Debates of Feb. 10th, 2000

Human Resources Development

[Gary Lunn, Reform, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, political interference in the granting process has cost taxpayers millions. We know the Prime Minister has interfered with the awarding of grants and contributions. We know the minister of human resources has awarded grants to her own riding even though it did not qualify.

Political decisions forced officials to break the rules. Why were these officials not insulated from this undue—

[The Speaker]

The hon. Deputy Prime Minister.

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, no wonder the hon. member refuses to deal any more with the audit report. The audit report in question found that $1 billion had not been lost, that the department knew where the money went. It did not find any misappropriation. Furthermore, it did not find any political interference.

If the hon. member wants to pay attention to the audit report, the subject of questions all week, then why does he not go back and read it and admit that the premise of his questions is entirely wrong?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, today in committee I asked the Minister of Human Resources Development why she was covering up information by refusing to give full disclosure to the Canadian people of the government's master list of all grants and contributions. The minister would not commit in committee to a full disclosure.

I would like to ask the minister again why she is hiding behind this information, because clearly a master list exists. Is it to prevent a full comparison and disclosure of the political management of this fund?

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, I remind the hon. member that it is a matter of record in the public accounts, all the expenditures in the ridings and the grants and contributions from my department. All the expenditures, over $100,000, are there. They are public.

In committee today I offered to members that if they wanted more detailed information I would be glad to satisfy their request as long as I know the specifics of what they are looking for.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, what Canadians want is honest answers, not creative accounting. Not accounting for over $30 million of public money is a serious breach of trust. The only people who do not think it is serious are the cabinet ministers and the Prime Minister.

I would like to ask a question of the Prime Minister. How much money do his cabinet ministers have to mismanage before he thinks it is a problem: $50 million or $100 million? How badly does a Liberal cabinet minister have to mess up before she is asked to resign?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has said, and she agreed, that there are problems of administration, of record keeping. The Minister of Human Resources Development has put in place a six point plan, approved and supported by the auditor general, to deal with these problems.

Furthermore, the auditor general is carrying out his own audit and he will be reporting in the fall, including to the public accounts committee. We consider every dollar of taxpayers' money to be important. The premise of the hon. member's question is therefore quite wrong and she should withdraw that premise.

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

Mr. Speaker, this morning, the minister continued to say that she had not been informed of the problems at HRDC until November 17.

This morning, in committee, an official chose his words very carefully and said that she had not been informed of the report until November 17.

When was the minister informed that there were problems with the transitional jobs creation fund?

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, there are more important details to be understood here. When the hon. member is speaking about the transitional jobs fund, that is one of the programs that was reviewed under the internal audit.

With reference to the transitional jobs fund, I have answered numerous questions in the House about specific projects in that regard. If the hon. member checks Hansard he will see that I was also forthcoming about administrative problems with that program; but with regard to the internal audit, that is about the grants and contributions in seven large programs, and that information I received on November 17.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me try the question in English. I will try to ask it slowly and I will try to be specific, if I can.

We are looking for an answer, not for when the minister found out about the report. We want to know when she found out that there were problems with the transitional jobs fund.

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out, I was answering questions in the House about the transitional jobs fund and I was always forthcoming.

I want to remind the hon. member about the importance of this program. I will quote back to him his own words when he wrote:

I'll tell you in my riding TJF works quite well. I have a high unemployment level in my riding and TJF has proven to work and the bureaucrats certainly in my riding work very hard and they are very transparent.

Home Care

[Gurbax Malhi, Liberal, Bramalea—Gore—Malton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, research shows that current home care policies and practices have in many cases contributed to the impoverishment of women.

How is the Secretary of State for the Status of Women committed to ensuring that women are not adversely affected by the home care system?

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status of Women)]

Mr. Speaker, recent research has shown that women are adversely affected in many ways by home care because of the amount of care they do in the home in unpaid work.

Status of Women Canada is leading the world in research about unpaid work. In the 1998 budget the Minister of Finance did commit to give tax credits to those who did unpaid work in the home looking after those who were chronically ill.

The issue of home care policies is a provincial one. At the federal-provincial-territorial ministers' meeting my colleagues are committed to bringing these issues to their specific provincial colleagues.

Human Resources Development

[Rick Casson, Reform, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the worst abuses of HRDC money was the grant for $2.3 million handed out to an unknown recipient. Nobody knows who got that money.

What is even more interesting is that this unknown recipient just happened to be living in the minister's riding. How can the minister justify taking hardworking taxpayers' money and turning around and writing cheques to persons unknown?

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member can provide me with the details of the information he has then I would be glad to respond to him.

Presence In Gallery

[The Speaker]

Today is a very special day for us. I would like to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in our gallery of a group of truly extraordinary Canadians. They are the recipients of the Order of Canada.

Thanks to their exceptional achievements in various fields, these people have really made a difference for our country and their successes enhance the life of all Canadians.

We have invited the recipients to be with us. I am going to call out their names and I would ask them to stand and remain standing. I would ask hon. members to withhold their applause until I have introduced all of these extraordinary Canadians.

They are: Boyd M. Anderson, Annette Helene Augustine, Glen Merlyn Bagnell, Geoffrey E. H. Ballard, William John Antliff Bulman, Howard Reid Cable, Michael Christian de Pencier, France Gagnon Pratte, Sheldon Galbraith, André Jacques Galipeault, Irving Russell Gerstein, Elva Kyle, Gisèle Lamoureux, Reverend Garth Warren Legge, Helen Manyfingers, John Reid Morden, René Racine, Stanley George Reynolds, Marie Ada Shales, Shirley Sharzer, John Hebden Todd, Jocelyn Demers, Henri Dorion, Frank Hayden, Eva Sophie Prager, Donna M. Scott, Jeffrey Simpson and Robert Daniel Steadward.

These are the recipients of the Order of Canada.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[The Speaker]

I will be holding a reception in Room 216 for these extraordinary Canadians and I would invite members to attend.

Business Of The House

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the government House leader could share with the opposition what legislation he plans to place before the House for the next week or so. As well, could he enlighten us as to just when he plans to use time allocation to shut down debate for the 60th time in this place.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I cannot predict when the opposition will cause obstruction the next time. It is pretty hard for me to predict obstruction by the opposition, so I will not be able to answer in any great detail the last point.

Dealing with the agenda, I would like to share the weekly business statement with all of my colleagues in the House, and it is as follows.

This afternoon we will conclude the second reading debate of Bill C-20, the clarity act.

Tomorrow morning we will consider Bill C-10, dealing with municipal grants, and in the afternoon we will consider the Senate amendments to Bill C-7, the criminal records act, which we began and unfortunately were not able to conclude yesterday.

With time permitting, we could consider Bill C-6, but more than likely we would delay that in an effort to complete Bill C-7. As a matter of fact, we could delay consideration of Bill C-6 for another day.

Next Monday we will return to report stage of Bill C-2, the elections bill. Hopefully we will complete that bill on Monday.

The Minister of Justice intends to introduce tomorrow an omnibus bill which deals with modernizing benefits. I expect that the House will commence debate at second reading on the omnibus bill on Tuesday.

Next Wednesday we will likely debate Bill C-11, respecting the Cape Breton Development Corporation.

Points Of Order

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. Deputy Prime Minister quoted from a letter earlier today.

I would like to table that letter from former MP Roger Pomerleau, who very much insisted that we support that industry, Bas Iris, in the riding of Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies. I am sure the House wants to see that document and that is why I am happy to table it.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-20, an act to give effect to the requirement for clarity as set out in the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Quebec Secession Reference, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference

[Paul Devillers, Liberal, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to contribute to this debate because I firmly believe that, as indicated in the title of the bill, we must give effect to the requirement for clarity as set out in the opinion offered by the Supreme Court on August 20, 1998. However, I notice that, in this debate on the possibility of a future referendum, political observers tend to ignore one question that is at the heart of this debate: Why hold another referendum?

The only thing that motivates separatist leaders is that they are convinced that the small gap that separated the yes from the no on October 30, 1995 could be filled in a future referendum. You will certainly agree with me that it is not the best of reasons. So I will explain, in the time available to me, why another referendum should not be held in Quebec.

Let us agree on one thing. In the minds of separatists, it is absolutely essential to hold another referendum because Quebec's situation within Canada is unbearable, or so they say. This is false. Quebec was able to develop in every sphere of human activity and to assert its distinctiveness, particularly in terms of language and culture. Quebec has become a dynamic and modern society within Canada. In short, Quebec can be itself and develop within Canada.

Since it took office, our government has undertaken several initiatives to modernize the Canadian federation. Here are a few examples.

First there is the limit on the federal spending power, to which the government committed in the 1996 throne speech. The social union agreement reached on February 4 of last year actualized this commitment and restricted the federal spending power.

This agreement, into which the Bouchard government refused to enter, will nevertheless ensure the viability of our social programs. It highlights principles which are based on fundamental Canadian values such as equality for all, respect for diversity, fairness, human dignity, individual responsibility and solidarity.

The agreement provides, among other things, that new social policies should not hamper mobility. Also, governments undertook to be more transparent and accountable to Canadians.

Then there is the regional veto legislation and the distinct society resolution. This resolution recognizes that Quebec is a distinct society within Canada, with a French-speaking majority, a unique culture and a civil law tradition.

Moreover, the primary federal transfer to the provinces was made less uncertain through the creation of the Canada health and social transfer.

Equally important are the agreements entered into with the provinces and territories, including Quebec, in the area of labour and on the implementation of the national child benefit system, to say nothing of the harmonization of the federal legislation with the new Quebec civil code.

The agreement on internal trade is another accomplishment our government is very proud of, as we are of the very successful infrastructure works program.

In the area of international trade, team Canada efforts have resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars in business for our companies.

The constitutional amendment regarding school boards in Quebec showed that we do not hesitate to go the constitutional way when warranted.

As you can see, we did not idle, watching the train go by. We took action, and Quebecers know it. What is very clear is that Quebecers do not want another referendum. Should there be another one, Quebecers want the question to be very clear. This is what recent polls have shown.

On October 30 a CROP poll released by the federal government revealed that 93% of Quebecers feel it is reasonable to require a clear question and 72% a clear majority. Sixty-one per cent believe that the 1995 question was not clear and 60% feel that 50% plus one does not constitute a clear majority. In my opinion, those numbers speak volumes about Quebecers' opinions on a future referendum.

Other data from the poll shed some light on Quebecers' so-called right to declare independence unilaterally. On November 23, Mr. Bouchard claimed that the supreme court's opinion opened the door to such a possibility in the event of bad faith on the part of the Government of Canada and that Ottawa's desire to have the requirement for clarity respected was an example of such bad faith.

Nevertheless, the majority of the CROP poll respondents, 66%, believe that it is reasonable that Quebec conclude an agreement with the rest of Canada before declaring independence. Only 23% felt otherwise.

A majority of 68% believe that the opposition parties in the National Assembly of Quebec should have a say in how the question is worded. Fifty-eight per cent believe that the Government of Canada has a role to play in that regard, as do 56% with respect to the rest of the country. Sixty per cent of Quebecers feel that a slim majority for the yes would leave the province deeply divided. Eighty-four per cent believe that it would be difficult to effect secession under those conditions.

These figures show the deep confusion generated by the separatist proposal. Since they refuse to banish the spectre of the referendum, the federal government has no choice but to remove any ambiguity, should another referendum be held. It is in this context that the government wants to make clear under which conditions it would have to negotiate the secession of a province.

Mr. Bouchard has reiterated his commitment to hold another referendum. Mr. Facal has said that he is working on this full time. In a speech delivered on November 28, the Prime Minister has encouraged the Bouchard government to set aside its referendum plans for the next four years.

The PQ government and the Bloc Quebecois immediately refused. But, according to a CROP poll carried out last September, a strong majority of 71% of Quebecers do not want another referendum.

Quebecers do not want another referendum, and they do not want separation. They have the right to demand that governments deal with their everyday problems. That is what our government is doing with determination, but, because of the referendum obsession of separatist leaders, we have no choice but to deal with this issue that concerns the survival of our country.

We believe that our country is worth saving and that the well-being of Canadians is worth addressing, not in a spirit of division but in a realistic and constructive way. A referendum would only divide the population. Instead, we should be devoting all our energies to children, to education, to the environment and to all the challenges of the next century.

We have a duty to clarify the circumstances under which our government would feel bound to negotiate the secession of a province. I am convinced that on a clear question, Quebecers will say, for a third time, that they do not want to separate from Canada.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac—Mégantic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as a teenager, I was drafted by my aunt Annette to campaign for the Liberal Party of Quebec and I had the opportunity to get to know the Prime Minister when he was first elected in Saint-Maurice.

In those days, his local opponents were the Creditists led by Réal Caouette. As early as 1963, I was barely 17 years old then, the Prime Minister was known to go after his fellow Quebecers pretty hard. As the years went by, he even spit repeatedly on his people, the people of Quebec.

I also remember when he was Minister of Finance in 1977 and wanted to interfere in matters of provincial jurisdiction and to deal directly with the municipalities. The government of the day, under the direction of René Lévesque, was adamantly opposed to it. Reaffirming his intention to humiliate his people even more, he directly distributed cheques in the amount of $85 to all Quebecers.

When he was Minister of Justice, a few years later, in 1982, the Prime Minister worked with Pierre Trudeau—the ineffable Trudeau to whom no one is indifferent in Quebec—to patriate the Canadian constitution, with complete disregard for Quebec, even though he knew that a resolution had been passed almost unanimously by the national assembly condemning the Trudeau government.

In those days the Prime Minister was the Minister of Justice and he was right beside the Queen to sign the patriation papers. We remember him on the pictures.

In 1990, with his two faithful allies, Clyde Wells, the premier of Newfoundland, and Sharon Carstairs, the leader of the Liberal Party of Manitoba, he succeeded in aborting the Meech Lake accord, which included only the five minimum conditions, as the then Quebec premier, Robert Bourassa, liked to described them. That was a minimum. The Prime Minister, the then leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, succeeded in aborting the Meech Lake accord.

No wonder this Prime Minister is so unpopular in Quebec. Some will say: “Sure, but he succeeded in getting elected in the riding of Saint-Maurice”. We know that his election in the riding of Saint-Maurice has had a very high cost for Quebec taxpayers. Besides, the Minister of Human Resources Development is now disclosing little by little what has been the cost of the 1997 election in the riding of Saint-Maurice to allow the Prime Minister to win his seat, by a very narrow margin incidentally.

He was very grateful indeed for, a few months after becoming Prime Minister here in Ottawa in 1993, he appointed Sharon Carstairs to the Senate. As you know, this is a very nice gift. She is still young. Up till the age of 75, she will enjoy job security and a nice income with great working conditions.

In 1992, what role did he play in the referendum on the Charlottetown accord? The trademark of this Prime Minister, the hon. member for Saint-Maurice, has always been that of spitting on and belittling his people, the Quebecers.

I also like to recall, in case some of my colleagues opposite might have forgotten about it, the famous legislation initiated by the Senate, Bill S-31, which forbid the Caisse de dépôts et placements du Québec to take control of Canadian Pacific. A ceiling of 10% was set. Shareholders could not hold more than 10% of the shares.

This same Prime Minister was willing to change this agreement, this legislation, to allow his friend Schwartz from Toronto to take control of Air Canada and Canadian. When it is good for others, he agrees. His trademark has always been to clobber Quebec to gain important supporters outside Quebec.

In 1982, while 73 Liberal members agreed to the patriation of the constitution here in the House of Commons, elected representatives in the Quebec National Assembly voted almost unanimously to condemn this unilateral move.

Today, fortunately, there are 45 BQ members from Quebec in this House who will oppose Bill C-20 as strongly as they can and try to bring amendments to the bill. After that, we will hope Quebecers will decide their own future.

In 1968, the Liberal Party of Canada took office with a francophone, Pierre Trudeau, at the helm. Our country has been run by a francophone from Quebec, a Quebecer, for the past 32 years, except for the nine months during which Joe Clark was in office. Of course, there were a few prime ministers who were designated, but I am talking here about those who were elected.

Once again, Bill C-20 was initiated by one of our own, and this is sad for Quebecers. It was initiated by the Prime Minister, the hon. member for Saint-Maurice, and his colleague and friend whom he recruited in 1995 in a byelection and who serves as Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, a distinguished professor. Both are francophones from Quebec, and they are clobbering us.

Bill C-20 is undemocratic. It does not respect the will of the people. It is an undemocratic bill because it makes the democratic will of Quebecers dependent on all of Canada.

At present, 101 of the 103 hon. members on the Liberal side are from Ontario. If we were to follow the spirit and letter of the Prime Minister's bill, the Ontario members of this House would have a veto over Quebec's future. That is undemocratic, because the federal government gives itself the right to refuse to recognize the vote of Quebecers.

If 56% of Quebecers voted yes, the very next day they would say that 57% was required. If we had 57%, they would say that 58% was required.

Earlier, a member from Ontario said “We have the right to do everything we can to keep Canada as it is right now”. Everything we can. That “everything” is a very dangerous word in the mouth of that man. We do not know to what extremes that government may be prepared to go to try to keep Canada as it is right now.

Bill C-20 is also undemocratic because it gives more weight to a federalist vote than to a sovereignist vote. With 50% plus one, one person equals one vote. However, if the limit is set at 60%, a federalist vote is worth 1.1 or something like that. At 70%, that vote would be worth 1.2. That does not make any sense.

In my family, we are seven. There is one federalist and six sovereignists. The federalist could boast “It takes two of your votes to cancel mine”. That does not make any sense.

In the co-op system, the rule was “one man, one vote; one woman, one vote”, and now the government wants to change this rule. I hope we will not let it do this.

I would like to quote what Mackenzie King said after the 1949 referendum in Newfoundland, where 52.3% of the people voted to join Canada. Incidentally, the other provinces had not been consulted to know if they wanted to have Newfoundland join the Confederation.

So, shortly after the Newfoundland referendum that showed 52% support for that option, Mackenzie King, then Prime Minister of Canada, said “The result of the plebiscite in favour of the union between the two countries is clear beyond any potential misunderstanding”. Mackenzie King was satisfied with 52.3% and did not see any reason to persist in believing there might possibly be some disagreement.

I suggest the Prime Minister take a look in the mirror tonight, that he think, get out of his official residence and travel to Quebec. If he is afraid to go to Quebec, he should at least visit his riding of Saint-Maurice. He should go to restaurants in Shawinigan and have breakfast with Quebec people to hear what they think of his Bill C-20.

[Daniel Turp, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This debate is so important to the governing party that I can see three of its members on this side of the House. Besides, I do not see a quorum.

And the count having been taken: