Deborah Grey

[Committees Of The House, May 16th, 2000]

It is harder but still not too hard. Otherwise they would not have to do it.

Maybe we should get a banner made up. Maybe we could go to the hockey team. Now that it is May we could get the Ottawa 67s jerseys and hand them over to those folks. They would not be able to wear them proudly like the Ottawa 67s hockey club does. The Ottawa 67s hockey club is proud to wear them. What does 67 mean? I was 15 and I remember that song. We were proud in 1967 of the Ottawa 67s hockey club. Yet the deputy whip said it is harder when in government. Maybe it is. But the question is, is it necessary? I think not.

Some of the legislation that has gone through the House probably was not necessary to even bring forward. That which was, surely to heaven, if everyone in the House spoke for 10 minutes on it, that would not be insurmountable. Members are given 10 minutes for speeches. The Leader of the Opposition is given an unlimited amount of time which we appreciate, but not everyone is so lucky. I am lucky and I am blessed.

Let me say again for all hon. members who are either listening or pretending they are reading that being in government is an incredible, serious responsibility. The government members cannot just toss this stuff off and say it was not okay in opposition, but it is okay now in government.

Here is the Ottawa 67s and it says Liberals on the jersey. Is that not cute. They would be proud to wear those Liberal jerseys, I am sure. Taxpayers' dollars were not used, an hon. member paid for it. I bet he wears this jersey with a lot more pride than he would wear an Ottawa 67s jersey today because he is a member of the 67th time allocation government that is proud of that.

Let me read a quote by another person who sits in the House, the current government House leader. When I first came here in 1989 I do remember the rants. Oh my. I sat back up over there between the Liberals and the NDP. I was the first and only Reformer for four and a half years, and oh, he was the professor, as one of his colleagues has said. He thought differently of time allocation when he was in opposition, I dare say.

Even though it is so difficult for him to bring it in, and harder as two of his colleagues have said, now that the Liberals are in government, this is what he said. I thought he believed it because I was here in November 1992 when he said, “I am shocked. Perhaps I should not be shocked. This government has used closure on dozens and dozens and dozens of occasions. This is just terrible. This time we are talking about a major piece of legislation. Shame on those Tories across the way”.

That was the government House leader. How things change. How things change when they go from this side to over there. Oh, it is harder. It is like when your mom and dad say, “It kills me to have to give you a licking. It hurts me more than it does you to have to send you to your bedroom. I am so sorry I have to do this to you”. Nobody buys it. Nobody buys it at all.

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if you are ready for a shift change. I am delighted to have you here, but I have another good quote which I will set aside until the Deputy Speaker, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, takes the chair.

The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre who is now our Minister of Foreign Affairs had this to say on March 31, 1993, “Madam Speaker, do you realize that with the vote this afternoon, closure has been used in this House 25 times since 1988”. Oh, my, he was scandalized. Twenty-five times does not hold a candle to what we are at today with 67. He said, “That equals the number of times closure was used from 1913 to 1988”.

Wow, it is growing exponentially now. “In four years this government has used closure more often than all the other governments going back to 1913”. From 1913 to 1988 of course he was scandalized by that as a Liberal opposition member. Boy, he has eclipsed them now. He went on to say on March 31, 1993, “That is a direct demonstration of the kind of disdain the Minister for International Trade and his colleagues have for the Canadian people”.

I guess we have seen disdain with a capital D here today. The Liberals do not want to hear a dialogue or a debate. It is so awkward and just gets in the way of things. It is so difficult to ram things through if people are being obstinate and they want to debate the issues. Honestly.

To be willing to waste that much time is unbelievable. We would almost think the Liberals got elected to debate the issues or something. They do not want to hear a dialogue or a debate; they simply want to close the door so they cannot hear the real voice of the Canadian people.

A Liberal member in opposition back in 1993 said, “These kinds of arrangements concocted in the backrooms in the wealthy eating clubs the Minister for International Trade frequents are not working in the interest of Canadians. They are not working in the interest of other working people around the world”. How things change. Yet they will say to me today, “Things are harder when we are in government. It is so difficult to bring in time allocation and closure when we are in government. It is hard don't you know, girl?”

I know a remedy for all that pain they are going through. Let people in the House address it and have a debate when it is over.

Let me read one more quote. I have some really good stuff here about the minister's reserve and I will get right back to that, but let me finish the quote. It hit the newspaper. Not much from Hansard hits the newspaper but this did. This was the article on April 1, 1993, “That is as many times as closure was used between 1913 and 1988 and displays the utter disdain with which this government treats the Canadian people, said an angry Minister for International Trade”. It is hard to believe.

I was talking about the transitional jobs fund and I made mention also of the auditor general. I think one of the particular funding lines that I was using in terms of amounts, was pretty staggering, it was a doozy.

[Committees Of The House, May 16th, 2000]

It was not bike weather. The member got that right. In the 35th parliament which started on January 17, 1994, 37 times the government closed off debate with 32 time allocation motions and 5 closure motions. It is unbelievable.

In the 36th parliament, which is still ongoing and seems longer all the time because we watch them in operation and it is thoroughly amazing, 30 times already the Liberals have brought in closure on various motions: 29 time allocation motions and 1 closure motion. That is why we have a record setting event here today on this report stage to which I am speaking. It is hard to believe.

I do not think any one of them should be proud of it. I do not think any one of them is proud of it but they can explain it away so well. The Ottawa 67s, here they are right across the way: 67 times with 61 time allocation motions and 6 closure motions.

They would have all kinds of reasons, I am sure. They would have all kinds of reasons about how hard it is to govern and how they need to get all this magnificent legislation through. Some of it has been pretty thin gruel, as you have noticed, Mr. Speaker, because you sit in that chair for some hours at a time, thinking to yourself, I bet, what does this have to do with the nation's business. Precious little. He is seized of the issue. Yet there it is. It is all so important they just have to ram it through.

Some of it probably need not be brought forward in the first place. Some of the big legislation we have to deal with in this place gets short shrift. With 67 times these Liberals even outshoot and outscore the Mulroney Tories for closing off debate. They never thought they would hear that. I am sure they did not, but they are there. They are the record holder now.

I like Mark McGwire's record myself a whole lot better. There is a champ who knows how to hit a home run. He is supposed to hit home runs. That is what he gets paid for.

Government does not get paid to stifle debate and ram things through. The Mulroney Tory reign in power commenced on November 5, 1984 and ended September 8, 1993, approximately nine years. The Liberals under the Prime Minister came to power on January 17, 1994. They reached their 67th use of time allocation and time restriction on May 16, 2000, today. What a sad day for democracy. As I recall that bunch of people used to go pretty ballistic. I was here.

I would like to read a few quotes which are really precious. Let us go back to Mackenzie King. He was the longest serving Liberal prime minister. He said in the 1930s that closure was, “The most coercive and arbitrary act of which a government is capable”. Imagine. Something has changed between then and now. He was a Liberal prime minister too. Is that not something. He said that it was the most coercive and arbitrary act of which a government was capable.

If given the chance the government members would leap to their feet and say that things have changed, that things are different now and they know what they are doing, that Mackenzie King had it easy. I do not think Mackenzie King had a really great time in government in the 1930s. Those were not happy times in our country. Yet it is okay now.

In a speech given by Mr. Stanley Knowles against the use of closure, he referred to former Liberal minister Frank Oliver's statements on the subject when he said, “Closure is not a blow at the rights of the Canadian people. When closure is imposed in this way by the moving of a motion that is out of order, it is a blow that strikes at the very heart of our democratic system”. Those were carefully chosen words. That was a Liberal who said in 1956 that closure was not a blow at the rights of the Canadian people, it is a blow at the very heart of the democratic system.

Of course, the government members would say that things are different now too and that it is not closure. I love that little argument. They say it is not closure, that it is time allocation. Not one person in the House, even the Liberals when the day comes when they are in the opposition, could be convinced that there is a big fat difference between time allocation and closure. It is semantics. It makes a precious argument and it looks good in the scrum. But they will never convince me or anybody else across the country that there is any major difference between closure and time allocation.

No matter what the logistics of it are, the end run is always the same. The government stifles debate in the House. When I first came here I thought this was the house of debate. Yet whatever it is, it does not suit the Liberals' purposes and they want to ram it through so they use time allocation or closure. It really makes no difference what we call it.

Let me go to another one. This is the member for Ottawa West in 1989. For goodness sake, she is here to hear it. I am sure she will confirm it. Talking about Mulroney, she said, “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”.

Here she is today being dubbed as one of the Ottawa 67s. In government it is so much easier. It is fine when they are in government to ram it through.

[Committees Of The House, May 16th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I thought it was incredibly relevant because you and I spoke about the problem of what happens when you are not able to keep tight control of things, whether it be a bakery or a book writing magnate. I have absolutely no idea.

Let me move on. In Chapter 27.17 he states that in 1998, as part of an audit of Indian affairs, concern was raised about the release of funds before complete documentation requirements had been satisfied. The paperwork must be done. It has to be finished, and it was not completed in Indian affairs.

In Chapter 27.18 in the 1990 audit of citizenship development programs of the Department of the Secretary of State the need to establish criteria for evaluating applications and results against program objectives was identified. Ten years ago they had the same concerns. It does not look like a lot has been solved since then. It was consistent with earlier observations concerning the need for departments to put more effort into monitoring and assessing program results. Even before 1990 they were concerned about it.

Chapter 27.19 states that in 1990 instances were reported where the Department of Industry, Science and Technology had not exercised due diligence. Imagine, no due diligence. Their work uncovered cases of projects being approved despite initial departmental analyses indicating that they did not meet eligibility criteria.

Chapter 27.20 of the auditor general's report of December 1998 stated that the 1993 audit of the northern cod adjustment recovery program administered by fisheries and oceans revealed the lack of a clear legislative authority to deliver the program, significant difficulties in targeting payments to those closely affected by the moratorium on fishing northern cod, payments to individuals who did not meet eligibility requirements, and weak financial management and controls. It looks to me like the nineties was kind of a painful decade for governments. Of course we remember that the Mulroney Tories were in office in the early nineties up until 1993 and then the Liberals took over. Frankly I have not noticed a whole lot of difference.

In fact, if we look at what is actually happening today regarding time allocation, it is just unbelievable. In the 33rd parliament which commenced on November 5, 1984, after the September 4 election of that year, time allocation and closure under Mulroney were brought in 20 times. There were 18 time allocation motions and 2 closure motions for a total of 20 times in that parliament.

They got a taste for it. I guess they figured it was not half bad. They could just ram through whatever they liked. The Tories were re-elected in November 1988. That parliament ended on September 8, 1993, when the writ was dropped by Kim Campbell. Remember her, she was the girl that had a summer job in this place.

In the 34th parliament the Tories got right into it and thought that they liked it so much they could ram anything through and perhaps they were divine. They brought in time allocation and closed debate off 46 times; 31 time allocation motions and 15 closure motions. They kind of liked this power thing. They could pretty well do whatever they liked here. They could just motor through. They could shove it through. They could ram it through. They could do whatever because, after all, perhaps they had the divine right to govern. They were here so they could do whatever.

If we add 20 and 46, that makes 66 times in the 33rd and 34th parliaments which commenced on November 5, 1984 and went until September 8, 1993. That is unbelievable. Now there are some Liberals snorting over there, shaking their heads in dismay. It was disgusting, certainly, but it was over nine years.

Let us look at time allocation and closure in this parliament. I know one of the members over there is new and she probably could hardly believe these numbers herself, but let me just refresh her memory. The 35th parliament began on January 17, 1994, after the October 1993 election. As I recall it was about 54 degrees below zero that day. Does anyone remember? Some would and some would not. In January 1994 when that parliament began it was cold, but boy it was hot in here. They were gearing up for unbelievable things.

[Committees Of The House, May 16th, 2000]

This is like her own RRSP account from which she is generously withdrawing cash.

One of my colleagues said that it sounds like a special bottle of wine. It is a special bottle of something or other for those who are getting cash under it. Under the transitional jobs fund it was $3.3 million. Of course that is never enough. How could we get by on $3.3 million in our own personal reserve pocket? It was raised to $5 million a year in fiscal year 1999-2000. As if HRDC grants and contributions are not discretionary enough, we have the minister's reserve over and above.

Each year the provinces are granted a notional allocation. I remember in grade 8 home economics that we had to talk about notions: sewing, buttons, thread and all that kind of stuff. Maybe it is the same thing, I have no idea. Anyway, it is a notional allocation. It is the total amount one can expect from the TJF and CJF, but the minister's reserve is not part of that notional allocation. It is not as if we would sit down and have coffee and say that we have a notion to help somebody here. It is over and above the notional stage. Holy smokes, it is cash right out of the reserve. It is not even part of that notional allocation.

On February 18, 1999, just a year ago, the Atlantic council of regional executive heads—I assume they had bodies and things to go with them but these were the heads—senior HRD officials, wrote to the assistant deputy minister asking questions about the use of the reserve. At least—and good for them—they had the fortitude to ask the minister what this was all about.

To summarize the memo, it says “My colleagues in the Atlantic region are very concerned with respect to the proposed distribution under the CJF program”. Thank goodness for people in the bureaucracy who stand up to the minister and ask some of these questions. The memo goes on to say “Furthermore, due to the lack of regional consultation on the structuring of this proposal, we are requesting your review of our concerns”.

It would be easy for the government to rant about the opposition making a fuss about this but these are its very own officials, and good for them.

In this whole HRD scandal that we have witnessed swirling about us over the last few months, the minister has tried to stand up in question period and say that the official opposition, and in fact all opposition parties, were besmirching the officials at HRD. Let me correct the record. We are doing nothing of the sort. These are good people who are trying to do their jobs but their political masters keep getting their paws in the way and they are not allowed to do the job that they were hired to do.

On March 12 the assistant deputy minister replied by saying that under the new Canada jobs fund the minister's reserve was to be $8 million but that the minister has agreed to $5 million. Oh, my, do members not love it when they tighten their belts? If not $8 million then I guess $5 million will do. The minister has $3.3 million at her discretionary spending. The government is trying to force her to take $8 million but I guess she can live on $5 million, which is over and above the $13.3 billion in grants and contributions from the government. There it is, the minister is tightening her belt. She has agreed to $5 million a year.

Regarding the use of the minister's reserve, the assistant deputy minister said “—for proposals that meet the terms and conditions of the Canada jobs fund that the minister wishes to fund”. What does that have to do with merit? I am astounded. I assumed that these project, which the Liberals have been railing about for months, are based on merit. If they are based on merit, why should the minister have to be involved at all? That is a big $13.3 billion barrel. This is the $5 million little discretionary fund in her personal reserve that the minister wishes to fund. In brackets, it says “This continues the practice followed under the transitional jobs fund”. Okay, then if it happened under the TJF it might as well happen under the CJF, right?

This simply means that the minister can do whatever he or she likes with the fund. The note makes clear that a proposal under the reserve could be generated from the minister's office where we would not even have to hear about it. We would not even need to get an application form or anything like that. If I am just out there trucking around and I see what looks to be a great little project, I could initiate it all by myself. That is hard to believe.

An e-mail dated June 2, 1999, nearly a year ago, from a senior financial analyst at national headquarters indicates that at least one region's budget was reduced to accommodate the minister's reserve. A whole ministry's budget was cut back just so the minister's personal reserve could get a little extra cash in it. It is hard to believe.

An e-mail dated February 23, 1999 indicates that the minister's reserve was $3.3 million under the TJF but was increased to $5 million, as I mentioned earlier. The reason given was that the minister's office provided significant support to obtaining cabinet support for the Canada jobs fund and they felt that $5 million a year for the minister's reserve was appropriate.

As far as we know, there were three disbursements totalling $1.38 million from the $10 million minister's reserve under the TJF. To our knowledge, none have yet been made under the CJF, although maybe the minister in question period today could let us know if any of those things have happened. Maybe we are not right up to snuff on that.

There was $500,000 to Cornwall, the riding of the chief government whip. It is not up to a $1 million but it is $500,000 which is a step in the right direction, is it not? It is halfway there. The unemployment rate in his riding was 10.7% according to the 1996 census. It was supposed to be 12% but, yes, he was higher than Brant which was 8%.

Oh, my, $500,000 to Brantford. Oops, that is the riding of the then Indian affairs minister. The unemployment rate in her riding was 8.4% according to the 1996 census.

Why did the HRD fund TJF projects in areas of less than 12% unemployment? We have asked that any number of times in the House. That is when we got the new creative line that it was the pockets of unemployment. We could just pick a pocket and fund whatever we like.

Other access documents showed that the 12% rule could easily be broken. The rule is 12% but who cares. We will just write a little rule to supersede the rule. The rule says that individual communities and groups of communities that had unemployment of 12% and greater but which were outside 12% unemployment insurance regions were also considered to be included in the 12% areas.

It is called a run-on sentence in high school English but let me carry on. In October 1997 Cornwall and Brantford were included as high unemployment areas. That is hard to believe. It looks pretty loosey-goosey here. It just goes on and on and on.

This sounds like a shell game, does it not? We have something under a shell, move it around, then we pick it up and we are not quite sure what we will find under it. Twelve per cent was the limit but let us always remember that it is not this government's money.

I will talk for a few minutes now about the actual HRD audit. This was what broke loose when everyone was recessed out of the House in January. I see that I am getting so relevant here that people are starting to hide behind the curtains. Tell them to brace up because there is more.

Let us go on to the question of how the HRD minister was made aware of serious problems with the grants and contributions. We have seen that it is a nightmare. Let us take a look at some of the problems with the grants and contributions and what the minister did or did not do about them.

On January 19, 2000 it was stated that Human Resource Development Canada manages grants and contributions programs that represent a significant investment in public funds. That means a lot of cash and taxpayer dollars. It was also stated that the audit looked at programs representing approximately $1 billion of annual spending. That was a lot of cash.

It was further stated that HRD initiated the internal review to get an objective assessment of the administration of its grants and contributions programs. This type of review was part of an ongoing process to improve program management. Surely that is what we are all after. The audit looked at a random sample of 459 projects from April 1997 to June 1999. The review included a cross-section of projects from seven HRDC program areas across Canada. A number of areas requiring improvement were identified in the report, including project monitoring, contracting procedures and general financial practices.

For example, the auditors found that of the 459 project files, 15% did not even have an application on file. Of the remaining applications, the following elements were missing. Some 72% had no cashflow forecast. In other words, what was going to be done with the money? They were not sure because they did not know what their forecasts were.

Some 46% had no estimate of the number of participants. Half the people, almost one out of two, said they did not know how many participants there would be. This is supposed to be job creation. We are supposed to be making sure that people are working. How many people were they going to have working? They were not sure yet. They had not figured it out yet.

Some 25% had no description of the activities to be supported. Maybe it was going to be a cribbage tournament. Who knows? Let us get together down at the local hall, and who knows what we are going to do?

Another 25% provided no description of the characteristics of participants. Who are these people they are trying to meet the needs of? Who are these people they are trying to minister to? They are not sure yet.

Some 11% had no budget proposal. How much were they going to spend on it? They did not know. There was no budget proposal whatsoever.

Another 11% had no description of expected results. What did they hope to accomplish by this? They were not really sure. Just give them the cash anyway and they will try to figure that out as they go along.

That was the review of 459 project files. I think there were about 60,000 projects, if my memory serves me correctly. If that is extrapolated, we are looking at a pile of cash. We labelled this the billion dollar boondoggle. Yet the minister continues to get up and say “No, we know exactly where that money is”. Maybe they do. I do not know that I have accused her of saying that the money is missing, but I am sure saying the money is misspent. Where is it? This audit uncovered some amazing things.

Of all the files reviewed, 97% showed no evidence that anyone had checked to see if the recipient already owed money to HRDC. Nobody even asked if they had tried this one before. Did they get cash once already? No one even thought to ask that. It seems like a pretty basic question.

Eight out of ten files reviewed, that is 80%, did not show evidence of financial monitoring and 87% of project files showed no evidence of supervision. It seems to me that somebody somewhere ought to be asking these questions.

This is the billion dollar boondoggle that the minister tried to hide by saying that HRDC has already taken action to improve administrative standards and that a comprehensive action plan has been put into place. Dear knows we have heard about that action plan on and on again.

Let me look a little more specifically at the auditor general's report. He certainly was concerned about some of the things going on there and these huge percentages. The auditor general has made some comments on grants and contributions for many years now. In the December 1998 report of the auditor general, in chapter 27, section 12, he stated:

We have reported to Parliament on numerous audits of grant and contribution programs over the past 21 years. Many of those audits identified similar concerns.

In other words, here we go again. There was inconsistent application or interpretation of government policy on grants and contributions. We look at it and we say yes. There were inefficient use of funds and inadequate measures to ensure accountability by program recipients. Yes. There was lack of control, monitoring and evaluation. Yes. Reporting in the estimates and public accounts was inadequate to facilitate examination and year to year comparisons by parliament. Yes. That was in December 1998.

We saw exactly that going on in 1999. It was reported to the minister in January 2000 while the House was not sitting. We of course put in an access to information request on those documents. While that was over in the access department, the minister hurried and scurried and threw together a press conference to say that she wanted to be transparent and to bring this forward. I cannot exactly concur with that. It did not look transparent and forward to me. It looked like when your hand is caught in the cookie jar and someone is ready to give you a snap for it. You say you are sorry and apologize a little beforehand but only after you got caught.

Chapter 27.15 of the December 1998 audit of the auditor general on grants and contributions states that the 1985 audit of the direct assistance programs of the Department of Regional Industry Expansion reported a number of weaknesses in control processes and program delivery practices. In other words, it was not working. It has gone on for years. Any number of years ago I am sure the auditor general was making these same kinds of comments.

Chapter 27.17 states that in 1988, as part of the audit of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, ongoing concerns were reported in two main areas: the release of funds before complete documentation requirements had been satisfied and inadequate monitoring of band operations to ascertain whether funds were being spent for the purposes intended. It is unbelievable.

You run a business, Mr. Speaker. You know that you have to keep a pretty tight watch. You know also how much you lose through all kinds of things. You know that well. We talked about it lately. You lose too much. You have to use an iron fist when you are the manager of something because stuff leaks. It disappears. Staff steal things. Someone says “I really like these baguettes at the French Meadow so I am going to help myself to them”. Yes sirree. I would never accuse the member for Edmonton Southeast of stealing baguettes from French Meadow, but—

[Committees Of The House, May 16th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the member says it is a Christmas present. You bet. It is signed by Peter Donolo, director of communications for the Prime Minister, who has crossed over the Atlantic and now has a wonderful position in Italy. The letter says, “Specific dates for announcements/conferences remain opportunities for site visits as well”. Spiff yourself up, polish your nose, you are going out to dish out government money as if it were your own.

The calendar is designed to be used by the Prime Minister, ministers, secretaries of state, and no offence, last but not least, members of parliament on the government side of course, when planning visits to regions and home constituencies. Is that not the sweetest that the government members would be the dishes of cash and the dishes would be the people who were getting this government grant by a government member saying “Here you are, you lucky people, here is some cash”. Whose money is this anyhow? When money gets transferred from the government to a group or whomever in a riding, this is the living proof through access to information, that it is the government members who hand it out. And I certainly have seen government members dish it out.

There were 1,006 sites listed. Each site visit has a description, a contact name and a phone number. I just wonder who it might have been that they were ringing up to say, “I am here from the government and I am here to help you with your own money, or with someone else's money that was sent into the coffers”. Among the names to be contacted for photo ops are officials in universities, other public bodies and private companies. That looks like photo op anonymous except it is not so anonymous. One has to be a member of the government.

Opportunities suitable for Liberal photo ops are youth oriented projects. Do the Liberals think youth are too stupid to know they are getting a dish out? I do not think so. Young people more than anyone else have it figured out that when they send money to Ottawa it is swirled around and Ottawa takes its cut off the top and gives some back. Come on. Get your picture taken. Liberal photo ops with youth oriented projects indicate that Liberal members of parliament want to be identified with the youth rather than the elderly.

Live the dream. Get those young people. Does the House know with whom the Liberal members of parliament ought to have their pictures taken? They ought to have their pictures taken with young people. They should tell those young people that they are sorry that they left them a $600 billion debt. That is a photo op I would not mind seeing.

Unless any Liberal thinks this is irrelevant, for every single dollar that those young people pay in taxes, even those of us who are middle aged baby boomers or older people who are sending our dollars in, 30 cents out of every single dollar goes toward paying the interest alone on the debt.

Now those people across the way will say “Oh no, it was not our responsibility. It was those Tories when they came in”.

Now the Tories of course will say “Oh no, it was those lousy Liberals who left it to us”. And we all blame each other.

Let us look at the actual numbers. I think deficit financing started in about 1972. The person who was the finance minister during those years was none other than the member for Saint-Maurice. It really started with the Liberals spending more than they were taking in. What a legacy Trudeau left us: Take in a dollar and spend $1.28.

A deal should be made to get a picture taken with young people saying “Sorry about that. We spent so much money and racked up the MasterCard so high that you young people are the unlucky recipients of our debt”. Any offers over there to stand up and get a picture taken with a young person with that little slogan underneath it? I think not. Yet they continue to say “Here you are. Here is a cheque”.

Multiple departments, ranging from the Departments of National Defence and Industry, to ACOA, the Atlantic Canadian Opportunities Agency—but as the Liberal minister from Newfoundland used to call it back when he voted against it in the days when he had principles and voted against the Tories even bringing this in, the Atlantic Canada overblown agency—to CMHC, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, are represented.

A heavy emphasis is placed on HRDC programs. No wonder; $13 billion was given in grants and contributions. Wow, what a deal. The list demonstrates the government's ongoing intention to use government grants, especially HRDC grants, to profile its members. I am very grateful that someone jogged my memory about that particular little list.

I am certainly not being irrelevant but I do digress. Oh my, there is so much, Mr. Speaker. I know you are not tired of listening and I do appreciate that so much.

I was talking about the TJF earlier and about some of the members who got in on that incredible windfall, but besides the TJF there is another little thing called the minister's reserve. Now that is another handy little pocket full of cash. The TJF changed its name around 1996, I believe, to the Canada jobs fund, but it certainly did not change the sentiment. Maybe because the transitional jobs fund had so many problems attached to it and certainly the reputation was not great they changed the name to the Canada jobs fund.

However, they also have this little pocket called the minister's reserve. This is something extra special. There is more of an opportunity for political handouts. The following information is taken from access to information documents obtained by the official opposition during the fall of 1999. Surely no one on the government side would think that I am just jotting this down or making it up on my own.

I will me read a little bit of the information I received through access to information. It says that “There is a multimillion dollar annual fund within the Department of Human Resources Development's Canada jobs fund job subsidy program called the minister's reserve”. This is as if it is her own personal cash.

[Committees Of The House, May 16th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, at least I am free to admit it. It begs this question which I will ask the member, if government funding for job creation programs was the answer, why do we still have such high unemployment in this country? Should we not have zero percent unemployment? If throwing money at it will solve the problem, Lord knows between Mulroney and the present Prime Minister alone, they have thrown enough money at it. Between those two guys alone we ought to have about 0.03% unemployment in the country, but it does not happen that way.

The primary criteria were regional and political visibility. That is relevant, “Let me help you get the seat, let me make sure everything is okay for you in your riding” and make sure that everything looks wonderful.

I have some wonderful notes here which I will come across sooner or later. They are really good. They are notes about making sure that you look good, feel good, sound good. Here they are and for goodness sake, they are labelled “Calendar of Events and Site Visits”. Is that not handy? Let us move to that. That is relevant too, thanks be for that. If they are going to dish out some of those dollars, they might as well look good, sound good, feel good while it is happening.

The “Calendar of Events and Site Visits” was obtained by opposition research through access to information on April 15, 1999, barely one year ago. Is that relevant? Yes it is. It is a 160 page list on legal size paper of government funded projects to visit. Dated December 12, 1998 it was sent presumably on a routine basis to all Liberal members of parliament. I thought I saw everything that came into my office and I am sure I did not get that list of projects. Accompanying the list is a letter dated December 16, 1998 on privy council letterhead. Oh my.

[Committees Of The House, May 16th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, someone said “Let's talk about last night”. I bet a dollar he would not want to do that either. The Liberals did not do so great.

Let us look at the riding of the member for Edmonton West, who is another neighbour. The girl just down the road. Her riding received three grants worth $2,328,663 from the transitional jobs fund. All but $70,000 was given in two TJF grants in late February 1997, three months before the election. We knew there was an election coming. The unemployment rate in the member's riding was about 7% in 1997. It was into the single digits. The guidelines, I am sure, were 12%.

I have a memo to the minister about the TJF program dated November 1997, received through an access to information request, which says that there are no economic zones with 12% unemployment in Alberta. To be relevant, I know that the HRD minister says that you could pick a pocket of high unemployment, that there were pita pockets, unemployment pockets, pickpockets, whatever. The benchmark was 12%, but if the minister felt it was deemed necessary people could dip into those pockets of unemployment and help themselves to a TJF grant. The member for Edmonton West in 1997 was told, through these sensitive documents that found their way into public hands, that there were no economic zones with 12% unemployment in Alberta. There should have been a period and a new sentence saying “Thanks anyway but you do not qualify”. Of course, that did not happen.

Let us look at the Minister of Human Resources Development, the member for Brant. I want to make it clear that she was not the HRD minister back in 1997 but lotto days were alive and well. She received $1,769,012 from TJF but her riding boasted an unemployment rate of 8.1% in 1997. It is even lower now at 8%. I doubt if it was government grants that created those jobs.

Let us look at another one. The leader of the Bloc Quebecois, the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, his riding had an unemployment rate of 15% in 1996. He received $100,000 over three years.

Smell anything here? Political manipulation? I would dare any one of them to stand and say that there was nothing political about this. Three government members whom I just listed got millions of dollars during the writ period in fact. Yet, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois got $100,000 in TJF grants over three years.

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration whose riding lies directly beside the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie and had a lower unemployment rate of 12.1% at the time, received $5,650,577. I am sure that is just absolute irony. I cannot imagine it would be anything else. We look at the unemployment rates of two ridings. One got $100,000 over three years and the minister who was probably having quite the fight of her political career got $5,650,577.

Let us look at the member for Fredericton who was in the news awhile ago. Things have been fairly quiet on the Fredericton front. He received $571,509, yet the unemployment rate in 1996 for his riding was 9.9%.

They are not screaming irrelevant now, but you do need to listen to this, Mr. Speaker.

The guideline was 12% yet at 9.9% and 8.1% there was milk and honey. When it is election time no price is too much to buy that seat for those in government, “Just let us know what you want and we will tell you about the deep pockets”. But it is the Canadians' deep pockets that are springing the cash. The folks across the way think they have every God-given right to help themselves to those pockets and dish it out.

Let us look at what is probably the greatest anomaly in the whole program, the member for Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies. This Liberal backbencher managed to receive $19,946,649. That is an amazing pile of cash; $20 million over three years. This is especially interesting knowing that the 1996 census identified his riding as having an unemployment rate of, oops, just 12.2%. It might have been one of those pick a pocket areas. That is amazing.

It was a swing riding held by the Bloc. Now that is relevant. It looked like the Liberals were in danger of losing to the Bloc Quebecois. Le député d'Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, 30 millions de dollars. A swing riding held by the Bloc. The MP received 15 transitional jobs fund grants just before and during the election worth a total of $5,851,720. Seven of those were signed during the writ period.

I cannot imagine that anyone would be proud to stand and say, “I lead the government and I want to tell you about how well we are going to manage your money”. All these were signed during the writ period. It is absolutely amazing. There is no shame.

The Minister for International Trade, who was the minister of HRD back in the good old days before he got a transfer, signed off on 49 grants during the writ period of the last election, April 27 to June 2. I can hardly imagine he had time to go out and knock on a door or two. It seems pretty strange to me if he was that busy. He was just writing and signing his name. He thought he was autographing things as a famous person. It turned out they were grants.

That amounts to 4.5% of all the grants when that one month period comprised just 2.8% of the total length of the program. It is hard to believe.

Now he says, “Nothing was wrong at HRD. I did a fine job. I was a great steward of that department”. He turned it over to his buddy from Brant and it has just gotten worse since then.

There were 49 grants during the writ period. The writ period was about 37 days or so. That was more than one a day. That must have kept him busy. He must have had quite a campaign team out there knocking on doors and seeing businesses for him. He was a busy boy.

Looking at the amount of money, we like this question answered. Why would any approvals be signed during the election writ period at all? The Liberals had no idea they were going to be back in government. They had absolutely no idea what was going to happen to them. Yet while the cash is there, they want to keep signing their signatures and get that cash rolling especially in those awkward little seats, those persnickety people who looked like they were going to win the election, the Bloc. They just try to buy them off.

I woke up this morning and I noticed that we did not do particularly well in the byelection in Newfoundland, but we got a start and our name is known there now. We have one way to go and that is up.

It seems to me I saw on the news last night—and I could have been sleeping because I was tired and I must confess I was flipping back and forth to the hockey game—but I am sure I saw the Minister of Finance in Newfoundland announcing a $58 million ferry. I suspect that would be confirmed by members on the other side. I am convinced I saw that. I would have to ask my friend from Edmonton Southeast because he would probably know the true story on it. I could have sworn I saw 58 million bucks being thrown into that byelection. Just buy a ferry and guess what, it did not work. It happened but it did not work.

Maybe the Canadian public is starting to say, “Hey, wait a minute. That is not your money you are offering us in your great lovingness and largesse. That is our money”. When I talked to Newfoundlanders a couple of weeks ago I made this point and I think they buy it.

We did not win the byelection but at least we doubled our vote in that byelection. The Tories went down in that vote; they lost about 12% or something like that. The Liberals lost a whole pile, up in the double digits again. The NDP made an incredible gain. I know there is one of them here who would celebrate today and say yea. Well, okay, he is nodding yea. He is being very shy about that close second. We, the Canadian Alliance, doubled our vote. That is more than any of those other parties. Three cheers for wrestler Sailor White.

Perhaps that was a little irrelevant, but not particularly, because it is government money. Who in their right mind would have the nerve to say, “Let us go buy this off”. I remember when Lucien Bouchard was here and he ran for the Tories in the byelection in 1984 I think. They said that his was the best riding money could buy. They paid for stuff that should not have even been paid by them. Yet, here it is with a big wink, “What can we do to help you? We will give you a hand here”.

Those days surely have to be over. But with this government that rams more and more legislation through the House, it really goes at it.

Alleviating unemployment was the secondary criteria of the transitional jobs fund. The Liberals said, “We will give you cash. We will get that whole job creation program going and we will virtually eliminate unemployment”. That begs the question, and I am not the economist in the crowd—

[Committees Of The House, May 16th, 2000]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will get to the topic.

I find it rather amusing, or maybe I find it rather sad, that government members have to jump up and say “They are being irrelevant”. Let me assure the hon. member, and let me assure you, too, Mr. Speaker, that I will get to what is happening now in the HRD committee. The hon. member has absolutely nothing to worry about when I start quoting from this document and then start quoting from that document. It is going to be so relevant it will make his head swim.

Regarding time allocation again, particularly this whole idea of report stage and what is going on right now with human resources development, it is absolutely amazing that a member of the governing side would stand to say “You are being irrelevant”. If what has been going on with this tragedy in human resources development over the last few months is irrelevant to Canadian taxpayers, I would bet a dollar they would want to storm this place. They know perfectly well that a government that is out of control is a government that is mismanaging millions, in fact billions of dollars. It is truly amazing that those members would have the nerve to stand and say this is irrelevant.

Why would I want to upset, harangue or offend some hon. members over there. Let us just get to the point at hand. This is when it really gets good. Let us talk about transitional jobs funds for a few moments. If that is not relevant to HRD and the committee, I do not know what is.

Let us look at political manipulation. My point with time allocation, which is certainly relevant, is that the government uses it for things that it simply wants to brush out of the way.

Let us look at transitional jobs fund contributions. Here is something in the HRD department that is painfully relevant for the government and for every Canadian taxpayer. An access to information request giving all transitional jobs fund contributions by constituency since its inception three years ago was analyzed.

Government members are quiet now. I think we are being relevant.

Let me quote from this document. I will name the province, I will name the amount of money granted through the transitional jobs fund as a percentage of the total and the number of projects that were funded as a percentage of the total. I know they are aware of how relevant this is, so let me give a few numbers.

In the province of Alberta the amount of money that was granted was $3,548,154. My hon. friend from Edmonton Southeast knows that we are a sizeable percentage of the population out home in Alberta, but under the transitional jobs fund the percentage of total money that was grated through the TJF was 1.3%. His math is probably better than mine, but I know that 1.3% of the funding went to Alberta, which has close to 10% of the population.

He also knows that there is a veritable dearth of government members in Alberta. In fact, he is half. His friend from Edmonton West is the other half. I do not suspect he would think there was any political manipulation there in terms of granting through the TJF. I would not think so. I would hate to be that cynical to believe it. For Alberta there was 1.3%. The number of projects funded—six. The percentage total—0.6%.

Do we see him going home to Alberta saying “I am from the government and I am here to help you”? I have not seen him around town saying that. I respect the fact that he is not out flaunting or dishing out money like some others would do. At the same time, if we were to look at the bare bones and if people were to say that this is not politically motivated, my colleague on the Liberal side from Edmonton, as well as myself, would probably not believe them.

Let us look at British Columbia. The amount of money granted was $17,680,920, which as a percentage of the total was 6.3%. B.C. has a fair population, but 6.3%? That seems rather strange to me. The number of projects funded through the TJF was 64. The percentage of the final total was 5.9%. It is not exciting, is it?

Let us move to Saskatchewan. The total amount granted was $5,230,555. As a percentage of the total it was 1.9%. Granted, Saskatchewan has a somewhat smaller population, but 1.9%? The number of projects funded was 43. The percentage of the big total was 4.0%.

Let us move to Manitoba. The amount granted was $5,450,995. That also was 1.9% of the total. There were 28 projects funded. The percentage of the big total—2.6%.

Let us move to Ontario, which is a fairly hefty province in terms of population. It was granted $31,308,862. Its percentage of the total, with a huge percentage of the population, was 11.1%. The number of projects funded was 96. Its percentage of the total was 8.9%.

Let us move to Quebec. The amount was $94,924,227 in terms of dollars granted, making its percentage of the total 33.7%. There is the province that is over in terms of population percentage; that is, actual percentage in terms of numbers across the country. There were 318 projects funded, representing 29.4%.

I know there would be some, if they looked up from their newspapers, who would say “There she is being critical again”. No. It is rather funny, but that is where the Prime Minister's riding is and the ridings of others who perhaps had to buy a few seats from the separatists. That gets expensive. An incredible amount of money was granted, $94 million. As I am making sure that I am relevant in this debate I will have a look later at some of the things that have gone on in terms of the TJF funding in the Prime Minister's riding and in that province in general.

Let us go to New Brunswick. The amount of money granted was $30,958,605. As a percentage of the total that was 11%. There were 143 projects funded. In terms of the percentage of the big total it represented 13.2%.

Let us go to Prince Edward Island. The amount granted was $9,724,041. That was 3.5% of the total. The number of projects was 35. The percentage of the big total was 3.2%.

Let us go to Newfoundland. The number of dollars granted was $49,800,368, which was 17.4% of the total, and 192 projects were funded. As a percentage of the total it represented 17.7%.

Nova Scotia was granted $30,374,481, which was 10.8% of the total, and 137 projects were funded, for a percentage of 12.7% of the total.

The Northwest Territories was granted $1,795,675. The percentage of the total was 0.6%, and 17 projects were funded. As a percentage of the big total it represented 1.6%.

Then there is Yukon. The amount granted was $1,380,000. The percentage of the total was 0.5%. Three projects were funded. Three projects for $1.3 million. As a percentage of the total it represented 0.3%.

If we add it all up the lottery looks like this: the number of dollars granted was $281,384,883, for a total of 1,082 projects. It is a good deal. It is amazing.

I hear that my colleagues have returned from the press conference, which was incredibly relevant. What they said at the press conference was, when these kinds of projects are handed out, when these kinds of dollars are involved, with the budget that the finance minister brought down and trumpeted, representing $13 billion in grants and contributions, and whatever the bills will be to deal with these things in legislation, the government says “All right, you have had enough time. We are going to shut down debate”. We are talking about $13 billion. That is big bucks. There were some members who were screeching that this was irrelevant. No, it is incredibly relevant.

What my colleagues will be bringing up later, and what they discussed at the press conference, is that this kind of stuff really irritated government members when they sat on the opposition benches. Some members were not here at the time, but government members were extremely righteous. How we remember the shrieking.

Mr. Speaker, if you do not have the strength to sit through this, I am assuming that another Speaker will come along, and I certainly hope it is the member for Kingston and the Islands. I have some quotes which are real doozies from him when he was in opposition. I bet you a dollar he will think it is relevant, let me assure you.

Let us look at some of the things that happened in terms of the transitional jobs fund grants. There were a few anomalies. We could look at the percentages and the dollars. There are lots of ways we could describe it and explain it away, but let us look at a few of the anomalies.

The member for Parry Sound—Muskoka, who is the Secretary of State for Rural Development, received five transitional jobs fund grants worth a total of $1,257,289. Three were given a month before the last election. Mr. Speaker, I know you would find that hard to believe. I know the table officers have never seen this happen in their history in this place before, that money would be dished out just before an election. One grant was approved during the time leading up to the 1997 election and one was approved two days after the election. Is that relevant? You bet. That kind of political manipulation has to stop. The Ottawa '67s over there are the folks who have the power to do that.

The unemployment rate—and this is incredibly relevant—in that member's riding was 8.1% in May 1997. Mr. Speaker, you were out on the hustings and so was I in May 1997. We were busy door-knocking along with our friend from Edmonton Southeast. We were talking about how shameful it was that the government would throw money into ridings during election times. Were we not? He is nodding. You bet. Yet it is lotto day in Parry Sound—Muskoka. The unemployment guideline was 12%. The unemployment rate in the member's riding was 8.1%.

[Committees Of The House, May 16th, 2000]

Someone is saying that we should change the rules. What a wonderful idea that would be, but as soon as anyone would get up to try to change the rules the government would probably bring in time allocation or have a meeting and say that it does not like it that way.

Something is ridiculous here when we see that there truly is an anti-democratic disease that has got a hold of the government, and it needs to be exposed. I noticed that some members on the government side were free to write books about it and expose it a while ago, but I have not seen an exposé lately about the sin and corruption of government. I would love the hon. member to let us know about that. He is trying. It is good to get into government and give it a try from the inside. I think he knows and we know that it does not work.

Canadians need to know what is happening here today so they can judge for themselves whether they are being well served by the government. I do not think they are. Right now downstairs a couple of my colleagues are holding a press conference. They are making sure that the Canadian public knows exactly what is happening inside the Chamber here.

In six years the government has brought in time allocation 67 times. The government uses closure to quickly silence the opposition of which it was a part in years gone by and will be again sooner or later. Probably sooner. We can look at how it uses closure to quickly silence the opposition on controversial issues as opposed to stopping a filibuster—

[Committees Of The House, May 16th, 2000]

moved that the second report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, presented on Thursday, April 13, be concurred in.

Mr. Speaker, although today's debate brings us to report stage and a report from the committee, what is actually happening is that the government is bringing in time allocation on legislation. I am sad to report that this is an all time championship, if one wants to call it that. The government has closed debate and snapped time allocation on legislation which does not even tie the Mulroney Conservative record but breaks it, and we call this democratic.

We have a government that has just brought in time allocation on the debate today for a record breaking 67th time. You and I have been here a while, Mr. Speaker. You certainly know that we have seen this happen time and time again. We saw it in the 1993 parliament and we have watched it in the 1997 parliament. The government has not only matched the Mulroney record of time allocation in closing off debate but has actually surpassed it now in much less time than the Mulroney Tories were here. What a shame.

I will highlight this travesty today and bring it to the attention of the Canadian people. I certainly think that as taxpayers they deserve to know exactly what is going on here and how these folks across the way have become the king of the ramrod.

I see colleagues across the way and I know that some of them would not be proud of this. In fact, one of them even served with the Mulroney Tories, as I understand it, and I do not think he was proud of bringing in time allocation 66 times. Now he is a Liberal, the hon. member for Edmonton Southeast for whom I have some respect, and he is a part of the government that has now brought it in 67 times. I know he has lived down here a while. Maybe I could brand him one of the Ottawa 67s. I wonder how that would make him feel.