Jean-Guy Chrétien

[Supply, June 6th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, sometimes we have difficult situations to deal with as politicians.

When I agreed to run for a seat in this House, one of my friends showed me a magazine article reporting on a cross-Canada survey which asked people to rate the credibility of professionals and other workers. Politicians were close behind used car salesmen as far as public credibility was concerned.

Looking at what is going on in the House of Commons at the present time in connection with Human Resources Development Canada, it is easy to see why the credibility of elected representatives is dropping every day in the eyes of Quebecers and Canadians.

We in the Bloc Quebecois support the Canadian Alliance, of course, in calling for a wholly independent inquiry so as to restore politicians' lost credibility. There is an unprecedented scandal going on within Human Resources Development Canada at the present time. Unfortunately for the minister, who has held the portfolio since last fall, it is up to her to undo the damage done by her two predecessors.

I would like to remind hon. members of what happened to Douglas Young, who represented Acadie—Bathurst in New Brunswick. He thumbed his nose at everybody. He was the Minister of Human Resources Development. He laughed right in the faces of the unemployed, those who were paying into employment insurance but could not even qualify. The electorate of Acadie—Bathurst taught him a good lesson, such a good one that he barely got 25% of the vote in the last election.

The member for Papineau—Saint-Denis who succeeded him literally devastated the Department of Human Resources Development, and shamelessly moreover. Scandals came out that had been hidden until then. He asked the Prime Minister for a change of portfolio and now the poor minister who took over from him has to defend her predecessor constantly. Again in this morning's National Post , we read that the minister must step down.

The Canadian Alliance is calling for an independent inquiry, with a report to be tabled in the House on December 11, 2000. Right now, the Prime Minister is considering a fall election. He could use this to duck the issue, and hold an election before the results of this scandal are known to the general public.

Nonetheless, I would like to remind the House of what is going on at HRDC. Let us go back to a few months before the June 2, 1997 election, when a Montrealer, Pierre Corbeil, was travelling all over the province visiting companies which had applied for transitional job funding. On many occasions, before grants were approved, he went fishing for funds for the Liberal Party of Canada for the June 2 election.

The contributions he received from companies were not $100 or $200 amounts, but more on the order of $5,000, $10,000, $15,000, $20,000 or $25,000 in certain cases and, generally speaking, Pierre Corbeil demanded cash, not cheques. It is therefore not always possible to determine what he did with it. Did he tuck some away in his car? Did it change hands on the way to the Liberal Party office?

There is no denying that such situations are sad. It is for reasons such as these, the way in which Pierre Corbeil and the Liberal Party of Canada acted, that Canadians and Quebecers are increasingly losing faith in their elected officials. The minister is responsible today for allowing money to continue flying out the window by refusing to let us get to the bottom of this and to put an end to all this wrongdoing once and for all.

I am anxious to see what side the Liberals opposite will take this evening when they are asked to vote in favour of creating an independent commission of inquiry.

The scandals are not limited to Pierre Corbeil. They also concern the riding of Saint-Maurice, the Prime Minister's riding. There was this little trust company, as in the case of the Minister of Finance and his ships in a tax haven, that bought a golf course from a paper company for $1. Shortly afterwards, it sold an infinitesimal part of this golf course for $550,000. That is quite a figure for a bit of rough on a golf course. So this $1 paid off handsomely, and only a fraction was sold.

The person who bought the bit of rough for $550,000 received contracts from our federal government worth nothing less than $6.4 million in the following months. Members will understand that this $550,000 was very well invested by this client of the Prime Minister.

René Fugère earned over $1 million as a lobbyist, even though he is not even registered. He is a friend of the Prime Minister.

Worse yet, public money was used to get Liberal candidates elected in the latest election. This was the case, among others, in the Quebec riding of Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, when the candidate chosen was the former head of the CEQ, a friend of Colonel Gaddafi, who visited him regularly to discover the directives he wanted to impose on Quebec and Canada.

This member that the CEQ lost to the Liberal Party of Canada obtained for his riding—although he was not yet a MP, as hon. members will recall—$20 million for one riding alone, from the transitional job fund. By far the majority of the recipients of these funds were very generous contributors to the Liberal Party of Canada. That is why I say that public funds were used to buy Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies.

The riding of Saint-Maurice, the riding of the Prime Minister, got $7.3 million just for re-electing him. Often these funds went to buddies, to party organizers, in the case of Placeteco particularly. Placeteco received $1.2 million, of which $1,020,000 was used to pay off an increasingly dubious debt to the National Bank. One job was created, with $1.2 million. There was misappropriation of funds in this case.

There are no fewer than 13 RCMP investigations. We know how that will turn out. You know the solicitor general better than I. Thirteen RCMP investigations are currently under way, nearly all of them in the riding of Saint-Maurice. That is what “job creation” means in that riding. RCMP officers have to be imported in order to investigate misappropriation of funds and find out where the transitional job fund money went.

I would like to take a few minutes to refer to a few cases, such as the fact that unregistered lobbyist René Fugère got $1 million. But since I see that my time is nearly up, I will say the following in closing: Please, Liberals, help us improve the credibility Ottawa politicians have with the electorate. That can start this evening with a vote to authorize an independent inquiry.

[Petitions, June 6th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition has to do with the importation of MOX fuel, Russian plutonium.

This could cause serious, irreversible harm to Canadians, and especially Quebecers, because, as is well known, the route used is the St. Lawrence River. If an accident were to happen, we would hold this government responsible.

[Petitions, June 6th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table two petitions. The first was given to me by people who wish to support rural postal carriers.

The petitioners are asking that subsection 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act be withdrawn because it deprives these rural carriers of their right to collectively negotiate their working conditions.

Several of those who signed live in my riding and I support them completely in their efforts to make it possible for rural carriers to negotiate an acceptable contract so that they are not working for less than minimum wage, as some of them are now doing.

[The Unknown Soldier, May 29th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, a soldier who was returned to his native land after more than 80 years, was laid to rest not far from here. We will never know if he was a Canadian or a Quebecer, whether or not he was an officer, how old he was or where he was born.

We pay tribute to him because he gave his life for freedom. Because he is nameless, he represents the tens of thousands of his compatriots—soldiers, aviators or seamen like him—who lost their lives in the cause of freedom during the two great wars, in Korea and during peacekeeping missions.

His presence among us is a reminder that the price of that freedom was much suffering, the loss of thousands of lives, and the tears of all those whose loved ones did not return.

Let us never forget these lines written by Victor Hugo, which still ring true today:

Those who for their country gave their lives Should hear the prayers of many at their grave

[Questions On The Order Paper, April 5th, 2000]

With regard to the reception held in the Parliament Buildings on December 13, 1999 to celebrate progress made on the Nisga'a Final Agreement Act: ( a ) did a government department or agency pay for this celebration; ( b ) if so, which department or agency paid for it; and ( c ) what were the costs incurred to hold this reception?

[Supply, April 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hope that you understood the question I put to the member. I asked him to give me three examples, not to sing the national anthem. I made no mention of the parties of Mike Harris or Lucien Bouchard. I want him to give us three examples.

[Supply, April 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I took some notes in preparing questions for my Liberal colleague from British Columbia. He said from the outset that he was disappointed to see that opposition parties did not understand all the things that this good Liberal government is doing for his fellow citizens.

This government created a big mess in health care services across the country. This government made it harder to qualify for employment insurance, with the result that barely 58% of contributors to the employment insurance fund can qualify, and most do not even have access to social assistance.

This same government created a scandal the likes of which we have never seen under the Progressive Conservative Party, a scandal that could total anywhere from one to three billion dollars.

The member said that his government was spending in a reasonable manner. Is it reasonable to spend in the Prime Minister's riding to help the Placeteco plant, when HRDC paid out $1.2 million, of which more than $1 million was transferred directly from HDRC to the National Bank to repay a loan, or else the company would have gone bankrupt? As for the other $200,000, we do not even know where it went, to whom it was paid.

Is this the member's idea of spending in a reasonable manner? I challenge the Liberal member to give me three examples where, in the past seven years, his government acted reasonably. Let him quickly give me three examples.

[Supply, April 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Repentigny has given us an overview of spending and of the money that makes its way into the Minister of Finance's coffers.

He mentioned the scandal at Human Resources Development Canada, with its new minister who is unfortunately not very up on matters or familiar with all the issues, because it was her predecessor who was responsible. But since he is afraid to answer, it is left to the minister or her parliamentary secretary to field questions.

I congratulate the member on giving the background and telling us about the one to three billion dollars that were probably misspent. I would also like to know what the member for Repentigny thinks about the advertising inserts the federal government sprang for in all Ontario's daily newspapers in an attempt to pin the blame directly on Ontario's premier, Mike Harris.

This advertising appeared in both languages and I cite the part in black “Last year, the Government of Canada's share of Ontario's health care spending was 55%”.

These are only numbers of course and sometimes a malicious spin is put on them. What premiers and provincial finance ministers want is for payments to be restored to 1994 levels.

They are not asking for an increase. They know that budgets have been slashed. Jean Charest, when he was here, said that, if Canada's health care system was in disarray, the Prime Minister, and he pointed at him, was responsible. He pointed at the Prime Minister, the member for Saint-Maurice, as he said this.

Today, the federal government has paid for advertising in all of Ontario's daily newspapers. This will cost goodness only knows how much, probably the better part of $1 million. Instead of putting this money into health care, it is going after Mike Harris, probably to damage his credibility with Ontario voters.

I would like to know what the member for Repentigny thinks about this.

[The Budget, March 27th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey is a well known farmer, but today I think his primary allegiance is to the Liberal Party. His blinders prevent him from seeing that the Minister of Finance's most recent budget sounds a death knell for agriculture in Canada and in Quebec.

In the past, his government cut assistance for Western grain transportation and prices plummeted. When a country is unable to feed its population, it is poor and depends on other countries.

How is it that this member, who raises primarily poultry, has not spoken out in defence of farmers? He certainly did not hesitate to stab his leader in the back.

[The Budget, March 27th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, my distinguished colleague, the member for Ottawa Centre, boasted naturally, as he should and by the book, about the latest budget of the Minister of Finance. However, formulating a budget is not the be all end all; the money still has to be well managed.

Quite randomly, the HDRC internal auditors pulled out 459 files, for a sort of Léger and Léger poll, and in 80% of them, they found malfeasance or dubious cases.

If we extrapolate, the figure mishandled by the Department of Human Resources Development could be between $1 billion and $3 billion.

Would the member for Ottawa Centre agree to have an outside inquiry examine the entire 11,000 files of the department, in order to shed light on this administration?

Doing so could reveal that amounts of $1 billion or $3 billion were not mismanaged, given to friends of the government as was the case in the riding of Brant, or Cornwall or Saint-Maurice, the riding of the Prime Minister.

It is very embarrassing for a government to be seen to be badly managing the Department of Human Resources Development, as it penalizes the poor workers, only 42% of whom qualify for employment insurance.

Would my colleague from Ottawa Centre agree to having a full and exhaustive inquiry—we know that 14 RCMP investigations are currently underway—so we may discover from each of the HRDC files from the past four years whether public funds have been properly managed?

Members are certainly aware that a good budget warrants having 100% of the funds well managed. The government has no right to spend public money left and right essentially to buy votes in the next election.