Debates of Feb. 14th, 2000

Human Resources Development

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, here is how seriously the minister took the matter. Her spending spree did not stop with the first 24 hours. In the two weeks following the minister's official briefing on the billion dollar boondoggle she signed grant cheques totalling over $3 million. The minister had an audit on her desk highlighting gross mismanagement of public money in her department, but she just kept doling out millions of tax dollars anyway.

Did the minister even stop signing cheques long enough to read the audit?

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

Mr. Speaker, indeed I read the audit. That is why we have prepared a six point plan to implement across this country, that we have worked on with outside experts who have given us advice that we have included in the response.

We have taken this matter seriously. The response is a strong one. We will fix this problem.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has a very strange idea of taking things seriously.

What was the first thing she did when the audit hit her desk? She shoved it aside because it was sitting on her chequebook.

Within 24 hours of receiving the audit she signed off on $1 million worth of grants. By December 3 the tally had reached over $3 million.

Why was the minister so unconcerned about the mismanagement of $1 billion that she just kept cutting cheques?

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

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, let us understand that the moneys we invest go to communities and individuals, and they make a difference in the lives of those individuals and those communities.

We know that on that side of the House they do not accept that the federal government can have a role at the local level. But on this side of the House we know how important these loans and contributions are. That is why we are working hard to build a stronger foundation for this program.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the minister again has not answered a single question that has been put to her today.

I would think that when somebody hits the panic button maybe she would think that the boondoggle in her department has to come to a halt, but this minister did not skip a beat. The boondoggle continued. In fact, she cut cheques totalling $1 million the day after she found out about the problems, with no thought about trying to fix the system, no thought about freezing the spending, no plan, no concern and no one held to account.

Why was it business as usual for this minister when that audit sat on her desk damning her department?

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

Mr. Speaker, we received the audit. We took it seriously. We built, with the help of outside experts, Deloitte & Touche, with the advisory committee to the Treasury Board Secretariat and with the auditor general himself, over the course of time, a strong management response that will deal with this issue once and for all.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, let us remember what the internal audit which sat on that desk actually said. It said that 15% of the grants did not have an application on file, 8 out of 10 did not have any financial monitoring, and 87% showed no evidence of supervision.

What was the minister's response? I would have thought it would have been a crisis, but she did not put an immediate freeze on spending, she did not argue that enough was enough, she did not say “Let us shut off the taps. Let us stop it now”. No, she swept that audit off her desk, got out the chequebook and started spending $1 million.

Why did she continue to spend money on these same grants when that audit said there was a spending control problem in her department?

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

Mr. Speaker, let us look at what we did. We reviewed the audit. We identified, with the help of outside experts, a six point plan—

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

A six point plan.

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Thank you very much. I am glad you are starting to read it. Even the auditor general says that it will be effective in managing this problem.

Bill C-20

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois has made numerous requests, including to the government House leader, to allow the legislative committee on Bill C-20 to travel. I made the same request to the Prime Minister yesterday.

Does the Prime Minister intend to ask or instruct his government majority on the committee to let the committee travel to hear as many testimonies and people as possible across Quebec?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to reply to that question. I thank the hon. member for having sent me a letter today.

My decision remains unchanged. This bill concerns all the provinces of Canada. Since we want to move along with this legislation because people do not want us to discuss it endlessly, we do not want a committee that will have to travel in all ten provinces of Canada, particularly since it is relatively easy for people from Quebec to come to Ottawa.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there are a few contradictions here. We are told this bill concerns all of Canada. This means that people would have to come to Ottawa not only from Quebec but also from all over the country.

In addition, if it is important to travel across Canada to consider the issue of fishery and to visit prisons, and if it is important, as claimed by the government majority on the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, to travel to the Caucasus to define a Canadian policy, would it not also be important to travel to Quebec and to the rest of Canada to define a policy that appears to be rather important, according to the Prime Minister himself?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, when a constitutional change was made regarding denominational schools, the Bloc Quebecois did not want to travel.

A decision has been made. Those who take an interest in this issue know full well that the House expressed its opinion very clearly last week, at second reading. Those who have something to say can come to Ottawa to share their views. The committee will gladly hear them.

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

Mr. Speaker, we will continue along the same lines.

Parliamentary committees travel a lot as part of their responsibilities. When, for example, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs wanted to make recommendations on the WTO Seattle round, it went to Quebec for four days. It travelled to Montreal, Quebec City and Saint-Hyacinthe.

If a House committee can travel to take the pulse of Quebec on an international issue, why is the legislative committee on Bill C-20 deprived of the right to travel to Quebec and to Canada?

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

Mr. Speaker, the committee is not deprived of anything. It is sitting here in parliament and will be entitled to hear witnesses.

In the letter I wrote to the House Leader of his party, we indicated that we were open to a broadening of the usual narrow definition of technical witnesses. We took steps to allow witnesses to be heard. We were clear about this. Committee meetings will also be televised.

The government is acting in a reasonable manner on this issue, unlike the opposition.

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

Mr. Speaker, again yesterday, in Montreal, there were groups saying that what would be reasonable would be for the committee to be able to come to Quebec to hear from them. There are also groups in Canada who have said the same to the government.

Given the increasing number of groups in Quebec and in Canada that are wanting to be heard, does the Prime Minister not feel that it is the responsibility of this House to hear these groups, and that this objective will be better met if the committee travels to Quebec and to Canada to hear them?

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member across the way is well aware, having attended a press conference in this Parliament a few days ago with groups from pretty well all over Quebec, which were demanding to be heard.

If they were able to come to Parliament to demand this, surely they could come back to make presentations.

The Budget

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, we are now two weeks away from the federal budget. Already the finance minister is orchestrating the usual games, orchestrating the leak to the upcoming budget.

This is a deadly serious issue. Canadians are very concerned about the future of health care.

No more games. My question is simple: Will the federal government once again become a 50-50 partner in health care, and if so, over what period of time?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, there will be a budget. As everybody knows, last year we put a lot of resources in health care, more than everybody expected.

I had the occasion last week to read quotes from the Premier of Saskatchewan and the Minister of Finance for British Columbia and others congratulating the government on what we did last year in the budget.

There will be another budget and it will be on Monday, February 28. Perhaps there will be some money again, I do not know. I will talk to the Minister of Finance about it.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, we are not looking for hot tips for day traders; we are looking for a fundamental policy direction on health care from the government.

Federal underfunding of health care has put Canada on the track to an Americanized two tier privatized health care system.

I ask whether the government will continue to take us backward or move us forward. Is the federal government content to remain a junior partner in health care or will it once again become a 50-50 partner?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I answered the question earlier that we are very preoccupied.

I received a letter from the premiers 10 days ago. I replied last week. We are having a dialogue. The decision about how much more we can do will be known by the time of the budget, if we can do more than we have done in the past. We have restored all the funding that existed in 1993 and 1994. That is the only program that has been restored out of all of our programs because we are preoccupied with health care.

Human Resources Development

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, last Friday in response to a question during question period, the Minister of HRDC stated that the transitional jobs fund was “One of the first areas of interest to which I turned my attention upon becoming minister”.

Will the minister now tell us what was the exact date that she turned her attention to the program, and on that day were the problems with the program discussed?

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

Mr. Speaker, as a new minister I was briefed over the course on a number of issues: employment insurance, Canada student loans and a number of other things. But in the House, when we returned, there were questions about the transitional jobs fund, so of course I had to prepare myself for this very important place.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have seen better skating on the canal.

On Friday the minister made reference to the Privacy Act and the protection of information when it came to the HRDC money that went to her riding.

Will the minister please tell us who authorized the release of personal correspondence between members of this House and the department which were read into the record by the Prime Minister on Monday? Why the double standard?