would know. We are exporting many of these wines to the
United States and Europe. They are very important markets for
us.
With respect to market access to the European Union, let me
assure the hon. member that this is a priority of the Government
of Canada. We are making every effort to obtain improved access
to European markets for Canadian wines, including ice wines from
his region.
I am fully aware of the frustration which exists in the industry
and at the provincial level about the significant imbalance of
market access. We are making every effort to address this
situation.
The Minister for International Trade raised this issue directly
with many ministers of trade in the European Union and will
continue to do so. At the departmental level over the past few
months we have been discussing both wine and spirits issues with
the European commission to determine the possibility of reaching
a bilateral agreement that would be beneficial to these
producers.
Officials addressed such subjects as how both sides make wine
and improving the protection of geographical indications. The
latest meeting in March showed that there were significant
differences between our two jurisdictions on the issue. We
remain optimistic that agreements can be reached if we focus our
efforts on a limited, realistic agenda.
2000
We will continue to consult with the industry and provinces in
an effort to develop possible ways to bridge the existing
differences between the two sides.
Canadian wines, I might add, are doing well in the United
States. Exports have grown to $2.7 million in 1999, an increase
of some 200% over the last two years. The Americans are waking
up to the great wines we have here in Canada.
The wine, beer and spirit sector tends to be more regulated than
most others and is marked by a myriad of rules and regulations
governing the trade, sale and distribution of these products.
Some of these rules and regulations fall within the scope of
Canada's trade agreements, others do not. For example, some
states have technical and labelling requirements. These are
often beyond the reach of trade agreements as they apply equally
to in state and out of state as well as imported wines. As well,
it is normal for subnational jurisdictions, provinces or states,
to create local regulations on access and handling, typically
relenting to revenue protection and social responsibility.
I want to thank the hon. member by recognizing the hard work of
the hon. member on behalf of the wine industry. I assure him, on
behalf of the Government of Canada, that we take this issue very
seriously and we will continue to fight on behalf of these
producers.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Pursuant to order made
earlier today, the motion to adjourn the House now is deemed to
have been withdrawn, and the House will now proceed to
consideration of Bill C-11 at third reading.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION DIVESTITURE
AUTHORIZATION AND DISSOLUTION ACT
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.) moved
that Bill C-11, an act to authorize the divestiture of the assets
of, and to dissolve, the Cape Breton Development Corporation, to
amend the Cape Breton Development Corporation Act and to make
consequential amendments to other acts, be read the third time
and passed.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity to
open the third reading debate on Bill C-11 pertaining to the Cape
Breton Development Corporation.
As this debate has proceeded over the last number of days and
indeed over the last number of months, I have been monitoring it
very carefully through all of its stages. Much has been said
sometimes with a great deal of passion and no doubt that will
continue tonight.
I very much respect the deep convictions of all of those who
have taken part in this discussion. At the same time I hope that
our final debate this evening can steer clear of personal attacks
or unwarranted invectives. While we may differ with each other
honestly and sincerely on the most appropriate course for public
policy to take, I hope we can all agree at least that each member
in this House, in the government or in the opposition, is trying
to do the very best possible job her or she can in dealing with
what everybody agrees is a very difficult problem for the people
of Cape Breton.
What I seek is not to criticize or vilify any other member
because he or she happens to disagree with my approach. Instead
I am focused and the government is focused on meaningful
solutions that are as good and as effective as they can be in the
reality of the circumstances that we all have to face.
As I have said before the Standing Committee on Natural
Resources and Government Operations and also in this House, the
key elements of the government's approach to Devco and the
circumstances in Cape Breton are really threefold. First is the
successful sale of Devco's assets to be able to maintain a viable
coal operation and the associated jobs on a sound footing in the
private sector.
Second is a fair and reasonable human resources adjustment
package to assist those who cannot remain in the coal sector.
Third is new economic development initiatives which are community
based and contribute new dimensions to the Cape Breton economy
and way of life.
2005
On that latter point, in January 1999 the government announced
as part of its overall package of proposals with respect to Devco
a $68 million fund to invest in long term sustainable growth in
Cape Breton's future. The province of Nova Scotia later added
another $12 million to that amount to make a total of $80 million
available for these future investments to build the Cape Breton
economy. Consultations on how to invest this funding were
recently completed. A strategy for the delivery of the
appropriate funds is now under development and it should be in
place very shortly.
I would like to make reference to the report of the consultative
panel who went to work on this issue to hear firsthand from the
people of Cape Breton what their hopes and aspirations would be
for the use of that funding for the future. The consultative
panel was chaired by Mr. Michael Kelly and included six other
very distinguished people who have very deep roots in Cape Breton
and a keen understanding of the circumstances in that important
part of Canada.
The report which they have produced and which was released a
short time ago is a very interesting description of the
circumstances on Cape Breton. More than that, more than looking
backward, the report offers a breath of fresh air, a new look
toward the future at what could be if certain circumstances come
about and if the $68 million from the Government of Canada and
the $12 million from the Government of Nova Scotia are properly
invested.
The report is a summary of discussion themes that were brought
forward through presentations and written submissions during the
consultation process on economic renewal. Sessions were held
throughout Cape Breton Island in November and December 1999. In
total, 214 presentations were made and 210 written submissions
were received. Hundreds of Cape Bretoners from all walks of life
attended meetings from New Waterford, Glace Bay, Sydney, Sydney
Mines, Baddeck, Port Hawkesbury, Petite-de-Grat, Chéticamp and
Ingonish. They contributed ideas and suggestions on how to grow
a new economy for the island.
The report is a result of all of that consultation. It
emphasizes the importance of taking advantage of the growth
potential of certain key sectors, facilitating the impact of
established industries, enriching Cape Breton Island's investment
climate, fostering trade to grow wealth and the opportunities
associated with exciting decisions on new government services and
programs.
For any members who are sincerely interested in this crucial
issue of revitalizing and changing the direction of Cape Breton's
economy, I would certainly recommend a very close reading of that
report from the consultative panel. The panel members did their
job well. On behalf of the Government of Canada I want to thank
them for the enormous effort they made to make sure that the
voices of Cape Bretoners were heard in this process.
Consistent with the work of the panel and the thrust of its
report, we have already begun to invest. Some $7 million has
been allocated to a new EDS customer service centre in Sydney,
Nova Scotia. This undertaking has the potential to generate up
to 900 new jobs on Cape Breton Island within a five year period.
As the member for Sydney—Victoria and many others have noted
publicly, this will be helpful in building a better future and
there will be more to come.
With respect to the workforce adjustment package, the basic
proposal worth $111 million was originally announced in January
1999. In full compliance with all existing collective
agreements, that original package provided a combination of early
retirement incentives and severance and training payments and was
predicated on certain practical assumptions.
2010
One of those assumptions was the continuation of coal mining
operations in the Phalen mine on Cape Breton through all of 1999
and most of 2000. As we all know, that assumption did not come
to fruition. In fact for the most compelling of geological and
safety reasons, Phalen had to close about a year sooner than had
been expected.
Last year with the announcement that Phalen would have to close
prematurely, we immediately indicated that parts of the original
human resources package would need to be re-evaluated to take
into account this unexpected change in circumstances. That
evaluation was under way when in January of this year the union
leadership at Devco renewed its request for a formal joint
planning committee process to resolve all outstanding human
resources issues under the full terms and conditions of the
Canada Labour Code.
The process under the Canada Labour Code involved several
defined steps which were meticulously followed as the unions had
requested. This included the selection of Mr. Bruce Outhouse, an
eminent arbitrator who was well qualified and fully acceptable to
all sides.
As members of the House know, the joint planning committee
process was taken through to its final stages with the binding
arbitration decision published on June 2. The decision has
expanded the eligibility for the early retirement incentive
program and has provided medical benefits for those who receive a
severance and training package, as well as a number of other
features.
Devco indicates that in addition to the previous 340 miners, an
additional 249 employees will now be eligible for an early
retirement incentive.
The government and Devco will address the financial implications
of the decision of the arbitrator. These are considerable, in
the range of about $50 million, in addition to the $111 million
that was announced in January 1999.
I will now turn to the sales process. As I have said in the
House before, Bill C-11 relates to the sales process. It is very
straightforward and its purpose is simple. It satisfies the
necessary legal requirements to authorize the sale of Devco's
assets including those requirements that are contained in the
Financial Administration Act as passed by the Parliament of
Canada.
In June 1999 Devco hired BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc. as its financial
adviser to manage the sales process. Last August the first task
for Nesbitt Burns was to review the sales process at public
meetings in Cape Breton with community and stakeholder groups and
to obtain their input. Beginning in October 1999 Nesbitt Burns
contacted 60 prospective purchasers. In December, Devco on the
advice of Nesbitt Burns identified a short list of prospective
purchasers who were invited then to submit definitive proposals.
Such proposals were received by the Devco board.
Devco is now at the stage of evaluating and clarifying one of
the proposals with a view to finalizing the broad terms and
conditions of a potential sales agreement, perhaps as early as
later this month. Negotiations concerning a final detailed
purchase and sale agreement would then follow. A final deal is
subject to both Devco board and Government of Canada approval.
The prospects for transferring the assets of Devco to the
private sector and for maintaining coal mining jobs in a viable
private sector commercial operation for the future are very real.
It is important that we move forward with this opportunity. That
is what this legislation is all about.
This bill was first introduced in the House on October 27, 1999.
Second reading debate took place last fall and this spring.
Over 25 members have spoken to the bill during House and
committee proceedings.
2015
It is our strong conviction that passage of the bill and the
establishment of a commercial operation is the very best way to
try to ensure that coal mining will continue to provide jobs and
contribute in the long term to the economy of Cape Breton. This
is an important step in reshaping and revitalizing Cape Breton's
future prospects and it needs to be kept in the context that I
have described. It is not a sale all on its own.
In addition, there is the $68 million economic development fund
provided by the Government of Canada to which the province of
Nova Scotia has added a further $12 million. Through that
funding and through the regular funding of the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency, Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation and
Human Resources Development Canada, our government will continue
to work with Cape Bretoners on a wide variety of fronts to
diversify their economy beyond the coal sector, which we hope to
preserve through the private sector transaction that this
legislation is all about.
Of course, in addition to the sale, in addition to the economic
development initiatives, in the short term a solution has also
been found to the contentious and difficult human resources
issues. That was done through the independent work of a
distinguished arbitrator who was approved in advance by the
unions, and in fact put into place at the unions' request.
Despite how difficult and contentious the issues surrounding
Devco have been and continue to be, I hope that we can all now
turn our attention to using all available resources, all
available talent and brain power, all available commitment and
dedication to maximize Cape Breton's future potential to turn the
corner toward something that can be much better in the future, to
do the very best we humanly can to ease the burden and to smooth
the way.
I want to thank all members of the House, whether they agree
with the government or not on this issue. I believe very
sincerely that they have approached this issue in a conscientious
way, in a passionate way, and I thank them for their
contributions to the debate as it has unfolded.
I would particularly like to acknowledge the very good work that
the committee chair, the member for Eglinton—Lawrence, has done
and all of the members of the committee. I would also like to
acknowledge the very good work of the member for
Algoma—Manitoulin, who is my parliamentary secretary and who has
assiduously worked every step of the way on this important bill.
I also want to acknowledge and thank members of the
opposition, particularly the members of the New Democratic Party
who represent the area most affected by this legislation. Again,
while we may be on opposite sides in some of the debates, I hope
at the bottom line we share a common desire to try very hard to
do the right thing to improve the quality of life of the people
of Cape Breton.
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I would like to ask for the unanimous consent of the
House to have the opportunity to question the minister on such an
important piece of legislation.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The member for Bras
d'Or—Cape Breton has asked for unanimous consent to provide for
a period of questions. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I rise once again to speak to Bill C-11. I listened
with great interest to the minister's speech. My mother used to
coin a phrase that I thought was very applicable in this
instance. While the minister's speech was very conciliatory and
praised everyone involved, my mother used to say that actions
speak louder than words. In this case I think that is most
applicable.
This issue was brought before the House in October 1999. I
first spoke at second reading on the bill in early November 1999.
The whole thing sat gathering dust until very recently. Then it
came forward again, we finished second reading and it went to
committee.
2020
There was a fairly substantial list of witnesses at committee
who had interests in this bill and the issues around it. Some of
those witnesses were given less than 24 hours to appear before
the committee. They had to rearrange family affairs, job
schedules and all of those things.
They were brought in, four or five witnesses at a time who were
not truly connected in their issues. They sat down to
participate in what was termed a round table discussion at
committee, which did not give either the witnesses an adequate
opportunity to present their case or opposition members an
opportunity to question them at any length to get to the bottom
of the issues they were bringing forward.
On top of that, my colleagues on the committee introduced two
amendments to the legislation. I believe the NDP introduced
about five amendments. None of the amendments introduced by
either party would have substantively changed the bill. I
support the concept of privatization. It is a good idea and it
should have been done sooner. However, there were ways to do it.
Had the government really been looking for some co-operation on
the bill, it could have accepted every one of the amendments
introduced by my party and the NDP. My amendments, hopefully,
would have brought some clarity and accountability to this deal
after it was done, respecting commercial confidentiality, but
having the auditor general a year from the date of the sale
examine the whole sale and its terms and conditions and report
back to the House. Certainly the NDP had some good amendments in
the interests of the miners and the workers involved that would
have protected their interests by guaranteeing certain membership
on the Devco board and the pensioners' adjustment board and all
of those things.
It would have been a marvellous sign of good faith for the
government to simply accept those amendments and it would have
been a good strategy in my opinion. If the government had
accepted those NDP amendments, which were not substantive, then I
do not see how either my party or the NDP could have continued to
oppose the bill, but I may be being too optimistic.
It seems to me that there is some kind of agenda going on here.
In committee when I asked the minister if at some point Canadians
could see the terms and conditions of the sale so as to
understand the terms for whoever buys Devco, the minister himself
said that he would have no problem with that. Then one of his
officials whispered in his ear. I have no idea what he
whispered, but certainly very quickly the minister said that
perhaps the parties to the sale would not accept that clarity or
accountability. That is a real shame.
After the conciliatory speech of the minister I do not want to
be mean-spirited, but one has only to look at the history of the
government and how it has operated in the time since I have been
here. I refer to some of the activities around grants and
contributions in Human Resources Development Canada. I simply do
not trust the government to act in the best interests of Cape
Bretoners or Canadians. I demand accountability and clarity to
assure that those things are met because I do not believe that
they will be.
When I was in Cape Breton I heard rumours from miners, the
unions and prospective buyers.
The story I heard was that the government intends to sell the
assets of Devco to an American company which is already importing
South American coal to Cape Breton. That bothers me.
2025
We have coal miners in Cape Breton. We have an industry that
has been operating in Cape Breton for some 300 years. We have
some of the best mining expertise in the world in Cape Breton.
We have a guaranteed market for the coal which is mined, and we
have all kinds of coal to be mined.
For the Canadian government to abandon those coal miners and
that industry in Cape Breton in favour of giving it to an
American company to bring American or South American coal to Cape
Breton is wrong. I cannot help but think it is very wrong.
It seems to me that it perhaps has something to do with a former
environment minister who stood in the House and said that the
coal industry was an environmentally dirty industry and that her
government intended to phase out coal mining in Canada. I cannot
help but think that is part of the agenda. I do not know how
else one might explain the absolute refusal of Nesbitt Burns, in
co-operation with the chairman of the board of Devco, who
reviewed the bids which were coming in, to accept or consider
Canadian bids.
I met with two groups when I was in Cape Breton, both of whom
submitted bids for Devco, both of whom told me that Nesbitt Burns
had phoned them, had refused to give them anything in writing
that they could pass on to myself, to members of the NDP or
others, and told them that their bids would not be accepted for
consideration.
Coming into the committee process, I asked that one of those
private sector Nova Scotia bidders be allowed to come to
committee to tell the story. The spokesman for that group was
not even phoned and asked to come before the committee to present
the story. I think that is wrong.
Of course, the other group which also had a local bid in for the
assets of Devco just happens to have a lawsuit against the
Government of Canada for reneging on its commitment to the
company in conjunction with Donkin Mine. Again, I do not see how
the government could possibly sell Donkin Mine, which is part of
Devco's package of assets. How could it sell when the whole
thing is tied up in litigation before the courts?
I do not think that could be done. Certainly if I was part of
that group I would very quickly get an injunction to stop the
sale before it took place.
There are all kinds of issues. There are issues of
mismanagement, on which the parliamentary secretary would not
allow questions in committee. I think there is a long history of
mismanagement around the operation of Devco and there continues
to be today.
I am not a miner or a mining engineer, but when I accessed the
yearly financial statements of the corporation I could see for
myself, and certainly others in Cape Breton pointed out to me,
that for some time there has been a management regime in place
that appears to be bent on putting Devco out of business and
putting Devco's financial statements in the red. There was a
deliberate attempt to wind down Devco through mismanagement and
lack of capital investment, lack of maintenance, and all of those
things.
We were not allowed to discuss those issues by the government,
through the parliamentary secretary. The parliamentary secretary
is a person I have come to have a lot of respect for over the
years in which I have sat on the natural resources committee. I
think that he has bent over backward to be fair on many occasions
when he was chairman of the committee and I have a lot of respect
for him. I can understand what was going on in committee and
around this bill, but that does not make me any less disappointed
about what took place.
We were repeatedly told that the committee was a legislative
committee dealing with a bill and that we were only allowed to
deal with issues arising out of the bill, not the issues that are
connected to the sale of Devco but are not actually part of the
bill.
2030
As the witnesses appeared before the committee, after short
notice, they were asked to sit down three, four and five at a
time and told that they had 10 minutes between them to present
their case. In some instances we had a minute or less to ask
them questions. I do not think that we were able to adequately
explore any of the issues around the sale of Devco and the
implications for the people of Cape Breton.
I am convinced that there was a Canadian solution. I know there
was but the government for whatever reason did not seem prepared
to look at that. I think it would have been humane and the right
thing to do if the government had done something to offset the
impact to the miners. That goes right back to 30 years ago when
Devco was put in place. It was partly an effort to offset the
human resources liability of the Dominion Steel and Coal Company
that went bankrupt and had left miners without pensions,
severance pay and all those things.
It was the government's responsibility, rightly so then as it is
now, to wind down Devco. However, because of the commitment in
the Devco bill that the government made to the people of Cape
Breton, it would have been only right for the government to
accept the human resource liability and offset it in whatever way
it could.
In fact section 17 of the old act says that the corporation
shall adopt all reasonable measures to reduce to the fullest
extent possible any economic hardship or unemployment that may
result from the closing of any coal mine operated by the
corporation. The government of the day committed to doing that
and that obligation is certainly upon this government to fulfil
it.
Part of Bill C-11 is to eliminate that clause. If some time in
the next months ahead we discover that the government sold the
assets of Devco to an American company that closed the coal mines
in Cape Breton, the government would be in breach of its own
commitment, in fact in breach of the legislation that is in place
today until this bill comes into force and that particular clause
is eliminated.
I can understand why the government wants to remove that clause.
It certainly would be liable if it did not. However, there were
ways. The government has gone a long way through the injection
of the money that the minister talked about for the economy of
Cape Breton and the diversification of that economy. Those things
could and should be done but that liability cannot be tied to the
new owners of Devco. The liability of the miners, the families
and the environmental liability of the Dominion Steel and Coal
Company was what for so many years made Devco unprofitable. That
was where Devco lost money.
We have heard members in the House, certainly the NDP members
and others, say again and again that the coal mining operation of
Devco was a profitable operation. It was mining coal at a price,
when sold to the market that they had, where it was making money.
It was the liability that the government had saddled Devco with
so many years ago that made it unprofitable.
If the government intends to saddle the new owners with that
liability I do not visualize anyone buying Devco. We will never
know because it will be under the terms and conditions of sale.
We cannot see the government insisting that the new owners of of
Devco take on the responsibility for the human resources
liability, such as the union contracts, the union liabilities and
all the things that go with it, plus the huge environmental
liability that exists there today. The minister did not talk
about who would be responsible for the environmental liability.
I was down there. The liability cost of decommissioning the two
mines, the coal wash plant and all the rest of it, not to mention
the mess at the Sydney tar ponds and the slag pile from the
Sydney Steel mills, is huge.
There is no question in my mind that the people of Canada will be
stuck with that cost. No company, either local, American or
foreign, will buy Devco if it has to accept that liability.
2035
Since we will be stuck with that liability anyway, why would the
government not accept both the human resource liability and the
environmental liability? It could then consider the local bids
from the key people of Nova Scotia and Cape Breton who are
willing to operate not only the Prince mine but the Donkin mine
and perhaps even the Phalen mine. They could operate them
locally, employ local people, sell the coal to Nova Scotia Power
and use the international pier to feed extra coal into the export
market. Cape Bretoners were willing to do that and this
government would not even have a look at or accept their bids.
That was wrong.
On that basis, there is no way that I can recommend to my party
that we support the bill. It is not because we do not agree that
coal mining in Cape Breton could not operate profitably under the
private sector, and should operate under the private sector, but
simply because of the way this deal is being handled, the secrecy
surrounding it and the refusal of the government to tell the
House and Canadians that it has at least made a commitment to the
terms and conditions of sale and that whoever buys the assets of
Devco has to operate the mine for a particular length of time.
I simply cannot support the bill and will recommend to my party
that we vote against it, as I have at every other stage. I
believe there is a viable coal mining industry in Cape Breton.
There is a Canadian solution available that will put Cape
Bretoners to work. The government has been negligent in not
considering the Canadian solution, and that is a shame.
[Translation]
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we have just
finished the report stage of Bill C-11. We have just voted on the
various motions introduced by the New Democratic Party, and of
course the people behind those motions were the hon. members for
Sydney—Victoria and for Bras-d'Or—Cape Breton.
These amendments were given overall support by the Bloc
Quebecois because they addressed certain elements affecting
employees and former employees and their future.
We in the Bloc Quebecois agree with the principle of
privatization even if, on occasion, the positions are not always
readily obvious. On the one hand, we are told it is not
profitable and that they want to sell it, and on the other that
it could be privatized profitably, because the local people could
operate it. This is a pretty unclear situation, and a number of
questions need to be asked.
First of all, we know that the future of the coal industry is
not clear. From the strictly environmental point of view, we
know what results it can have. From the operational point of
view, more and more people are trying to use alternative
energies. There are questions to be asked about the coal
industry per se.
But the minister tells us it is not cost-effective. Moreover the
president of the Cape Breton Economic Development Corporation
came before the committee to also tell us it was not
cost-effective. So the question needs to be asked. If it is not
cost-effective, if the government was not able to make it
cost-effective when it was in charge, how can it manage to be so
as a private enterprise? What is hidden behind all this? Is the
government putting Devco up for sale merely to get rid of its
responsibility?
2040
One thing struck me in this matter. Since the government got
involved in the Cape Breton Development Corporation in 1967, some
$2.5 billion has been spent, in money for the coal division or
the industrial development division or for investments already
made or about to be made in economic development. This is a lot
of money.
When the government got involved in 1967 and committed itself to
spending this $2.5 billion, imagine the regional and economic
development this sum could have provided had it not all been
invested in coal alone.
In general terms, the Bloc Quebecois supports privatization, but
also supports employee protection. We support almost all the
amendments proposed, especially those of the NDP.
The Bloc Quebecois opposes all positions taken by the federal
government, which meddles in areas of provincial responsibility.
Clause 5 of the bill provides that, even if the federal
government disposes of Devco assets, it remains responsible for
all work related matters, including the CSST, labour standards
and labour relations.
It is for this reason primarily that we cannot support the bill.
Another reason is the government's refusal to support the NDP
amendments. And we can see in this whole matter the government's
inability to provide solid regional development for everyone.
The Bloc Quebecois will therefore vote against Bill C-11.
[English]
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
rise to speak to the bill at third reading, as I have risen to
speak to it when it was introduced, as I have spoken to it in
committee, as I have spoken to it at second reading and as I
voted tonight on the amendments put forward by our party and by
the Bloc.
I listened to the minister's words this evening. He approached
the debate with a respectful tone. I think I should tell him
that I know this has been a difficult process for him. It has
not been an easy battle for any of us who have had to fight it.
There are some things however that need to be said and some
items that need to be clarified with respect to the minister's
statement.
First, he did come to Cape Breton in January 1999. Prior to his
arrival, I wrote to him, the member for Bras d'Or—Cape Breton
wrote to him, and the provincial MLA for Cape Breton—The Lakes
and the current MLA for Cape Breton Centre, Frank Corbett, wrote
a joint letter on, I think, December 31 outlining that we
understood that the government was moving in a direction. There
had been rumours of that and documents that subsequently
indicated that this plan had been in place for some time. We
wrote indicating we understood the complexity of this. I
remember the letter because we said that the pension plans in
particular had to be looked at carefully because the current
formula would not be fair.
The government announced a package in January. I will not go
through the history. I have spoken to this bill many times. I
have spoken to it passionately, as the minister has acknowledged.
However, the package that was announced in January was never
changed.
2045
The minister indicated that in January of this year the unions
requested a joint planning committee. Indeed there was an
illegal strike. The miners went into the mine and held up
production. There was a question as to whether or not Nova
Scotia Power would be able to provide continued power to Nova
Scotians.
Only then did the government agree to the process that resulted
in binding arbitration. That arbitrator's award subsequently
said that the miners and the employees of the Cape Breton
Development Corporation were shortchanged with the government's
offer. They were entitled to more money and a different package.
I think it is important to clarify that.
There are unanswered questions. This is unfinished business.
The member from the Canadian Alliance referred to the question of
the Donkin mine. Whether or not that mine will be subject to a
sale remains unclear.
I heard today from people in my community and from miners who
have lined up outside the general mining building requesting
their severance package. They were told that they would not be
eligible for a severance package because they would be in the
workforce when the new owner took possession of the assets.
The member for Bras d'Or—Cape Breton and I attended the meeting
with Nesbitt Burns held in the community and said that the men
had been told they would get either a pension or a severance
package or employment. We asked how they could guarantee
employment.
There is still unfinished business. These men do not know if
they qualify for a severance package, simply by virtue of the
fact that they work for the corporation, or whether they have to
hope there will be a job with the new company.
Other issues need explanation. In the middle of the provincial
election campaign the Prime Minister of the country wrote to a
woman in Glace Bay, Edna Budden, in a letter that she made
public. This was in July and he said that she should not worry,
that the government would review the package. He was confident
that it would be improved.
That letter needs to be explained. It needs to be explained by
the Prime Minister. It needs to be explained as to why it was
sent and why the government only improved the package when it was
forced to by an arbitrator. Those are unfinished pieces of
business, which I suppose will be the job of historians to
explain.
I feel tonight a bit the way I used to feel when I practised
family law. Spouses would come to see me after a long marriage
and say that they did not know what happened but the other
parties were not interested any more.
A covenant was made in the Chamber 33 years ago, almost to the
day, in June 1967. The then Liberal government made a covenant
with the people of Nova Scotia and the people of Cape Breton, in
particular through the Cape Breton Development Corporation,
recognizing that the economy of Cape Breton had to be
diversified.
These are not just my words. Let me read from an editorial in
my community's newspaper this morning. It is entitled “The
covenant is nearly at an end”. It talks about Bill C-11 and
whether or not it will get through the Senate. It says:
Yet the Senate, that chamber of second sober thought, is perhaps
the best place to debate the passing of the historic relationship
between Ottawa and Cape Breton that has flowed in large part from
the 1967 Devco act.
The arbitrator referred to the act and the historic covenant in
his report. He quoted Jean-Luc Pepin. Ironically he quoted the
New Democratic Party MP at that time for York South and a
Conservative member. It is surprising that the Conservative
Party voted in favour of this bill. Senator Bob Muir, who at
that time was a member of parliament representing the mining
community, and the New Democrats wanted the government to ensure
employment for miners.
The government of the day said that it did not have to ensure
that because of section 17 of the Devco act, which has already
been referred to. I have referred to that section on numerous
occasions and I do not want to use up my time saying what I have
already said.
It said that all reasonable measures to reduce as far as possible
any unemployment or economic hardship that could be expected to
result would be taken by the government.
2050
After 33 years one of the parties to the accord, as in a
marriage, came in and said it is tired of the covenant. They
have been together through some tough times and some good times.
Certainly the people of Cape Breton have supported the Liberals
throughout those 33 years.
In 1995 or thereabouts the government began having second
thoughts about the covenant. In 1999 it served notice. Like a
divorce paper, the notice was delivered. The parties went to
court through the arbitrator and an award was made. I have no
question that the covenant will be broken tomorrow night when the
House passes the bill and it goes to the Senate.
Those kinds of breakups are always hard because both parties
have invested. The people of Cape Breton have invested heavily
with faith in their government. The government has invested
heavily in Cape Breton. I do not diminish that. Like the spouse
who is tired, the government has said it is time for them to go
their separate ways.
Unfortunately the people of Cape Breton are like the spouses
that end up impoverished. They are the ones who end up without
the house. The kids are gone. There is not money in the bank
account. They are told to get by the best way they can. There is
a $68 million alimony payment over five years to replace the $300
million in the economy.
I used to advise those spouses that they did have to get on,
that there was no point in bitterness or that at the end of the
day they would waste more time than they had already wasted. I
refer to the same editorial where it says:
Section 17, which will be expunged from the amended act, sets out
obligations to the workforce and the general economy in the event
of coal industry downsizing or the closure—
Those words sound almost anachronistic in today's more Darwinian
economic and political climate. Perhaps the words have become
little more than empty marks on paper, but their official eraser
from the law of the land should at least provide an occasion to
pause and consider where Cape Breton goes from here.
I spent many hours on the floor of the House condemning the
government for what it has done, but the editorial is right. We
have to look at where we go. We are a tough people. We are
proud people. We are people who will rise from this. We are a
people who will move on. We are a people who will accept the
challenge. I will offer to the government tonight some
suggestions. I hope it listens because it challenged us from
time to time to say what it should do.
The minister referred to the report tabled by the economic
panel. The one thing I was waiting to hear, which nearly every
group that presented before the panel talked about, was
decentralization. We now accept that we are in a crisis. The
government has walked away. I suggest the first thing the
government should do is look at decentralizing some of the very
wealthy departments that exist in this very wealthy city and move
them to areas of high unemployment.
I had a motion in the House to that effect. The Standing
Committee on Fisheries and Oceans has said that the department
should be moved out of Ottawa to either coast. In an area of 50%
unemployment it is time for the government to act on that
recommendation.
There are other things the government could do. The Department
of Citizenship and Immigration is currently in Cape Breton. It
provides some spinoff economy. As has been referred to earlier,
there is also a need for remediation work. The mines have to be
remediated. That is a legal obligation on the part of the Cape
Breton Development Corporation. The miners who are out of work
or who will not qualify for pensions or benefits ought to be
provided with an opportunity to remediate those mines.
That will provide some lasting employment for those individuals
and some training in that regard.
2055
It has been mentioned that we have the Tar Ponds site. There is
no better place in the country for a centre of environmental
excellence than the island of Cape Breton. We are a beautiful
island but we have environmental problems. I would ask the
government to invest, if it is serious about its commitment, in
the island of Cape Breton to create a centre of environmental
excellence.
Other companies are looking at investing and growing the
technology. Let us be clear that we have to clean up the
environment or we simply will not have a world. There are sites
around the world that need remediation. Cape Bretoners are hard
workers. With the right training we could develop a technology
that we could export around the world.
In the short term these would be most welcome announcements from
the government: that it plans to decentralize, that it plans to
set up a centre of environmental excellence and that is plans to
remediate the mining sites. Indeed it has to remediate the
Sydney Tar Ponds. All of these create jobs. All of these create
knowledge. All of these create some wealth.
There is in my riding the Canadian Coast Guard College. It is a
fact that there is currently in the law a requirement that
everyone who ships oil on the ocean has to employ individuals who
are trained in ocean cleanup. There may be one centre in the
country where we can train people in that regard. The Canadian
Coast Guard College on the ocean is a perfect place for the
government to begin training individuals in ocean cleanup, in oil
spills. That too could become a centre of environmental
remediation for teaching individuals in that regard.
Cape Breton has a history of being an energy centre. I note
that the Minister of Finance provided money in the budget this
year for clean coal research and clean coal development. We have
the miners. We have the coal. We have a history of providing
energy. The government should invest and ensure that clean coal
technology is developed in Cape Breton.
Cape Breton can also be a centre of sustainable energy
development. In Europe, Denmark and Alberta wind power is seen
as the energy source of the future. There are no greater winds
than those that come off the north Atlantic. We could provide
sustainable energy, not just for Nova Scotia but for much of the
eastern seaboard.
Clean coal technology, wind power and environmental excellence
would all provide opportunities. I have been asked to tour these
plants. I am told that wind powered generator plants are like
airplane manufacturing companies. There is all kinds of work for
electricians, for the skills people in Cape Breton have developed
working in the mines.
I spoke to the Minister of Natural Resources personally the
other day. I commend him for finally appointing an arbitrator to
help determine the dispute between Newfoundland and Nova Scotia
in terms of who shares in the Laurentian offshore. There is a
real opportunity, if we seize it and if the government assists
us, to make a petroleum industry in Cape Breton. We should be
the supply base for any kind of offshore development. The skills
of the workforce of the Cape Breton Development Corporation would
be best suited to do that kind of work. It is dangerous work we
know, but we are up to the task. It requires training but we are
intelligent. The sooner we can develop the Laurentian Basin, the
sooner we can see some economic growth.
The minister mentioned high tech and the call centre. With the
greatest respect, I was happy to see the announcement and I
welcomed it but those 900 jobs would be considered in any other
part of the country secondary income jobs.
In terms of high tech, if what we can expect are call centre
jobs, it is simply not enough.
2100
There is the opportunity to develop tourism. This is my concern
with section 17. Tourism has been touted as the windfall for
Cape Breton Island. Yet it has been reported to me that ECBC,
the economic development agency that the minister now says will
take over what was once the role of Devco, has decided to go back
to the basics of assisting manufacturing. It has cut the budget
which assists tourism in Cape Breton considerably.
We have some concerns. Tourism is an area that we can develop
but we cannot develop it without infrastructure money. There is
no point in inviting people to Cape Breton if the roads they
drive on around the Cabot Trail are full of potholes. There is
no point in inviting people to come to Cape Breton if we do not
have museums and cultural centres for them to visit.
I presented the government with a wonderful proposal from the
aboriginal community in Cape Breton to create a centre of Mi'kmaq
studies and history and culture. It would be built on the
waterfront and would provide an opportunity to attract tourists.
Our cultural industry is second to none. We could develop what
Silver Donald Cameron, a well-known writer from Cape Breton,
calls Banff east. It would be my hope that some day that could
grow to where we would refer to Banff as Cape Breton west.
We have produced some of the country's best writers in
literature. Alister MacLeod has two books on the best seller
list. He is considered a master craftsman. Out of Cape Breton
have come some wonderful writers. Ann-Marie MacDonald's book has
been quoted. There are many. Bryden MacDonald and Audrey
Butler have been nominated for the Governor General's Award.
There are opportunities for Cape Breton. I will work very hard
and I know the people of Cape Breton will work very hard to see
an economic future for ourselves, for our children and for our
grandchildren. We will do that with some mistrust of government.
We will do that, although we are prepared to work with
government, with some bruising. We will do that with some
mistrust because a covenant has been broken. When it was broken
we were left, in the vernacular, with the short end of the stick.
We are tough enough to rise to the challenge. We will rise to
it. We will build an economic future, but the Government of
Canada should be very reluctant the next time it reaches out to
look for support from us, because we have given. We have given
in two world wars, we have given in depressions, we have given to
charities, we have given every time the nation has asked. We
have given. Today we find the nation through the Government of
Canada telling us it is time to separate. It is a sad day but we
will get on with it.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to speak to Bill C-11, the Cape Breton Development Corporation
divestiture authorization and dissolution act.
The government announced in January last year that it was going
to sell the assets of Cape Breton Development Corporation which
is more commonly referred to as Devco. The government stated that
this decision was necessary for economic and financial reasons.
Devco has not had a prosperous financial history having survived
in some cases only due to subsidization provided by the federal
government, subsidies that have culminated in more than $1.5
billion being spent in Cape Breton Island.
That sounds like a lot of money and I would certainly agree that
it is. What that figure does not tell us is the peripheral
effect that this money provided to the people of Nova Scotia and
in particular to the island of Cape Breton.
2105
At committee we heard from the mayor of the Cape Breton Regional
Municipality, David Muise, and he put some of the figures into
perspective for us. For instance, the federal government set
aside $68 million for economic development when it announced the
privatization of Devco. However, according to Mr. Muise the
region will be losing $65 million in purchasing power and a loss
of $1.5 million paid in lieu of taxes by the corporation. When
we put that in perspective, the $68 million is not quite the
figure it sounds like.
Other groups also told us about the hardship that the closure of
the coal mines will have on the workers and their families. The
Phalen mine was closed earlier than anticipated and no
information is being released about the potential buyer for the
Prince mine, but the federal government has optimistically said
that there will be employment for 500 people. That leaves more
than 1,100 people without jobs. Many of the witnesses before the
committee questioned whether even those 500 jobs would be
available.
Let me go back to what the mayor had to say at committee. He
told us that his municipality is 2,600 square kilometres with a
population of 117,000 at the last census, but it was losing young
people at a rate of 1,000 per year. One thousand young people
are leaving the municipality of Cape Breton per year because they
do not see a future for them on the island of Cape Breton. The
official unemployment rate is 20%, but the reality of that number
is really much higher, some say as high as 40% and the poverty
rate is 25%.
The economic reality facing the miners in Cape Breton is bleak.
This was reinforced by presentations from groups such as United
Families and Northside Future. It was also the reason I put
forward amendments at committee to try and secure better pension
packages for the miners and improve medical benefits for miners
and families. Benefits are needed by miners who suffer from
black lung disease, a condition that results from years spent
underground breathing in coal dust. Neither of these amendments
were successful.
I should make it clear that the Progressive Conservative Party
supports the removal of the federal government from the coal
mining industry in Cape Breton. At the end of the day the
federal government should not be operating the coal mines in Cape
Breton. The past history of the crown corporation clearly shows
that the mines did not operate efficiently under government
authority.
However, the government must assume its share of the blame for
the failure of the crown corporation to fulfil its objectives.
With all of the money that has been provided by the federal
government for diversification in the region, there has been
little success and far too much political interference.
When the crown corporation was established in 1967 it was
clearly intended to help the region move away from its dependence
on the coal industry. From the presentations that we heard at
committee, it is clear that there is still a strong reliance on
the coal mining industry for employment. It is also clear that
the government has only paid lip service to helping coal miners
without any real propulsion to effect change.
The denial of all the amendments at committee and again at
report stage, some of which would really have improved this
legislation and demonstrated a commitment by the federal
government to help the people of Cape Breton, clearly showed that
this was a political process.
At the same time one needs to be an optimist and believe the
federal government when it says it will try to secure the best
deal possible in the sale of Devco's assets and in helping some
miners retain employment. It is easy to see why there is
skepticism on the part of the miners, but they also know that
there is more coal producing potential in Cape Breton.
Prince mine can produce one million tonnes of coal and there is
a much greater potential in the Donkin mine if and when it is
ever developed. The contract to supply coal to Nova Scotia Power
will be a major factor in enticing a buyer while the coal
handling pier and other properties of the corporation will be
strong selling points and valuable assets to potential buyers.
There is opportunity for development of the Donkin mine and
remedial work cleaning up some of the mine sites. The work ethic
of the miners shows that the possibility exists for coal mine
development, but coal mine development will not be the sole
economic driver of the future of Cape Breton or Cape Bretoners.
2110
There is very little information about potential buyers. The
only thing known is that local bidders have not been included in
the final process. Some of the best minds and entrepreneurs in
the coal industry are not being included and given an opportunity
to bid on the assets of Devco corporation. Instead it appears
foregone that there will be a foreign owner operating the coal
mines of Cape Breton.
I want to discuss the amendments that were presented. A number
of positive amendments were put forward, ones that would have
provided Cape Bretoners with a stronger voice and greater say in
how the mining industry will operate in the region.
I put forward amendments to try to enhance the medical benefits
for miners who have contracted black lung disease as a result of
years spent mining coal underground. I also tried to improve the
pension package, to extend it to miners with 20 years of service
rather than 25 years and a total of 75 points as the government
has intended.
None of the amendments put forward were accepted. The
government members of the committee voted against every amendment
without regard for the improvements they could have provided to
this legislation. Amendments at report stage were also denied.
Last week the federally appointed arbitrator made his ruling
public. Bruce Outhouse had been tasked with determining an
equitable severance package and pension plan for the Devco
miners. In his decision miners with 25 years of service
regardless of age would receive early retirement packages. While
he refused to accommodate miners with 20 years of experience, his
decision will provide packages to an additional 246 miners and
will add another $40 million to the overall package.
Mr. Outhouse declined to provide the same offer to miners with
20 years of experience on the basis that it would be too costly,
requiring an additional $79 million. We continue to disagree
with this aspect of his decision, but both parties went to
binding arbitration in good faith and certainly we have to stick
by the ruling that was brought down.
His ruling regarding health benefits also added support to
changes that the PC Party has been trying to advance. Again the
arbitrator ruled that medical benefits be paid to employees for
the length of time they receive severance payments.
The medical problems confronting miners mainly result from years
spent working underground and inhaling coal dust. It is only
appropriate that medical benefits continue to allow these miners
some security; otherwise health plans would likely be unavailable
to them since it is difficult for anyone suffering from such
ailments to successfully qualify.
A comment by Mr. Outhouse summarizes the difference between the
way the government has handled this legislation and the sale of
Devco's assets and the views of the PC Party. In defending his
decision to provide early retirement benefits to all miners with
25 years of experience, Mr. Outhouse stated:
This is a substantial sum by any standard. However, I am
convinced that anything less would fail to adequately reflect the
long service of these employees and the difficult future which
lies ahead of them.
This is exactly the point. The federal government has
introduced the legislation that we are discussing here today to
provide for the dissolution and devolution of Devco's assets. It
has failed to take into consideration the lives of the people who
are directly impacted by this decision. Rather than listen to
the people of Cape Breton or to amendments put forward to improve
the legislation, the government was signalling that it does not
care how the people of Cape Breton cope with the loss of 1,100
jobs and how this will impact on the miners, their families and
their communities.
The PC Party recognizes that the federal government's role in
Devco has been extended beyond the point where it is financially
feasible to subsidize the coal operations of Devco. However, the
government could have decided on its own that it would provide a
retirement package equal to those offered to other crown
corporations when they were privatized. By failing to do so the
government has lost credibility and demonstrated once again that
it does not understand ordinary working Canadians.
2115
I would like to mention the fact that committee and government
parliamentarians were lobbied by many people from Cape Breton
Island. Members from Cape Breton worked tirelessly on behalf of
their constituents, as well as most of the critics for the
natural resources portfolio.
I had the opportunity to meet a number of people, all of whom
were here for the right reasons. They were all working for the
betterment of Cape Bretoners. There are two people I would like
to point out and make note of tonight. They are Edna Budden and
Bev Brown of United Families. Although we did not always agree
on every issue, they spoke from their heart and they worked
tirelessly on behalf of Devco miners and Cape Bretoners, with no
gain for themselves.
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague from the
Progressive Conservative Party for his wonderful remarks, but I
have to ask him this question, with all due respect. I listened
to him talk tonight about how he and his party recognized the
implications, both social and economic, that Bill C-11 would have
for miners, their families and their communities, and how he
rightly threw bouquets to those delegations from Cape Breton who
came here and worked tirelessly on behalf of their families.
Could the hon. member maybe explain to me, my colleagues and all
those miners and their families who are watching tonight at home
why he and his party tonight at report stage voted with the
government on Bill C-11? Could he explain that, please?
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Quite easily, Mr. Speaker. It is very
simple. The days of Devco have gone by. Cape Bretoners, Nova Scotians
and Canadians cannot afford a crown corporation to mine coal at a
loss any longer. It has to stop somewhere. It is stopping here.
The government has made the right decision.
I do not agree with how it has implemented the decision. I do
not agree with a number of things about it. We have tried to
improve it and not just simply to provoke the government trying
to get our name in the paper over it. We have tried to make
legitimate improvements to this legislation. We have worked
tirelessly to do that.
At the end of the day, when the sun is going down, there will be
miners at work mining coal in Cape Breton. Prince Mine will
continue to operate. Phalen Mine, I suspect, will be reopened in
the upper collieries. There is still potential in Donkin, but
there is no potential there if the federal government continues
on that mine. There is no support from Canadians and the federal
government cannot do it. It is time to move it on to private
enterprise. It is time to dissolve and divest ourselves of our
interest in Devco.
Quite simply, there other alternatives for Cape Breton Island.
If we put the same money into Cape Breton Island that we put into
the Devco mines, we would have a lot more than 500 or 600 people
working there in the months to come.
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, may I first say that I stand tonight not only on behalf
of Cape Bretoners, but as a Cape Bretoner and a member of the
community with a very heavy heart with respect to Bill C-11 and
the implications it will have for my community, my constituents
and a lot of my friends.
If I were allowed, and I know I am not, I would say it is
unfortunate there are no government members here tonight.
However, I know I am not allowed to say that.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member, who
is a very polished parliamentarian, knows full well that she
cannot bring in the back door that which she cannot bring in the
front door.
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill: I apologize, Mr. Speaker. As I
said, I knew I could not say that and I apologize for that slip
of the tongue and the fact that it did come out.
I would like to take a bit of time, because the situation
warrants it, to give a little history lesson about what some
people in Cape Breton Island and, quite frankly, I myself believe
was the beginning of what got us to where we are at today.
2120
I have a phenomenal document called “Beyond 2000: Whose Idea
was it Anyway?” It is amazing the information we can find when
we sift through our files. This morning I was reading this and
it is important that we make note of it and make sure it is
on the record.
On October 15, 1994 a local newspaper, the Mail-Star,
reported that Nova Scotia Power would pick up the tab for the
Nova Scotia provincial government and Nova Scotia's corporate
elite to attend a two day conference at the Digby Pines resort.
The purpose was to allow the business community and political
leaders to devise methods to kickstart Nova Scotia's economy.
This was referred to as the Digby dialogue and was just weeks
prior to Nova Scotia Power's attempt to break Devco's coal
contract.
Interestingly enough, there are a few names of attendees at that
meeting that I think some of us would recognize: Joseph P.
Shannon, president of Seaboard Transport, Paul Sobie, Gerry
Godsoe, Stewart McKelvy of Stirling Scales, Irving Schwartz, Ken
Rowe, Derek Oland, Ivan Duvar, John Bragg, Irene
d'Entremont, Karen Cramm, Graham Dennis, Tom Hall, Dr.
Elizabeth Parr-Johnston, Bernie Boudreau, John Savage.
It is interesting that my hon. colleague from the Canadian
Alliance is shaking his head. Obviously he recognizes some of
those names. The date is what is really important. We should
remember October 15, 1994.
Interestingly enough, on December 19, 1994, George Cather, who
at that time was the chairman of the board of directors of Devco,
had a meeting with the president of the United Mine Workers to
talk about a dinner meeting that he had had with a gentleman by
the name of Louis Comeau, president of Nova Scotia Power. Mr.
Cather made reference to the fact that Nova Scotia Power was
going to take the necessary steps to terminate Devco's contract.
At the same time staff reporter Judy Maddren of the Halifax
Chronicle-Herald reported on the shareholders list of Nova Scotia
Power as prepared at that time by Montreal Trust. She reported
that everyone from New York bankers to pumpkin king Howard Dill
was on the list, which she said read like a who's who of the
corporate establishment: prominent Nova Scotia families, the
Sobies, Ivan Duvar, Graham Dennis, Louis Comeau, Judge David
Chipman, Lloyd Crouse. She remarked that there was an
obvious similarity between the Nova Scotia Power shareholders
list and the Digby Pines guest list.
The significance of the similarity was enhanced by Roger Taylor,
business editor of the Chronicle-Herald, in an article
titled “Corporate Power Concentrated in Nova Scotia”.
At that time Mr. Taylor suggested that if there was a chart
showing the directors of major Nova Scotian companies, many at
that time would have said it looked like a family tree. I do not
think they would have been wrong. Mr. Taylor reported on the
list of Maritime Tel & Tel directors revealed: Joseph P.
Shannon, Paul Sobie, Donald Sobie, Derek Oland, John Bragg, Dr.
Elizabeth Parr-Johnston. Mr. Taylor reported that a chart would
show the directors and companies were interlinked. In fact, as
if it were a family tree, he said it would concern any genetics
expert. He posed the question “Does the concentration of
corporate power in the hands of a few pay off for the rest of
us?”
The reason I thought it was important to talk about how history
has evolved with respect to the Cape Breton Development
Corporation is because in the notice of the annual Nova Scotia
Power general meeting released on February 12, 1993, the
following people were among those proposed for nomination as
directors: Louis R. Comeau, Sir Graham Day, Paul Sobie, Kenneth
Rowe, Derek Oland and Rosemary Scanlan of New York.
2125
This announcement came just five months after Nova Scotia Power
excluded Devco from the Digby pines dialogue.
As I said, we are talking about a history lesson. Remember the
date I first began with with respect to the corporate elite in
Nova Scotia and the famous Digby pines dialogue. In a letter to
the Minister of Natural Resources dated April 4, 1995 the Prime
Minister stated, “The goal of the government is to make Devco
commercially viable with the view to privatize it in the longer
term”. In a cabinet decision on December 19, 1995 the former
Minister of Natural Resources, the current Minister of Justice,
was asked to return to cabinet with a privatization plan.
When I look at the time frame' there was the Digby dialogue in
October 1994. A number of situations evolved from that time.
There is a cabinet document commissioned by the government to
privatize Devco. For me and my constituents, this is the issue.
The issue has never been whether or not the government has or has
not the right to get out of the industry.
Some people in Cape Breton Island would say what happened to
Cape Breton Development Corporation has been the fault of the
chairman of the board. I think the chairman of the board did a
phenomenal job. I think the chairman of the board did exactly
what the government wanted him to do.
It is also interesting that there were two individuals at Devco
when Nova Scotia Power began the challenge to change its
contract. It was very interesting that following the 1993
federal election an individual by the name of Dave Dingwall moved
into cabinet. Following that, the two individuals within Cape
Breton Development Corporation who were ready, willing and able
to challenge Nova Scotia Power on its coal contract left the
corporation.
According to the Cape Breton Post on July 5, 1995 the
former Minister of Natural Resources appointed Joseph P. Shannon
as chairman and acting president. Mr. Shannon replaced outgoing
president Ernie Boutilier and Mr. George Cather. Some would say
they were the two main obstacles to the attempt by Nova Scotia
Power to break the Devco contract.
It comes back to the original title of the document. Whose idea
was this anyway? The facts speak clearly for themselves. That
has always been the issue. It was not whether or not the
government can get out of this industry. We know it can if it
wants to. We have seen what it can do. But the point of the
matter is that this decision was made by the government in
conjunction with the business elite at Nova Scotia Power.
As we were debating tonight, and when we finished the votes, I
had a phone call from a miner's wife. She was in tears. She
asked why did the government not just tell them the truth five
years ago when it made this decision. Why did the government not
just come to Cape Breton and tell them, “We are getting out of
the industry, but having said that, we want to work with the
community. We want to work with the union leadership to ensure
the employees are treated fairly and to ensure that communities
are treated fairly”.
2130
Everything we have seen in terms of research has shown that five
years would have dealt with 90% of the workforce. How could it
have done that? It could have done it by introducing bridging
programs, by taking the younger miners and training them for new
industries like the offshore off the coast of Cape Breton Island.
Today we could be standing in the House dealing with Bill C-11
and be concerned about only possibly 100 miners. Nobody would
have a problem in giving pensions to the employees who were left.
Did the government do that? No.
I saw the minister throw out the olive branch to ask for
assistance from this side of the House. It begs the question
what kind of assistance have Cape Bretoners had from that side of
the House. When the minister talks about joining together to
allow Cape Breton to turn around, my response to the minister is
that is why I am here. My colleague from Sydney—Victoria and I
were put here to turn Cape Breton around. I have no doubt that
Cape Bretoners will do it.
Cape Bretoners have always been able to pick themselves up when
they have fallen. We have seen it time and time again. What we
see is an island that has been cut off at its knees by its own
government or its so-called government. People in Cape Breton
would clearly say that it is not their government because their
government would not do things like that.
I honestly have to say that I get sick to my stomach when I hear
about the human resource development package of $111 million and
the new additional money. When I questioned the minister at
committee, I specifically asked how much of that $111 million was
new money? After a few minutes and his having to talk to one of
the seven aides with him, the minister said 25% was new money. We
are not talking about the government giving $111 million because
it is getting out of the industry and it is a good deal. A large
portion of that money was because of the collective agreements.
What has the government given? In its own document it is clear
that it cost Canadians a large amount of money. It clearly shows
the cost of its decision not only to the federal government but
to the provincial government. It even breaks it down to the tune
of $171 million. That was in 1995 dollars. We are to assume
that is a much larger figure now.
I go back to my original comment. The Liberal government had
five years to sit down, consult, negotiate and talk with the
communities. Did it do that? No. It continued incrementally
ensuring that the corporation would not be viable. That was one
of the key things it legally had to do in order to abdicate from
the industry. The only way it could abdicate from the industry,
as the legislation clearly says, was if the corporation was not
viable.
There are some people in Cape Breton who would say the government
knew that so it had to set out a plan.
2135
As I have stated a number of times in the House, as has the
member for Sydney—Victoria, I have lived on Cape Breton Island
all my life. My father worked for 38 years with the Cape Breton
Development Corporation. I could tell stories about the misuse
of money and the buying of equipment to lay in coal yards in
Phalen and Lingan. I could talk about selling off locomotives
without tender and buying equipment from a company called Wayjax.
The speculation is that it was only second rate equipment from
broken down mines in the U.K. That is what happened to this
corporation because the government had to make sure it did not
work. Unfortunately it was successful.
I stood in the House in 1998 and I asked the Prime Minister
whether or not a document existed. Quite frankly we would
probably still hear the minister say that it is not a real
document, that it is not a cabinet document. It is scary and
should be scary to any Canadian citizen that the government has
not deterred from one section of this document.
Is it not frightful that the government can set a plan,
knowingly and willingly recognize the serious socioeconomic
implications, and sit back and say, when that is what it is
doing, that the member is paranoid and there she goes again with
that document. I challenge any member of the government,
including the Prime Minister, to take the chain of events we have
reached now with Devco and show me where there is a difference.
There is no difference.
That is why I carry a heavy heart. The government has been part
and parcel of what we will see happen to Cape Breton for a little
while until people regroup. We will regroup. We always have and
we always will.
As my colleague from Sydney—Victoria said, we will do it but
not with a trusting relationship with the government. I say
“the government” because it is not our government. We will
survive. This will go down in the history books. Some day I
will sit down with my son who is now 20 month old and have to
explain to him why governments do that to their own. Perhaps by
that time some of these government members will have an answer.
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I know it is late but I just have one question to ask. The
member for Bras d'Or—Cape Breton and I have discussed this
document in the past. I remember the document she is referring
to. I remember the first time I saw it in her office when she
showed it to me. I was incredulous. As the member said, I
thought it could not really be a document from 1995.
2140
However, as she has said, when we measure the way in which the
government has put forward the plan from its announcement a year
ago, in 1999, it has followed almost in parallel lines. As
incredulous as I was, as the time goes by the concerns expressed
by the member gain more and more credibility.
There is one point that she did not mention, and I just ask her
to clarify for us here tonight. It seems to me that in 1995
surely the members of parliament who represented Cape Breton,
because it not myself nor the member for Bras d'Or—Cape Breton,
would have been aware of this and would have made it known to the
people they represent. I wonder if she could very simply and
very quickly indicate for us what party represented the entire
island of Cape Breton in 1995.
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague
said, no, he and I unfortunately were not representing Cape
Breton Island at the time. If I remember correctly, Cape Breton
had three members of parliament. I have mentioned one of them in
the House and I have heard government members refer to this
individual. He was probably one of the most powerful individuals
in the Liberal cabinet at that time. His name was David
Dingwall. Another member of parliament for our region was a man
by the name of Russell MacLellan who then went on to be premier.
We also had a Liberal member by the name of Francis LeBlanc.
To answer my hon. colleague's questions as to whether those
members told their constituents or talked to their constituents,
frankly, after at a meeting at UCCB between the unions and Mr.
Dave Dingwall, I do not think it would be safe to say that they
talked. There was clearly a dialogue because it went down as a
quote in history where Mr. Dingwall made the statement “There is
no bag of money”. When we look back in history, the reason that
statement was made was because he was aware of the plan. He knew
what was coming.
It is ironic that we had three members of the Liberal Party, the
governing party at the time, representing the island and it was
not until Cape Bretoners voted for New Democrats and we came to
Ottawa that we finally got to the bottom of what the government's
intentions were for Cape Breton.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Seeing no further
members rising, pursuant to order made earlier today, the
question is deemed put and a recorded division is deemed demanded
and deferred until Wednesday, June 7 at the expiry of the time
provided for Government Orders.
It being 9.43 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow
at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 9.43 p.m.)