Debates of March 21st, 2000

Privilege

[The Speaker]

We have now heard the original claim of privilege by the hon. member for London North Centre. We have heard an explanation by the member for Lakeland. Now we have had interventions by at least another five members of parliament.

The hon. member for Lakeland said that he had a document that he would lay on the table. I invite him indeed to lay all of the documents on the table so that I can examine them.

I am going to reserve my decision and I will get back to the House when it is necessary.

The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the amendment.

Supply

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this important debate.

It is pretty frustrating sitting here in the nosebleed section listening to what passes for debate in question period as being informative to the Canadian public. There seems to be an endless amount of accusation on what seems to me to be a fairly thin issue.

The minister of human resources apparently can never be too transparent. It does not seem to matter that the minister has released over 10,000 documents. It does not seem to matter that she has established a website. It is essentially a feeding frenzy. Regrettably it feeds into some of the most cherished notions of Canadians who do not take the time to inform themselves with respect to debate in the House, namely that government is wasteful by definition, that government is intrusive into the lives of Canadians, that government is therefore corrupt.

HRDC is a very big department. It spends something in the order of $60 billion of taxpayers' money on an annual basis. It administers the pension program but I assume that members of the opposition are against pension programs. It administers programs with respect to people with disabilities but I assume that members opposite are against people with disabilities. It administers funds in all kinds of areas of interest to Canadians including jobs funds.

Frequently government is faced with some fairly unhappy choices in areas of high unemployment. We all wish our country could be equally blessed and enjoy equal areas of low unemployment such as the community from which I come, Toronto. Nationally the unemployment rate is 6.8%, and for us it is something lower, around 6% and possibly even under 6%. We wish that all Canadians were able to find employment wherever they find themselves in this country but regrettably that is simply not a reality for many of our fellow citizens.

When government tries to address these problems, it does an uneven job. Usually the focus is on some area of high unemployment. Frequently the choices are social assistance, unemployment insurance or some form of job training program. These are unhappy choices. We look at a constituent or a fellow citizen and ask “What do you want to do here? Do you want to collect social assistance, do you want to collect unemployment or do you want to try this job program?” That is what it boils down to.

The debate on this issue has generated a great deal of heat and very little light. I want to put on the record a number of statistical facts which hopefully will get somewhere close to the facts on the debate.

The money in question is something in the order of $1 billion which by anybody's definition is a lot of money. Bear in mind that $1 billion is out of the entire government's budget of $160 billion. What we are talking about and focusing on is 1/160 of the government's overall budget.

The government to its great credit did an audit of about 20% of its $1 billion program, in other words about $200 million. It audited something in the order of 459 projects. Of those 459 projects 37 were found to have some problem, some administrative problem, some filing problem, some this, some that. About 8% of the projects were found to have something wrong with them.

Of the 37 projects involving some irregularities, all moneys were accounted for except at this point something like $600. That is not big money, but in the House it seems to be an exaggerated amount of money. Even if we project that forward and say that something in the order of $80 million of this $1 billion is in question, and that is the highest it gets for the opposition, if we say that is true, that is roughly 8% of the overall project.

Bear in mind we are dealing with people who are in some considerable distress. As I indicated earlier, the choices are social assistance, unemployment insurance or this jobs fund. Frankly it does not work all the time. What is the insight there? I am perfectly prepared to debate hon. members opposite if they think all of this kind of thing should be cancelled.

In my view at this point on the evidence that is available to us, even projecting forward the $600 that is missing, we have $3,000 in question. Members opposite think we should call a public inquiry over $3,000. That level of absurdity even this House has not seen in a long time.

It is never in the interests of either the media or the opposition to talk about success stories. In my riding no one seems to be interested in the money that the University of Toronto spends in this program, nor is there interest in West Hill Community Services. There are 800 volunteers on the ground each and every week providing assistance to all kinds of Canadians in my riding but no one wants to talk about that.

How about the West Rouge Community Centre? The canoe club burned down and we helped to get some money together so that it could be restored. No one wants to talk about that. It was not in the Scarborough Mirror . It was not on the local Shaw Cable. It was not in the Toronto Star , the Globe and Mail and it was certainly not in the National Post . Does anyone want to talk about the Scarborough Philharmonic Society?

All these programs in my riding make us a more civil nation. Frankly, it gets a little tiresome listening to what passes for debate in the House over what is utter nonsense. These are ways in which government civilizes our communities.

Classically businesses are not interested in this sort of stuff. To be perfectly blunt about it, businesses want to make money. I understand that. That is their area of expertise. I just do not quite understand why businesses should adhere to a failure rate of something in the order of 25%, if we compare first year businesses, and governments on the other hand have to achieve a standard of absolute perfection or else those opposite go absolutely nuts.

Some of the grants are problematic. I am prepared to admit that. The government depends on the community, the province and local businesses to generate the projects. Clearly not all projects are equal. Clearly the conception of the project may be different from its execution. No advocate of a project ever starts off with a proposition that it is going to scam the government, that it is going to be one big wonderful scam.

The best projects and the vast majority of projects are welcome in their communities and no one ever hears about them. Good news is no news. It does not hit the headlines.

The ones that do hit the headlines divide into two categories: the projects that are problems that have an explanation and can be fixed and the projects that are problems with no explanation and cannot be fixed.

The first category is one question in question period and it dies. What is the biggest killer on a question period question? It is facts. No one really wants to hear the facts. When the issue can be explained, that is it. It dies and it is gone.

The second category is more problematic for the government. The question becomes the size and the percentage of impact. I understand that the opposition is criticizing the spending in HRDC. At this point in time what is known is what I reiterated earlier. What is known is that 37 projects have raised some question in an audit of something in the order of $200 million. I do not see that as a big issue; 8% is not a great thing. To be perfectly candid about it, how in heaven's name can we expect the government to adhere to a standard of perfection working in an area that is difficult at best?

This is a category of questions and the issue is whether the glass is half empty or half full. Hon. members opposite think that something in the order of $600 missing, which is the only fact that is on the table at this point, requires a public inquiry. This is an interesting exercise. Even projecting forward that we have only hit one-fifth of all of the projects, this would be $600 times five which is $3,000. I do not know whether we really want to deal with facts here because that is not really good for politics, but the fact is that based on this the members opposite wish to call for a public inquiry on an issue of a missing $3,000.

I urge hon. members to vote against this motion for the very simple reason that this is one major tempest in a very tiny teapot.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to put a question to the Liberal member on the opposition motion introduced by he Bloc Quebecois, but before asking my question, I would like to remind the House of the motion we introduced. It 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 would like to give an example of mismanagement which is happening right now in my riding: the closure of a plant where several older workers have been paying into employment insurance for 30 years, 35 years or more. The employer has been paying his share too.

The plant will be closing at the end of the month and these workers will probably have to go on social assistance. Since it came to power, the government has withdrawn from a program called POWA. Under this program designed to help older workers, they were guaranteed $1,000 a month until their retirement.

According to the government's own data, when a worker gets to be 45, it becomes very hard for him to find another job. These men have worked for 30 years at the same job, in the same plant, in the same place, they have acquired great experience. Now that they are 50, that they still must look after their family, that they have a mortgage, that they have children in university, if the plant closes down, they will be left without means, they cannot get back into the labour market. As a result of the government withdrawing from the program for older worker adjustment, they are pushed on social assistance. If this is not mismanagement, I do not know what is.

I would like to ask my Liberal colleague whether he thinks it is all right to waste money handing out partisan grants while nothing is being done to help older workers? What is the government willing to do for these older workers who are losing their jobs due to a plant closure?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving a classic illustration of exactly what I was talking about.

The government is faced with an unhappy situation in that riding. I understand that. Possibly it is a pocket of high unemployment, one of those terrible things. Since it is a pocket of high unemployment what is the government supposed to do? Is it supposed to walk away and say “Well, that's too bad, you are on your own?” There are choices. Do they want to go on social assistance, do they want to go on unemployment or do they want to try this program?

I do not know much about the POWA program but the illustration is perfect. How in heaven's name that translates into some sort of partisan exercise escapes me altogether. Presumably that program and the transition jobs fund program are available in a Bloc riding. Presumably, if this was truly partisan, these programs would not be available in a Bloc riding, a Reform riding or an NDP riding. The only places they would be available would be in Liberal ridings.

When the facts come out—and it is a strange concept that in fact 52% of the grants under these programs have gone to opposition ridings as opposed to Liberal ridings—one has to ask oneself what the basis is for this silly motion on partisanship.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate as a former member of the human resources development committee.

First, I would like to read the text of the motion brought forward by the member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques. The motion 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.

There is also an amendment, which reads as follows:

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

“vehemently”

As I was saying, after the 1993 election I was a member of the human resources development committee. That committee toured major cities in all the provinces, including Quebec. My colleague opposite was on that tour. If he could talk he would certainly tell us that every place we went the majority of witnesses who came before the committee were against cuts in social programs. They were against cuts in the unemployment insurance program, as it was then called.

There were several protests. I do not encourage protests but it happened several times during that tour. My colleague is nodding in agreement. He remembers. He may be a Liberal but he witnessed those protests.

I remember our visit to Montreal, where people turned over tables to protest against the government's intention to cut employment insurance.

A subcommittee had been set up and on the last day we went to Bathurst. I wondered why we were going to that riding, the riding of the former minister of human resources development. Why were we going there at the very end, as a subcommittee, without the TV cameras? That was Doug Young's riding. Protesters were particularly vocal there. People told us that the situation in Acadia was similar to that in the Gaspé Peninsula. The Liberal majority had rejected the idea of going to the Gaspé region or the Magdalen Islands.

Nor did we go to the Abitibi or the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region, where seasonal unemployment is extremely high. Still, even if the subcommittee's destinations had been carefully selected, we had to go to the minister's riding. But the minister did not come on that day.

It was quite a surprise for me to see that the protest was even better organized there than elsewhere. This was because there were real problems. The wives of fishers came to testify. They told us that switching from a number of weeks to a number of hours of work would have a major impact in their area.

We remember that Doug Young, the former minister, was ousted, as had been the Conservative minister before him, Bernard Valcourt, who, at the time, had wanted to proceed with an unemployment insurance reform. I remember—that is Quebec's motto—that at the time the current Prime Minister had criticized the idea in a debate against then Prime Minister Kim Campbell, saying “You intend to cut social programs and the UI program. This is unacceptable”. The Prime Minister has left a trail. He even wrote a letter, using the same arguments ans stating that social programs and unemployment insurance should not be tampered with. These programs were necessary in the so-called seasonal unemployment regions.

But Ms. Campbell would not promise not to follow through on her plans, or the plans of Human Resources Development Canada officials. So the plans went ahead and the minister made the cuts in question, but it will be remembered that there was a marvellous transitional fund with up to $300 million for Quebec.

The reaction was “Fine, they are making changes but, with the transitional fund, people will be able to adapt”. But the problem was the way in which this transitional fund was managed, when it was realized that it would be limited to regions where unemployment was higher than 12%.

Unemployment in my riding, and in most ridings in the Quebec City and Chaudières-Appalaches region, was less than 12%. They therefore did not qualify for this program but, in the riding of the present minister, where unemployment stood at 6%, businesses and organizations did. Why? Because, she said, there were pockets of poverty.

All members in the House are capable of showing that there are pockets of poverty everywhere. There are pockets of poverty in my riding. I go to the Lauzon and, when the shipyard lays people off, it is not long before there is a pocket of poverty. There is still one right now.

But, oddly enough, we in the Bloc Quebecois and members of all the opposition parties were not informed of this directive. Only the Liberal members heard about it. Luck was on their side.

It hits even closer to home is when one realizes that 54.3% of the sums allocated over three years through this transitional job fund were during the six months before and the two months after the election. Promises had been made and there had not been time for the grants to be authorized. After the fact, when questions were raised, it became obvious that the money was sometimes six months or a year in coming. This is unbelievable.

The hon. member has said that there were partisan attacks from the opposition. Why are there such attacks which he calls partisan? Simply because the facts point very clearly to there having been partisan action in Liberal ridings or in ridings with opposition MPs on which the Liberals had designs.

The facts are even more worrisome. I will not spend much time on the Prime Minister's riding, but it is clear that, particularly in the riding of Saint-Maurice, there was a sort of flood of grants. Sometimes grants that had been awarded to another riding, such as Rosemont, got added to the ones already promised. In the Prime Minister's election literature, he was not shy about mentioning that this was the result of his interventions. He even included a quote from the business owner in question.

I also recall another instance, during the first mandate, involving phone-in centres for the unemployed and other people with problems. There were a number of these centres, more or less everywhere, but they were reduced to two. In the Quebec City region, there was one in the riding of my colleague for Louis-Hébert. It was not a face-to-face service. Everything was done over the phone. They did not receive any clients.

All of a sudden, when there was not even an office, and it was not one of the centres concerned, the number dropped from 10 to 2. There was not even one in the riding of Saint-Maurice and, all of a sudden, they were cut to two, and one was opened in the riding of Saint-Maurice. The one in Montreal they left there.

The one in the riding of Saint-Maurice was to serve eastern Quebec. I can tell you that the Prime Minister's riding is a long way from eastern Quebec. This is an example of decision making.

The member for Trois-Rivières pointed out what happened when the employment office in Trois-Rivières had to be moved. They streamlined, and where did the office go? Once again, to the riding of the Prime Minister, the riding of Saint-Maurice.

We reveal all these facts, plus those mentioned by my colleagues before me, and the Liberal member opposite looks offended. It seems to him that the members of the Bloc Quebecois are making partisan interventions. These facts are never contradicted. In 19 instances, the RCMP, as the Prime Minister said repeatedly, is investigating.

For me, the evidence is very clear. There was political influence in the awarding of grants in the transitional jobs fund. Since I find that scandalous, I add my voice to those who are protesting.

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

Madam Speaker, I first want to address my questioning in the form of motive and then put three questions to the hon. member with regard to his presentation to the House this afternoon.

With regard to motive, Madam Speaker, you, like many of us in the House, have had an opportunity over the past number of years to sit with Bloc members on numerous standing committees of the House. I certainly believe that no opposition members and no government members have any confusion that the Bloc members bring forward a very partisan position at the committees, the end goal obviously being secession and to eliminate the role of the federal government in their ridings in Quebec regardless of the good work that comes out of the federal initiatives that do great work for their ridings. That is an indisputable fact. I can see heads nodding from the various opposition parties. It is a very partisan position that Bloc members take at the committees.

My question for the Bloc member is threefold. It is very simple and requires only yes or no answers.

First, does the hon. member recognize that more money was actually distributed to opposition ridings through the transitional jobs fund than there was to government ridings? This is a simple question and the answer is either yes or no. He either recognizes that or he does not.

If the member does not argue that absolute fact, I have a second question for him. Is he aware that in the province of Quebec the provincial government must sign on as a partner on every one of those transitional jobs funds?

My last question also requires a yes or no answer. Does he believe that Mr. Bouchard is working in collaboration with the federal government to put in place a slush fund to support Liberal members of parliament in Quebec? Or, is the true fact of his argument and his presentation simply that regardless of the good work the federal government does in supporting the Canadians in Quebec and all across the country, he does not want a federal role in supporting these great organizations within the province of Quebec and, for that matter, other provinces as well?

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Madam Speaker, the fact that more money went to ridings held by opposition members before 1997 is part of our argument. For instance, the Anjou riding was held by a Bloc Quebecois MP. The Liberal Party wanted to win it over.

[An hon. member]

No.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

It is a fact. We noticed how focussed it all was.

In the Quebec City and Chaudière-Appalaches region, there are ten ridings, none of which got any money from this fund because they were considered impossible to win over by the Liberal Party. Those where the Liberal Party had no hope of winning did not get any grant but those where it might win did.

[An hon. member]

Is he or is he not?

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

The member is asking me whether or not I believe Mr. Bouchard is creating a slush fund. We in the Bloc Quebecois have always asked for cash transfers to finance active employment measures. Speaking of the transitional jobs fund, we went along with it and we still support it in principle because of the impact of the drastic cuts on individuals. Where there have been quotas, in some cases they even went back five years and required workers to reimburse so-called EI overpayments.

They have bled the unemployed dry in order to doll out grants for electioneering purposes. This is a vicious, undemocratic attack. I thought those days were long gone. Unfortunately the Liberal Party came out of the same mould as the parties that came before it under previous regimes. It wants to use public money for partisan purposes, which is unacceptable.

[Stéphan Tremblay, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I cannot say I am pleased to take part in today's debate because it is not always pleasant to debate issues that reek of scandal. However, we must do it since this is about taxpayers' money.

I believe there is a consensus here on the importance of democracy. However, I am one of those who claim that several elements or factors are currently threatening democracy. I will not name them all because there are a number of them. There is one in particular that really gets me fired up. I am often invited in CEGEPs, universities and even high schools. The first question that I ask at these meetings is often “If I mention the word politics, what comes to mind?”

It is not always pretty. I hear words like “corruption”, “money” and “liar”, and comments such as “They put money in their pockets”. Many words are used and this is probably the case all over the country. Politicians have a very poor reputation. In fact, only 4% of the population support members of parliament and trust them. This is a profession for which support is among the lowest.

It is not that serious, because I tell these students, who would often like to be in the House and say “You are all corrupt, you put money in your pockets, you mishandle funds” and so on, that they are not necessarily right, that in fact the problem is not politics, but the way it is practiced.

As I was saying, the threat to democracy is the fact that an increasing number of people are losing interest in politics, because they are disappointed to see how it is practiced. They are saying “I am never voting again. I am keeping right out of politics. There is no point. Nothing ever changes. Politicians are all liars”. This is a very pervasive belief and I think it must be taken very seriously.

Today's debate is at the heart of this issue because we are talking about the management of public money. I think that, for many people, when the Human Resources Development Canada scandal hit the news, everything I said earlier certainly was in many people's minds. They saw it as one more scandal and nothing new. This is deplorable and I think it has very negative repercussions. People see this as politicians helping themselves to public money. There are ramifications.

This all began with the tabling of HRDC's internal audit report on grant programs. Approximately seven categories of programs were investigated. These programs represented approximately $1 billion annually in grants and contributions over three years, or a total of $3 billion.

The report described important problems in the management of these programs, grants handed out unbidden, a serious lack of documentation showing an unbelievable laxity on the part of officials and provided statistics.

Here are some figures to illustrate what I am saying: in 87% of projects there was no sign of monitoring by officials; in 80% of projects—that is quite a few—there was no evidence of financial control; in 75% of projects there was no evidence that expected results had been achieved; in 70% of projects, there was no invoice or payroll to justify expenses; in 66% of projects, there was no analysis or documentation explaining the recommendation or approval of the project; and finally, in 36% of the cases where the amount was increased, the reason for such an increase was not indicated.

This carelessness in management opens the door to fraud, mishandling of funds, political interference and patronage. This is how the lack of integrity of the government and the department with regard to grants and contributions began to surface.

This situation, which I think is alarming for the majority of Quebecers and Canadians, led the Bloc Quebecois to bring forward this motion on this opposition day.

The motion 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 totally agree with that. If the government has nothing to hide, it should not be against an inquiry. I think the amounts involved justify an inquiry, not to mention the fact that public opinion could believe that these programs are useless, that they are used only for partisan purposes and that they should be eliminated, which is cause for concern. To me, this is a serious threat.

I personally had the opportunity of working with HRDC officials in my riding. Although we are sovereignists, that does not prevent us from working with federal officials, far from it. The taxes of my fellow citizens end up here in Ottawa. This is where things are managed and, even though we do not always agree with the way the money is distributed, I tell myself that a dollar invested in my riding should be invested as well as possible.

Today we are calling for an inquiry in part because of the lack of an answer. Although we have an Oral Question Period every day here, we do not have an answer period.

I am a bit disappointed by the responses we have had to our questions. In fact, we have had no responses at all. It seems that the minister is avoiding questions, that she is trying to get round them and has been for several weeks now. I think she has definitely honed her political sense of not answering questions. It is deplorable.

If we cannot get answers here, where are we going to get them? I think this issue must be brought to light. An independent inquiry would certainly be a relevant way to get the answers the party opposite does not want to give us.

I am disappointed by this whole scandal. In a time of plenty—I am talking like an old hand at politics, but it is nothing—a few decades ago, when governments were floating along on the wealth and money flowed, which perhaps contributed to the incredible debt our generation will have to pay all its life, there was some limit to spending here and there. A zero deficit and balanced budget policy was instituted. I said to myself “From that point on, expenditures were probably made judiciously”.

As proof, in my riding, when an organization or company applied for funding, for example under the FPCE, I saw the forms regularly. There had to be a concrete and highly detailed explanation of why the money was needed. There was an audit carried out. It all seemed to be above board.

Now the scandal has broken, and I realized that the public's money has far too often been used to win votes. I know that the hon. member across the way is going to say shortly some opposition members got more money that government MPs, but the timing has to be looked at. When 54% of funds were allocated in the six months before the election, and when there was no audit, this is a great disappointment.

The reason why the public has less and less faith in politics is obvious. A public inquiry, such as that being called for by the Bloc Quebecois today, would strike me as one way of casting some light on the matter and perhaps even bringing some peace. I hope that my colleagues across the way will be voting in favour of this motion.

I have no more time left. I am sorry this is so, because I would dearly love to continue, but I will yield the floor to my colleagues.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to respond. I have done this a couple of times before, but I would like to give an immense thank you again to the interpreters. Their brains must hurt by the end of the day, listening to this debate and speaking at the same time the words they hear in one language. I am actually a trilingual Canadian, but French is not one of my extra languages and I am totally dependent upon them.

My question for the member is actually twofold. First, in view of the fact that the motion calls for the creation of an independent inquiry, do Bloc members have any concerns when they look at the history of the Krever inquiry, the Somalia inquiry and the peppergate inquiry? These so-called independent commissions do not really appear in the end to be very independent. Would the hon. member have any comments on that?

Second, does he know whether in his riding taxpayers are paying more to Ottawa than they get back, or do they get back less than they send to Ottawa? I am not sure if he would have the answer to that question, but I would like his opinion on it.

[Stéphan Tremblay, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I also wish to thank the interpreters who make it possible for us to carry out a dialogue in two different languages.

In my colleague's question about a commission of inquiry or an investigation, it does not matter which term is used as it is clear that this will not solve the problems. The harm has been done and that is the way it is.

There are already several investigations underway, particularly in the Prime Minister's riding. I am beginning to understand why he had the RCMP cottage renovated in Shawinigan county. Maybe it was so he can go and take up permanent residence there in comfort, because there are so many investigations underway.

Seriously, Madam Speaker, it is true that one cannot say that a commission of inquiry will solve everything, but I do think that it might cast some light on certain matters.

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

Madam Speaker, I too commend the interpreters. Sometimes I wish they could change some of the words because some members do not make too much sense either in French or English.

The first point I would like to make is that the hon. member commented on his experiences when he travels throughout his riding and what his constituents feel about politicians. My experiences have been far different, so he might reflect on himself, his party and the separatists as to why some Quebecers have a feeling in that regard.

He also used the words scandal and democracy. Bloc and democracy, if that is not an oxymoron I do not know what is. Time and time again Quebecers have said no and time and time again the Bloc has continued to force the issue.

I was going to use the word scandal, as my hon. colleague has, but nothing could be further from the truth. The facts are very clear. There was no misappropriation of spending.

I want to hear once and for all, does the Bloc recognize, regardless of calendars or dates, that more money has gone into opposition ridings than Liberal ridings in Canada?

[Stéphan Tremblay, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, sometimes I do not even feel like answering certain questions. The only question the hon. member has asked today is whether more money went to the opposition party members' ridings. I would be delighted if that were the case and if ridings represented by the Bloc Quebecois had received more money, but the point is when and why.

If opposition ridings are receiving more money because the applications coming in are perhaps more relevant and the needs greater, so much the better. That would only make sense. But when we find that 54% of money was spent in the six months leading up to the election, there is something odd going on. It may be an incredible coincidence, and it could be, but something smells.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for York West, who is a very valuable and active member of our all-party human resources development committee.

I thank the hon. member opposite for bringing his motion before the House. It gives the government an excellent opportunity to explain to Canadians how our programs really work. The point of the HRDC programs is to help develop our human resources to help those Canadians in greatest need.

I totally reject the substance of this motion. Is the hon. member being constructive? Does he really care whether we are successful in working with Canadians to expand and build on their opportunities for the new economy?

If members opposite really wanted more effective grants and contribution programs they would support our ongoing work in fixing existing programs. They would let the auditor general do his work. They would let our all-party standing committee carry out its legitimate role and functions.

Something should be said about the public servants in the Department of Human Resources Development. Should we not allow the internal audit process to fulfil its mandate? Should we not allow the department to carry out its action plan and modernize its administration?

One thing that is sadly lacking in this whole discussion is an informed debate. For example, the reason for creating the transitional jobs fund in the first place was to assist those who needed help the most.

Members who were in the House prior to the last election, including my colleague who brought forth this motion, will recall that the government brought in much needed legislation to overhaul the 25 year old unemployment insurance system. The result was the new employment insurance, the EI system. It brought forth a series of measures to help Canadians adjust to program changes and, most importantly, return to the workforce as quickly as possible.

The goal of the transitional jobs fund was to support job creation in areas of high unemployment and generate new permanent jobs in areas where people were having a difficult time finding work. The TJF was designed to be flexible and to have buy-in from all important partners. It had four basic criteria: to create sustainable jobs; government partners must contribute at least 50% to the cost of the projects; projects must meet local development plans; and the provinces or the territories must support the proposals.

Each region was allotted funds based on two specific criteria. Seventy-five per cent of the funds were allocated to areas where unemployment was at or above 12%. Twenty-five per cent of the funds were allocated to a province or a territory based on a decline in UI benefits resulting from the implementation of the new EI fund.

This process ensured that every province and territory received program funds.

The TJF was designed to recognize that regional officials, working with partners, were in the best position to assess the needs of local communities. Built into the program was the need for regional decision making and flexibility. The goal was to meet the overall program's objectives and have a positive impact on the community in terms of job creation and job opportunities. Specifically, regional officials were encouraged to work with our partners to identify strategic priorities that would benefit the local communities. These partners included provincial and territorial governments, community groups, the private sector and local MPs.

Let me clarify the meaning of an unemployment rate at or above 12%. Human Resources Development Canada, which administered the program, used the 12% figure as a guideline for TJF eligibility. Based on the 1995 Statistics Canada regional rates of unemployment, 18 of 62 regions were eligible for TJF funding. Yes, to be fair, northern B.C. and Yarmouth, Nova Scotia were also included because their rates of unemployment were 11.9% and 11.5% respectively.

However, the opposition and the media have raised a hue and cry that the transitional jobs funds went to areas where the rate of unemployment was under 12%. True, but within those regions were pockets of high unemployment that exceeded 12%. Provided the province or the territory agreed, those pockets of high unemployment met the criteria for funding TJF projects.

There was a process for determining those pocket areas within regions where the rate of unemployment was under the 12% guideline. Data was compiled from various sources, such as the Statistics Canada census, labour force participation surveys, as well as labour market information developed by the local HRDC offices. Decisions as to where transitional jobs funds were allocated were based on a real need to help hard-working Canadians adjust to the new EI program. After all, hon. members will agree that the goal of government programs should be to help those who require help and to help Canadians help themselves.

That is what the TJF did. Funds were allocated to regions or pockets within regions that met the greater than 12% unemployment rate percentage or met the program's overall objectives for supporting areas that lacked a strong labour market.

For example, community projects were approved in regions with under 12% unemployment. They were approved because there was a higher rate of unemployment amongst aboriginal persons or persons with disabilities or within the visible minority populations. The TJF also helped regions with economically depressed industries, such as forestry, mining and fisheries.

As I said, I am pleased to have the opportunity to clarify this issue. However, it is not as if this information was not readily available to all members of parliament at the time. At the time this program was announced and implemented, in fact as early as December 1, 1995 when the minister of HRDC announced the TJF program, the backgrounder to the news release said: “The regional allocation of the transitional jobs fund will target high unemployment areas across Canada. Allocations will be determined through discussion with provincial governments and other relevant partners”.

In the summer of 1996 brochures were distributed to HRDC centres in Canada explaining to people who had an idea for a project how to apply for TJF funding.

As for the pocket issue, it was made abundantly clear in both the 1997 EI monitoring and assessment report and in the 1998 “Services for Canadians” binder, which was distributed to all MPs in the House. Both the report and the binder stated: “TJF projects are targeted to areas of the country and to geographical areas within communities that have unemployment rates of 12% or higher”.

The bottom line is simply that Human Resources Development Canada distributed plenty of information on the TJF and involved MPs and community leaders as much as possible. I hope hon. members now have a better understanding of how the TJF worked. It was an enormously successful program that funded nearly 1,100 projects and created some 30,000 jobs between July 1996 and March 1999. Instead of unduly criticizing the grants and contributions programs, hon. members should be explaining those programs to their constituents and helping those who qualify make use of them.

I want to take this brief opportunity to talk about some of the investments of HRDC in my riding of Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington.

In my hometown of Napanee, Ontario, the county seat of Lennox and Addington, money was invested, partnering with the town, the county and the business improvement association. Small amounts of funds were invested in many facets of our town.

Recently Napanee was named one of the 10 prettiest towns in North America. Some of the funding involved local partners. As we cleaned up our town and planted flowers with the Communities in Bloom program, it made a great difference.

Other money invested in the riding went into literacy programs, museums and historical sites, and a lot of money was invested in our youth. In my office today I have more requests from the municipalities for funding of these programs than ever before.

I do not like to see the politics that are played during Oral Question Period. The same party that has been attacking our minister is going around behind the cameras, asking us to get the programs into their ridings.

As you know, Madam Speaker, more money went into many of the ridings of Reform members than went into those of government members. It is not justice; it is politics. They are picking on the people who are unemployed, and I detest that.

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

Madam Speaker, I have a few questions for the hon. member. I took some notes and, with all due respect for the member opposite who, I think, has been a member of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities for a while, it must be hard for him to defend the government in the House today.

In his speech, he mentioned that projects under the transitional jobs fund had to show that they could improve the regional economy. When the member says, in good faith, that projects had to include similar arguments in their application, that means there was an application.

How does he explain the internal audit report's observation that there was no evidence of financial control in 80% of cases? According to the report, some people had not even filled in an application. I would like to believe—and this is often the answer given by members opposite—that there were only a small number of cases like this, because we are only talking about an internal audit report, but why then will they not agree to a public inquiry?

The answer we are getting is that they trust the auditor general. However, last fall the auditor general said, in answer to a question, that he intended to table a report in the House in the fall of 2001 and to look into the matter at that time. But what he said he wanted to do was make general comments on the quality of the management of these programs across the government.

One must know how an audit is conducted. If the auditor general is not asked specifically to analyse the whole list, we will never know. As far as the issue mentioned by the member in his speech regarding the regional unemployment rate, if it is above 12%, the riding is eligible, and when it is below 12%, people can still apply.

The population must understand one thing, the Bloc Quebecois is not questioning the usefulness of the grants as a catalyst and a boost to regional economies. The Bloc Quebecois is not blaming the civil servants. It is saying “The Liberals did not set any guidelines”.

How is it that the Canadian Union of Public Employees, which represents HRDC employees, stated in a press release no later that this spring that the criteria made public recently did not exist before the program ended. The public servants themselves are saying they only had loose and flexible guidelines to go by, and that at no time were they informed of possible pockets, when they were managing this program.

How can the member maintain a public inquiry into this matter is not necessary?

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague leaves a little bit of room in his questions. I guess it is very natural to point them in whatever way we would like to see them go. However, the audit in HRDC was brought forward by the HRDC officials themselves.

Members of all parties were present today when Mr. Mel Cappe, the previous deputy minister of HRDC, was before our committee. Questions were asked by members on all sides of the House. I believe that on Thursday of this week the auditor general will appear before us. I do not think we can have a more independent body than the auditor general's department. There are dozens and dozens of people there who are professionals in investigating this.

The audit that has been done so far did not point to any political interference. Today Mr. Mel Cappe said that he never saw any sign of political interference during the time that he was deputy minister in the department, and he was there during most of this time. If any member of the House wants to challenge that, I would suggest he or she had better say outside the House that Mr. Cappe, who has given his life to this country, is not a man of honour.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst, Employment Insurance Fund; the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, Banks.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to argue against this motion introduced by the member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques.

I will begin with the issue of management, which is what this audit is all about. There is no money missing, as the opposition would like people to believe. It is an issue of management and administration.

The Minister of Human Resources Development has already dealt with the member's concerns about management. She has already announced her six point plan for dealing with the management issues and the administration of the grants and contributions program of her department. She has acknowledged that there are some problems that need to be fixed and they are in the process of being fixed.

Anyone who is seriously interested in improving public administration should accept that and recognize that once a problem is identified, we get on with fixing it.

The minister has shown her capacity to act decisively and those of us on this side of the House want to get on with it and to make sure that these programs are well managed and that Canadians continue to benefit from them. Because, after all, it is Canadians who benefit from these programs who we should be concerned about.

A public inquiry will not do anything to improve the lives of those hundreds of thousands of Canadians who are helped by the programs delivered by HRDC. It is important to note that it is not the people who use the programs who are calling for a public inquiry, it is simply the opposition.

It is interesting to hear what some of the people who do not have a political axe to grind are saying. These are the people to whom members should really be listening because these are the people who we were elected to represent in parliament.

I will give a couple of examples. I have quote from a letter written by the executive director of the Child Care Connection of Nova Scotia. The letter refers to an HRDC program that supports child care research. It says:

—this (HRDC) research and development program is a significant means by which the federal government can provide leadership in increasing the quality of services and...support the development of an infrastructure to deliver child care services to families in Canada.

Letters like this one illustrate the kind of support we have for these HRDC programs across Canada.

Here is another example of what Canadians think. This letter is from the Learning Disabilities Association of Canada. The Association has written a letter to the Hon. Jane Stewart to acknowledge the support that HRDC provides to help persons with disabilities. The writers urge the minister to remain steadfast in the pursuit of her mandate.

These are not government MPs that I am quoting. These are caring Canadians who work with individuals who need our help. These people look to us for help and recognize the value and importance of our providing the grants and contributions.

A motion like this one before us will not help these people. In fact it will work against them. These people do not care about the kinds of issues raised in this opposition motion. It will simply delay any help that those families are waiting for. They are concerned with real answers and answers to real problems. How would a public inquiry help them?

I am tempted to say shame of those who want to make a political issue out of this. However, I assume that those who propose motions like this do not understand the importance of the Government of Canada's grants and contributions to those who receive them.

It is too bad that the opposition does not recognize that all across Canada, including Quebec, HRDC grants and contribution programs are working in partnership with municipalities and their governments, with concerned Canadians who help those who depend on the Government of Canada for support.

From every part of the country we hear from people who know how important HRDC grants and contributions are to their well-being.

In Edmonton, Alberta we have heard from the Chrysalis Society about the value of HRDC's help to persons with disabilities who are trying to find work. We have heard from the Junction Day Care Centre in the west end of Toronto about how HRDC funding is improving the quality of child care there and for thousands of children. An organization called the Literacy Partners of Manitoba based in Winnipeg has also told us that improving literacy skills, awareness and resources for adults in Canada is vital work for all of us.

There are cases like this all across the country. They are not asking for public inquiries and neither are we. Instead, we want to continue to help literacy skills so that Canadians can feel comfortable in today's information society. We want to make it easier for a person with a disability to find work and participate fully in Canadian society. We want to keep funding the work to improve the capacity of our child care facilities to provide quality care for our children. We want to help people find jobs and meet the other needs that these programs are aimed at.

A public inquiry would not help any of the HRDC clients become more literate. It would not help a person with a disability to find a job either. It would not produce any jobs for people who really need them in high areas of unemployment. In fact, it would interfere with our ability to do these things.

Investing in the development of our human resources is one of the most importance things that governments can do. It is the responsibility of the federal government to do this. I doubt if the hundreds of thousands of Canadians whose lives have improved because of direct support from our grants and contributions when needed would vote for this motion either.

Our government has a responsibility to help those who are unemployed, to help those disabled and their families to find employment and to find usefulness in their lives. I applaud our government. We recognize that, yes, there are issues and, yes there are problems but the minister is fixing those problems. Let us continue on with helping people in Canada.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Since quite a few members seem interested in asking questions, I will allow two one minute questions, followed by one minute for answers, and then we will see.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I do not know if my Liberal colleague took the time to read the motion proposed by the Bloc Quebecois on this opposition day.

I will read it to her. It asks:

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—

Let us be clear here. We are not criticizing the transitional jobs fund. We are criticizing the mismanagement of that program.

Taxpayers' money has been used for partisan purposes. Moreover, money was taken from workers to build up a surplus in the EI fund. That surplus has now grown to approximately $30 billion, but the money is being squandered and is not being used to create programs for those who need them, including older workers.

What does the member think of that? Does she find that normal?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Madam Speaker, in answer to those comments, I would much rather spend the millions of dollars that it would cost for an inquiry into helping Canadians.

In many cases, the provinces of Ontario, Quebec and all the other provinces of Canada were partners, as this money was spent to employ and help Canadians.