Debates of March 21st, 2000

Supply

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Madam Speaker, there is no one who supports the idea of helping people more than I. I think we need to help people whenever we can.

In light of the fact that the Prime Minister's riding received more money in grants than the entire provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba put together, the fact that some of these dealings in the Prime Minister's riding involved some pretty shady characters and the fact that many of the grants were given to billion dollar organizations like Bombardier and Wal-Mart which are doing very well and just happen to be on the Liberal donor list, does that not cause any problems in the mind of this member? Does accountability not enter her vocabulary? I am talking about accountability for taxpayer dollars. Does it not matter that these three provinces did not receive nearly as much money as one member's riding? Does this not bother the member?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Madam Speaker, when we talk about accountability and transparency that is exactly what we are doing through the minister and the HRDC officials.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the member for York West for an excellent maiden speech. I know how difficult that is and she did an excellent job. I also want to thank her for mentioning the carpenters' union in Manitoba, which is the union I used to lead. In fact the program she mentioned, the literacy program for the carpenters, is the program that I initiated.

I want to ask the member if she is aware that in the area of Winnipeg Centre, which I represent, an area where the unemployment rate is 14%, we were denied access to any transitional jobs funds even though many individuals made inquiries to my office asking how they could get in on the transitional jobs fund. They were told over and over again by HRDC officials that the overall regional rate of unemployment was too low. We knew nothing about the pockets that everybody has referred to. Is the hon. member aware of that fact?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Madam Speaker, what we are talking about today is the CJF and TJF funding. There are thousands of other programs that amount to millions of dollars which, from my understanding, went to all ridings throughout the country.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I apologize to the House and to the member for not recognizing this as being her maiden speech. I likewise want to congratulate her.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Even though this is not a point of order, I think all members of the House are behind you.

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

Madam Speaker, I will start off with a point that the hon. member made during her answers to questions and comments.

The member said that she would rather spend the huge amount of money, which it would cost for a public inquiry commission, on job creation. I agree with that. I think the best way to have this inquiry would be through the auditor general who already has a mandate to investigate and who we could rely on for some impartiality.

The government has a habit of having independent inquiries. I think we should look at this. We do want to get some kind of inquiry on this. We do have to come to some kind of settlement to determine how much political interference there was on this and how much cover up there was once the interference had been discovered.

I have looked at some of the things the government has held public inquiries on in the past. Does this give us an example of something that we could rely on in the case of the HRDC scandal?

One of the things I was more directly involved with in the last parliament was the Pearson Airport inquiry, which was an interesting story right from the start. It began with two internal studies that were done by the department and both conflicting with the government's position.

I bet the Bloc Quebecois members wish they could do what the government does. The government just hires someone else, tells them what they should say and then gets them to say it. I am sure the Bloc members would like to have that kind of power in determining the next referendum where that could decide who would vote in the referendum and then get the people to vote their way.

The government named Robert Nixon, a close friend of the Prime Minister. This is supposed to be an independent inquiry so we are off to a good start with the word independent. He is someone who worked with the Prime Minister and, as I say, is a close personal friend and very heavily and closely connected to the Liberal Party. Even at that, his original report conflicted with that of the government.

Madam Speaker, I should have done this at the start, but at this point I would like to announce that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.

The original Nixon draft report still conflicted with the government. He did not say exactly what the government wanted to have him say, so there was a second report that changed that and surprise, surprise, it said exactly what the government wanted to say. So much for independence.

We know he is a close friend of the Prime Minister. Is there another connection that we can use in this HRDC situation right now? As a matter of fact there is. This is a wonderful coincidence because Robert Nixon, the independent inquirer for the government, is none other than the father of the current minister of HRDC who is knee deep if not neck deep in this whole scandal. In fact the question has been asked in the House if the current minister of HRDC learned her tricks from the Prime Minister and this suggests the fruit fell a little closer to the tree than that.

With regard to Mr. Nixon from whom there was an independent inquiry, what did he get out of it aside from his fee, which I believe was $50,000 but I am not sure on that so do not quote me. If during questions and comments hon. members want to say that no it was not that, it was $70,000, I will not argue with them. Aside from that, what did he get when it was finished? He became the chair of Atomic Energy of Canada. An independent inquiry. We really like that.

What did this independent inquiry cost us? Not in terms of what we paid that individual, but how well did this work for us here in parliament to resolve the problems of the House by having an independent inquiry done in this manner? It cost us hundreds of millions of taxpayers' dollars because instead of proceeding, as all the studies prior to the independent inquiry suggested, by getting Pearson airport going, the government instead bought out the people involved who in fact were trying to sue the government. It bought them out and spent hundreds of millions of dollars just for that.

They were to rebuild terminal two at no cost to the government, but what did we get instead? The government will have to provide this money now. Here we are years later, and if anybody has been in terminal two lately, they will see that it has not been rebuilt. In fact, nothing at all has happened except that we are out of pocket by hundreds of millions of dollars. This is the way the government works.

This morning I would like to have intervened after listening to the mad dog act of the hon. member for Waterloo—Wellington. It was certainly an interesting performance.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I believe that the hon. member is getting very close to the fine line. I will advise him to please try to be more judicious in choosing his words.

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

Madam Speaker, I will and I apologize. I certainly should not have characterized the hon. member in the way that he acted. That was standing to justification.

The hon. member for Waterloo—Wellington said that the House, particularly members of the opposition, instead of what we are saying should be praising the Minister of HRDC for attempting to solve the problems, that she is a great minister and she is attempting to solve the problems. There was some one handed clapping on the other side as a result of this. It seems that the hon. member's definition of a good minister is one who can solve a problem which, if she had done her job, she would not have got into in the first place.

[An hon. member]

That is not true.

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

An hon. member across the way says that is not true, that that does not make her a good minister at all. I bow to the judgment of the hon. member who is now basically saying that she is not a good minister. Far be it from me to argue with him on that point.

The second thing the hon. member said this morning was that the government was filling a need. This program is supposed to be about job creation. There is job creation at its pinnacle. The government is filling a need. First it creates one and then it fills it. It creates it through its oppressive tax regime so that companies need help just to survive. That is terrible. It is absolutely unbelievable.

Finally, in response to some of the other comments that have been made in the House by the government, I want to say that I am not necessarily opposed to all of these programs. I will be the first to say that my riding has done very well. If hon. members would button up long enough, I would tell them about the success of the program in my riding.

Why is it a success? I have worked with the HRDC people in my riding. They are good people. There have been no scandals or cover-ups. Criteria have been laid down. The first one is to determine if there is a need and if it is going to provide real genuine benefits. We do it to ensure that we never give a subsidy to anybody who is going to use it to compete with a company that is not subsidized.

What kind of things have been going on in the minister's riding? Companies have been lured away from a neighbouring riding. That is good job creation. Funds were used to get a company in the garment district into the Prime Minister's riding. That is an interesting conflict. What about a much needed subsidy for a really oppressed company that is struggling to survive and make ends meet, Wal-Mart? Is that not interesting.

Now we hear all the cries from the other side. The crocodile tears are coming down. It is a sorry sight to see the few Liberals who are crying out here because they have been caught manipulating the system.

If the Liberals have an inquiry into this, the kind of inquiry they want is one that they control. They want to appoint the person who will make the inquiry. They want a draft report to see if it is appropriately done.

The government should take responsibility for its mistakes when it makes them. Nobody expects it to be perfect. Heaven forbid, we certainly do not expect the Liberals to be perfect, but when they make a mistake, they should own up. They should say “yes, we made some mistakes but we are going to correct them. Let us move on. We are sorry and we will not do it again”. Had they done that, it probably would have been okay but no, they had to deny it, blame others and cover it up. That is not the way the government should respond to the waste of Canadian taxpayers' dollars.

[Paul Bonwick, Liberal, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Madam Speaker, I wish I had more time to respond to the absolutely ridiculous rhetoric which has been brought forward in the House today by the member from the Reform Party. These typical ultra right-wing positions, this rhetoric is divisive. The Reform Party is very clearly trying to divide Canadians.

I cannot use the words I want to because they are not parliamentary and are not supposed to be used in the House, but when the hon. member speaks there should be exceptions in that case. He has made statements that quite simply are not factual. Wal-Mart did not receive one cent yet he is trying to convince Canadians that it did. He made statements that were not based on fact. At the same time I see him grinning and smiling. He thinks it is okay.

What is happening is that Canadians are being misled. It is not right. There is no scandal. The only scandal is the fact that there is an ultra right-wing party in the House so bent on destroying the social fibre of the nation that it will say whatever it takes to get Canadians to support it. At the end of the day I think we have witnessed how Canadians perceive the Reform Party. We saw the drop it took in the polls.

I would ask, in fact I would beg, the hon. member to make use of the facts and have an open mind. There has been enough right-wing rhetoric and political posturing. Day after day I have sat in the House and heard the hon. members simply denounce the facts. It is just not right.

Would hon. members please try to have an open mind for once in this parliament.

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

Madam Speaker, I would be more than happy to respond to the hon. member. He is right. I was kind of smiling. I am sorry. I got carried away. When I hear nonsense I do tend to laugh at it. It is considered the best defence.

[Paul Bonwick, Liberal, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would suggest that although it is likely that the hon. member does not appreciate parliamentary language, nonsense is not an appropriate term.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I do not think that the word nonsense is unparliamentary.

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

Madam Speaker, I assure you that in using the word nonsense I was trying to be polite.

I hear things like ultra right-wing because we want to examine a scandal that the hon. member says does not exist. He said there is no scandal, that everything is fine in Liberal land. If that is the case, why are there 19 RCMP criminal investigations going into misconduct in the handling of these funds?

[Larry McCormick, Liberal, Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox And Addington, ON]

Madam Speaker, there are members of the opposition Reform Party, such as my hon. colleague, the member from Yorkton, who did a lot of good work on the HRD committee. Members worked across the country on behalf of all Canadians. I challenge these other members to come forth and tell us how they also joined us in doing a lot of this good work on behalf of Canadians.

I have a question for the member of the Reform Party who just spoke. Members of the opposition have accused our government and our minister of political interference. How can the member explain the fact that several ridings held by the Reform Party received much more money than did any riding on this side of the House?

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

Madam Speaker, the hon. member's preface to his question asks why anybody on this side of the House does not stand and talk about the successes in the program. Obviously he did not listen to my speech because I did just that. I said that my riding has done extremely well and is the second highest recipient of these funds in the province of British Columbia.

The problem in their ridings is that they are inappropriately handed out, not all of them, but certainly in some particular ridings.

In my riding, because of the scandal of the minister and the Prime Minister, they had to do an audit. The audit was done early on in my riding. It was completely clear and there was absolutely no problem. The program has resumed.

It is interesting listening to the hon. member who spoke out previously. He does not want to listen. He asks the questions on behalf of his other colleagues and does not answer them.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to the Bloc motion today. At the outset, the objective of the motion and of all of the people in the opposition, is to make sure that taxpayers' money is being spent wisely. That is the beginning and end of this motion. I will articulate how and why this motion came about, and the reason the opposition parties have been so critical of the government over the last month and a half.

The motion condemns the government for the very poor management of the Department of Human Resources Development which was brought to the attention of the minister.

The motion can actually be used as a stepping stone to describe growth and widespread abuse by the government of the taxpayers' money. This is not the government's money. It is the taxpayers' money and I am going to demonstrate how and why that happened.

We have seen the grants put forth by HRDC supposedly to rescue jobs, save jobs and make jobs. We would agree that has to happen in this country, but we disagree on how it happens. Where were those jobs created?

One example is in the minister's own riding. It has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country. The Minister of Human Resources Development received grants that were three times the national average. Why is it that the Minister of HRD, whose riding has unemployment rates much lower than the national average, received grants three times higher than the national average? Why is that so?

Also, the Prime Minister's riding received more grant money than that of any prairie province. We have seen the devastation that has been wrought upon the farmers in the prairies. We have seen that farmers, the salt of the earth of this country, have lost their farms, their homes, their families, their jobs and their futures and lost hope. Yet, HRD pours money into the riding of the Prime Minister or that of the Minister of HRD, which has a rate of unemployment far less than the average and far less than in the prairie provinces which have been crying out for help for so long.

HRD officials say that they were forced to break the rules and instructed to approve grants in the Prime Minister's riding. If that is not enough to make the public go ballistic, then I do not know what is. That is part of the reason why we and other parties have been bringing this issue to the front. We want this problem fixed and we want it fixed now. We are sick and tired of the half answers or no answers that we have been getting for so long.

It is not only HRD. Let us take a look at the Export Development Corporation. This crown corporation uses the taxpayers' money to loan funds to Canadian companies. But who does it lend to? It lends to 5% of the companies that export, which represents less than 10% of the companies in the country today.

What kind of companies? Bombardier. Bombardier received $1 billion in loans. Bombardier, which has $5.6 billion in assets and $11 billion in revenues, received a $1 billion indirect loan through EDC to support Amtrak. The Canadian government supported $1 billion of the taxpayers' money to be given to Amtrak, an American company that the U.S. government would not even put money into because it has been running deficits for a long time. That is what the EDC has done. That is what the government has done with the taxpayers' money. The public should be aware that it is out there slaving away and its money is being used to put into an American company, Amtrak. That company has lost billions of dollars and the U.S. government has said it is not going to give it any money. Yet EDC steps in with Canadian taxpayers' resources and says it is going to give money to Bombardier, which makes $11.5 billion, so it can get a contract. What justification is there for that?

What justification is there for the Canadian government using the taxpayers' money to give money to China, which is building a superheated military complex as we speak and which has a $5 billion surplus with Canada? We have given money to it to do what? We have given money to it so it can build the Three Gorges dam which sits on a fault line. The Canadian government is loaning China money to build the Three Gorges dam on an earthquake fault line. The U.S. said it would not have anything to do with this program. The World Bank said it would not have anything to do with it. It is rife with corruption. It is an environmental disaster currently and waiting to happen. It is going to displace 1.3 million people. Yet what does the Canadian government government do? It takes millions of dollars of the Canadian taxpayers' money and loans it to China, which is building a superheated military complex as we speak. We do not have enough money to buy choppers. We do not have enough money to buy search and rescue and anti-submarine warfare choppers. Our military people are falling out of the sky in choppers that are 25 plus years old. On the other hand the Canadian government is saying to China, “We'll give you money to invest in the Three Gorges Dam that the U.S. has walked away from, that the World Bank has walked away from”. That is what the government is doing with Canadian taxpayers' money. That is what the government is doing with the money that Canadians have slaved for.

What else has happened? With respect to the Three Gorges Dam the Prime Minister violated the Export Development Corporation's own environmental code of conduct and said “We're going to invest money in this project”, completely ignoring the comments by the non-governmental organizations, by international observers, by the World Bank. When those organizations chose not to go, and for obvious reasons, Canada chose to lend Canadian taxpayers' money. If that is not rot, I do not know what is.

With respect to the money, there is $22 billion in outstanding loans from EDC. Who is on the hook for this? What does the EDC do? It loans money on the good name of the Canadian taxpayer.

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

It makes money. There is a profit.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

The Minister of National Defence says it earns a profit. Let us take a look at that. There is $22 billion in loans outstanding. The auditor general does not know where that money is. $2.8 billion of Canadian taxpayers' money has been forgiven. They do not know where this money has been loaned and they cannot get it back.

Furthermore the EDC, under the rules that the government agrees to, is forbidden to have access to information requests. We cannot find out what is happening in EDC. The public cannot find out what is happening in EDC with their money. Parliament cannot find out what is happening in the EDC. Yet the EDC sees in its good ways to lose $2.8 billion of taxpayers' money, and for what? So it can give it to China while our people in the armed forces cannot even put a roof over their heads half the time, while the private married quarters are falling down.

I met with the Canadian Police Association today in my riding in Colwood. They do not even have enough money to put their cars on the road. The RCMP does not have enough money to put cars on the road when they break down. In Vancouver they do not have money to put cars on the road. In east Vancouver, which is one area that is rife with crime, they do not have enough money for policing.

There is an acute gross shortage of police officers in this country. Why? Because there is not enough money. What does the government do? The government takes the Canadian taxpayers' money and says “We're not going to invest in our military. We're not going to invest in our police force. We're not going to give the hepatitis C people a package”, which is currently $95 million short. These are the people who were infected innocently in the hepatitis C scandal that is $95 million short which the government saw fit to exclude in its compensation package. While the government will not even spend that for Canadians who are sick with hepatitis C, it sees fit to lose $2.8 billion to foreign companies, foreign governments, foreign agencies, the Chinese government and American companies that have lost money and on and on it goes.

I could go on and on but I welcome questions from the other side. Suffice it to say our objective in the Reform Party is to make sure that the Canadian dollar is spent wisely and what money is there is going to be used for creating jobs and that the government stop wasting Canadian taxpayers' money.

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-De-La-Madeleine—Pabok, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the various members who spoke in the House today. The last speaker gave another example of where the government seems to have mismanaged taxpayers' money. It really looks like the Liberal government is not operating in a transparent way and in conformity with sound management practices.

Would my colleague agree that people be appointed by this House to conduct an independent public inquiry into what happened? We know that the future always depends on the past. If we want to know what the Liberals did wrong, I think we need such an inquiry.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Madam Speaker, the situation in Quebec hospitals is currently very serious. They have no money to care for patients.

Cancer patients in Quebec who are waiting 14 weeks for treatment are being sent south of the border because the province of Quebec does not have the money to pay for their treatment.

If the money in HRD was spent wisely, we would not have a problem. We hear the question: Why waste billions of dollars through HRD, EDC or CIDA? Why not make sure the money is spent wisely and maybe money will be left over so the patients in Quebec will have an opportunity to receive the medical treatment they require?

Yes, I would completely agree to a public inquiry into the spending of HRDC. I would extend it to involve CIDA, HRDC, EDC and aboriginal affairs.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by my hon. colleague. I would like him to comment on one thing.

It seems the Liberals over and over again are saying there is no problem, there is no money missing. Yet, the question is obvious. Why did the auditor general bring this problem to our attention a year ago? Why did officials in the human resources department call for an internal audit? Why have these things taken place if in fact there is no problem?

The Liberals are probably much more engaged in damage control and trying to smooth this issue over than to acknowledge the fact that there is a huge mismanagement of grant money and I would like my hon. colleague to comment on this fact.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Elk Island for his very germane question. He is absolutely right. The members on the other side of the House should have a deep interest in ensuring that money that is available is spent wisely.

The auditor general is an apolitical institution. The auditor general is a man who has been giving very good advice for a long period of time to all governments to ensure that Canadian taxpayers' money is spent wisely. Is his advice ever adhered to? No, it is not. In fact, that is part of the problem. Despite the very effective solutions which the AG puts forth, the government completely ignores them. Why? Because the disposition of money has become highly politicized within the government. All members in the Liberal Party should be very concerned about this to make sure taxpayer money is spent wisely. If it is spent wisely, they will benefit politically and, more importantly, their constituents and all constituents will benefit effectively from it.

I would ask them to put away the partisan padding and the pork barrelling and use the money wisely. It would be in the government's best interest to pursue this.