Debates of Nov. 4th, 1999

First Nations Ombudsman Act

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating the member for his speech. As he knows, there have not been too many times I have risen in the House to say that. The member deserves the respect of members of the House for the sincerity he has put forward in trying to address some of the very serious problems that exist on reserves across the country.

I too spent some time on reserves in my younger days with the department of lands and forests in Ontario. I saw the poverty. I saw brand new schools being built and all the windows smashed out the very next day. The lack of self-respect, the lack of self-esteem, the lack of jobs that existed in northern Ontario, not in western Canada, are still a problem in too many areas.

I have often thought it is a real travesty that a nation as wealthy as Canada, blessed with its natural resources and financial capabilities, has a people within its boundaries who live life in what could only be described as third world conditions in many instances.

The member will probably not be surprised to know that I disagree with his solution to the issue. I appreciate the fact that it is not his solution, that it has come from the grassroots. I do not mind saying that I disagree with them in using this particular issue as a solution. Let me say why.

I had a private member's bill in the Ontario legislature that would have abolished the office of the ombudsman in the province of Ontario. The reason was that from the days when the ombudsman's office was created in our province, it grew from being a complaint or resolution mechanism to becoming a bureaucracy that was, and in Ontario still is, out of control. It became nothing more than a court of last resort.

I recognize it is different with the folks on the reserves the member is talking about, but there are similarities. Once that is set up it becomes a no at this level and a no at that level but there is always the ombudsman. It just becomes one further process in the bureaucratic jungle with which people have to deal.

My argument to eliminate the ombudsman's office in the province of Ontario was that elected representatives were the ombudsmen. We should be the ones to raise issues. To suggest that the ministry is not accountable to parliament is simply not a fact.

The member may not like the action and there may be things that need to be done to improve it, but I would have thought in all honesty that at the end of the member's speech, for which I did congratulate him, he would have said that therefore he supports the Nisga'a treaty, as an example.

What about a long term solution? This is not an overnight quick fix, the setting up an office and appointing an ombudsman. There would be great criticism about how such a person gets appointed or who it is. There will be accusations of partisanship. All that will take place.

The reality is that we should be working with our first nations to develop programs around self-government and partnership, and I believe the ministry and the minister are doing it. They may want to establish an ombudsman. I appreciate it may not be going fast enough, but Nisga'a is a clear example, whether the member likes the fine print or the details, of a self-government treaty that it is totally beyond my comprehension. I do not understand why the Reform Party opposes something like ensconcing democratic principles in a first nation that has been debating the issue for over 100 years.

I do not want to fight the Nisga'a battle. It seems the Reform continues to do that. However I want to talk about the ministry's attempt to work with first nations leaders and develop self-government principles.

What is wrong with self-government where the members of the band actually elect the council and elect the chief? If an individual is not being accountable to his constituents then there must be mechanisms to deal with it. The member has talked about people making six figure salaries when most of the members of the band are on some kind of social assistance. That is not acceptable. I agree with him and I think we should do something about it.

He talked about the auditor general and the public accounts system. He is empowered to go in and investigate. If there are criminal acts and wrongdoing, the RCMP is also empowered. It is unacceptable for anyone to stand in this place and say an RCMP officer who shall remain nameless told him or her about a criminal activity and then said to forget about it. That is unacceptable. That is not the role of the police. If it happened, it should not have happened. It should have been reported to his superior. There should not be any attempt to withhold an individual's identity or name when that kind of issue comes forward.

The reality is that self-government will ultimately bring self-esteem, not perhaps as quickly as members of the Reform Party would like. They like to think that at the snap of a finger they can solve all these problems. Self-government will bring self-esteem. Self-government will bring democracy to the reserves. We owe a debt as a nation, recognizing that for years we have treated our first nations, our aboriginal people, in an unacceptable and disgusting manner.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

For 130 years.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

I do not care for how many years. It is not an acceptable solution. If the position of ombudsman is created, it should be created by the reserves. We talk about the programs being introduced on reserves. Something like 83% of the programs were administered in a paternalistic fashion by the ministry in years gone by, dating back to the fifties when it was all just handouts and doing it the government's way. Some 83% of the programs have been transferred to local communities and an additional 7% have been transferred to the provinces. This is making huge strides in a heretofore very difficult, very paternalistic, very government dominated process.

Reformers are constantly yelling about the fact that we should slash government and cut funding. Their policies would decimate the funding of that ministry, the assistance to aboriginal communities. It is difficult to understand how they suddenly think an ombudsman will come cheap. It cost tens of millions of dollars in my home province, and I am sure that was the case in other provinces. My colleague tells me the office of the ombudsman in Newfoundland has been abolished. That is not the way to solve these problems.

I do not doubt his sincerity or the fact that the member spent an enormous amount of time this summer travelling and talking to the men and women whom he has identified in this place. However there is a better way. There is a democratic way to work within government. It is not easy because we are dealing with human beings.

I would ask members of the Reform Party to take an inward look at their own policies, to take a look at the fact that we have just signed an historic treaty in British Columbia which protects the rights of every Canadian. It passes on our constitutional rights to the Nisga'a band yet they continue to oppose it for reasons that are totally unclear to the vast majority of Canadians.

The member may have his heart in the right place, but I am afraid his head is a bit off when it comes to finding a solution. It should be self-government. It should be working with the tribes to help them develop their own programs and their own self-esteem.

[Dale Johnston, Reform, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Perhaps you would find unanimous consent to question the member for five minutes.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

We are masters of our own destiny. The hon. member for Wetaskiwin requested unanimous consent of the House to provide five minutes for questions and comments on the speech of the member for Mississauga West. Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Ghislain Fournier, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am a bit perplexed as I take part in this debate today to speak to Bill C-222, an act to establish the office of First Nations Ombudsman to investigate complaints relating to administrative and communication problems between members of First Nations communities and their First Nation and between First Nations, allegations of improper financial administration and allegations of electoral irregularities.

I used the word perplexed because I wonder about the need for such a bill. Bill C-222 proposes to first nations a totally useless structure, a structure they have not asked for and, moreover, one that duplicates processes already in place.

Budget management by band councils has been the focus of the efforts and energy expended by both the Department of Indian Affairs and native communities, particularly over the last two years.

The implementation of efficient, standard accountability regimes is a new challenge that is in line with the recommendations of the Erasmus-Dussault commission concerning the need for communities to have access to the necessary tools for sound fiscal management.

Administrative problems do exist, but they have more to do with the fact that these are new agreements than it does with defective or inadequate management. Financial transfers to reserves are new, and we are experiencing problems now because we are undergoing a transition phase, which is quite normal, and not because of poor management. It is obvious that, with time and experience, the existing relationships will only get better.

Answers that emerge from the local communities themselves are far better than those that are brought in by people from the outside, well intentioned as they can be. The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the first nations can find solutions, and these should come from within those organizations. It is the key to success. Nobody should come in from the outside and tell people “This is your problem, and here is how you are going to solve it”. It would be paternalistic and arrogant.

Having an ombudsman who would tell the first nations how to deal with problems between and within them would be a little bit like trying to settle squabbles in a school yard.

We are not dealing here with kindergarten kids, but with people who have been looking at achieving self-government for a very long time. We should not impose on them an ombudsman to solve all their problems. We should support them as they move toward self-government.

Far from being naive, we do not believe that everything is fine, but I would say that we are optimistic and mostly we believe in the capability of the first nations to efficiently manage their finances, as long as they are given the means to do so. This is the goal of the negotiations currently underway.

Also, with the co-operation of the native people, the governments are trying to set up round tables to discuss ways to develop standards relating to financial administration, internal control, public accounts and auditing.

I think that these round tables are more useful than an ombudsman would be, because the constructive solutions put forward are in sync with the values of the first nations, as well as with the legislation and guidelines of the various provinces.

Canadian chartered accountants took part in the development of the many administrative agreements signed by the stakeholders and the federal government. These chartered accountants provided and are still providing some advice. They came up with relevant and dynamic solutions and are providing band councils the support they need to carry out the administrative duties related to the management of their financial resources.

As for the allegations of electoral irregularities, the information we have leads us to believe that more specific rules are needed to ensure that the complaints are received and processed appropriately. Here again, an ombudsman would be useless.

But what disturbs me the most is not the presence or absence of an ombudsman responsible for looking into administrative or electoral difficulties among first nations, but rather the conviction that seems to be behind this bill. It is a false one, based on the assumption that there are major problems. This is incorrect. There are no major problems. This is a period of adjustment and there is certainly room for improvement, but the situation is not disastrous, nor will it become so, because it is changing for the better.

According to the progress report by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Canadian Polar Commission for the period ending March 31, 1999, the number of financial statements by first nations on which there was a favourable opinion by an independent auditor has risen from 57% to 81% since 1985. Is this not an improvement? Does such progress not deserve to be highlighted?

This is not the time to make the machinery more unwieldy by adding something to it unnecessarily. What we need to do instead is to support the first nations in their progress toward self-government and independence. Bill C-222 attacks band council administrative procedures head on, and by that very fact attacks their administrative ability.

The Petit Robert defines an ombudsman as “a person responsible for defending the rights of the citizen against the public administration”. This is a noble and laudable function, but one that is pointless in the situation we are concerned with here.

An ombudsman would not be the right answer here. The right answer is to continue along the path on which the first nations and the department are already engaged. They must continue to work to improve the administration and monitoring of financial transfers and must set stringent rules for handling any allegations of wrongdoing.

Bill C-222 is therefore, for all the reasons I have given, totally pointless. As well, it demonstrates a somewhat paternalistic attitude, one which has no place in the new relationships we must forge with the aboriginal nations in order to reinforce their capacity for good self-government. This is why the Bloc Quebecois will be voting against Bill C-222.

[Louise Hardy, NDP, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I share the very deep worry and concern of my hon. colleague from Wild Rose about the plight of first nations people and his desire to go to accountability as a way of making sure that wealth is distributed and passed to those who need it. We are talking about a desperate need in these circumstances.

The problem I have is with the method, which is appointing a ombudsman who would be accountable to the department itself. If we look at our own government, we can see example after example of a lack of accountability.

We have had a military ombudsman who, a year after his appointment, still lacks a mandate. We have a military that cannot be trusted to investigate itself. We have a headline that says that an air force captain alerted the defence minister's office of impropriety but nothing was done about it. Another headline says that the top military is not accountable.

It is department after department. We have the immigration department that is barely accountable to parliament and even to its own minister.

We have MPs who cannot crack Canada's tight-lipped spy chief. We had a situation this morning about concerns around CSIS and the accessibility we have to that.

Another example was even in the smallest detail as an MP phoning and requesting some information from a minister and being told that it was confidential. My assistant had heard this particular paper being given in public just barely a week before and we were told that it was confidential. So he went to his home address and phoned for the information and it was sent out to him because the request did not come from an MP's office. That is the kind of accountability we hold ourselves to.

Another headline says that Ottawa gets around access to information requests and that the government sets a dismal example of accountability. Members of the foreign service have tried to bring forth information about misspending and inappropriate spending of funds.

Here we have a private members' bill that would hold first nations people to a level of accountability that we are not even willing to hold to ourselves. We had the Krever inquiry that led to untold suffering and death. Was there any single person ever held accountable? No. We had the Somalia inquiry shut down and nobody was held accountable. We have rapes and harassment in the military and nobody is accountable.

What is proposed is that we impose on first nations people another attachment to the Indian Act or another piece of the department, when obviously our departments are not capable of investigating themselves.

However, I do think the auditor general's office could play a very strong role if we were willing to reassess the auditor general's role in holding any financial transaction to a very strict and enforceable code of accountability.

[An hon. member]

It's the ombudsman's responsibility.

[Louise Hardy, NDP, Yukon, YT]

But the ombudsman, if I understand it properly, would be responsible to the minister. The appointment would be political and would go through the committee. I am saying that the bureaucracy would be interested in sustaining itself rather than looking at the true needs of first nations people. I think those needs can be addressed through self-government, by getting rid of the Indian Act and its very odious imposition on their lives and by giving them the chance to set up governments that work and systems that are accountable.

I know my colleague from Wild Rose used many examples. I have an example of democracy and the spirit of first nations people where there was serious conflict within one band in the Yukon. There was a coalition for democracy that fought long and hard because they did not agree with what they believed to be actions that were, in some instances, what they considered to be corrupt. They fought as a group of people, as a democracy, and they made changes democratically and got new people elected. They have a very strong band council and they are negotiating their land claims. It was not easy but they did it among themselves, they did it with pride and they did it with integrity. They made changes for themselves.

What we could be responsible for, and should be, is to make sure that every band has the capacity to do that and not be squashed from above and held in positions of dependence.

I read the condemnation by the Alberta judge of both the department and the bands very closely. I think we have a lot to learn from what he said. I hope the department of Indian affairs paid close attention.

[Jean Dubé, Progressive Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in this House today to speak to Bill C-222, introduced by the hon. member for Wild Rose. This bill seeks to establish the office of first nations ombudsman to investigate complaints relating to administrative, financial and electoral irregularities by members of first nations communities in Canada.

We all read and heard about the issue of interfering in first nations' affairs in Canada, and about how first nation members never got the $4 billion that was supposed to be transferred to them for their well-being.

The problem is that some people think there is interference in the affairs of all first nations. This is not true. In my riding of Madawaska—Restigouche, the Hill River First Nation is very dynamic and productive, and its economic growth is absolutely unbelievable.

This does not mean that the idea of an ombudsman is not a good one, on the contrary. This suggestion has a lot of merit. A number of institutions often rely on this kind of service to file complaints.

As members of parliament, I know all of us have had occasions where we have either advised constituents of the presence of an ombudsman office or been a last resort when a constituent feels that an ombudsman has still not responded satisfactorily to the problem.

There are ombudsman offices in government and business with many, if not all, provincial governments providing the service to consumers. Other institutions, such as Canada Post Corporation, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and a number of financial institutions like the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, offer this service.

I feel the establishment of a similar office for first nations would be an effective and useful means of addressing concerns of aboriginal people, whether it be matters resulting from alleged unfair election practices or financial or administrative problems.

Aboriginal people have expressed their frustration with the lack of options available to them when they question the procedures or process of the band chief and council. An independent ombudsman office would provide a possible solution and be in a position to access information that could respond to the complaints. Furthermore, it would allow aboriginal people to air their grievances when they feel they have been ignored by the chief and council and are unwilling to discuss it in a more public format. Under this bill, any member of a first nation community could use the service.

The ombudsman would be appointed for a term of five years under the provisions of the bill, with the governor in council making the appointment on the recommendation of the minister. First nations would be involved in the process by making representations to the committee that would then report to the minister. It is important to ensure the impartiality of the ombudsman and this process would distance the first nations from the appointment of the ombudsman. Otherwise, the effectiveness and objectiveness of the office could be jeopardized.

On first nations where there have been questions about legality of election processes or suspicions of inappropriate use of band funds, there is currently little opportunity for aboriginal people to lodge a complaint except with the chief and council who are often implicated in the allegation. Obviously this is not an ideal situation and does little to alleviate the problem.

The only other course of action available is to complain to the minister or to members of parliament, particularly those in this critic area or in whose constituency the aboriginal people reside.

The federal government has a fiduciary responsibility to aboriginal people and is obligated to work on behalf of aboriginal people to protect their rights. This is a responsibility that is sometimes misunderstood and occasionally abused.

The bill would acknowledge that first nations people also have to rely on themselves, their organizations and elected bodies to protect their rights and access to services. Instead of having to outline their complaint to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, they would have an independent ombudsman office that would address their concerns.

With the input of first nations, this process has the potential to help first nations people assume greater responsibility and accountability for their actions. In some cases, band members are not able to access information that would prove their allegations, something the bill would address. Under the proposed bill, an ombudsman would have the power and authority to access such records. At the same time, it would be at the discretion of the ombudsman as to what constitutes reasonable grounds for an investigation and whether accessing such records would be justified.

As I said earlier, I feel the bill has a lot of merit. Misunderstanding and discord can often be resolved if a process is in place to address these concerns. I feel the establishment of an ombudsman office is one solution that could help first nations better serve their communities and in the long term provide better service and more transparency and accountability. These are objectives that all governments and institutions strive to achieve and with varying degrees of success. It is always a good idea to explore new options and possibilities for improvement. I think the bill has made a worthy proposal.

[Jim Gouk, Reform, West Kootenay—Okanagan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I note that we have approximately four minutes left and I have a 10 minute presentation to make. Is it possible to ask for unanimous consent that we stop debate at this time and continue the next time the matter is before the House?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

If we are to see the clock at a particular time, we see the clock at a particular time. The answer is no. Either the time is the time or it is not.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, may I help you out of this dilemma and suggest that the House see the clock as 6.50 p.m.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The deputy government whip has asked for unanimous consent of the House to see the clock at 6.50 p.m. Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Gilles Bernier, Progressive Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my friend and neighbour, the hon. member for Whitby—Ajax, on her appointment as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour. I look forward to having many vigorous debates with her.

That being said, I express my profound disappointment with the government's malicious neglect of what has become Canada's national homeless crisis. In particular, I want to voice my absolute horror that the member from Moncton, who in the past did so much for impoverished Canadians and showed so much promise when she was appointed minister responsible for homelessness back in March, would turn out to be such a train wreck as a minister.

On March 25 she promised to have a strategy in place with new money to help the homeless within 30 days. It has now been 224 days and there is no money or plan in sight.

Also in March she vowed in the House that “every child in Canada will have a safe bed to sleep in”. Here we are eight months later and most places in Canada have already had their first snowfall, and the minister has done nothing to prevent thousands of homeless children from spending another winter freezing on the streets.

Last spring her government passed Bill C-66 which will divert $200 million from social housing programs, after cutting $55 million from CMHC's social housing budget last year. The minister opposed many of her own Liberal colleagues and voted down Bill S-11 which would have prohibited poverty as a legal grounds of discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act.

In June she refused to meet with Lifeline Centre, an Ottawa organization seeking help to set up a new and innovative facility to assist homeless men who are addicted survivors of trauma.

This summer when the city of Toronto asked the federal government for emergency assistance to provide short term shelter for the city's homeless, the Liberals offered the use of the Fort York Armoury and then sent the city a bill for $250,000. It is sad to note that the Liberals made a hefty profit on the backs of Toronto's homeless.

The minister claims she has been working day and night seven days a week to come up with a plan for the homeless. Yet the week the throne speech was delivered and other parliamentarians were coming back to work the minister was jetting off to Mexico.

In May the minister hired 18 new bureaucrats at a cost of over $1 million to taxpayers in salaries, benefits and office space. Her new million dollar staff includes three new correspondence assistants even though as Minister of Labour she already had six letter writers and six new program assistants even though she has no programs to administer as the homeless minister. Instead of putting up a shiny new office that million dollars could have provided emergency shelter for 30,000 homeless Canadians.

The minister was given the mandate to find a solution for Canada's homeless. She made a lot of promises to a lot of people but now she is backing away from her commitments. She has recently been quoted as saying that she cannot do anything but pass along a few ideas to cabinet and hope that something gets done. The minister now says that it is not her job to produce a strategy, that it is not her job to find new—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.

[Judi Longfield, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague opposite for his kind words.

The Minister of Labour has been fighting poverty and abuse for 31 years. It has been her life's work. In March the Prime Minister asked her to continue her fight by co-ordinating the activities of the Government of Canada related to homelessness. The Minister of Labour has made this assignment a priority.

To assist the minister with the co-ordination of a response to homelessness, Human Resources Development Canada established a national secretariat on homelessness. The secretariat staff of 16 in total have been reassigned. They are on loan from other Government of Canada departments. They were chosen because of their expertise in homeless related issues such as housing, health and community capacity building.

The secretariat is currently compiling the comments the minister heard from the community activists, the homeless themselves and the countless frontline workers across Canada. In addition, these borrowed staffers are referencing and summarizing the information contained in the many excellent reports that have been prepared by municipalities and community based task forces. This material will help the minister in preparing her recommendations for her colleagues.

I want to make clear that the Minister of Labour did not promise to have solutions within 30 days of her appointment. When she addressed the conference in Toronto she asked participants to judge her not in two days but in two years. The only promise the minister made at that conference was a promise to meet with the mayor of Toronto, and she has fulfilled that commitment.

There are no quick fixes for homelessness. Communities, the private sector, municipalities and provinces must all be part of the solution. The Liberal government is committed to addressing the plight of the homeless. We have heard this from the Minister of Labour, in the Speech from the Throne and the fiscal update.

We are working to address the issues through various programs including youth at risk and the aboriginal jobs program at HRDC in addition to the recently augmented RRAP. The government will continue to work with all sectors, private and non-profit, and with other levels of government, to meet the immediate needs of the homeless people in Canada for the winter. We remain determined to address and to sort out the root causes of homelessness.

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, October 27, I put a question to the Minister of Human Resources Development in order to find out whether she thought it reasonable to cut employment insurance benefits to an individual because that person had no means of transport to get about easily, according to an official of the department.

The minister, visibly ignorant of the facts, said that my statements were unfounded accusations. She said, and I quote: “The accusations made by the hon. member are false”. Those are her words.

I proposed to the minister that I table a copy of a letter I had received from a taxpayer in my riding illustrating the situation. But the government opposed this because, apparently, it is government practice to not be too informed of the reality of matters. They do not want to know too much of the truth. They just said my allegations were false.

In the letter I could have tabled in the House—I could not do so because a Liberal member objected—a taxpayer in my riding was told the following:

October 19, 1999

We wish to inform you that we cannot pay you benefits effective October 18, 1999. You have no means of transportation and are thus prevented from accepting employment. For this reason, you have failed to prove your availability.

She was told as well:

If you do not agree with this decision, which is based on the Employment Insurance Act, you have the right to appeal within 30 days.

With the pressure the minister is putting on her officials to harass the unemployed increasingly, we end up with this sort of situation.

What is the reaction of an employee under heavy pressure from the department, when faced with an unemployed worker? It is to try to save the government as much money as possible, not to help the individual who is without resources and lacks the means to make a case before a labour tribunal.

In addition, the claimant is told to appeal if he or she is not happy. People without resources are being asked to go the extra step of justifying benefits, when they are entitled to them because they have paid their premiums.

To illustrate how ridiculous this is, we are talking about a 65-year old woman. She has been told that she has no means of transportation. In a city with public transit, this is a bit much. The woman in question had stated that she usually went on foot to look for work, and had done so until the age of 65. Until that age, she had been able to find work by using the public transit system, taking her bicycle, or walking.

This time, she was told that, since she had no means of transportation, she was no longer available for work. Are we to conclude that all unemployed workers without their own cars have no means of transportation and that, as a result, they no longer qualify for employment insurance?

That is the question I wished to ask and I hope that this time I will receive an answer.

[Gar Knutson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, let me assure the hon. member that the department treats clients with fairness, understanding and compassion. That is why Human Resources Development Canada is known as the people department.

The primary purpose of employment insurance is to compensate workers in case of involuntary unemployment. However, as the hon. member knows, every person who is claiming regular benefits must prove availability for work. This is a longstanding condition of the EI legislation. Each case is assessed individually and all circumstances are examined and considered in a compassionate manner. At the same time, the government has an obligation to Canadian taxpayers to protect the integrity of the EI fund. We have in place a number of control measures which ensure that public funds are protected. We have as well a series of appeal procedures if a person is unhappy with a particular decision.

We do not have quotas. We have reasonable performance expectations for our investigation and control program as a way of measuring results. Again, they are not quotas. We allocate our resources according to workload, as does any other organization.

The hon. member may be interested to know that other governments also have similar expectations for their social programs. For 1996-97 the Quebec government set a target of $100 million for its verification of social assistance cases. It surpassed that target and recouped $112 million. For 1996-97 the Quebec government set a target of $58 million for its in-depth investigation of social assistance cases. It surpassed that target and recouped $112 million. For 1996-97 the Quebec government set out a target of $58 million for its in-depth investigation of social assistance cases. It surpassed that target and recouped nearly $68 million.

Finally, the hon. member will undoubtedly appreciate that as the people department, it is our intention to ensure that claimants receive their full entitlement to benefits and nothing less. I would suggest if he is not happy with a particular decision at a particular level that perhaps he look further into the appeal route.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7 p.m.)