Debates of March 20th, 2000

Supply

[The Deputy Speaker]

It sounds like a point of debate to me. I am afraid the hon. member knows that. She will have to raise that in debate as I know she will want to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is important to bring this debate once again back to the motion that is before the House which says:

That this House calls on the Minister of Finance to increase the Canada health and social transfer by $1.5 billion and forgo the $1.5 billion increase to federal grants and contributions in this year's federal budget.

I know the member preceding me would not want to have said something that was not factual so I will correct him. He said that the motion was to take money out of. It is not a motion to take money out of. This is a motion to deny the increase. Why should we deny the increase? Why should the increase be forgone?

The issue of the scandal is not the programs. The issue of the scandal is the management of the programs or indeed the lack of management of the programs by the Liberal government. The Liberal members keep on saying that the Conservatives made them do it or whatever the case maybe. They seem to conveniently forget that the boondoggle in HRDC actually occurred under their watch.

I also draw to the member's attention, indeed to the attention of all the Liberals, the fact that it is the Liberals who are not honouring the Canada Health Act. The Reform party supports the Canada Health Act. The Liberals do not honour the Canada Health Act.

Because the federal government has cut back on the resources to health care, the provinces are forced to deliver health care however they can. For example, what province in Canada is not currently having its Workers' Compensation Board, a provincial creation and provincial agency, queue jump? That is two tier health care. When an MRI is needed by somebody who is off work, is that person put in the same long lineup that is being created by the Liberal government? No. The WCB recognizes that there is a requirement for these MRIs. It wants to diagnose the problem created in the workforce. Those provinces and their Workers' Compensation Boards are queue jumping because of this Liberal government.

Furthermore those members, particularly the member from Ontario, love to dump however they can on Premier Harris. The health situation in Ontario has been caused directly by the Liberal federal government. People are being forced to go Rochester. It was a laugh when the Prime Minister said that he did not want to get into the Americanization of Canada. It is the Liberal government that has created the situation that the Ontario government is in. The only way it can deliver services to cancer patients is to send them to the United States.

I do not understand how those people can talk out of both sides of their mouths. It is amazing. There is a major difference between those people and the people on this side of the House, particularly the Reform Party.

The member from Mississauga said that the purpose of the government was to collect taxes to redistribute wealth. Excuse me, I believe it is the purpose of the Government of Canada to collect taxes to deliver services and to collect no more money than it needs to collect in order to deliver those services. It has nothing to do with redistributing wealth unless one happens to be of that particular party. Whose money is it? It is the taxpayers' money and the government is in the process right at this moment of collecting far more money than it needs to collect in the area of taxation.

Finally, in rebuttal to what that member had to say, what a patronizing elitist attitude it is that only the federal government can serve the people of Canada. Come on, let us get real.

The people of Canada elect the provincial legislatures in the same way that they elect the federal government. The Liberal federal government talks about the fact that it will make sure that the provinces will spend their money correctly. It will not let any of that money out that it extracted from the taxpayer. It will not let the provinces get away with actually managing their own money. I have heard it all day. Virtually every Liberal member who has stood up in this House of parliament today has said that only the federal government knows how to manage Canadians' money. Give it up. Give me a break.

What we are talking about here is not giving $1.5 billion to a federal government that has shown that it is incapable of properly managing the finances of the people of Canada. If the HRDC scandal were anything other than what it is, it would be seen as an absolute picture of the fact that the Liberals do not know how to manage money.

Does the government not have a place in helping Canadians and companies create jobs? The answer is yes. The problem is the seriously flawed method the Liberals use because it is so wide open to abuse. Consider the facts.

Quebec received $139 million while Ontario got $38 million. The Prime Minister's constituency alone took in more than Alberta, Saskatchewan or Manitoba. In 1997 HRDC spent $529 million in Quebec but only $218 million this year. This of course leads to the suspicion that the funds were used to try to influence voting patterns in Quebec, in other words chequebook federalism.

There are three perhaps four probes into job creation grant irregularities in the Prime Minister's riding alone. There are seven more police investigations which are known to be going on elsewhere. I wonder why we should not trust the Liberals to be able to manage these funds. I just gave a perfectly good detail, and it is not just Ontario and Quebec.

Let us look at the justice minister's riding. The province of Alberta received $3.8 million allocated under the TJF and CJF programs. Where did the vast majority, two-thirds of the money go in Alberta? It just happened to go to the justice minister's riding. She got $2.6 million of the $3.8 million. This is absolute political slush. It is exactly why we are saying do not transfer the $1.5 billion over to the HRDC but use the funds where they should be used.

I agree that the answer to the problems with medicare are not necessarily chequebook related. It may be hard for the member for Mississauga West to accept but I do agree with his proposal that there has to be an open and balanced discussion about the act proposed by Alberta and an unveiling of what the facts are in a non-politically charged environment, as long as there is not the kind of rhetoric we had from the member for Waterloo—Wellington. It was a piece of work. The implication was that we are bad and they are good. Come on. That is not the way to conduct any kind of discussion on this issue.

In conclusion, the motion that the House call on the Minister of Finance to increase the Canada health and social transfer by $1.5 billion and forgo the $1.5 billion increase to federal grants and contributions is a very sound one. The people of Canada will at least know that the resources the government has decided to spend will go into an area that will have the oversight and the intelligence of the provincial health ministers and the provincial governments who also represent the people of Canada.

It has been a privilege and a pleasure to address the House but I have to say in all candour that it was an exceptionally exasperating day, as the members on the Liberal side of the House have continued to state what they consider to be facts and, quite frankly, distort things so that they appear to be the way they want them to appear other than the way that they actually are.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite covered a lot of territory, but I take exception when he tries to characterize the government as being bad fiscal managers.

The Minister for HRDC has clearly acknowledged that there are administrative problems that have to be cleared up, and she is doing that. This government and the fiscal measures of the Minister of Finance, working with all his colleagues in this caucus, have eliminated a $42 billion deficit. How is that for starters?

We have interest rates that are at their lowest in 16 or 17 years. We have a rate of inflation that has consistently stayed within the range of 1% to 3% over the last many, many years. How about the level of employment or the reduction in the rate of unemployment to the lowest level in a generation?

When the member talks about a scandal, I do not know how he puts things into perspective. Of course he would love to have Canadians believe that there is a fiscal management problem in the Government of Canada, which he knows is patently not the case.

I wonder if he could put those into perspective when he responds.

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

Madam Speaker, I certainly can. As we heard in question period today, this kind of gross financial mismanagement is not confined to just this one part of HRDC. We have now discovered that there has been gross mismanagement in the area of TAGS.

I also point out to the member that the reason there is a balance is because of the long suffering taxpayer. The average family of four, since this government took over, has had an increase of $4,000 a year in taxes.

Furthermore, the U.S. interest rates, which are reflected in Canada, are unfortunately not also reflected in the unemployment figures. Take a look at the difference between the unemployment rate in Canada versus the unemployment rate in the United States.

This member does not make a case for proper management by the Liberal government.

[Gurmant Grewal, Reform, Surrey Central, BC]

Madam Speaker, the motion by the Reform Party is about the government putting hard earned taxpayer dollars where its mouth is, not where its back pocket is. As a result of the Liberal policy, the health care system has been deteriorating steadily.

Does the hon. member agree that the Liberal government should not only restore the funding to health care but also owes Canadians an apology?

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

Mr. Speaker, I could agree to that. I point out that health care costs have risen by 19% since the Liberals came to power while, at the same time, contrary to the assertions of the other side, the contributions by the federal government to the provincial governments have gone down drastically, down by about 40%.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

It being 6.15 p.m. it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The division on the amendment stands deferred until Tuesday, March 21, at the end of the period provided for Government Orders.

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

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Madam Speaker, I asked the following question in the House:

Mr. Speaker, because of the EI reforms brought in by this Liberal government and the Progressive Conservative government before it, only 30% of unemployed women are receiving EI benefits, compared to 70% in 1989.

A Statistics Canada study shows that EI cuts are the leading reason for the increase in poverty among families with children.

Is the Minister of Human Resources Development prepared to admit that, by reducing the eligibility of unemployed parents for EI benefits, she is increasing child poverty?

At the time, the minister answered:

The hon. member opposite would have us believe that women are not making gains in the labour force, in fact, the opposite is true. The unemployment rate of 5.8% for adult women is the lowest in almost 25 years.

This might well be the lowest, but the fact is that women no longer qualify for employment insurance; they now are on social assistance. If they are on social assistance, they do not qualify for employment insurance and therefore they do not show up in the statistics, in the numbers quoted by the minister. This is one of the problems we are experiencing these days.

I rose countless times in the House and put questions to the minister on employment insurance only to have her answer: “Well, people used to abuse the system, to do this or that”. At long last, the Prime Minister of Canada admitted on Saturday night during his party's convention in Ottawa that they lost in the Atlantic provinces because of the cuts they made to employment insurance and because they hurt people in the region. The Prime Minister finally realized it.

Today, the Globe and Mail reported that they want to make two changes to the employment insurance. They mentioned the clawback provisions and the intensity rule. If the government and the Liberals think they will buy votes in Atlantic Canada by raising the intensity rule to 55%, I can tell them that 55% of $6 is not much. People will get about $3.50.

People will continue to live in poverty. The Liberals have yet to understand the problem in Atlantic Canada. The problem there is that people do not qualify, they do not work the 910 hours required. Young people do not qualify. Will the Liberals finally realize the harm they have caused to families, to parents, to single mothers?

Will this government understand once and for all? Will the Prime Minister of Canada understand, or will he only listen to the Ontario Liberal caucus which is coming up with the clawback provision and the intensity rule, because they cannot live with these problems in southern Ontario?

The real problems of Atlantic Canada is that people do not qualify. Women do not qualify. Fish plant workers do not qualify. Construction workers do not qualify and the amounts they receive are inadequate.

I hope the government will make the real changes that I have been asking for in this House since June 7, 1997 when I was elected here. I won over my predecessor, Doug Young, who made cuts in the Atlantic provinces.

I hope the Liberals will look into their souls and make real changes.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development]

Madam Speaker, Statistics Canada has released two reports which conclude that Mr. Godin's statistics are not a good measure of the adequacy of the EI program.

These statistics exclude people on sickness benefits, maternity benefits, parental adoption benefits, fishing benefits and part II EI benefits. The statistics include many people who have never contributed to the program, such as people who never worked, the self-employed, people who have no recent work attachment and those who voluntarily left their jobs.

A more adequate set of measurements is found in the employment coverage survey published by Statistics Canada in 1999. This survey suggests that employment insurance covers 79% of the people who are eligible, not 30% as described by the hon. member.

Presently there are several features of the EI program that are of importance to women. One is that every hour of work is covered. Women working part time or holding multiple jobs can now be eligible for both EI regular and EI special benefits.

We also know that two-thirds of those who receive the more generous family supplement are women. Fifty-eight per cent of those participating in the small weeks adjustment project which provides workers in high unemployment regions with higher benefits are women. As well, the reach back provision for the active employment measures expands eligibility for women, providing increased help for stay at home mothers to get back into the workforce.

Canadian women have made significant gains in the labour market. Women represent nearly half the labour force compared to 30% in 1966. Their employment grew faster than men's in each of the last four decades. Their rate of employment is the highest in the G-7 countries over the last 20 years.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I remind the hon. parliamentary secretary to use the names of ridings of members in the House and not to call them by their names.

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

Madam Speaker, since the opening of the session, after the Christmas break, on February 6, we have seen in this House that a huge scandal is going on at HRDC.

The scandal could involve between $1 billion and $3 billion. It is unprecedented. Even under the ten years of Conservative government, never did we see a scandal of this scope.

In an effort to cover it up, the minister has set up two toll free telephone lines, one for MPs and one for the public. Here is the number for the public. It is 1-888-567-5844.

There is another toll free number for members. I used this line to inquire about HRDC grants in my riding of Frontenac—Mégantic, in Thetford and in the Lac-Mégantic region.

I was told to go through HRDC's access to information office, and each request would cost me $5. Having wasted four days, I quickly filled out the required forms and paid $40 for my eight requests. I must wait 30 days before I get any answers. I suspect these answers will bring out two particular cases in the riding of Frontenac—Mégantic.

The parliamentary secretary is in the House to respond. I fully expect that she will read me an answer prepared by her officials. I am wondering if the minister is not trying to delay the provision of answers to our questions, which could lead us to uncover yet more instances of mishandling that would raise the total amount involved at HRDC well above $3 billion.

Tonight, I am accusing the Liberal government of trying to conceal the truth. I am also accusing the government of squandering taxpayers' money. I am accusing the Minister of Human Resources Development of interfering with the transparency of her department. Finally, I am accusing the government of patronage.

In the Thetford region, the granite region, HRDC funds were used for patronage. Only 42% of workers who pay EI contributions qualify for benefits if they lose their jobs or if they are seasonal workers. That money is used for patronage.

That is what happened in the riding of Saint-Maurice, the Prime Minister's riding. The government had promised to give $165,000 to create 45 jobs in the riding of Rosemont, a disadvantaged riding in Montreal's east end. What did the government do? It took this money that was supposed to go to Rosemont under the agreement the member for that riding had signed with HRDC and, without him knowing anything about it, transferred that money to the Prime Minister's riding. Is that not patronage?

What happened then? Pierre Corbeil toured plants to meet general managers and ask them for cash contributions of $10,000, $15,000, $20,000 or $25,000. No wonder beer was flowing at the convention over the week-end—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

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

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development]

Madam Speaker, this gives me a chance to reiterate the idea that the 30% coverage for EI which was stated both by this colleague and the previous speaker is incorrect.

The employment coverage survey published by Statistics Canada says that EI covers 79% of people who are eligible. That is the correct number. Thirty per cent is incorrect. We cannot pay employment insurance benefits to people who have not contributed, to people who have no recent attachment to the workforce and therefore have not paid premiums. It is impossible for an insurance program to pay benefits to people who have not paid premiums. Of the people who have paid premiums, 79% received benefits.

The second point I would like to refute in the member's speech is the fact that he is suggesting the delivery of grants and contributions is tied to partisan political patronage. I would suggest to him that if he has any evidence of that he bring it forward to us. If he does not have evidence I would challenge him to make those statements outside the House.

The member talked about the transfer of some economic activity funded by HRDC to the Prime Minister's riding. The grant was made for activity in the city of Montreal. The business owner, who was responsible for 75% of the investment, made a business decision to move that activity from the original location. That has nothing to do with patronage. It has to do with a business decision of somebody who has three-quarters of the investment in when we had one-quarter.

On the issue of his access to information request, I have spoken to the member in the House. I have answered his questions and have suggested that he come to see me personally and I would be willing to—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

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

(The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.)