Debates of March 21st, 2000

Supply

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Rimouski—Mitis for explaining so clearly the scandal that took place in the riding of Saint-Maurice, the riding of the Prime Minister who is there, across the way, with his party.

As she so rightly said, this government must at least order an independent inquiry. According to observers, this scandal might involve an amount of up to $3 billion. This is money that has allegedly been handed out here and there.

I would like to ask the member for Rimouski—Mitis if, for the benefit of all members of the House, she could explain just as clearly what happened in the riding of Rosemont, a poor riding in Montreal's east end, where a $165,000 grant was supposed to go before it drifted further east, ending up in the Prime Minister's riding.

I am asking the member for Rimouski—Mitis to give us a clear and simple explanation, like she just did.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Mitis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Frontenac—Mégantic.

My colleague from Rosemont, who is scheduled to speak immediately following me, is probably in a better position to answer that question.

However, I will take this opportunity to say that, in the case mentioned by the member, we know that a $165,000 grant that was supposed to go to Rosemont was transferred to Shawinigan.

When we started asking questions in the House, the minister immediately launched an investigation. Another investigation by someone from Toronto, whom she probably knew very well. Perhaps it was a friend of the government, who knows? In any event, a week later, this person asked that the matter be referred to the RCMP. Now the Rosemont affair is in the hands of the RCMP.

When we asked other questions concerning Mr. Fugère, the Prime Minister said that, as soon as he became aware of the situation, as soon as his office became aware of it, he referred the matter to the RCMP and that an investigation was underway.

My question is the following: Why was Placeteco not under investigation? Or why was Placeteco put under investigation last Friday, if departmental officials could not give us an answer? Since the minister knows nothing about what is going on in her department, she did not know that it was under investigation. She stopped the investigation so that, at 5.30 p.m., we could be told that there was no investigation.

There has to be an independent inquiry because we no longer trust any internal investigation this government may conduct. We trust even less calling on the RCMP, which is a way of covering up all the dirty dealings that are going on in that department.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with some interest to the member opposite and I caught a reference to Toronto. She seemed to say it in a manner that reflected in a way that I thought was maybe inappropriate.

I wonder why Mr. Lucien Bouchard, when it came to health care money, put all kinds of dollars—I think it was upward of $1 billion—into a Toronto bank. While Quebecers were calling for good solid health care, Mr. Bouchard had money, close to $1 billion worth, in some Toronto bank.

We always have to be careful when we get into these kinds of little tugs and pulls because it really is quite duplicitous for the hon. member to say what she did.

The point I want to make is that the auditor general, who is an official and an officer of the House, will look at this whole issue and report back in the fall of this year. As vice-chairman of the public accounts committee, I worked with Denis Desautels and I know he will do a very thorough job when it comes to looking at this whole issue. He will investigate it in a very meaningful way. The HRDC committee is also doing it, as is the minister.

My question to the hon. member is why will she not protect the interests of Quebecers? Why will she not stand in her place today and say that the money that the human resources development minister has earmarked for the poor, for the disabled and for the students is money well spent in Quebec and in all parts of Canada?

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Mitis, QC]

In all fairness, Mr. Speaker, I believe you must give me the time to answer and I will ask for unanimous consent to have at least two minutes to answer.

Over the past two years, the auditor general's office has conducted several audits of the management of the grant and contribution programs in various federal departments and agencies and found persistent flaws. “Persistent” is the term used by the auditor general.

The member should stop giving me this fancy footwork about the auditor general. It all depends on what the government will do with the auditor general's reports. He said himself “I could have shown a certain degree of annoyance with the management of the grant and contribution programs”.

As for the demagoguery shown by the member concerning the $841 million kept in Toronto, for his information—since he is apparently not aware of this—it is now $1 billion, because the finance minister is constantly hiding his surpluses in trust accounts. We will use the money kept in Toronto when we really need it. We did not need it because we had money in our coffers.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I speak to the motion introduced by my party, which reads as follows:

That this House condemn the government for the poor management seen at the Department of Human Resources Development, particularly in the award and use of grants for partisan purposes, and that it recommend the creation of an independent public commission of inquiry, whose members will be appointed by the House, and whose mandate will be to inquire into all practices of that Department and to report to the House by September 19, 2000.

I am all the more pleased to speak to this motion today because of the horror story I am about to tell the House in the ten minutes allotted me. It is a horror story because not only were lies told to the citizens I represent in the House, but because they were also told to yours truly, the member for Rosemont.

I would like to tell the story of a numbered company, 3393062 Canada Inc. This company was formed on July 16, 1997. At that time its headquarters were at Place Ville-Marie in Montreal. On August 4, 1997—a mere three weeks after the company was formed on July 16—it applied to Human Resources Development Canada for a grant under the transitional jobs fund.

On October 21, 1997 HRDC officials faxed my office a copy of the project, which I am now holding, a 35-page proposal to create 106 new jobs in my riding. This $2,750,230 project was supposed to be located in Rosemont and to create 42 jobs in 1997 and 64 additional jobs in 1998-99. This business was supposed to be set up in my riding, specifically at 5800, rue Saint-Denis in Montreal, in what is known as Place de la mode.

On October 27, when I recommended this project, I sincerely believed and thought I had the department's assurance that the jobs which were supposed to be created would be in my riding, that the jobs which were supposed to be created would serve the riding of Rosemont, one of the poorest ridings in Montreal, one of the ridings in the neighbourhood known as La Petite Patrie, which has one of the highest unemployment rates in Montreal.

I personally supported the project and it was naturally recommended by the Government of Quebec. In addition, on December 16 Human Resources Development Canada supported and approved the sum of $165,984, which was supposed to be used to create these 42 jobs.

Except that on March 5, 1998, at the HRDC office in my riding in Montreal, we learned at a meeting with the promoter and president of the numbered company that was going to create 42 jobs that there was no longer any space available at 5800 Saint-Denis Street. It was therefore impossible to create jobs in the riding of Rosemont, it was impossible to create jobs in Montreal and it was also impossible to create jobs in the metropolitan Montreal area. The company had no choice but to move and create these jobs, not in Rosemont, as had been recommended by the member for Rosemont, but in the riding of Saint-Maurice, the Prime Minister's riding.

Mr. Goldenberg indicated to Human Resources Development Canada that there was no longer any office space available at 5800 Saint-Denis Street. I personally phoned the promoter of that building and learned that 40,000 square feet are available at the address where that business was supposed to settle.

Why did HRDC officials not bother to check things at the time? Instead, they looked the other way. The fact is they preferred to see these jobs created in the town of Saint-Élie-de-Caxton, in Saint-Maurice, in the Shawinigan area, rather than in a riding represented by a Bloc Quebecois member.

But there is more to tell. On March 19, a few days after the March 5 meeting, we learned that the president of that company had submitted invoices for the purchase of machinery and the renting of space in a building called, guess what? Confections Saint-Élie. Where is that company located? In Saint-Élie-de-Caxton.

Who is Confections Saint-Élie? If members would like information on that company, I invite them to read the election folder distributed on the eve of the Prime Minister's election campaign. The president of that company said “Our exports to the United States have doubled, which means we had to increase our staff quickly to meet the demand. The grant received with the help of Mr. Chrétien allowed us to do that”.

This is from the president of the company called Confections Saint-Élie. It was this company which found space for the company which was supposed to create jobs in Rosemont, which was supposed to create 106 jobs in my riding. Furthermore, we have learned that the number of jobs created by this numbered company was five, not 42. This is completely unacceptable.

There is more. We learned on March 19, less than one month later, that officials at Human Resources Development Canada nonetheless decided to give the $166,000 grant to the company knowing full well that only five jobs, not 42, had been created.

What became of the money? We asked the Prime Minister and we asked the minister. No response was forthcoming until February 25, 2000 when the deputy minister responsible for human resources development in Quebec confirmed for me everything that the Bloc Quebecois had been saying.

That was when the government and the minister decided to ask a Toronto firm to look into the matter. That was when the minister was informed of the results, one week later. On the 19th, she had to quickly recommend a police investigation into what is now known as “Shawinigangate”.

What we are calling for today is for the minister to immediately make public the report by the Toronto firm into the Rosemont affair, in the interests of transparency and out of respect for my constituents, and for members of the House to vote in favour of the motion presented by the Bloc Quebecois today for an independent public commission of inquiry.

[Rey D. Pagtakhan, Liberal, Winnipeg North—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of the House that, indeed, a public inquiry and study of grants and contributions by the Department of Human Resources Development is already ongoing at the level of an all-party committee, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources Development.

The committee began its study of this subject matter because of a motion put forward by the opposition. In fact, the member of parliament for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques at the committee moved a motion, which we adopted, that there be an interim report by the middle of April.

There was a delay in the proceedings of the committee because of the votes that took place in the House as a consequence of the filibustering of the Bloc. However, today the Clerk of the Privy Council appeared before the committee. It was a televised hearing. Speaking of transparency, an all-party committee of the House of Commons is doing this.

I would like to bring to the attention of Canadians that it was an internal audit of the government which unearthed the problems.

Speaking of police investigations, let us not prejudge. The investigations indicate that, indeed, our police force is determined to ensure the integrity of the system.

I am surprised that there is a motion before us which calls for an inquiry, and for the inquiry to report by September of 2000, many months later. I ask the member, would he like a report on this issue by the middle of April, or would he like it much, much later for political reasons?

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is good that the hon. member has referred to the committee meeting but it is clear, if I am not mistaken, that in all of the cases mentioned this morning by Human Resources Development Canada, we were unable to find evidence that there was any transparency within the committee's criteria. We are calling for an independent public inquiry because the committee has its limitations.

The witnesses that spoke this morning showed us that indeed the committee does have its limitations, and in our opinion the scope needs to be broadened in order for there to be an independent public commission of inquiry into the entire matter.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member opposite talk of process, in terms of inquiry and in terms of where this whole issue should be headed. I want to remind him that an officer of the House of Commons, the auditor general, is looking at this whole process and will be reporting in the fall. We have the committee process, as was alluded to by my hon. colleague from Winnipeg. Moreover, we have the minister's commitment that four times a year she will appear before the committee to discuss all of these issues.

When I hear duplicitous comments from the Bloc opposite, it really is outrageous. It almost implies that they are not in favour of these types of grants and contributions to Quebecers and to Canadians. I would hope that is not the intent of the hon. member and his colleagues opposite.

I was interested in reading Le Soleil not so very long ago—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I am sorry but time flies.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the hon. member's question. This morning he described the entire Human Resources Development Canada matter as nothing but myth and mythology.

Does the hon. member believe that the case I have just described in Rosemont, the direct transfer of a grant for the people of Rosemont into the riding of Saint-Maurice, was myth and mythology? No.

According to the February 15 report, the $165,000 grant was to be for the riding of Rosemont. Instead, in response to unreasonable pressure, it went to the riding of the member's leader, the Prime Minister.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe that the question we raised today is a serious matter, that our motion is a serious one. We want an independent inquiry.

Could you ask the hon. member for Waterloo—Wellington, he who is so quick to speak and so quick to tell us that we are getting emotional over this matter, to stop yelling out in the House, to stop making fists, to stop saying that the matter can be settled, to show a modicum of decorum—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. member. The hon. Secretary of State for Children and Youth.

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, Secretary of State (Children and Youth)]

Mr. Speaker, while I am pleased to participate in this debate, I do not think that debating this question is a very productive use of House time. The motion introduced by the member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques is not the best use of public resources and our time. It will end up costing taxpayers far more than it is worth.

There has been an ongoing barrage of questions on this issue for a sustained period of time. The issue has been recycled time and time again, day after day, to no useful end. Members of the Bloc have already shown how little they care for the time and effort that should be put into productive issues when they kept the House sitting, around the clock, for two days of voting on meaningless amendments to the clarity bill, a bill which members of every other party in the House supported. Nevertheless, our friends opposite are entitled to bring issues like this. That is one of the advantages of being part of the Canadian system. For our part, we are willing to discuss the motion and to look at their concerns from a broader perspective.

The motion suggests that the government does not take the management of public funds seriously. I want to reassure the hon. member that the government takes the management of public funds very seriously. I want to remind him that the government has made every effort possible to ensure responsible public sector financial management.

Shortly after we took office the government undertook a comprehensive review of federal spending programs. We showed our determination to ask the hard questions about the money the federal government was spending. We made the tough decisions to cut back in some areas and to redirect funds to other uses when necessary.

Program review was one of the government's toughest and most comprehensive programs. It was one of many. As a result, we have been successful. We took a $42 billion deficit and turned it around for the benefit of all Canadians. Members of the government acted decisively. There is no doubt in my mind that the government and the Minister of Human Resources Development are acting decisively now.

The minister has already told the House about her six point plan to improve the management and administration of grants and contributions in her department. It is a good plan and it is a solid plan. It includes improved reviews of administrative procedures. It has been reviewed by the auditor general and the Treasury Board, as well as accounting experts in the private sector. The plan will work, but we must give it time to work.

There is no point in looking yet again at the management processes at HRDC. We have done that and we have identified some areas that need to be fixed. We are fixing them. We should let the minister and her staff in the department get on with the business of implementing the action plan and serving the clients who need their help.

A second issue which the member opposite raised is a concern that HRDC funds are being used for political ends. I am glad the member raised this issue because it gives us a chance to put some facts on the record.

First, politics is not the criteria by which we determine HRDC funding. The money goes where it is most needed. Indeed, a good portion of HRDC program funds have gone to the member's home province of Quebec. That is because Quebec is a province with a large population and a comparatively high unemployment rate. The people of that province need federal program support. The unemployment rate in Quebec in 1997 was 11.4%. In 1999 the rate was down to 9.3%. We have a ways to go.

Quebec received more transitional jobs funding and Canada jobs funding than any other province because the need was greater. In the period from January 1995 to the present, the number of unemployed people in Quebec declined from 430,000 to 311,000; that is, 119,000 less unemployed people in five years with the help of HRDC programs.

I doubt if the member opposite would seriously complain about receiving support from a federal program that helped to create so many jobs in Quebec. Does he feel there has been political interference on party lines? If so, he will be reassured to know that according to our figures Liberals represent 53% of the population and 52% of the ridings and we have received 52% of the HRDC funding. The numbers speak for themselves. When we look at the facts it is pretty hard to see any political favouritism. Let us take British Columbia as an example. Most members opposite receive a huge part of the funding.

What about the need to inquire into the way HRDC programs operate? Again, probably that is a big waste of time and money. It is not only that, but it is a bit like reinventing the wheel. There are at least three other ongoing HRDC reviews at this time. First, the auditor general is conducting a government-wide audit of the department's grants and contributions and will report in the fall. HRDC will be an active participant.

Second, the standing committee of the House on human resources development is holding hearings on these issues. The former deputy minister, the deputy minister, the minister and the officials have all appeared before the committee. That committee includes members from all parties in the House. The committee can call the witnesses it feels would add useful information. That includes departmental officials and members of the House who can participate in the committee and obtain information.

Third, a special unit has been set up inside HRDC to track and report publicly on the department's grants and contributions. After seven years in that department I know those individuals. I know their competence and their expertise, and that is the reason they have been chosen for this unit. I know that being headed by an official they will do an outstanding job to this end.

In addition to these review activities the minister of HRDC continues to be responsive to parliament. Indeed the minister has earned high public praise for her willingness to stand and answer questions in the House. Canadians from coast to coast to coast support the minister of HRDC in implementing the new administrative system. They believe in these programs. They know there is a role for government and they want the problems fixed. That is what HRDC is doing.

In addition, the department has set up special inquiry lines to answer questions from members of parliament. It seems however that not too many MPs are really serious about getting the facts. Departmental officials tell us they have received very few calls from MPs seeking factual information.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As I listened to the speech by the secretary of state, I realized we are completely off the topic of today's motion in the House. The aim of the motion is to shed light on the HRDC scandal, to have an independent inquiry—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

In my opinion, the speech of the secretary of state was in proper form. The hon. secretary of state.

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, we suspect that members opposite are more interested in playing politics with this call for an inquiry than they are in getting on with the facts. There is clearly no need for the inquiry the motion proposes.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the speech and I would like to ask the member a couple of questions.

I will not get into her answering the question with regard to the political connections to these grants. When we pool the information about what companies are getting the grants and what companies are great contributors to the Liberal Party, perhaps it is just a coincidence that they match up so well. I do not expect her to explain that away.

A couple of things really bother me. For years and years and years unemployment on some of the reserves in my riding has been at 80% and 90%. For the last six years the government has done absolutely nothing to try to alleviate that problem.

We have a group of hepatitis C victims across the country who are being denied funds even after there was a ruling that said it must occur. Yet the government will not move. Is it because Indian reserves and hepatitis C victims do not donate money to the Liberals that they cannot get the assistance they need so desperately?

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure it is no secret to my hon. colleague that I too have been to most of the 600 reserves across the country. I too have contact on a daily basis with the chiefs and the national leaders of those organizations.

I, along with the minister, was responsible for overseeing the development of a $1.6 billion training program for aboriginal people from which his reserve benefits. In turn that program allowed over 25,000 aboriginal people to get jobs. As well there was a saving of $25 million in social assistance funding.

There is no way we could even begin to think of the benefits that would accrue to aboriginal people if members opposite put their complete support behind this program and ensured the line they have taken would not jeopardize the funding for aboriginal people.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for Children and Youth tells us we could have left the minister to conduct her inquiry, but when we see how responsibly this inquiry was conducted by the Liberal government and particularly by the Minister of Human Resources Development, we are very concerned.

It took a long time to get the details of the auditor general's report. The minister has known of the situation at the Department of Human Resources Development since August.

The opposition parties, including the Bloc Quebecois, have continued to raise various facets of this scandal at Human Resources Development Canada and have taken seriously the findings of the auditor general: mismanagement of programs, gaps, problems of compliance with legislative provisions, program design weaknesses, poor control and insufficient information on results.

The minister answers our questions daily essentially pretty much along the same lines. We are witnessing the total routing of the Liberal government, and I think I have more faith in the opposition parties, who saw clearly the Liberals' game of handing out grants for partisan purposes and using taxpayers' money for political obstruction.

I might wonder why my riding would not get some over other ridings the government chose.

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, members opposite could have taken the two days they wasted in the House voting on all those useless amendments to the clarity bill to look at all the information we released on February 21. There were 10,000 pages of hard copy.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Mitis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would ask the minister to take back her words. It was not by voting for two days in the House that we lost and wasted time.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

That is debate. It is hardly a point of order.

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps my words were a little harsh. Nevertheless, better use could have been made of their time to review the information we made available to them. They are on the presiding committee. We are making a concerted effort to have all the information available to them. How they use it is entirely up to them.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have several questions but I will limit it to one. It is very important, in order to assure Canadians that their money is being handled properly and honestly in Ottawa, to have total openness and total transparency on these issues.

When commissions, studies and committees look into these matters, over and over information is hidden from us because of the claims of privacy. My contention is that if someone receives public money, by virtue of the fact it is public money it no longer is private.

Would the hon. member tell us her view on this point and whether she would favour an implementation of the Privacy Act in such a way that these things could actually be disclosed openly and honestly to Canadians instead of hiding behind the Privacy Act?

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I resent the comment that we are hiding behind the Privacy Act. The system in place has allowed them on February 21 to get 16 binders of information, five and a half inches thick and containing 10,000 pages. Once members have sifted through them and if they are not satisfied that is another question. I would like to have more specific references than that. I believe we could not be much more transparent and much more open than we have been.

There is a process that is fairly public. The standing committee has members from all sides. There too they have access to all the officials who could give them the information if they have specific questions. We are not hiding behind anything. There has been complete disclosure. Not everyone agreed that disclosure was the best thing but there it is. There is the information. How they use it and if they use it is entirely up to them.