Debates of May 16th, 2000

Committees Of The House

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Edmonton North, AB]

Skating around in circles, but make sure that the skates are on.

Here is another one: “I am just doing my job”. I love that excuse. I am just doing my job as a good little MP. The Prime Minister is more than just an MP. He is the one to say to any cabinet minister, to a deputy or an assistant speaker “Do this”, “Do that”. There are a lot of members who know that feeling. How about this one for size. The Prime Minister says “You are in cabinet now. Do as I say. Vote as I tell you, or else”. There are some in this Chamber who know exactly what that feels like.

The Prime Minister has a tremendous amount of power. When cabinet ministers have to succumb, they know perfectly well that he has the power and heaven help them if they do not follow through.

On June 1, 1999 the Prime Minister said: “With great pride I stand here and say I will always defend the best interests of my constituents so they can have a good living in the great country that is Canada. My electors were treated like the electors of any riding in Canada”. If they had projects that were based on merit, then let them be based on merit. I have always said to the people in my constituency that I am not interested in going down to the HRD office and getting politically involved. I paid tribute to HRD bureaucrats here earlier and I will do it again.

I have said time and time again, with these summer programs that we are going through, when they give the MP the option to get involved with these seed programs, these summer employment programs for students, “You are the people who know this industry. You are the people who will make the decisions based on merit and merit alone. I am not getting involved in this project”. I think the HRD people probably appreciate that.

Why should I be in there telling people who make their living at this, these public servants, what to do? They know what are good projects and what are not. Why would I trample on them and say “Move over, I am making those decisions”? It is not right. To me it belittles those people who work in those departments, who know what it is they are suppose to be doing, and yet they have to succumb constantly, time and time again, to the pressure of their political masters.

Of course the government threatens to sue the opposition. There is another little tactic it uses sometimes: “Say that outside the House”.

On June 1, 1999 the Prime Minister said: “If they have any decency they will make a clear accusation that I have a conflict of interest and have the guts to make it outside. We will meet them in court after that”. That is a lovely little tactic. “I will sue you”. If we say something he disagrees with, he threatens to sue us. Is that not unbelievable? It is hard to believe that a prime minister of a country would be in a position to say “Let's meet in the parking lot”, or something ridiculous like “Let's meet in the courtroom”. Or, the Liberals call the opposition names. There is a good one.

The former Minister of Health, the member for Sudbury, said: “I have never seen such despicable behaviour. I have been in the House for over 10 years and never have I seen such shameful behaviour by members of parliament”. I might agree with her, but I have not seen such behaviour from a Prime Minister.

I hate to think you are going to get bumped out of the chair, Madam Speaker, as I see the member for Kingston and the Islands. I digress and pray that this is relevant. I have a doozy for the Deputy Speaker. Forgive me for being irrelevant for just a moment, but I want members to hear this.

Some time ago I was speaking about the fact that when the Liberals were in opposition it used to bother the daylights out of them when the Mulroney Tories brought in that thing called time allocation. Yes, members remember it well. My notes tell me that time allocation was brought in 66 times over nine years. Today we are not celebrating and having a party; we are having what might be called a wake. In six years' time the Liberals have brought in time allocation or closure more times than the Mulroney Tories. It is not a happy sight.

I read a quote from the current House leader, whom the Deputy Speaker knows well. I am sure he remembers some of his rants back in the good old days when they were in opposition.

Then I read one from the member for Ottawa West—Nepean. She said in 1989: “This government has shown it has no respect for the public process, no respect for parliament and no respect for the opinions of the public”.

Then the government House leader said: “I am shocked. Perhaps I should not be shocked. This government has used closure on dozens and dozens of occasions”.

Of course, they were haranguing the Liberals—I mean the Tories. Oh, it is so hard to tell the difference. It was the Mulroney Tories when they formed the government before 1993. Again, I digress. Forgive me.

This quote, though, is probably the best of them all. This comes from the current Deputy Speaker, the member for Kingston and the Islands. He said: “The government is using time allocation once again on this bill. Just to remind the House and the Canadian public of the Draconian”—and that is with a capital D—“approach this government takes to dealing with legislation in the House, closure has been used 15 times in parliament since the November 1988 election”.

How scandalous. Fifteen times. That was in 1993. Imagine, 15 times.

He went on to say: “What we have here is an absolute scandal in terms of the government's unwillingness to listen to the representatives of the people in the House”. For goodness' sake. “Never before have we had a government so reluctant to engage in public discussion on the bills brought before this House”. I digress. Now we do. It is here now.

“I suggest that the government's approach to legislating is frankly a disgrace”. That was not with a capital D, but I am sure he meant the same. “It cuts back the time the House is available to sit and then it applies closure to cut off debate”. That was in 1992.

Then he said: “This is not the way to run parliament. This is an abuse of the process of the House”. I say to him “Amen, brother”. He puts on his sunglasses and is gone, almost like this is some kind of a joke. But the government has broken the record today.

Those members were scandalized on this side of the House.

[Hec Clouthier, Liberal, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

I was not here then.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Edmonton North, AB]

No, the member across was not here then. I am sure things would have been a whole lot different.

I love it when a candidate says “I will be a member of government and, boy, I will tell you, I will straighten out that government”. The fellow who won the byelection a couple of years ago in Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam said “I am no yes-man”. Wrong.

Another favourite little tactic is that they repeat everything. Everything is all right. Everything is normal. It is just business as usual and everything is going to be just fine.

The Prime Minister said on June 1, 1999: “I am very happy with the system because it is doing what has to be done for the good of the taxpayers of Canada”. A few of them, I guess; the ones who were getting the grants, but certainly not all of the taxpayers of Canada. I do not think so.

What about leaving more of our money in our hands in the first place? It would seem sensible to me that if we send money to Ottawa, the government should not take such a huge cut from it when it is swirling around and then send a little back to the regions or whatever the government thinks with its personal largesse to make everyone feel good about it while at the same time claiming that it is giving tax cuts. I love that excuse too. “We are giving tax cuts”.

I would ask any of the Liberal members, any of the huge number of them who are here, when was the last time someone came into their riding office and said “Oh, this tax cut just feels so good”?

I see the member from Edmonton Southeast is here. His riding is not very far from mine. We are just across the city from each other. I would love to know if someone has come into his office and said “Look at my tax statement. That tax cut just feels so good”. I would love to tell him how I am going to spend that money.

It is not happening, is it? It is not happening. The finance minister says that they are coming forward with tax cuts, but nobody is seeing it at the ground level. This whole idea that we are in charge and we are looking after you, everything is okay, is nonsense.

Here is a good one: “Someone else ordered the contract”. On March 12, 1999 the solicitor general was talking about why Yvon Duhaime's father-in-law got an untendered contract for the guardhouse on the road to the Prime Minister's cottage. Members will remember that a little while ago a new guardhouse was being built. The contract was untendered. He said: “The RCMP is responsible for the security of the Prime Minister. It requested that this firm be hired because it was in the area for security reasons”.

The firm just happened to be in the area. I do not know, they might have been camping over at Meech Lake. I am not too sure, but they were in the area, so give them the contract. It saves a bus ticket. Just hire them because they are close by.

Yet when I think about the solicitor general, it is pretty hard to believe. Yesterday in the House we were asking questions about murderers, prisons and some other things. As everyone in the House and anyone who watches the proceedings knows, the solicitor general always says that the RCMP and the Correctional Service are at arm's length. I am not sure how long that is, but it ought to be about out to here. He says that he has nothing to do with them, that he cannot be the one to tell them what to do.

Yesterday there was a question about the dreadful situation of the two people who were put together in jail after murdering someone. He said that he phoned right away. He did not phone from downtown Ottawa but from downtown Washington D.C. He called the Correctional Service and told them to split those people up. That was not very arm's length. There was a telephone on the end of that arm. He picked it up and used it. When we see these discrepancies it is hard to believe that the solicitor general continues to say that the RCMP is responsible and he does not get to talk to them. Yesterday he was on the phone in jig time.

Then there is this one: “The Prime Minister was involved, but not all the time”. He is kind of a part time prime minister or he is only involved part of the time.

On March 22, 1999, just a year ago, the Deputy Prime Minister said that he had a representative of his office attend meetings with officials. As far as he was aware, the decisions were made at other meetings when the Prime Minister and his staff were not involved. Can we believe that? Oh, no, he was not really involved. He was not at the meeting. No, he was not there, so it was someone else just acting on his behalf. That one is pretty hard to believe.

Let us say that we were HRD officials sitting around with the crew we work with all the time, with whom we are comfortable working, doing what it is we are supposed to be doing, and Poopsie, or whoever, comes in. She says that she is from the Prime Minister's office and is just coming to take part in the meeting. Do we sit down and ask what are we going to do? That is nonsense.

If we are sitting there as a bunch of bureaucrats, doing our job, and someone walks in—

[David Kilgour, Liberal, Edmonton Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not know how long the hon. member has been speaking, but I think it has been well over three hours. I noticed that she was sitting on the side of a chair, which the rules bar us from doing. I think it is outrageous that the hon. member would do that.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

It was very thoughtful of the hon. minister to give the opportunity to the hon. member to sit for a moment and relax.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, just to take the minister back a few seconds, I was acting as Poopsie from the Prime Minister's office who was coming to sit and take part in a meeting. However, I appreciate his concern. I know he has grave concerns about that.

How about this one? “The matter is in a blind trust”. It is just so easy for people to say that it is in a blind trust and they have absolutely nothing to do with it.

On June 8, 1999 the Prime Minister said: “It is in a blind trust. Blind means blind. I am just doing what is required. From the day I became Prime Minister I have had no decisions to make on it”.

Whoops. Remember what I just said about October 1993 to March 1994, that he really was a director? Maybe blind is not blind when it comes to blind trusts.

This is another precious one: “I have no recollection”. It sounds like Bill Clinton. I have no recollection of that at all. On June 3, 1996 the Minister of Human Resources Development, who is now the Minister for International Trade, back in the good old days when all of this was happening was talking about Transelec Inc. He said: “I have no recollection of only three Quebec firms having been kept on the short list. I have never seen three Quebec firms on a single short list since I have been minister. We will look into it and report back to the member”. That is another precious one. We will put a committee on that. We will just get a little committee together to study that for the next several years. It is just unbelievable how it goes on and on.

There are more miscellaneous things. Ignace Saw got a Canada jobs grant, which is the successor of the transitional jobs fund. That firm got $250,000. That numbered company is 1191546 Ontario Ltd. It is in the riding of Kenora—Rainy River, which happens to be the riding of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It was okayed December 3, 1999 by this HRD minister, only two weeks after she was briefed on the disastrous internal audit, which was released on January 19, 2000.

Of course she had known about it for some time but thought it would never get public, probably. She thought she would just look after it internally, everything would be okay and she might as well just keep dishing out the cash.

Even on the day the minister was briefed about it she repeatedly gave the appearance of normalcy in the House of Commons. I may get to this or I may not. It is hard to say, but I have every question that has been asked about this matter. We could give any number of examples of what she actually said. Here is a statement in response to a question from yours truly on November 17, 1999. She said to me:

As is the case in all regions where the transitional jobs fund has been used, Canadians are working. The unemployment levels are coming down and the government is working with communities together to make sure that this happens.

On December 1, 1999, she said:

Mr. Speaker, I want to make clear to the House that no rules were broken on the application for transitional jobs funds in my riding.

She would of course extend that to mean any other riding. Now, with the history of a few months behind us and under our belts, I am not sure how many RCMP investigations there are.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

About a dozen or so.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Edmonton North, AB]

A dozen, at least, that we know of. Dear knows how many more will be coming forward. Absolutely no rules got broken. Nothing happened. Everything is a-okay, but whoops, we have the RCMP investigating several of them. It does not exactly look cleaner than clean to me.

Ignace Saw donated $1,150 to the personal 1997 campaign of the member for Kenora—Rainy River. The Canada jobs fund grant of $250,000 was approved by the minister on December 3, 1999, according to the list made public by the minister. By year's end $150,000 of the grant had already been paid to the company, and on and on it goes.

I mentioned earlier the Scierie Opitciwan sawmill which gave $1,200 to the Liberal Party in 1998, $3,700 to the Liberal Party in 1997 and $164 to the Liberal Party in 1996, for a total of approximately five grand.

Then there was ACOA funding for the Clarenville Regional Sportsplex. This is one that we uncovered not so long ago. This saga continues in Newfoundland as we speak. Here is a little detail about the actual project. The Clarenville Regional Sportsplex is a pool, fitness centre and restaurant. It was given ACOA funding in 1997 and 1998. Clarenville is in the riding of Bonavista—Trinity—Conception, one of the few Liberal ridings left in that area, as far as I know.

Application was made on February 12, 1997. Its evaluation began on April 24, 1997, three days before the writ was dropped, if members recall. The letter of approval for funds came on May 26, 1997, and the offer was accepted June 10, just a week after the federal election. All this stuff was milling around while there was an election going on. If that does not look like political interference, I surely do not know what does.

On April 7, 1997, ACOA sent 75 environmental screening applications to the Department of the Environment for 75 different projects including the sportsplex and requested they all be approved on a rush basis. There was no time to think it through. There was no time for applications. There is an election on. They had to buy a few seats, so they had to get at it.

They said they would appreciate having all the completed environmental screenings no later than April 25, 1997. It looks like someone else knew when the writ was going to drop. I was not exactly sure what day it was, but it looks like they did.

The province planned to announce all approved projects by the end of April 1997 and the election was called just days later. Government contributions were $478,000 from Newfoundland, $478,000 from federal infrastructure funds, $127,000 from the infrastructure program for the cost overrun, and $620,000 from the business development bank.

Federal assistance was $605,000 in grants and $620,000 in loans. That is a fair pile of cash. Total federal assistance was $1.2 million. Whew, the project was one of the largest submitted in the province of Newfoundland. It was to create 40 full time jobs. It appears that no private funds were expended on the centre.

The sportsplex contains a fitness centre, squash courts, a sauna, hot tubs, massage rooms, solariums, a competition size swimming pool, two golf and putting simulators, classrooms, change rooms, a dance studio, a pro shop and a restaurant. Yikes.

On February 28, 2000, just a matter of weeks ago, after less than two years of operation the town of Clarenville confirmed that the sportsplex—I ask my colleague to guess the answer.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Do I get a lifeline? I guess it went broke.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Edmonton North, AB]

He is right. It went broke. It closed its doors. There is a sign on the front door indicating that the building is closed because of “mechanical problems resulting from the design of the building”.

My husband is a builder. If a sign is hung on the front door of any building he ever built saying that “mechanical problems resulting from the design of the building”, he would be some upset. I know this is quite creative, but before he built the building he would want to make sure that it was designed to be mechanically sound and not have its doors shut two years later. Apparently there is a legal dispute regarding the lining of the pool in the building. Bren Power is suing the contractor who built the pool claiming defective work.

My husband has been building an addition on a house. All last fall he worked on it for someone who is building a swimming pool in the Edmonton area. He would not be impressed if the thing got shut down after a year or two because the swimming pool part did not work.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

He probably did not get a million dollars in government help.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Edmonton North, AB]

He did not get a dime in the form of a government grant. ACOA signed a contract with Bren Power stating that the facility had to remain open for 10 years. It did not make it. If he sells the facility before the tenth year, he must pay back the money in an amount declining by 10% each year until the tenth year. In other words, he still owes a pile of cash on that building.

There was local opposition to the project. In November 1998 business people started complaining. Chris Newman, the owner of a local sports shop, complained in the press by saying that was built with their tax dollars to provide in return direct competition with other local businesses. Here is some guy who owns a sports shop and then the federal government funds a huge percentage, almost all, of another sports complex. He asks how he is supposed to make a living.

I bet you would hate, Mr. Speaker, to see government coming in and building a nice big hefty bakery just a couple of blocks down the road on White Avenue. It would make it pretty hard to sell those baguettes and cinnamon buns. Ralph Matsson, owner of the local Jungle Jim restaurant actually went out of business after the Don Cherry restaurant opened. He cites the government assisted competition of Don Cherry as an important factor in the closure. Now the Don Cherry restaurant has moved into the old Jungle Jim location in the St. Jude Hotel downtown.

An undated ACOA backgrounder indicates that the media reports the sportsplex facility contains a Don Cherry sports bar which is not well received by local business. Bren Power advises that while the sportsplex was publicly funded, the restaurant and sports bar were funded with private funds. Don Cherry is a good businessman. He builds Don Cherry restaurants and he gives great commentary on Hockey Night in Canada . However we see what happens when we get tied into government phoney funding. It skews the whole business community and makes it very difficult for businesses to make a go of it. Don Cherry has moved downtown.

An ACOA backgrounder indicates that it did not know that a restaurant would go into the space in the sportsplex. All it knew was that space had been allocated for food services. It sounds like a cafeteria. ACOA's environmental screening report dated April 24, 1997, indicates that a pro shop and a restaurant would be part of the facility.

The project received some letters of private support. However the mayor of Clarenville indicated publicly that the local town's letter of support was sent to Mr. Power after a presentation he made to council. Council did not know that infrastructure funds would go toward the sportsplex.

We would probably define infrastructure funds as sewer, water and making sure that everything works okay regarding water and sewers so that if I build a building on top of it everything will be okay. That is infrastructure. Then the superstructure is built on top of it.

The mayor said that the town of Clarenville would never support the fact that the provincial or federal government would divert much needed infrastructure money intended for water, sewer and roads into a private development. That is our concern about the whole matter. Everyone in this area would support such a project, but everyone in this area would not expect the provincial government to take money away from the chronic care facility of Clarenville and put it into that. They just took the money, put it in there against the mayor's good judgment and that of lots of other people. It is just unreal.

I will tell the House about the owner of this facility. His name is Bren Power. He is from Clarenville. He ran for nomination for the provincial Liberals, whoops, in the riding of Trinity North in 1992 against Doug Olford.

The centre has already been the subject of controversy in the Newfoundland house of assembly. Mr. Jack Byrne, member for Cape St. Francis, said during question period:

Are we looking at pure, partisan politics and Liberal patronage to the uppermost levels?

They could figure it out. These things are politically motivated. Mr. Byrne repeated in the press on March 1:

I'll say it again, it's another case of political patronage.

Mr. Power reportedly raised funds for the member for Trinity—Bonavista—Conception. No Liberal donations have been found. The gym equipment has reportedly been sold to another pair of businessmen who also received an HRD grant. On and on the saga goes.

Here is just a grab bag of a few miscellaneous boondoggles. Rama Reserves, a tiny reserve near Orillia, Ontario, has 600 band members. The Majikaning band has operated Casino Rama for three years and has full employment. An HRD office opened in that area in June 2000 at an initial cost of $164,000. The band just negotiated a deal with the province of Ontario to share casino profits. The deal is worth $123 million. Not bad. That is $200,000 for every man, woman and child on the reserve. This was reported in the Toronto Star on February 9, 2000.

Wal-Mart has a market capitalization of $250 billion and profits of $1.92 billion for the three month period ending January 31, 2000. It paid Metrus Properties, another huge company with longstanding Ontario Liberal connections, to build a huge $60 million warehouse in Cornwall with 172 loading docks. Metrus received a $300,000 transitional jobs fund grant, yikes, thus benefiting Wal-Mart. That is a pretty good deal with 300,000 bucks off the bill.

American based RMH Teleservices was enticed to the riding of the minister of HRDC using $1.6 million in HRD grants over the protests of a neighbouring Liberal MP. Later RMH executive vice-president Michael Scharff said in an interview that they would have located there without the grant anyway. He said he was sure they would be in Brantford one way or another. It was kind of icing on the cake. Who would not take it? If he did not take it someone else would. The next guy would. That is the very frustrating part of trying to do business across Canada. We see phony, trumped up government grants. It is ridiculous.

Wiarton, Ontario, received $50,000 from HRD to hold a groundhog festival featuring the rodent Wiarton Willie II. The original one is gone. He has crossed over. It is not like Peter Donolo who has crossed over to Italy on a plum post. Wiarton Willie has really crossed over.

The Canadian Aerospace Group in Nipissing, Ontario, received $917,000 of a $1.3 million TJF grant before going bankrupt without building any aircraft. Then the minister has the nerve to say that we are being critical of some of these programs. You bet we are, Mr. Speaker. When we call it the billion dollar boondoggle, that is exactly what it is. I am going through list after list.

It was supposed to be better. The Prime Minister campaigned in 1993 and again in 1997 that it was going to be good. He said as recorded in Hansard in 1991 when he was standing on this side as leader of the opposition:

When we form the government every minister in the cabinet that I would be presiding will have to take the full responsibility of what is going on in his office.

It could be her office. There are women cabinet ministers and competent ones at that. He continued:

And if there is bundling in the department, nobody will be singled out but the minister will have to take the responsibility.

Boy, Mr. Speaker, if you have not seen bungling, you have not been watching. The HRD department is an embarrassment because of the things and the bungling that have gone there. The minister says she has instituted a six point plan, which I will read in a minute, as if that will solve everything. The Prime Minister says he will make sure they take responsibility for it. There is no responsibility taken there.

The Prime Minister said on February 1, 2000, that administrative problems of this kind happen all the time. This was quoted in L'Acadie Nouvelle . They will just pick out the administrative people and say “Those horrible people over there at HRDC, I am going to get that department straight”. It is blamed on somebody else.

Here is another one. He said, “Do you think it was better under Mulroney?” The member for Edmonton Southeast ought to know because he was a member of the Mulroney government before 1993. It makes it all right because, “It was worse under Mulroney so I am not bad”. What a way to run a country. It is absolutely ridiculous that it was worse under Mulroney so maybe he is not doing too badly. He said that in the Ottawa Sun on February 3, just a couple of months ago.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

The Liberals are worse on time allocation, we know that.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Edmonton North, AB]

Yes, they have hit the record on time allocation now.

He said, “What is boondoggle? Give me the definition of that. Tell me, is there money that has disappeared?” I remember that great happy day when the Prime Minister came out of his office to the scrum. The HRDC minister was in the scrum trying desperately to answer questions. She was having a hard time answering. We all remember that. The Prime Minister whisked past her and turned around and came back, “I will take this from here, I will look after the questions from here, dear” in that patronizing way and shuffled her off down the stairs in humiliation. He said, “I will look after this now. What is boondoggle? Give me the definition of that. Is there money that has disappeared?”

As a matter of fact, there probably is. Even though we were not accusing the minister of money being missing, it is turning out from some RCMP investigations that some of the money really has gone missing. It is certainly not $1 billion. A lot of the cheques can be traced but there is some money that has actually disappeared. I would say “Yes, Mr. Prime Minister, on February 5, 2000, maybe some money has disappeared”.

And what is the definition of boondoggle? It is when a minister acts irresponsibly so that she is not in full control of her department to know exactly where the money is going and why. That would be a definition of boondoggle.

He said in Hansard on February 9, “Of $11 million of so-called problems there was an overpayment of a little bit more than $250”. I hardly think so. Maybe it was that at the time, but of course only 459 files had been looked at out of 60,000. Now there are any number of RCMP investigations, many of which are in the Prime Minister's riding.

Then he said, as Andrew Coyne cited in the Ottawa Citizen on February 22, “Listen, we are the government. I don't see why we can't get credit for what we do. I hope we do so. There is nothing to be ashamed of, we do it all the time. I am the government”. Remember the quote from 1993, “Any file from Saint-Maurice that comes across any cabinet minister's desk, you bet I will be there for them. You get the cash”. He must feel like Regis Philbin on Who Wants to be a Millionaire ; just pass out the cash.

Here he is again, “We ought to get credit for what we do. I hope we do. There is nothing to be ashamed of, we do it all the time”. At least he admits that the Liberals do it all the time. It is absolutely unbelievable and shameful and it ought to stop very soon.

He said, “I think it happens to you at the end of the month to see that you have spent a few more dollars than expected”. Spend a few more dollars than expected. This seems ridiculous. In the London Free Press , February 19, 2000—

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I want to congratulate the hon. member. I had a call from the people at the Guinness records and, never in the history of active politics has so much rubbish been heard in so short a time.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Well, there you are.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I understood every word and frankly, I have made history before in this place so we might as well add that to the record.

He said further in the London Free Press on February 19, 2000, “I think it happens to you at the end of the month to see that you have spent a few more dollars than expected”. A few more dollars. We have all been in that position where we have spent a few more dollars but $1 billion seems a little excessive. All of a sudden the Liberals had no idea where this money was with this great boondoggle. There were hundreds of projects and they had no idea where the money was and what the people were doing with it and he said that it is a few dollars at the end of the month. It is unbelievable.

In the London Free Press on February 19, it was a busy day, he said, “Recipients have not complained at all”. As the kids would say, well, duh. Who will complain about getting free money? It is pretty sad. It goes on and on.

I made reference to the six point plan. The minister has told us time and time again, “We have instituted a six point plan and everything will be wonderful”. Everybody can just sit back and feel so much at ease that the government is really managing its money because it has a six point plan and all will be well.

The minister claims that she incorporated the views of Deloitte & Touche in the final draft of the six point plan to strengthen the administration of grants and contributions. She made the following claims on May 3 a few days ago. She said in Hansard :

We have added aspects of training and aspects focusing on accountability. We have have ensured that senior management know what their roles are and what accountable role they will have to play. We actually put together a grants and contribution team, a team focused on this.

Should the focus team not have been in place before the whole thing started rather than after the boondoggle was blown loose?

She also said “We made sure that senior executives were making the final sign-off on those transfer terms”. She should have been doing that a long time ago. She went on to say “They said that we should make sure we address the root cause of the audit findings. We are doing a number of things in that regard, making sure employees have training”. That is great. They should have training. She went on to say “We did indeed address and assign authorities and responsibilities”.

The day before that, the minister for HRD said in Hansard , regarding her six point plan:

They said that we needed greater cohesiveness to orchestrate the various actions in an integrated fashion. What did we do? We established a grants and contributions team to ensure that we meet their recommendations.

Perhaps they have jerseys too or maybe the hon. member could buy them some. She went on to say:

They said that we needed assurance that funds had been transferred according to program requirements. What did we do? We put in place a departmental directive on the issuance of payments which require sign-off by senior executives to ensure that the payments are made appropriately.

[An hon. member]

Unless the minister's fund is involved.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Edmonton North, AB]

Yes, the minister's reserves are right there. We have to ask a question in rebuttal. The grants and contributions performance tracking group was established in September 1999. It was stated in the program integrity audit on page 14, released on January 19. This is hardly something new and creative which she came out with in February, March and April.

The directive on the issuance of payments was issued January 20 requiring sign-off by senior executives prior to any new payments anyway. What is the big deal about everything being new and wonderful?

Deloitte & Touche brought forward its recommendations on February 2. It said in committee that the final draft was completed February 6. This version was put on the Internet on February 21 along with lots and lots of pages of grants and contributions made public by the department. Deloitte & Touche never even got another look at it. It was hired to look at it and made a few little changes. You will see in a minute, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure you are rapt with attention on this, that the final version of the six point plan is precious little different from the draft version Deloitte & Touche looked at and said was abysmal.

The number one subject was to ensure that payments meet standards. Here is the six point plan. I am sure there are Canadians who wonder if there really was a six point plan. There is.

Number one is to ensure payments meet standards. Number two is to resolve issues with past files. Number three is to equip and support staff. Number four is to get the best advice available. As if they needed to come up with a new six point plan to say to get the best available. Number five is accountability in reporting. Number six is communications. As if this is something new and creative.

These basic things should have been in there since the beginning. Ensure payments meet standards; obviously. Resolve issues with past files; who is not going to give money who has not checked it out? Equip and support staff; that would be a really smart thing to do. That should have been done off the top. Get the best advice available; anybody would know that. Accountability in reporting; as if this is something new with government money. It should be accountable and report every cent. Communications; sometimes we need good communications to get our point across.

That is the six point plan. It is unbelievable that a minister of the crown would stand and trumpet that day after day, as if there has been an amazing discovery and everything is okay and from now on the government will look after us.

The draft version which Deloitte & Touche looked at said that there would be no new payments without verification, to review all files by April 30 and have two senior officials approve them, and to monitor new agreements. In the final version the same points were addressed, the same officials were named and there was the same timeline. When the minister stood in her place a couple of weeks ago and said they had taken its recommendations, they had not done a thing. They just reprinted them in the next column.

The draft version said to resolve all issues with past files by February 29; review 37 files and develop methods to choose others for review; by August 31 apply screening methods; and to study cost effectiveness of looking at files prior to 1998-99. Those were the draft version recommendations. The final version says by February 18, review the 37 files. So the date was changed by 11 days. Oh, those are substantive changes.

On number three the draft version says to “equip and support staff, conduct training, arrange temporary additional resources, add staff response on the standing item on national management board agenda”. That was Deloitte & Touche in the draft version. In the final version the same vague steps were implemented, but the first round of training was scheduled to take place by February 28. That was a real sign of commitment, putting a date in there. This is hardly a substantial amendment.

Number four was to get the best advice available. Deloitte & Touche in the draft version said to “consult with TB, AG”—that is the treasury board and the auditor general—“other deputies, contract senior private sector financial expert for technical advice”—that is, the best advice available—“review progress quarterly with treasury board and meet monthly with the assistant auditor general”.

In the final version, the same steps were taken. It notes that it incorporated treasury board and AG advice. The website was changed on May 3 to read that it incorporated Deloitte's as well as treasury board's on-site executives' advice. On May 3, much later, the website was changed, “Whoops, got to fix this up and make sure everything looks parallel”.

Number five in the six point plan is accountability in reporting. “Report regularly to the minister, staff, senior managers, obtain outside expert advice on progress of plan, by March 31 assess cost benefit of applying the ISO 9000 to programs”.

This is what happened in the final version. The dates were changed. The dates of June 2000 and January 2001 for external review of the progress of the plan were added. I hardly think the minister could stand in her place and brag about the fact that they have brought in all these recommendations. They changed a date here and there. This is hardly substantive.

Number six was communications. Deloitte & Touche said “Brief sponsors, press, correct misinformation as appropriate, brief all staff on February 7, communicate regularly with program staff”. This is what the minister's draft version looked like. Deloitte & Touche had some serious concerns about all these draft versions of the HRD six point plan.

The final version added “report to parliament through parliamentary committee and performance report”. The final version said that they are going to report to parliament, through parliamentary committee and performance report. The minister clearly would come in, stand, make a fuss and say, “Everything is okay. Trust us. I am from the government and I am here to help you. Remember me? I have a six point plan implemented and everything is absolutely fine. It is going along well”.

That six point plan is unbelievable. The minister talks about the six point plan, and especially number six, the communications angle of it, I would bet a dollar that she is not terribly impressed with the communications. Many in her own department have come forward and she did not act of course, “Uh oh, looks like this could be a real land mine”.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

It is called spin doctoring, I think.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Edmonton North, AB]

It is very frustrating. Today I have talked about the government becoming the latest incarnation of the Ottawa 67s. It now has brought in time allocation 67 times, even beating the record of Brian Mulroney, who in just over six years closed down debate in this place 66 times.

Now we see a new champion across the way, a government that railed and went on and on about how horrible and sinful it was. Yet when we look at the Prime Minister who has a heavy hand in so many areas, we should not be surprised. People seem shocked by this, but maybe when we look at it we should not be so shocked. We are certainly saddened by it.

I have a history in this place of being the only reformer, now a Canadian Alliance member. Neither of these guys was here then. I used to sit with the Liberals in the lobby. I remember many of them. I ate with many of them. I visited on airplanes back and forth with many of them. I can remember times when they were so upset and outraged in that back lobby. Boy, they could hardly put a lid on it. The member for Kingston and the Islands would come back practically vibrating because he would be so upset about the Mulroney Tories and how terrible they were. I also remember the words by the hon. member for Broadview—Greenwood, when he was sitting in the lobby right behind where I am standing now, over what happened in government.

I remember visiting and speaking to many of those people. When I was first sworn in here I sat up in the corner. I was surrounded by the member for Broadview—Greenwood and I think the former member for Acadie—Bathurst, Doug Young, who for some strange reason is no longer in the House. The minister for Indian affairs was also there. We were all left-handers sitting up in the corner, or the dummy corner as it was dubbed. We had some good visits and some good times up there.

When I visited with those members back in the lobby, while we all ate left-handed—but you have to love us—they told me that they would not be like the Tory government. They said “When we get to government it will be different. I asked them to promise me that if they did form the next government that they would not do the same as the Mulroney Tories. They said “Oh, yes. Scout's honour, Deb”. It was as if everything was going to be okay and we would not have a thing to worry about. I remember them saying that they could never be that arrogant. They said that they could never be as bad as the Tories on time allocation and closing off debate. They said that free trade was a horrible thing and that they were against it.

Does anyone remember the 1988 election? The Liberals ran some good ads. The only problem was that they did not believe them.

[Hec Clouthier, Liberal, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Very bad. Vous êtes méchante.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Edmonton North, AB]

Free trade is all right? He became a member of a party whose word was not good on that. His party was against free trade in 1988. Now that it has become government, free trade is okay.

The Liberals should have known all along that free trade was okay. If we are going to close our walls in and not trade with other people, we are in big trouble. I do not mind admitting that perhaps the member saw the light, which I know is a goofy phrase, but I think what frustrates him is joining a government that is not true to its word.

Lucien Bouchard who was another Mulroney Tory. I mentioned him earlier. He ran the best byelection money could buy. I respected him and I know the member for Edmonton Southeast respected him. At least Mr. Bouchard admitted in the House that he was a separatist. His word was good. When he formed the Bloc Quebecois, I disagreed vehemently with the separatists. There were a lot of people in the Mulroney government and in fact in the Mulroney cabinet who did not have the nerve to stand their ground and say they were separatists.

Although I disagree with the Bloc, with separatism and with Lucien Bouchard, at least we have to respect them. They were true to their word.

[David Kilgour, Liberal, Edmonton Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My hon. friend is not alleging that all the people in the Mulroney cabinet were separatists. There were three. I think she will be kind enough to admit that.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

A salient point of order.