Bonnie Brown

[Supply, March 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, this member has a funny idea of history if he thinks this is the biggest scandal in the history of Canada. He obviously is not aware of the railway scandal at the beginning of the century. He probably did not know about Gerda Munsinger. When we have international spy secrets being traded, when we have public money being stolen, when we have what the movies call sex, lies and videotapes, then we have a scandal.

We have a problem of management in our grants and contributions. We accept responsibility. We are working on it. We are turning up new information every day as our 20,000 employees go through the files and check on everything.

Perhaps this member has been having trouble getting the information he wants on one file. I offered just yesterday to help him get that information. However I must caution members that we cannot give information that would erode the privacy of individual Canadians. It is probably something about the Privacy Act that is restraining the official from giving him everything, but I am happy to work with him on that.

We want to be open and transparent for our colleagues in the opposition and for Canadians to know that we are working on it step by step to clean it up.

[Supply, March 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, we know that a billion dollars is a lot of money. As for the point that we do not get it, it is not true. We do get it. What I do not get is how they will play this game with the Reformers and continue to erode people's confidence in the social programs which I know they believe in.

I know the social conscience of most Bloc Quebecois members is extremely strong. They have a true idea of community and as such I see members of that particular party as supporters of the way I view the world. I try to recruit them to the causes we believe in together.

However damage is being done by the consistent use of the word scandal and by this opposition day. They do not seem to realize that the impact is not necessarily eroding support for the Liberal government or helping them to win seats. It is strengthening the right wing in the country as personified by the National Post . They are giving the National Post more and more fodder every day to feed to the people so that they lose faith in social programs. I do not understand why the Bloc Quebecois is co-operating with that.

[Supply, March 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Waterloo—Wellington.

I want to say at the outset that I am grateful to the member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques for his timely motion.

Everyone knows that this subject has consumed the House since we returned from the winter break. In question period the opposition commands the agenda because it gets to ask the questions. There has been what I would call a feeding frenzy on this particular topic. The reason for that is because in six and a half years this is the first time the opposition has found common ground, one with the other.

Opposition members have not been very successful at criticizing the government or co-ordinating their efforts in the face of our major improvements to Canadian society over the last six years: the reduction of the deficit, the lowering of unemployment, bringing under control the nation's finances to the point that we now have the best financial situation we have had probably in 15 or 20 years.

Canadians know that, but we have found one area that needs a lot of improvement. Through an internal audit we have identified a section of our government that needs some serious work. Our internal audit told us some bad news, and we took it as bad news. We took it seriously and we admitted ownership because we are the government. We came up with an action plan to address it.

We did not dream up the action plan. We devised a plan and into it we incorporated the advice of the auditor general, the other financial institutions of the government, the Treasury Board Secretariat, and we have even called in the private sector to look at our plan and how well it will address the problems raised.

Because the specialty of Bloc Quebecois members is moral outrage, they have found this a very comfortable file to hone in on. I am actually surprised at how well they have slid into the agenda of the Reform Party. We all know why Reform Party members want to go after this file. They want to go after this file because they want to erode the confidence of Canadians in federal social programs.

They want to suggest to Canadians that HRDC is not well managed and to do that they have not painted the full picture. They have taken something that a painter might think of as painting a picture by paint by number. In the paint by number card that they have pulled out they are painting one section out of 60 over and over and over again.

I am trying to put it into perspective. One has to remember that the Department of Human Resources Development has a budget of $60 billion. For eight weeks the section that has commandeered the attention of the opposition and the media represents $1 billion or 1/60 of the department's budget.

I do not hear many complaints from those 3.7 million people who are receiving their old age security cheques. I do not hear many people complaining about their guaranteed income supplement. There are 1,381,000 of them. I do not hear too many people who have qualified for EI complaining about their cheques. There are 1,263,000 of them. Nor do I hear complaints from the 1.4 million families representing 2.6 million children who are receiving national children's benefits. Instead they attack what is a good department, what is representing the social programs administered by the federal government, with the exception of health which has its own department.

The Reformers are trying to paint a black picture based upon essentially a job creation fund that is part of that $1 billion and is worth $330 million. That is 1/180 of the department's budget. Now we have this in perspective: 1/180 of the department's budget is being attacked for eight weeks. That is 1/360 of the Government of Canada's budget. I ask Canadians whether this is worth eight weeks of the time of the House.

I am not trying to trivialize the problem within that 1/360 of spending. That is important and we take it seriously. We accept responsibility and we accept ownership. It has been said that we try to hide things. I invite all members to go their whips' offices to see the 16 binders of information, each one being five and a half inches thick and piled on top of one another. They almost reach to the ceiling. Therein they will find a description of every project that has been funded under grants and contributions across the country.

At the same time as we have collected this information for the perusal of all, the media, the opposition and our own members who want to know, we have been transparent. It is an unprecedented release of information for a government. We did not do that because the opposition was forcing our backs to the wall. We did that because we want to govern well. The population of today wants to know and we want to let the population know.

I have sent lists of the projects in my riding to various constituents who have asked for it. They have phoned me back with questions. It has created a great deal of work but for transparency purposes it is worth it. It is this minister who has led the drive to openness and transparency. I am proud to be assisting her because she is leading into the new era of the new century with that.

It has been said that there was a lot of money spent in 1997. It is true that the budget for this has gone down from the $3 billion, which is part of this, to less now because in the meantime we signed labour market development agreements with the provinces and a huge chunk of money was taken out and moved to them. If we compare 1996 with 1999 we will say that it has gone down. It was not because it went up in 1997 because there was an election. It was after 1997 that one at a time we signed agreements with the provinces and transferred the relevant training money to them, so today it looks like we are spending less. It was not for partisan purposes. That is a figment of the Bloc Quebecois' imagination.

I want to be clear. We are not talking about $1 billion. We are talking about the possibility of worrying about $330 million in the Canada jobs fund. Just to update the House, at this time we have recovered $225,729 because we have identified some overpayments with our work. We have called it back and it has arrived. It will be different tomorrow and it was different last week, as we gather the information and put it together day by day, but as of today we are owed $640.21.

I hope this puts it into perspective for the viewers who have been bored to death by eight weeks of talking about 1/360 of the Government of Canada's budget.

[Supply, March 20th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, this gives me a chance to reiterate the idea that the 30% coverage for EI which was stated both by this colleague and the previous speaker is incorrect.

The employment coverage survey published by Statistics Canada says that EI covers 79% of people who are eligible. That is the correct number. Thirty per cent is incorrect. We cannot pay employment insurance benefits to people who have not contributed, to people who have no recent attachment to the workforce and therefore have not paid premiums. It is impossible for an insurance program to pay benefits to people who have not paid premiums. Of the people who have paid premiums, 79% received benefits.

The second point I would like to refute in the member's speech is the fact that he is suggesting the delivery of grants and contributions is tied to partisan political patronage. I would suggest to him that if he has any evidence of that he bring it forward to us. If he does not have evidence I would challenge him to make those statements outside the House.

The member talked about the transfer of some economic activity funded by HRDC to the Prime Minister's riding. The grant was made for activity in the city of Montreal. The business owner, who was responsible for 75% of the investment, made a business decision to move that activity from the original location. That has nothing to do with patronage. It has to do with a business decision of somebody who has three-quarters of the investment in when we had one-quarter.

On the issue of his access to information request, I have spoken to the member in the House. I have answered his questions and have suggested that he come to see me personally and I would be willing to—

[Supply, March 20th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, Statistics Canada has released two reports which conclude that Mr. Godin's statistics are not a good measure of the adequacy of the EI program.

These statistics exclude people on sickness benefits, maternity benefits, parental adoption benefits, fishing benefits and part II EI benefits. The statistics include many people who have never contributed to the program, such as people who never worked, the self-employed, people who have no recent work attachment and those who voluntarily left their jobs.

A more adequate set of measurements is found in the employment coverage survey published by Statistics Canada in 1999. This survey suggests that employment insurance covers 79% of the people who are eligible, not 30% as described by the hon. member.

Presently there are several features of the EI program that are of importance to women. One is that every hour of work is covered. Women working part time or holding multiple jobs can now be eligible for both EI regular and EI special benefits.

We also know that two-thirds of those who receive the more generous family supplement are women. Fifty-eight per cent of those participating in the small weeks adjustment project which provides workers in high unemployment regions with higher benefits are women. As well, the reach back provision for the active employment measures expands eligibility for women, providing increased help for stay at home mothers to get back into the workforce.

Canadian women have made significant gains in the labour market. Women represent nearly half the labour force compared to 30% in 1966. Their employment grew faster than men's in each of the last four decades. Their rate of employment is the highest in the G-7 countries over the last 20 years.

[Supply, March 20th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the opposition member that the department and the government in general take the results of this audit very seriously. They are not the only ones who are dismayed by these results. We are upset about it too. That is why we have ordered a plan to try to fix administrative issues that have resulted in the papers being full of this issue for weeks. The minister acknowledges responsibility. We are not happy about it and we plan to fix it.

Accompanying that there has been an unprecedented release of information. The member opposite must know that the private sector also asks for internal audits of its operations. The difference is that it does not show the public what has been found in those audits. Instead, the private sector makes a plan to fix it and it fixes it. That is what we are doing, but because our taxpayers are interested in the use of their money we have released 16 binders, about five and a half inches tall each, full of information to be perfectly clear and transparent about what it is we are doing and how very serious we are.

The member opposite talks about this as a scandal. I am glad to have an opportunity to comment on that word. A scandal to me is when there is a cover-up, something like sex, lies and video tapes or international spying. The history of this country does have scandals. This is not one of them. Only in Canada would lack of administrative controls be called a scandal as has been pointed out by one of our pre-eminent journalists.

If she thinks there is some connection to partisan purposes, that is fundraising, as has been alluded to in the House by other members, I challenge her to make that statement outside the House because it implies a degree of fraud which we have not found. It has implications for people's reputations and they would have a right to defend themselves.

She also refers to the fact that the opposition has referred cases to the RCMP. After audits and after forensic audits we have referred cases to the RCMP. The opposition is not alone in its virtue.

[Supply, March 20th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with a colleague. It is my pleasure today to join this debate because it is a welcome opportunity for members of the government to reaffirm our philosophy in favour of a balanced approach to social policy in Canada.

Unlike members across the way, we believe that government has an important and necessary role to play in building the kind of society that cares about its people, not one that cares just for the well-off but one that cares for all Canadians including those groups within society that might need special help.

We believe in an approach that combines both grants and contributions and the Canada health and social transfer as a responsible balanced way to fund the social policy needs of Canadians. We do not believe in the kind of dogmatic all or nothing approach the opposition motion proposes.

Our approach to responsible social policy also recognizes the need to balance the jurisdictional concerns of the provinces and territories with the federal government's obligation to meet national social policy objectives. Our position is that both the federal and provincial levels have important roles to play. That is why we have substantially increased transfers to the provinces under the Canada health and social transfer. That is why we are also increasing funding for grants and contributions programs that meet specialized social policy needs throughout Canada. We understand the need for this balanced approach and so do Canadians.

Here is a good example. It is a quote from a letter written by the executive director of the Child Care Connection of Nova Scotia. It refers to a program that supports child care research and says:

Child care is the jurisdiction of the provinces and territories, but this research and development program is a significant means by which the federal government can provide leadership in increasing the quality of services and support the development of an infrastructure to deliver child care services to families in Canada.

This letter says it well. There is a role for both levels of government in social policy. This letter shows how important the federal role can be in contributing directly to the needs of Canadians. It also illustrates the kind of support we have for this approach from all across the country.

I have another example from the Learning Disabilities Association of Canada. The president and executive director of the organization have written a letter to the hon. minister. The letter talks about the support that HRDC provides to help persons with disabilities. The writers urge the minister to remain steadfast in pursuit of her mandate.

These are not government MPs I am quoting. These are caring Canadians who work with individuals that need are help. These people look to the Government of Canada and they recognize the value and importance of our program in providing it.

A motion like the one before us today will work against the interest of people like these. I am tempted to say shame on those who want to take back funding earmarked for grants and contributions, but I assume that those who propose motions like this one do not understand the role of federal grants and contributions in our system.

They should know that all across Canada these grants are working in partnership with concerned Canadians to help those who depend on the government for the support they need. From every part of the country we hear from people who know just how important grants and contributions are.

In Edmonton, Alberta, for example, we have heard from the Chrysalis Society about the value of our help to persons with disabilities who are trying to find work. We have heard from the Junction Day Care Centre in the west end of Toronto about how HRDC funding is improving the quality of child care there. An organization called the Literacy Partners of Manitoba, based in Winnipeg, has told us that improving literacy skills awareness and resources for adults in Canada is vital work for us all.

There are cases like this all across the country. These cases prompt me to ask the following questions. Would our hon. friends opposite suggest we cut back on helping to build the literacy skills as well as the technological skills required for us to remain competitive in the global marketplace? Should we forget about making it easier for a person with a disability to find work and participate fully in Canadian society? Should we stop funding the work to improve the capacity of our child care facilities to provide quality care for our children? Of course we should not, at least not as far as this government is concerned.

Investing in the development of our human resources is one of the most important things governments can do, and more important in this era of globalization than ever before. The government has no intention of eliminating the valuable support provided by the grants and contributions program. I doubt if the hundreds of thousands of Canadians whose lives have been improved because of our direct support would vote for this motion. I cannot support it either.

I am proud to be part of a government that shows its willingness to help Canadians who need us. I am proud to speak in favour of our grants and contributions programs and the benefits they bring to hundreds of thousands of individual Canadians who need our help.

[The Atlantic Groundfish Strategy, March 20th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I said that I was unable to answer the question at that time. I now have found the facts.

The auditor general's report we took very seriously. The lessons we learned were used in the design of the successor program to TAGS, the fisheries restructuring adjustment measures.

We also used the result of that particular audit to start a new audit on grants and contributions. It was what we learned in that first audit which alerted us to the possibility of auditing other programs.

We took those audit results and implemented the recommendations. The auditor general has the proof of our implementation.

[Tags, March 20th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know the answer to that. I cannot speak for the minister about when she learned about any particular facts.

On the question of the other audit that has been the subject, I have been the parliamentary secretary for almost two years and I do know that the dates she has given in the House are the ones that I recall as being at meetings too.

[Human Resources Development, March 20th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have already given the information and I would like to take this opportunity to apologize for my misuse of the word lowly. I meant a junior official and I feel very badly about that mistake.

I do not need any lectures from that member about doing my job. If she was painting the full picture of HRDC, she would have mentioned some time in the last seven weeks about the 3.7 million people who regularly receive old age security payments, the 1.3 million people who get GIS, and the 1.2 million people who regularly receive their EI cheques.