Debates of Feb. 8th, 2000

Supply

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Unfortunately, time is running out as members keep raising points of order.

[Michelle Dockrill, NDP, Bras D'Or, NS]

Madam Speaker, we in the New Democratic Party have been very clear that we are not, nor have we ever been, against job creation initiatives. God only knows in my part of Cape Breton that we have had enough flimsy job creation programs from agencies of the government like ACOA.

My question is for the minister. I have a concern with respect to what appears to be the flexibility of the role. My understanding is that the criterion was 12% unemployment. It had to create at least one sustainable long term job. The riding of my colleague from Winnipeg Centre has an unemployment rate of 13% and the riding of the minister has an unemployment rate of 6%. My question is quite clear. Why has the minister's riding qualified for TJF funds when my colleague's riding of Winnipeg Centre has not?

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to talk about this matter. It gives me a chance to explain to the House the circumstances in my riding of Brant. The hon. member is wrong with the numbers that she is quoting on the unemployment rates in 1995 and again in 1997. The rates were acceptable and part of the CJF and TJF programs.

My riding of Brant has suffered extraordinarily in the course of the last decade. The businesses that supported many men and women in Brantford, Massey Ferguson and White Farms, closed up. The rates of unemployment were extraordinary. We had to diversify our economy. As a result of the transitional jobs fund we have really helped my community turn the corner. That is what this is all about.

Just as another point of interest, as part of transitional jobs fund three-quarters of the projects were in ridings of 12% or greater, but a quarter were for projects in ridings where the unemployment level was a pocket of high unemployment, and the majority of those projects were found in opposition ridings.

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

Madam Speaker, my region of Canada has suffered quite a bit. We have been fortunate enough to qualify for these grants and we have received some too.

The reason that the TJF was put in place was the reform of employment insurance. It was put in place to help regions throughout the country like mine. We realize today that money has gone to other areas which did not qualify. The minister talks about pockets but it is the first time that I have heard about pockets.

I cite the example of the $16,000 given out of the TJF fund in Tobique—Mactaquac and the $7,500 given to the Liberal campaign. There is something wrong with that.

The minister speaks about the six point plan. I have a serious question. When TJF was brought in by the government was there not a plan in place to monitor the moneys that were handed out throughout the country? Was there not a plan then?

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Madam Speaker, there was a plan. The point of all this is that we are to improve the application and the implementation of better measures of management because that is the right thing to do.

There is another point I would like to make. I say to you, Madam Speaker, that if the hon. member has any evidence of wrongdoing please have him bring it forward so that we can have the officials in the appropriate jurisdictions deal with it.

[Bob Speller, Liberal, Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, ON]

Madam Speaker, I wonder why more members across the floor do not take their questions outside to the media.

People see through what the opposition is saying but they are very concerned that the hard earned tax dollars they give to the Government of Canada are well looked after by the departments within government. What assurances can the minister give my constituents in Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant that the money is well spent and is going toward the things for which it is meant?

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Madam Speaker, the assurance I can give the member is that I am taking this seriously. I have made this a priority for my department and the department has rallied. We have a plan of action that will work.

I can confirm again that we have gone outside the department and asked the experts to help us build the appropriate strategies so that we can ensure we follow every tax dollar and ensure that it is working well for all Canadians.

[Gurmant Grewal, Reform, Surrey Central, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There is a tremendous amount of interest on the part of all members in asking questions of the minister. I seek unanimous consent of the House to extend the period for questions by five minutes.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Is there unanimous consent to extend the period for questions by five minutes?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Stan Keyes, Liberal, Hamilton West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I remind the hon. member who asked for unanimous consent that the minister has already established in her remarks in the House that she will be going to the all-party standing committee on Thursday to address more questions from all members of parliament who would care to attend.

[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 Bras-D'Or—Cape Breton, Child care.

[Val Meredith, Reform, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak in the House on the motion presented by the official opposition which holds in question the department of human resources and the minister.

The Liberals prior to the elections of 1993 and 1997 supposedly took the high road when they approached Canadian voters. I quote the Prime Minister as reported in Hansard in 1991:

I would like to tell the people of Canada that when we form the government, every minister in the cabinet that I will be presiding over will have to take full responsibility for what is going on his department. If there is any bungling in the department, nobody will be singled out. The minister will have to take the responsibility.

I also quote the Prime Minister as reported in Hansard in 1994:

There can be no substitute for responsibility at the top. I vow to you, to this House, to Canadians, that I will never abdicate that responsibility. I will never pass the buck.

I guess that leads us into the motion today and what has happened. Canadians have an expectation. Canadians are those hard working taxpayers who work long hours. They are the men, women and young adults who are starting their careers as workers. They give part of their money to the Government of Canada to spend on their behalf to provide programs for other Canadians and for themselves. They expect the government to manage the spending of their money with due diligence and to make sure that it is not wasted. Lord knows that Canadians pay enough taxes. They certainly are not looking to the government to waste it on their behalf.

The question is: What did Canadians actually get? The auditor's report is quite clear as to what they got. They got a government which takes very lightly the responsibility of managing taxpayers' money. They got a government which does not seem to understand that the money comes from the taxpayer and not some location like a tree. Canadians got a government which refuses to assume responsibility for the management of that money.

The auditor's report revealed that money had been given out but there were files which did not even have applications for the money. It revealed that there was a lack of supervision, a lack of concern as to where the money was supposed to go. There was no plan as to where the money was supposed to go. There was a real lack of management and administration. There was a lack of supervision, a lack of documentation, but, more importantly, a lack of understanding by the minister in charge of the department. She is responsible to make sure that the department manages the spending of taxpayers' money properly.

What Canadians are getting is a message from the Prime Minister and from his government that we do not have to take responsibility for our actions. That is the message the Prime Minister is sending, not only to us, but to other ministers; that they will not be held accountable for things in their departments that would represent poor decision making, bad management or lack of accountability. The Prime Minister is sending the message to his ministers that they will not ever be held accountable for the misuse or mismanagement of taxpayer money.

The message he is sending to Canadians in general is that they do not have to take responsibility for the way they report to government through government programs. They do not have to take responsibility for fudging figures or accounts, or losing documentation which may be required by Revenue Canada. How can it be all right for the department to access money or submit a report without all of the documentation but not be all right for the ordinary Canadian? Canadians are getting the message from the Prime Minister and his government that they do not have to take responsibility.

When I speak about Canadians I want to single out young Canadians who are just entering adulthood and the workforce. What kind of message are they receiving by the government's actions? What message are they entering adulthood with? That it is okay to walk away from problems? That it is okay to cover up reality, the truth? That it is okay to give out questionable information? What message are we giving to the young people who will one day sit in the House of Commons in leadership positions?

[An hon. member]

Cynicism.

[Val Meredith, Reform, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

My colleague says cynicism and he is quite right. That is what bothers me.

We have leadership in our country which is sending the wrong message, which is showing a bad example to Canadians. I think that Canadians deserve better. I think that Canadians deserve a government which will use due diligence in managing taxpayers' money, which will respect the fact that its money comes from ordinary Canadians who are working day in and day out to raise families and to provide not only for their families but for themselves and their communities. I think that Canadians deserve to have a government which recognizes that there are people who cannot look after themselves, who need assistance, but that assistance is given on merit and not for political reasons. Canadians deserve to have a government which recognizes that politics should be separate from government; that government, when it is spending taxpayers' money, should not be making decisions based on raising election funds or gathering votes. It should be a government which spends taxpayers' money to provide programs for Canadians, programs and funds based on merit and merit only.

There may be a reason for some of these programs, but there is never a reason for bad management. There is never a reason for making decisions based on politics rather than merit. There is never a reason for having one set of rules for the minister and a different set of rules for everybody else. There is never a reason for covering up what actually happened. That is not what Canadians deserve.

Canadians deserve a government that will give the truth as it is, not as the government sees it. Canadians deserve a government that will do the right thing for the right reasons. They do not deserve a government that will hide behind the back of the Prime Minister or the skirts of the minister of HRDC. They deserve a government which will face the responsibility that was given to it by the voters of Canada to govern with integrity. Canadians deserve nothing less. Unfortunately they do not have that.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister said that she was taking credit for bringing the internal audit public. She was taking great pains to show her willingness to discuss this in an open manner.

As I recall, it was members of the official opposition which two days before actually let it be known that we had our hands on this document. Could it be assumed that the minister only made it public because she was caught in some sort of nest that she could not get out of and she knew we had the audit?

[Val Meredith, Reform, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the facts are that the official opposition put in an access request on the 17th and the minister released the audit report on the 19th, two days later, because she knew that it would become public anyway. She did the damage control by releasing it before we did.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the response to the last question shows how ridiculous is the Reform Party's thrust. The member opposite has no proof that the Minister of Human Resources Development released the document on the 17th because the Reform Party did what it did on the 19th. It might have been the other way around. The Reform Party might have had information that the minister was doing her job adequately, which she has shown she was doing. She said there would be corrections. Maybe the Reform Party decided to go the way it went to create an avenue going the other direction. Maybe that is what happened.

We are seeing allegations from the Reform Party that do not have substance. The answers today from the Prime Minister and the human resources development minister clearly show that we have projects that are good right across the country. Will the hon. member not admit that these projects are good?

[Val Meredith, Reform, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we will let Canadians decide for themselves. The minister had the auditor's report for five months. The official opposition put in an access request on the 17th and the minister released it on the 19th, five months after the fact. Circumstances show that it was probably the pressure of the official opposition's access request, which would have resulted in it being released anyway. Damage control says that it is better to release something than it is to have it otherwise released.

[Paul Forseth, Reform, New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member was talking about politics and partisanship rather than merit. The facts are that in targeted wage subsidy programs the average spending in cabinet ministers' ridings was $350,634. The average spending in a Liberal riding represented by a Liberal member of parliament was $335,730. However, the average spending for targeted wage subsidy programs in a riding represented by a Reform Party member was only $149,529, less than half of a cabinet minister. Those are the facts. That relates to the heart of what the member was talking about; politics and partisanship rather than merit.

[Val Meredith, Reform, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot disagree with my colleague's comments. The interesting thing, and the minister reiterated it today, is that the margin was 12% for the jobs fund and yet Statistics Canada figures, government figures, show that the figure was 6% in 1999 in her riding, not 12%. The rate of unemployment was 8.4% in 1996. It shows that the rate of unemployment was going down in her riding. It certainly did not meet the 12% requirement of the minister's target level for the program. Her riding took money that should have gone to a more needy riding.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to address the opposition day motion. We are taking head-on the issue of whether the government should be engaging in the types of actions that it has engaged in over the last months and years. It has taken taxpayers' money and spent it on all kinds of questionable activities without doing the proper accounting. In fact, we would argue that in many cases there seem to be absolutely no rules at all when it comes to how the government spends money through the Department of Human Resources Development.

I want to start by running through some of the facts and reiterating some of the things my colleague said a minute ago. They bear repeating because they are important. I do not think anyone could argue that this is one of worst cases of neglect and abuse of taxpayers' money in the history of Canada. I do not think people could argue that. We are talking about a billion dollars.

My colleague mentioned a minute ago that two days after the Reform Party filed an access to information request for a copy of an internal audit done in the Department of Human Resources Development the minister called together a very hasty press conference and revealed that there were all kinds of problems in her department and the fact that she had known about this for months and months on end but had done absolutely nothing about it.

Here is what that audit revealed. Of the 459 project files reviewed, 15% did not have an application on file from the sponsor. Of the remaining applications the following elements were missing: 72% had no cash flow forecast; 46% had no estimate of the number of participants; 25% had no description of the activities to be supported, yet cheques were cut and money went out; 25% provided no description of the characteristics of participants; 11% had no budget proposal; and 11% had no description of expected results. Ninety-seven per cent of all files reviewed showed no evidence that anyone had checked to see if the recipient already owed money to HRDC or to the government. Eight out of ten files reviewed did not show evidence of financial monitoring, and 87% of project files showed no evidence of supervision. That is what was happening in this department for months and months on end.

We now know that this went back before the current human resources minister and that the previous minister, now the Minister for International Trade, was also aware of this. My colleague from Calgary—Nose Hill questioned both ministers at various times and they assured the House there were no problems in that department, that everything was above board and that all the applications were being scrutinized.

We can see that simply was not true. The audit proves that. But what does the government do? It does not say it is sorry. The minister does not resign, which is the honourable thing to do when one blows a billion dollars. The minister somehow finds the courage to stand and say it is no big deal. I do not know how she can do that. I do not know how she can say that they have implemented a six point plan and it is no problem now. We are talking about a billion dollars.

I do not know if my colleagues across the way have been out in their ridings over the last month and a half, but if they have, they will have found that people are concerned about the state of health care in Canada today. They are asking how is it that the government can blow all this money on these grants and not really know where it ended up, yet health care goes lacking.

In my riding we were promised emergency aid for the farmers. I should point out in fairness to the people in my riding that they are not simply asking for subsidies, but they do say they were promised this. They are wondering what happened, because they told the bankers that they would be getting this. It has not shown up but a billion dollars has just blown out the door through human resources development. It is absolutely scandalous.

When we analyse this what do we find? First of all I have run through some of the facts. Obviously there are simply no rules when it comes to spending money in human resources development. We are talking about a program where they really do have freestyle grant giving. There are no rules. It is chequebook politics. The department cuts all kinds of cheques. There are no application forms.

Certainly there were a lot of questions about the propriety of what happened in the Prime Minister's riding. The few rules that there are were seemingly broken in order to ensure that money got into the hands of people who were big political supporters of the Prime Minister. It is absolutely scandalous.

We found out that once the cheques were sent out there was no real accounting. The best examples are some of the things that were in the paper today.

McGill University was seeking $60,000 and someone made a little error and gave it $160,000. That can happen, but if there is some kind of financial system in place we get the $100,000 back. But those guys over there did not catch it and $100,000 is just gone. McGill says “We decided that we really needed it so we will just hold on to the $100,000”.

There was the situation where the native band in British Columbia ended up taking money that was supposed to be used for child care study and using it to buy jewels. It is unbelievable. That is what happens when we give a Liberal government a bunch of money and an open chequebook to do with what it will. That is precisely what happens.

What I am concerned about, and I think Canadians are concerned about, is that a culture of neglect runs right through this government.

Interestingly enough it was the human resources minister who was previously the Indian affairs minister. On her watch the auditor general came before parliament to present his report. Over and over and over again were all kinds of examples of how the government was not monitoring money that was going to Indian bands. There was example after example. Did anything change? Have things changed? Obviously not.

There is another example in today's newspapers of what has gone on. It is absolutely shameful.

The question is what do we do in a situation like this? The very first thing is that we exorcise the cancer. We get it out of there. Do we know who that is? It is the minister, the previous minister and probably the minister previous to that one. Three ministers in a row sat there knowing that this was going on and allowed that $1 billion to be spent year after year after year with no proper accounting. Meanwhile high priority things are left wanting.

Consider national defence. We send people around the world to do all kinds of great and honourable things and put their lives on the line without proper equipment. The government is blowing $1 billion a year out the door. It is absolutely unbelievable but the government sits and justifies it.

I heard the minister with her pathetic justifications today. It was unbelievable. She said, “Well you know, some of it goes to things that are really good”. Well, guess what. We know that. We know there are some things out there that if they had some money it would be good. We do not question that.

We question which ones should get the money and where that money should come from. Should it come from big daddy government in Ottawa 2,000 miles away from all these projects, or should it come from local levels of government and private individuals? I would argue it should come from the latter because those are the people who know which programs are most important in their ridings. They know what they can afford because they are the taxpayers.

When we have a government that coercively takes money from people and we have the highest personal income taxes in the western world, and it hurts my friends across the way when we point these facts out and they are painful, rather obviously in a situation like that people would like to have the choice.

I have no doubt that Canadians being as generous as they are, they would overwhelmingly support worthy programs. They would. What they resent is a government that reaches into their pockets, drives taxes through the roof to the point where we have the highest taxes in Canadian history, and then wastes their money.

This is one department. I would love to peel open the books on those other departments because I know we would find the same thing in myriad other departments.

I encourage my friends across the way to climb down off their high horses and admit they are wrong. The minister should resign. Probably the previous two ministers should resign. Maybe then Canadians would start to have some faith that the government actually cares about what it does with people's money. I do not think they believe that now. They have seen too many examples of waste and cover-up and mismanagement from the government.

I will close by saying that very shortly there will be another budget. I hope that the finance minister does not have the gall to ask Canadians for more money to increase spending. Rather obviously, there are billions of dollars of waste in the government, yet my friends across the way do nothing to root it out and to save taxpayers a lot of money.

I encourage the minister to heed the message to clean up the waste and mismanagement before he asks for one more cent in the next budget.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I was just looking at the ceiling to see if there was a full moon. There must be a solar eclipse or something because the member opposite certainly has a strange imagination.

He had a very rhetorical speech with no substance or facts at all. He talked about facts but there was no substance to what he was saying. He talked about blowing $1 billion out the window. Has he not listened to one thing the minister said in the House in terms of explaining—

[An hon. member]

No.