Jane Stewart

[Human Resources Development, March 22nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely not.

Let me just point out again for the record that party keeps casting aspersions on communities that had difficulties where unemployment levels were so very high. Those members are casting aspersions on the individuals who are benefiting from this money. I think Canadians are starting to wonder what it is that that party does stand for.

[Human Resources Development, March 22nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is the hon. member who is wrong.

As we have said on a number of occasions, it is thanks to that flexibility that allowed us to invest in areas where there was less than 12% unemployment, including the Reform ridings of Kootenay—Columbia, Nanaimo—Alberni, Nanaimo—Cowichan, Okanagan—Coquihalla and there are more. Perhaps the hon. member would like to ask his own colleagues why we made those investments in their ridings.

[Human Resources Development, March 22nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, again, there is no contradiction between what the clerk said and what we have been saying in the House for a number of weeks now. There are four clear criteria that guided the transitional jobs fund. There was also flexibility to ensure that we could make investments in regions in every part of this country.

[Human Resources Development, March 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, again I would point out that it is the very close friends of that party opposite who also participated in this decision. The Government of Quebec supported these undertakings. If they have questions, why do they not talk to their government?

[Human Resources Development, March 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I categorically reject the assertions of the hon. member. I say again, on a number of occasions we have talked about administrative errors made on this particular file. Those were corrected.

At the same time it is clear to us that continuing to invest in Placeteco and Techni-Paint was the wise thing to do. These projects were supported by the Bloc member in one case, by the Government of Quebec in both cases, and we see today that 170 people are working at those plants.

[Human Resources Development, March 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, again there is no discrepancy between what the clerk has said and what has actually happened.

Indeed as I have said on a number of occasions, 75% of the money for the transitional jobs fund was to go to areas with higher than 12% unemployment. The other 25% was to go to communities that needed help, where investments would create spin-off opportunities, where we found within the boundaries of a larger community, areas of high unemployment.

Again I point out that the vast majority of communities that received moneys in areas of less than 12% were in opposition ridings. Many of them were ridings of the Reform Party.

[Human Resources Development, March 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, again on this file I have confirmed that we have reviewed the invoices and that the invoices have been provided which substantiate the moneys that were invested in the company. In this file there are two companies that continue to employ people. As a result of these investments, 170 people are working in areas of high unemployment.

If members opposite have further questions on these files, perhaps they would refer them to the Government of Quebec which also supported these investments.

[Human Resources Development, March 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, let us review the facts again.

On a number of occasions in the House I have identified that there were administrative errors made on this file. On a number of occasions in the House I have identified that as a result of the continued investment in this company with our partners, Canadians continue to be working.

I would ask the hon. member what she would have had us do, nothing? Take the money back? If that is what she would have liked, then why does she not say so? From our point of view, the right thing to do was to ensure that the Canadians who were working were able to continue to do so.

[Human Resources Development, March 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, again the whole intention of the transitional jobs fund was to help areas of high unemployment, to help build with our partners opportunities that otherwise would not exist.

If the hon. member would just take a trip up to northern British Columbia where many of her colleagues received this funding and talk to the individuals who are working in these companies, she would feel embarrassed about the question that she has asked.

[Human Resources Development, March 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, again the clerk talked about the aspect of flexibility in the transitional jobs fund. As I have said a number of times in the House, it is precisely that flexibility that has allowed for investments in ridings of that party.

The hon. member talks about credibility. On the issue of credibility, why has she not moved to correct the erroneous information presented by members of that party, like the fact that they said there was $3 billion missing and there is not; like the fact that they reduced it to $1 billion, and it is not; like the fact that they talk in the House about the fact that they do not want grants and contributions but back in their own ridings they support individual—