Debates of March 21st, 2000

Supply

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my colleague from Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques for introducing this motion today in the House. It allows an important debate to take place on the scandal at the Department of Human Resources Development.

Although government members and ministers seem determined to wipe the slate clean and to say that all is well in this marvellous country, the scandal at HRDC does not concern the programs, but the management of these programs. Yesterday members opposite tried to minimize the issue by accusing us of wanting to deny grants to the handicapped, to our communities, which badly need them.

What worries us is the way the government is using tax dollars for political purposes, and is interfering politically by handing out money in our communities.

It is fair enough for members to work to get funds into their communities, but when four investigations in Quebec and 19 in the whole country are being carried out on how the money is distributed and on how certain ministers and members in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada have managed to get top funding for their ridings, we have every reason to be worried and to move the debate on to a higher level than the one where Liberal members and ministers seem to want to keep it.

The Minister of Human Resources Development also lacks foresight and rigour, as far as this scandal is concerned. We know full well that, from the very beginning, she tried to minimize the problem. The opposition parties, including the Bloc Quebecois, persisted and succeeded in revealing this huge scandal and shedding some light on this mismanagement by the government.

The minister told us that she learned about the main elements of the report in November. She said that she was aware that something was going on in December and that there could have been some irregularities, but she never told us that she was aware of this report as far back as August nor that she had been informed of the situation in the Department of Human Resources Development.

After being pressed by the Bloc Quebecois and the other opposition parties, the minister started admitting that maybe we had been right to be concerned about the situation. People sometimes tell children that they are setting a bad example. The Prime Minister also minimized the significance of the problem, saying that $250 were at issue and that, therefore, there was no cause for concern. But the more we dig and the deeper we delve, we discover new problems and examples of mismanagement.

Problems were found in 37 of the 459 files sampled. Some experts might say that these cases may have been revealed as examples, but that we could discover much more serious problems if we did a major clean up of the management of public funds at HRDC.

The minister tried to hide the facts and that is what concerns us. First, she tried to hide the facts about the dates on which she was made aware of the report. She was informed in October but said she was not until the end of November.

Four months later, she was maintaining that no rules had been broken, that there had been no preferential treatment and that no money had been paid out without authorization. That was on December 16. However, she was aware of the auditor general's report. She knew about the mismanagement at HRDC.

She knew that grants had been awarded for partisan purposes. She knew that there had been political interference and that 75% of the funds available had been awarded in the Prime Minister's riding, during the election campaign or about that time. She knew that 54% of the money from the transitional job fund had been awarded, during the election campaign, six months before and two months after, in order to reward friends.

I want to come back to the criteria in relation to the pockets of poverty. I am insulted because there are such pockets in my riding. As a member of parliament, I would have liked to know about this. In my riding, the average income is higher than the poverty level.

That does not mean that there is no poverty in lower town, in Saint-Roch, in Saint-Sauveur or in Limoilou. I have said to groups, to community networks “You are not eligible, the unemployment rate must be higher than 12%”.

I am concerned by the way this department, this government takes the taxpayers' money and uses it here and there for partisan purposes to look good.

Numerous instances have been uncovered. In the case of the Canadian tourism institute, the grant went into the director's pockets: $2.5 million paid in December 1998. Two people resigned after blowing the whistle on what was going on in that administration. Within the institute, people were awarding themselves money for sitting on the board of directors.

We told them “Do not do anything before the RCMP has completed its investigation and we have completed our own”. These people were forced to resign because they had exposed the problem. The same thing happens to us here, when we raise a problem. They try to gag us, to tell us that we are wrong, or else they shout at us, as they did earlier.

We could also mention other investigations. The Fugère affair is another case in point. Mr. Fugère's lobbying activities were denounced. We know that he has done some work in the Prime Minister's own riding. The Prime Minister said he did not know him, that he had not given him any money. We know that the recipient of thes grants was a lobbyist who sometimes works for Mr. Chrétien's riding office. Once again, no invoice has been produced.

I want to get back to the auditor general. He has expressed great concern about the mismanagement at Human Resources Development Canada. We are not the ones saying this, the auditor general is. He takes administrative audits seriously. There are shortcomings, problems of compliance with legislative requirements, weaknesses in program design, poor control and insufficient information about the regulations.

The auditor general expressed frustration about the general administrative situation. According to him, there are other shortcomings. There are other irregularities in the list obtained via access to information and the one released by HRDC. Again, we are not the ones saying this, the auditor general is. Might not someone who is above the whole mess, who is not partisan, who wishes to inform this House, be trusted? He has said that something is going on in HRDC. There seems to be no desire on the government side to take him seriously; the desire is to minimize the problem underlying the scandal.

The government wants to intimidate us by telling us to pipe down, by telling us to go and settle it outside. As a woman, I know what settling it outside means. I am not going outside. I am going to stay here, and I am going to speak out here. It is high time people were told how things are done in this parliament. I am not going to step outside, because I do not want to settle it with fists.

I would like to move an amendment to my colleague's motion. The door has been opened somewhat, but I would like to open it wider. I move:

That the motion be amended by adding after the word “condemn” the following:

“vehemently”

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with some interest to the member opposite. At one point she said that words failed her. Words should fail her, because what she was doing was in effect creating myths. She was not speaking the truth, and she should know better. Let me tell the House why.

This motion is frivolous and vexatious. Instead of grandstanding and fabricating mythology, she should remember that the Bloc is on record as supporting these kinds of programs.

Why do I say that? I read not so long ago in Le Soleil in Quebec that the Bloc is on record as saying that these programs are good.

Today they are putting on this big grandstand show, trying to agitate and get people worked up by vigorously objecting and all of these kinds of nonsensical things. I vigorously object to the kind of mythology that is being promoted in the House today.

I also point out that all of the projects in Quebec, as in other provinces, had to be signed off by the Parti Quebecois, the Government of Quebec, in a partnership role. This fact they conveniently leave out of their fine words.

If these grants were so bad, why is it that the Government of Quebec, the Parti Quebecois, signed off on them? If they were that bad, why did the separatists in Quebec sign off?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The amendment is in order.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again we can see how seriously my colleague takes RCMP investigations. Are RCMP investigations a myth? Is the auditor general's report a myth?

This tells me just how much the government members want to minimize the problem, saying “Yes, but the Quebec government approved the grants”. One can approve a grant but the responsibility is theirs to do a follow-up on the programs, to have the right funding and to see to it that the criteria are met.

Speaking of bad faith, we are told for example that our communities need that money; I agree. Why do we want all these programs to be clarified? Because we want all communities to benefit from them.

Where has all that money gone? We are talking about $100,000 here, $1 million there and $200,000 elsewhere. I would have preferred to see these amounts to go to my communities instead of discovering that they got lost somewhere.

The government should stop blaming the opposition parties for wanting to get to the bottom of this scandal. I will not stop using the word scandal, because this is in fact a scandal. A government that does not know where the money has gone, that does not do a follow-up on its grants, should not be in charge of managing the public finances.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Québec, who gave an excellent speech. She is perfectly right to condemn the $1 billion scandal in the House.

The Liberals brag about being good managers. The hon. member for Saint-Maurice, the Prime Minister, and the hon. member for LaSalle-Émard, the Minister of Finance, are running surplus after surplus. How did they manage to run a surplus while losing one billion dollars at HRDC?

Everybody knows that it was by cutting transfer payments and EI for those who needed it. Today, we are faced with a scandal. More than 50% of the funds earmarked for grants and contributions were spent a few months before and after the elections to buy votes.

Is it very unfortunate that the Minister for International Trade, who was then the minister responsible, cannot answer some questions. The current minister is now responsible. And she is because she knew about the report and misled the House.

Could my colleague confirm that that minister should resign, not because she was responsible for the $1 billion boondoggle but because she was aware of the situation and misled the House?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I want to be sure that what we are doing is proper and that there has not been an accusation that the hon. minister deliberately—and I underscore the word “deliberately”—misled the House. I will leave it there. As far as the Chair is concerned, there was not the impression that there was a deliberate desire to mislead the House.

I will recognize the hon. member for Québec for a short response.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, all we can say is that we did not get answers to our questions and that opposition parties are also there to shed light on the management of public finances. This is one of our responsibilities.

As for calling for the resignation of the Minister of Human Resources Development in light of this huge scandal, we can certainly do that, but we could also call for the resignation of the Minister for International Trade, who just skated around while he was in charge of HRDC, claiming that he really knew his department and how it was managed.

We do have to look at how that department is managed. We know where the orders come from. They come from the big boss. It is urgent to shed light on HRDC's management process.

We are not satisfied with the minister's replies. She knew about the report and about the internal problems long before all this was made public, but the government tried to downplay the situation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Waterloo—Wellington.

I want to say at the outset that I am grateful to the member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques for his timely motion.

Everyone knows that this subject has consumed the House since we returned from the winter break. In question period the opposition commands the agenda because it gets to ask the questions. There has been what I would call a feeding frenzy on this particular topic. The reason for that is because in six and a half years this is the first time the opposition has found common ground, one with the other.

Opposition members have not been very successful at criticizing the government or co-ordinating their efforts in the face of our major improvements to Canadian society over the last six years: the reduction of the deficit, the lowering of unemployment, bringing under control the nation's finances to the point that we now have the best financial situation we have had probably in 15 or 20 years.

Canadians know that, but we have found one area that needs a lot of improvement. Through an internal audit we have identified a section of our government that needs some serious work. Our internal audit told us some bad news, and we took it as bad news. We took it seriously and we admitted ownership because we are the government. We came up with an action plan to address it.

We did not dream up the action plan. We devised a plan and into it we incorporated the advice of the auditor general, the other financial institutions of the government, the Treasury Board Secretariat, and we have even called in the private sector to look at our plan and how well it will address the problems raised.

Because the specialty of Bloc Quebecois members is moral outrage, they have found this a very comfortable file to hone in on. I am actually surprised at how well they have slid into the agenda of the Reform Party. We all know why Reform Party members want to go after this file. They want to go after this file because they want to erode the confidence of Canadians in federal social programs.

They want to suggest to Canadians that HRDC is not well managed and to do that they have not painted the full picture. They have taken something that a painter might think of as painting a picture by paint by number. In the paint by number card that they have pulled out they are painting one section out of 60 over and over and over again.

I am trying to put it into perspective. One has to remember that the Department of Human Resources Development has a budget of $60 billion. For eight weeks the section that has commandeered the attention of the opposition and the media represents $1 billion or 1/60 of the department's budget.

I do not hear many complaints from those 3.7 million people who are receiving their old age security cheques. I do not hear many people complaining about their guaranteed income supplement. There are 1,381,000 of them. I do not hear too many people who have qualified for EI complaining about their cheques. There are 1,263,000 of them. Nor do I hear complaints from the 1.4 million families representing 2.6 million children who are receiving national children's benefits. Instead they attack what is a good department, what is representing the social programs administered by the federal government, with the exception of health which has its own department.

The Reformers are trying to paint a black picture based upon essentially a job creation fund that is part of that $1 billion and is worth $330 million. That is 1/180 of the department's budget. Now we have this in perspective: 1/180 of the department's budget is being attacked for eight weeks. That is 1/360 of the Government of Canada's budget. I ask Canadians whether this is worth eight weeks of the time of the House.

I am not trying to trivialize the problem within that 1/360 of spending. That is important and we take it seriously. We accept responsibility and we accept ownership. It has been said that we try to hide things. I invite all members to go their whips' offices to see the 16 binders of information, each one being five and a half inches thick and piled on top of one another. They almost reach to the ceiling. Therein they will find a description of every project that has been funded under grants and contributions across the country.

At the same time as we have collected this information for the perusal of all, the media, the opposition and our own members who want to know, we have been transparent. It is an unprecedented release of information for a government. We did not do that because the opposition was forcing our backs to the wall. We did that because we want to govern well. The population of today wants to know and we want to let the population know.

I have sent lists of the projects in my riding to various constituents who have asked for it. They have phoned me back with questions. It has created a great deal of work but for transparency purposes it is worth it. It is this minister who has led the drive to openness and transparency. I am proud to be assisting her because she is leading into the new era of the new century with that.

It has been said that there was a lot of money spent in 1997. It is true that the budget for this has gone down from the $3 billion, which is part of this, to less now because in the meantime we signed labour market development agreements with the provinces and a huge chunk of money was taken out and moved to them. If we compare 1996 with 1999 we will say that it has gone down. It was not because it went up in 1997 because there was an election. It was after 1997 that one at a time we signed agreements with the provinces and transferred the relevant training money to them, so today it looks like we are spending less. It was not for partisan purposes. That is a figment of the Bloc Quebecois' imagination.

I want to be clear. We are not talking about $1 billion. We are talking about the possibility of worrying about $330 million in the Canada jobs fund. Just to update the House, at this time we have recovered $225,729 because we have identified some overpayments with our work. We have called it back and it has arrived. It will be different tomorrow and it was different last week, as we gather the information and put it together day by day, but as of today we are owed $640.21.

I hope this puts it into perspective for the viewers who have been bored to death by eight weeks of talking about 1/360 of the Government of Canada's budget.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, here again I can see that government members, ministers and parliamentary secretaries do not fully understand the problem with the scandal.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development says that we do not fully appreciate all the government does to help, with income security, employment insurance benefits or the national child benefit. I wish to point out that these are not grants. They are fixed amounts which are given. Accordingly, one cannot really use those amounts for partisan purposes.

When she says that she does not hear any criticism about employment insurance benefits, I can tell her that we often pointed out that they have been reduced and that six persons out of ten are not eligible for those benefits.

I am currently touring Quebec to look into poverty and the social safety net, which is gradually shrinking over the years. An election is coming up and a little more money might be added, but Quebecers will not be fooled. We will know what they are up to with public spending.

According to her, Reformers are using the scandal to say that the programs should be cut back. However, we want to shed some light on this scandal. The government is minimizing the scandal at Human Resources Development Canada by saying that much is being done elsewhere, that this only involves a mere $1 billion.

Only 19 cases are mentioned. A comprehensive investigation should have been ordered for the government's overall administration and the auditor general should have been asked to look into the way it is using taxpayers' money.

This is the issue we have to deal with. Opposition parties are doing their duty when they ask—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I am sorry to interrupt.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we know that a billion dollars is a lot of money. As for the point that we do not get it, it is not true. We do get it. What I do not get is how they will play this game with the Reformers and continue to erode people's confidence in the social programs which I know they believe in.

I know the social conscience of most Bloc Quebecois members is extremely strong. They have a true idea of community and as such I see members of that particular party as supporters of the way I view the world. I try to recruit them to the causes we believe in together.

However damage is being done by the consistent use of the word scandal and by this opposition day. They do not seem to realize that the impact is not necessarily eroding support for the Liberal government or helping them to win seats. It is strengthening the right wing in the country as personified by the National Post . They are giving the National Post more and more fodder every day to feed to the people so that they lose faith in social programs. I do not understand why the Bloc Quebecois is co-operating with that.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is a huge scandal going on at HRDC at the moment. It is unprecedented in Canada's political history. Even in the time of the Conservatives, during the nine years when scandal followed scandal, never was a scandal worse than the one before us now at HDRC.

The minister, out of a concern for transparency, invited us to use the phone line set aside for MPs to request information. I used the line and then went through access to information because they would not give me the information on the direct line.

However, I have received two calls on a very specific matter in my riding in Thetford Mines. Barely 15 minutes ago, I was talking with Odile Cukier, who is negotiating with me as to whether or not she should give me over 200 pages, because they would contain privileged information of a confidential nature, such as an address and telephone number or a social insurance number for certain people.

Why not reveal all on the files we are asking about?

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this member has a funny idea of history if he thinks this is the biggest scandal in the history of Canada. He obviously is not aware of the railway scandal at the beginning of the century. He probably did not know about Gerda Munsinger. When we have international spy secrets being traded, when we have public money being stolen, when we have what the movies call sex, lies and videotapes, then we have a scandal.

We have a problem of management in our grants and contributions. We accept responsibility. We are working on it. We are turning up new information every day as our 20,000 employees go through the files and check on everything.

Perhaps this member has been having trouble getting the information he wants on one file. I offered just yesterday to help him get that information. However I must caution members that we cannot give information that would erode the privacy of individual Canadians. It is probably something about the Privacy Act that is restraining the official from giving him everything, but I am happy to work with him on that.

We want to be open and transparent for our colleagues in the opposition and for Canadians to know that we are working on it step by step to clean it up.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I commend the parliamentary secretary for her very thoughtful words and the insight that she provided not only for the House but for Canadians wherever they live in our great land.

She mused a little out loud about why the Bloc and the Reformers would be so cozy, cheek to cheek in this kind of debate. It struck me that it was not so long ago that the Reformers held a convention in London, Ontario, or maybe Toronto. In any event, who was their lead speaker? It was the separatist, Mr. Biron. The lead kick-off speaker of the Reform Party of Canada was none other than Mr. Biron, a separatist from Quebec. I guess the parliamentary secretary's musing about where they are at is no secret. They are playing toe and toe, playing cheek and cheek and playing pretty cozy these days.

The member for Frontenac—Mégantic talked about scandal. Let me tell him that the only scandal is that the Bloc members and he, instead of standing up for Quebecers and getting the kind of money that is necessary for hard pressed areas in Quebec and in other places in Canada, should be defending—

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I insist that you ask this member to withdraw his remarks. The members of the Bloc Quebecois were elected democratically without buying votes one after the other.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I listened very carefully to the words of the hon. member for Waterloo—Wellington and I did not hear anything in his words that were inappropriate.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to point out that the only scandal we are talking about today is the inability of the Bloc members to support their constituents, to support Quebecers in getting jobs and finding out the kind of money that is necessary for each of their individual ridings. That is the scandal here today and not what they are talking about.

I want to get to some of the facts. We heard the member for Quebec speak and we heard the member for Elk Island bellow across the aisle. Incidentally he is the member who is on record in Hansard as having called me a liar not so long ago. That very member is part of the Reform Party which, let me see now, was to bring a fresh start to parliament, a new way of doing business, was it not? And the member for Elk Island sits and bellows across the aisle. There he sits calling people liars.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would ask you to ask the member to stick to the debate. They say we flirt with the Reformers. Can I talk of Bill C-20, which was passed at Quebec's expense and on which they wanted to gag us? They applauded the Reformers, but those two were going on hand in hand.

This sort of thing can be said for a long time—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

We need to cut each other a little bit of slack here today. There will be a fair amount of debate going back and forth. We will all have to develop thicker skins.

Before the hon. member for Waterloo—Wellington gets started, we can bring the word liar in the front door and we can bring it in the back door, but let us just leave it outside the House.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what clearly is not left outside the House is the thick skin those members should be prepared to put on. They can dish it out, but it appears they cannot take it.

I want to point out to the member for Quebec and the member for Elk Island who was bellowing across the aisle not so long ago that the auditor general is very much part of the process. Instead of getting up and parading mythology like the member for Quebec was doing a minute ago, she should know her facts.

By the way, I was vice-chair of the public accounts committee. I have worked very hard and long with Mr. Denis Desautels over the years. I know the kind of thorough work he is prepared to do. He will do it and rightfully so on behalf of the taxpayers of Canada. His report will come out in the fall. What will his report say? We do not know, but we do know that Mr. Desautels, the Auditor General of Canada, will be conducting the kind of review necessary to get to the bottom of things.

When I hear both of the members opposite, the bellowing one too, talk about the auditor general not being part of the process, I have to scratch my head because he is an integral part of the process. Instead of perpetuating that kind of mythology, the hon. member for Quebec should get her facts straight. So should the bellowing member by the way. They should make sure they know what they are talking about.

Speaking of facts, I want to point out that over and above that, the standing committee on human resources development is taking a look at all this kind of information. Why? It is trying to get to the bottom to see exactly what transpired and how. More to the point, and I think the minister has repeatedly said this time and time again over the last seven weeks, she instigated the audit. She brought it forward and she is now trying to correct it.

It is interesting. The member for Calgary—Nose Hill tries to take the lead. Other members here today, the Bloc types, by grandstanding are trying to cash in and to carve a name out for themselves. It is really shameful. What they should be doing instead is defending people who require this kind of money, people who are unemployed, people who are disabled, young people and people in areas of high unemployment.

There are areas of high unemployment in Quebec. There are areas of high unemployment in the east. There are areas of high unemployment in the west. Instead of caterwauling away and trying to stir up all kinds of ridiculous things, they should be congratulating the government and saying what a wonderful thing it is doing in the best interests of Canadians. They should be congratulating us. Instead they seem intent on distorting the facts and that is too bad.

Canadians are very smart people. They see through that kind of political posturing. They see through those kinds of political shenanigans. They see through the kind of nonsense which the Bloc is trying to promote today. Canadians see through it. Quebecers and Canadians wherever they live in this great country of ours see through the kind of shenanigans that the people opposite are trying to pretend is true. We will have no part of it and rightfully so. Canadians expect no less from the Government of Canada.

In addition to the committee taking a look at this very important issue, the minister herself has said that four times a year she is prepared to come forward with a report and make sure all of the facts are on the table in terms of what is happening. It is important to note that we have put in place the kind of safeguards that are required in this all important area.

Let me zero in on the point I believe the Bloc is missing in this very important debate. Should the government be providing these kinds of grants and contributions to constituents wherever they live in Canada? I do not know what their answer is but the way the Bloc members are talking and posturing, it would appear that their answer is no, the government does not have a role. Like the parliamentary secretary said, they are in bed with the Reformers with the right-wing agenda of trying to cut off Canadians at their knees when it comes to these important things. Canadians reject that kind of right-wing nonsense. They want absolutely no part of it.

I thought the Bloc was more progressive than that. I thought the Bloc had a better social conscience. I thought it would be more prepared to defend Quebecers and defend people who genuinely need this kind of assistance. Instead, we hear them toady behind the Reformers and the best they can come up with is a flat tax. Imagine. Even the right-wing Republicans, the wing nutty types in the United States have rejected the flat tax. Maybe Jerry Falwell, Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Bakker and a few others of their ilk—

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think it might be good if the member were to speak with some relevance to the motion before the House instead of acting like his dog just died.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

That is certainly not a point of order.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talks about dogs. He is the last one who should be speaking about dogs because that party they are trying to assemble, that dog will not hunt.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am tired of hearing this sort of thing. The Prime Minister spoke about sleeping dogs with reference to sovereignists, and now dogs are dragged in, in connection with Reformers. Can members express themselves some other way or is this how they always criticize people?