Chuck Cadman

[Supply, March 20th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, there are any number of areas where we can see waste and not necessarily the programs the hon. member talked about. There are far too many areas of waste in the country.

I just rattled off a few of them which came from my constituents. They saw $170,000 unaccounted for in programs and training money that should have gone to the Metis community in British Columbia. That is only the tip of the iceberg. There is much waste in the country. If we could take care of the waste, do the proper forensic audits, find out where the waste is and cut it, I am sure there would plenty of money left over to restore the health care system to where it should be.

[Supply, March 20th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I do not think we would have brought this motion forward if we were not prepared to commit to say that $1.5 million should be transferred into the CHST.

As for the other question, it is something we obviously have to look at. People are asking that health care be restored. Right now one way we see doing that is by getting rid of the waste, putting the money that is being wasted up front and doing something with it to restore health care to where the community wants it to be.

We acknowledge the gap that still exists. That is obviously something that has to be considered for the future. Right now the money that is going to waste, as far as we see it or as far as my constituents are telling me, has got to be put where it going to do some good, and that is into health care.

[Supply, March 20th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, the bottom line is that the provinces are starved for cash. Because of the way the government has cut billions and billions of dollars since it came to power, the provinces have done what they could to get it back. I know the waiting list. I know the problems in my own province and in my own community.

Restoring the cash transfer is only part of the solution but it is a part that has to be done now. Instead of taking the money and firing it off into what a lot of my constituents are coming to me and saying are wasteful programs of grants and contributions, this money has to be invested somewhere where the people want it, which is in health care.

[Supply, March 20th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to this motion. The motion reads as follows:

That this House calls on the Minister of Finance to increase the Canada health and social transfer by $1.5 billion and forgo the $1.5 billion increase to federal grants and contributions in this year's federal budget.

All Canadians know that Canada's health care system is beyond sick. It is in a crisis. I believe there is one very fundamental reason for this.

From 1993 to 1999, health care costs have risen by $14 billion per year, or 19%, from $72 billion per year to $86 billion. In that same period, the cash transfers from the federal government for health and education fell by $6.3 billion per year from $18.8 billion to $12.5 billion. That is a drop of 34%. That is a cost increase of 19% and a decrease in federal transfers by 34%. Is it any wonder that we have a problem?

The government trumpets that it plans to put a cumulative total of $12 billion back into CHST over the next four years. Is that not special? What it fails to tell Canadians is that since it came to power, it has slashed a cumulative total of $25 billion from health and social transfers. By 2003-04 that cumulative total is expected to be about $35 billion.

The Liberals like to boast about the increase in tax point transfers but those points have remained unchanged since they were first introduced in 1977 while the discretionary cash portion has been slashed.

In 1977 federal cash transfers paid 19 cents of every health care dollar spent. By 1997 that was down to just 10 cents and still the government wants to tell the provinces what to do.

What are some of the realities of the Canadian health care system today? It is a system based on a 1960 socialized, state run model which has failed to evolve to address the realities of the 21st century. I am sure Canadians will be happy to know that our health care system is rated 23rd out of 29 countries in the OECD. I am sure they will also be just thrilled to know that there are only two other countries with similar health care systems to Canada's: Cuba and North Korea. That is wonderful company.

The current system is just not sustainable and the government knows it. Again there are some very simple reasons for this. In 1999, 12.5% of the population of Canada was over the age of 65. The projection for 2006 is 21.4%. That is one in five Canadians over the age of 65. Add to that the fact that Canadians of my age are on the leading edge of the baby boomer bulge and we will not reach age 65 until roughly 2012. Simply put, Canadians are living longer and the population is getting older. Again the current system is just not sustainable.

What about the costs related to new technologies? What about the costs of training people to work with those new technologies? Even if we succeed in training the required number of doctors, nurses, support staff and medical technicians, will we be able to keep them in Canada with of our outrageous taxes? That is a whole other debate.

I am afraid we have seen only the beginning of technological and professional shortages. The result has been an increase in the length of waiting lists by 43% from 1993 to 1998 and that shows no signs of going down.

What is the government's answer? In 1999-2000 CHST cash was increased by $2 billion, still short by $4.3 billion, still only 23% of what it was when it took power. Then, in the 2000-01 budget, it allocated just $1 billion more for health care, even though the budgetary surplus was $11.9 billion on January 31, 2000. At the same time this budget alone provides for an increase of $1.5 billion in federal grants and contributions, a one year increase of 11%.

The motion we are debating today calls for the government to forgo that increase in grants and contributions and to direct the funds instead into health care. It does not suggest that it slash federal grants and contributions, only that it forgo the increase.

It would appear that one of the biggest winners in this year's increase derby is, surprise, surprise, Human Resources Development Canada. Good old HRDC. For the last five fiscal years in a row, the Liberals have increased grants and contributions at HRDC. In 1996-97 they were $2.84 billion. This year they are expected to total $3.17 billion, an increase of 12%.

One would think that given the events of the past few weeks, the government would show some respect for taxpayers and, at the very least, hold the line on grants and contributions for this department until there is a full accounting of past moneys spent. The controversy surrounding the transitional jobs fund alone is reason enough. The TJF was $100 million per year. Its successor, the Canada jobs fund, has been increased to $110 million, while its unemployment criteria has been relaxed from 12% to 10%.

I am sure that Canadians would like some explanation as to just how it is that the Prime Minister's riding alone got more in TJF and CJF money than the entire provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, as was reported in the National Post of March 16. I am also sure that Canadians, Quebecers especially, would like some explanation as to how it is that the Prime Minister's riding received four times as much in TJF and CJF grants as the average Quebec riding. The TJF and CJF programs are not the only sources of controversy.

Last week I raised a question in the House regarding a complaint received in my office. A few weeks ago, Mr. Kurtis DeSilva, president of the Metis nation in B.C., and Joe Lanza, a former provincial HRDC compliance officer, came to see me in my Surrey office with a pile of documentation relating to the alleged mismanagement of HRDC funds by the Metis Council of British Columbia, funds earmarked for employment and training programs in the Metis community. Among the complaints was one having to do with the use of job creation money by a council director to attend law school in Toronto. In another case, HRDC funds were allegedly used to send the son of another council director to India to gain life experience.

Dan Ferguson, a journalist with the Surrey North Delta News Leader , has been investigating this issue extensively. He has quoted a number of individuals who complained about questionable training programs, programs which in their view were, in the words of one, a pitiful waste.

A cursory audit by HRDC uncovered almost $170,000 which could not be accounted for. The RCMP said that it did not have the resources to investigate even though it acknowledged the complaints.

Yesterday, at the Liberal Party convention, a British Columbia Metis member of the party said in an interview that there was a real problem. Yet the ministry has refused to do a forensic audit. In fact the minister even refused to answer my question last week.

In another case, the Surrey Aboriginal Cultural Society has brought to my attention that the aboriginal residents of Surrey have received no employment and training funds since 1998 even though the Sto:lo nation was contracted by HRDC to provide the funds. I have written the minister for an explanation but to date have heard nothing back.

In still another case, two women complained to my office after an HRDC contractor placed them into courses which they had no hope of completing due to a lack of prerequisite training. The spotlight is currently on HRDC. One must suspect that there are similar stories buried in other departments, many of which have had no internal audit done on grants and contributions since January 1, 1994.

Rather than attacking the provinces, the federal government should provide leadership by working co-operatively with them to improve health care. A good place to start would be to forgo any further increases in grants and contributions and instead direct those funds toward health care.

I urge all members to support the motion.

[Human Resources Development, March 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, let us try something else.

I have received complaints from my constituency about irregularities pertaining to the allocation of HRDC funds within the Metis community in British Columbia. The Surrey Leader newspaper has run a series of reports on questionable training programs and nepotism. The complainants, some of whom are Metis, have already requested a forensic audit and have been turned down.

Seeing as how there are already at least 19 ongoing investigations into similar complaints, why will the minister not grant a forensic audit in this case?

[Human Resources Development, March 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the HRDC documents dated June 5, 1998 referred to the misappropriation of funds with respect to the Iris deal. The minister seems unwilling to provide any details on exactly how much was misappropriated and what was done about it. She chooses to boast that Iris lived up to half of its expectations.

I ask the minister again. How much money was misappropriated and why were the police not called in?

[Human Resources Development, March 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians have seen only the tip of the HRDC financial mismanagement iceberg.

Last week the Surrey Aboriginal Cultural Society complained to me about mismanagement of HRDC funds. The Sto:Lo nation receives HRDC funds to provide services in Surrey. Its apparent failure to honour contractual obligations has left aboriginals living in Surrey without employment and training programs since 1998. The society is now considering legal action.

Previous to that a member of the B.C. Metis community and a former provincial Metis compliance officer came to me with complaints of waste and favouritism, for example, HRDC money for a university law course for a council director and a trip to India for the son of another director. The complainants want nothing less than a full forensic audit.

We know of 19 police investigations into the government's mismanagement. It could be 20 but the RCMP told the Metis that it lacked the resources to investigate. I hope the solicitor general is listening.

The Minister of Human Resources Development is aware of both complaints, so why is there no investigation?

[Privilege, March 13th, 2000]

Yes, Mr. Speaker. As you know, I provided you with notice on March 3 of this question of privilege. While my notice detailed much of the concern, I believe that it is only appropriate that I outline the issue in the House so that all members will be aware of the present situation, as we are all equally affected by these recent events.

I believe this question of privilege is related to one similar, which was heard by the Speaker in October 1997. I say related because the breach of my privileges as a member of parliament has also arisen over the functions of our legislative drafters.

In 1997 you ruled that the matter be resolved by the Board of Internal Economy. My issue does not concern the administrative matters, such as the number of legislative drafters available to assist us in our work, and it does not concern just who is assigned to assist us in drafting legislation. My question of privilege has solely to do with solicitor-client privilege and breach of confidentiality.

First, I will relate the facts of the case. Over the past number of weeks I have been dealing with our legislative drafters on a number of amendments to legislation presently before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. The drafting of legislation is one of the most important aspects of this place. It is imperative that confidentiality of information be maintained until each member decides to make his or her work public by introducing it either in committee or here at report stage.

Mr. Speaker, you can imagine my surprise and outrage when I learned from the clerk of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights that he was in possession of my amendments before I had even decided which of them I would be introducing at committee.

I was informed that it has now been decided that solicitor-client privilege does not attach itself to work completed by our legislative drafters and that the material will be made available to the clerks.

I do not know who else will have access to this work. I do know that the clerk did seek my permission to release my proposed amendments to the Department of Justice lawyers. I denied him the permission to release them to anyone.

Let me make it clear that I do not call into question the integrity of the clerk of the committee, but if he was able to gain possession of my amendments, who else has them?

It was my understanding that members of parliament are operating with our legislative drafters in a solicitor-client relationship. These drafters are lawyers who have been tasked by the House as a whole to assist members in their legislative initiatives.

It is a competitive market in this place for political reasons, for representing our constituents and for ensuring that our laws effectively achieve what we as individuals perceive to be in the best interests of the country.

You will remember, Mr. Speaker, how concerned members from all political stripes became in October 1997 when the issue was raised over the lack of sufficient and proper resources to provide members with adequate legislative assistance. As I have stated, my concern today is not an administrative function. It goes to the essence of the relationship between our lawyers and ourselves to fulfil our duties as members of parliament. These lawyers work for us both on private members' legislation and on amendments to government and Senate legislation. Without protection of confidentiality, our parliamentary work is severely impacted. We become disempowered from carrying out our duties.

This work was released to others without my consent, which I believe is necessary under the law. Legislative counsel come under the precinct of the Speaker of the House of Commons. It is my understanding that they have been ordered to release this information contrary to the protection of the solicitor-client privilege.

To sum up, I believe that the release of confidential work in progress to the clerk of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights without my consent is a prima facie case of privilege. It has happened in my case and may well be happening or could happen to almost anyone in this place. It must be addressed. Should you find that a prima facie case of privilege exists, Mr. Speaker, and with your permission, I would be prepared to move the appropriate motion.

[Privilege, March 13th, 2000]

Yes, I did, Mr. Speaker.

[Export Development Corporation, March 3rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, when he was human resources minister the trade minister wrote more than $1.5 million worth of cheques for projects of Mr. René Fugère.

Just what is it about Mr. Fugère that allows him such easy access to the public purse? Did the minister ever meet with Mr. Fugère?