Debates of May 3rd, 2000

Health

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I guess we will never know for sure if he can name them but we do know he is not standing up for them.

Recently the health minister stated in the House that Alberta's bill to Americanize health care should be withdrawn. Along with most Canadians, I agree with that point of view. However, the reality is that bill 11 is being rammed through anyway.

Health care is the number one public policy concern in this country yet this government has rendered itself utterly impotent to stand up to it.

Now that we know exactly what is in bill 11, has the government prepared a response and, if so, is it ready to share it with Canadians?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I suppose we can explain the NDP leader's interest with the five principles of the Canada Health Act because that is five more principles than the NDP has on this issue.

As to bill 11, let me say to the House that we have made it clear from the beginning that we intend to respect the principles of the Canada Health Act. If bill 11 does not comply with the principles of the Canada Health Act, we will do what is required to exercise the federal response in such a situation.

Public Works And Government Services

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, Transelec, a Laval company, gave $5,000 to the Prime Minister's election campaign in 1993 and another $10,000 in 1997. It also gave $28,000 to the Liberal Party; a total of $43,000.

Shortly after the 1997 election, Transelec received untendered public contracts for $27,000 and a CIDA contract worth $6.3 million. Since the election the company has evaporated. It has no listed phone number for the company or its owner Claude Gauthier.

Will the government call in the auditor general to investigate this highly questionable use of taxpayer money?

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, obviously under Canada's election laws all contributions made to political parties, including the hon. member's party across, if there are still people giving to that party, or to any other political party represented in the House or not represented in the House, are a matter of public record if the transaction in question is over and above $100 in any calendar year. That is not a secret. It is public information.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, once again a complete non-answer from the government side.

In 1997 the former public works minister and defeated Liberal candidate, David Dingwall, raised $20,300 in donations from companies that received public works contracts; one-third of his campaign budget. These same companies turned around and received a total of $1.5 million in untendered contracts. That is a pretty good return.

Will the minister call in the auditor general, which he can do under section 11, to investigate these untendered contracts? First there was HRDC and now we have the same shenanigans going on in public works.

[Alfonso Gagliano, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, maybe I should remind the hon. member that when his party was in power only 50% of the contracts were tendered. Before he stands up he should look at himself in the mirror.

Human Resources Development

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, a February 2 analysis by Deloitte & Touche said that there were flaws all through the minister's six point plan. That was the last time that they commented on the plan according to their appearance before the parliamentary committee yesterday.

Yet on February 8 the minister gave a prepared speech in the House that was clearly calculated to leave people with the impression that Deloitte & Touche had actually endorsed the plan. That was simply not the case, and the minister knew it. She repeated the same thing yesterday.

Why did the minister stand up in parliament and imply that Deloitte & Touche had endorsed her six point plan when she knew that was not true?

[The Speaker]

My colleagues, I wish that you would stay away from things being true or untrue. I ask you to be very judicious in your choice of words.

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, what Deloitte & Touche suggested was that we needed to have greater cohesiveness in our program in order to orchestrate the various actions of the program.

What did we do? We actually put together a grants and contributions team, a team focused on this. They asked us to make an assurance that the funds being transferred were transferred in accordance with program requirements. We made sure that senior executives were making the final sign-off on those transfer terms.

What did they say we should do? They said that we should make sure we address the root causes of the audit findings. We are doing a number of things in that regard, making sure employees have training and we are—

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Medicine Hat.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is getting to the point where we have to pull apart every word that this minister utters to see if there is not some kind of double meaning to it. Being straight with people is always the best policy, something she should have learned when she was a little girl.

The fact is that Deloitte & Touche found gaping holes in her six point plan, and she knows that. Why did the minister try to hide that fact from Canadians?

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, let us be straight with the Canadian public. Let us be straight with the facts, that on this side of the House we take administration very seriously.

We are going to have an administration of grants and contributions that will be second to none. As well as being straight with the Canadian public, on this side of the House we believe that the Government of Canada has a role to play in ensuring that those in need, Canadians with disabilities, young people who cannot get jobs and communities that have not been able to engage in our great economy, get the help they need because that is the right thing to do.

Air Transportation

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, given that air transportation in Canada is dominated by Air Canada, the small regional carriers are finding it impossible to compete with Air Canada's affiliates.

Does the minister feel that Bill C-26 provides enough protection to the small regional carriers, given the difficulties they are currently facing?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I have consistently said that the faster we get Bill C-26 passed by the House and the Senate the better it is for the protection of all Canadian consumers who use the air mode of travel. I believe that Bill C-26 does give those guarantees.

However, the hon. member is a member of the Standing Committee on Transport. If he has concrete suggestions on how we can improve that protection, then he should bring forward amendments and we will consider them.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in the same vein, is the minister prepared to include in his bill the amendments required to oblige Air Canada to provide basic service to the small carriers operating in the regions of Quebec?

Is he prepared to support such amendments?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, the agreement negotiated between the commissioner of competition and Air Canada gives guarantees to Canadians to be served from coast to coast, those communities that were formerly served by Canadian Airlines. The spirit of that particular agreement is contained in the bill and that is that Air Canada has to be fair and cannot abuse its dominant position. This government will make sure it does not.

Human Resources Development

[Maurice Vellacott, Reform, Wanuskewin, SK]

Mr. Speaker, here is some more criticism from the Deloitte & Touche report which did not endorse the six point plan. It said “The leadership, responsibility and accountability needs to be identified”. According to the HRDC audit, the $1 billion was bungled in the first place precisely because of a lack of leadership, responsibility and accountability.

Why did the minister learn nothing from her own department's audit?

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, the leadership that my department has shown in this regard is absolutely clear. First and foremost, it was an internal audit that identified the problems.

Second, it was because of myself and the department that the audit became public.

Third, a plan of action has been written up and is now being implemented. The men and women across this country, even in the riding of the hon. member, are working day and night to implement these changes.

From our point of view, the grants and contributions of this government and the contributions it makes to improving the lives of Canadians is worth every effort that we are making and we will continue to make.

[Maurice Vellacott, Reform, Wanuskewin, SK]

Mr. Speaker, here is a section of the Deloitte & Touche report which fell short of endorsing that six point plan. I think this should frighten taxpayers. It says “The draft plan does not clearly assign leadership and responsibility, does not clearly assign to specific individuals the actions they are responsible for, does not establish time lines, deliverables and milestones, does not identify the systems and practices needed to monitor progress”. In other words, the six point plan does exactly the same thing as what bungled the $1 billion in the first place. If she cannot convince Deloitte & Touche, how can she—

[The Speaker]

The hon. Minister of Human Resources Development.

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, maybe if the hon. member would quit reading the draft and read what is actually the final product, he would see that we did indeed address and assign authorities and responsibilities.

The department, at the most senior levels, has engaged in this process. Senior executives know exactly what their role and responsibility is. The men and women of the department know where they need to make changes and they are doing so.

Again I point out that on this side of the House we know how important these grants and contributions are and that is why we are making every effort to improve—

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Portneuf.

Council On Canadian Unity

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage told us that the minister had changed her mind and had decided to order an audit of grants by her department to the Council on Canadian Unity.

Could the minister tell us what programs and what period will be covered by the audit, and when the House will have access to the report?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, programs are audited every year. I have with me a copy of an audit of the Council on Canadian Unity made by Ernst & Young this year, and the same was done last year, the year before and so on. These audits go back to 1988, when Lucien Bouchard was the minister. Nothing has changed.

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister knows that allegations of fraud have led the Ottawa-Carleton police to investigate the Council on Canadian Unity. She also knows that $4.8 million disappeared, through the council, right in the middle of the referendum campaign.

Will these issues be covered by the minister's investigation?