Stéphan Tremblay

[Human Resources Development, March 31st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the public is concerned about how the government is fulfilling its responsibilities regarding Placeteco.

It understands that, for this government, the creation of jobs is not a priority and that we should no longer talk about the transitional jobs fund but, rather, about a transitional fund to salvage bankrupt companies in Saint-Maurice.

Does the minister realize that, to save companies, she is prepared to resort to any scheme, even illegal ones?

[Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act, March 30th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques talked about duplication.

For the benefit of those watching us, I would like to ask him this: Could such duplication place extra costs on taxpayers in Quebec, where there is already an act on personal information protection, now that the federal government has decided to interfere in its jurisdiction?

[Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act, March 30th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague from Berthier—Montcalm to tell us whether this is the first time he has seen the federal government totally thumbing its nose at a Quebec consensus, in all his experience here since 1993?

[Tax On International Financial Transactions, March 24th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday morning the representatives of Attac-Québec and Initiative Halifax expressed concern that the government seemed to be ignoring the spirit and the letter of a motion passed a year ago.

This motion sought to have the government, with the international community, decree a tax on financial transactions. Although the motion did not receive unanimous approval, the aim of it, which was to limit financial speculation, is relevant, since it affects most of us.

Every day, over $1.8 billion U.S. changes hands in financial markets. Of this amount, only 5% to 10% is involved in transactions relating to goods and services. It seems to me legitimate therefore to control this market.

I support the recommendations of the groups of citizens wanting, among other things, to have the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, which examines issues of globalization, mandated to consider the feasibility of measures to control financial markets, such as the Tobin tax.

[Supply, March 21st, 2000]

Madam Speaker, sometimes I do not even feel like answering certain questions. The only question the hon. member has asked today is whether more money went to the opposition party members' ridings. I would be delighted if that were the case and if ridings represented by the Bloc Quebecois had received more money, but the point is when and why.

If opposition ridings are receiving more money because the applications coming in are perhaps more relevant and the needs greater, so much the better. That would only make sense. But when we find that 54% of money was spent in the six months leading up to the election, there is something odd going on. It may be an incredible coincidence, and it could be, but something smells.

[Supply, March 21st, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I also wish to thank the interpreters who make it possible for us to carry out a dialogue in two different languages.

In my colleague's question about a commission of inquiry or an investigation, it does not matter which term is used as it is clear that this will not solve the problems. The harm has been done and that is the way it is.

There are already several investigations underway, particularly in the Prime Minister's riding. I am beginning to understand why he had the RCMP cottage renovated in Shawinigan county. Maybe it was so he can go and take up permanent residence there in comfort, because there are so many investigations underway.

Seriously, Madam Speaker, it is true that one cannot say that a commission of inquiry will solve everything, but I do think that it might cast some light on certain matters.

[Supply, March 21st, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I cannot say I am pleased to take part in today's debate because it is not always pleasant to debate issues that reek of scandal. However, we must do it since this is about taxpayers' money.

I believe there is a consensus here on the importance of democracy. However, I am one of those who claim that several elements or factors are currently threatening democracy. I will not name them all because there are a number of them. There is one in particular that really gets me fired up. I am often invited in CEGEPs, universities and even high schools. The first question that I ask at these meetings is often “If I mention the word politics, what comes to mind?”

It is not always pretty. I hear words like “corruption”, “money” and “liar”, and comments such as “They put money in their pockets”. Many words are used and this is probably the case all over the country. Politicians have a very poor reputation. In fact, only 4% of the population support members of parliament and trust them. This is a profession for which support is among the lowest.

It is not that serious, because I tell these students, who would often like to be in the House and say “You are all corrupt, you put money in your pockets, you mishandle funds” and so on, that they are not necessarily right, that in fact the problem is not politics, but the way it is practiced.

As I was saying, the threat to democracy is the fact that an increasing number of people are losing interest in politics, because they are disappointed to see how it is practiced. They are saying “I am never voting again. I am keeping right out of politics. There is no point. Nothing ever changes. Politicians are all liars”. This is a very pervasive belief and I think it must be taken very seriously.

Today's debate is at the heart of this issue because we are talking about the management of public money. I think that, for many people, when the Human Resources Development Canada scandal hit the news, everything I said earlier certainly was in many people's minds. They saw it as one more scandal and nothing new. This is deplorable and I think it has very negative repercussions. People see this as politicians helping themselves to public money. There are ramifications.

This all began with the tabling of HRDC's internal audit report on grant programs. Approximately seven categories of programs were investigated. These programs represented approximately $1 billion annually in grants and contributions over three years, or a total of $3 billion.

The report described important problems in the management of these programs, grants handed out unbidden, a serious lack of documentation showing an unbelievable laxity on the part of officials and provided statistics.

Here are some figures to illustrate what I am saying: in 87% of projects there was no sign of monitoring by officials; in 80% of projects—that is quite a few—there was no evidence of financial control; in 75% of projects there was no evidence that expected results had been achieved; in 70% of projects, there was no invoice or payroll to justify expenses; in 66% of projects, there was no analysis or documentation explaining the recommendation or approval of the project; and finally, in 36% of the cases where the amount was increased, the reason for such an increase was not indicated.

This carelessness in management opens the door to fraud, mishandling of funds, political interference and patronage. This is how the lack of integrity of the government and the department with regard to grants and contributions began to surface.

This situation, which I think is alarming for the majority of Quebecers and Canadians, led the Bloc Quebecois to bring forward this motion on this opposition day.

The motion reads as follows:

That this House condemn the government for the poor management seen at the Department of Human Resources Development, particularly in the award and use of grants for partisan purposes, and that it recommend the creation of an independent public commission of inquiry, whose members will be appointed by the House, and whose mandate will be to inquire into all practices of that Department and to report to the House by September 19, 2000.

I totally agree with that. If the government has nothing to hide, it should not be against an inquiry. I think the amounts involved justify an inquiry, not to mention the fact that public opinion could believe that these programs are useless, that they are used only for partisan purposes and that they should be eliminated, which is cause for concern. To me, this is a serious threat.

I personally had the opportunity of working with HRDC officials in my riding. Although we are sovereignists, that does not prevent us from working with federal officials, far from it. The taxes of my fellow citizens end up here in Ottawa. This is where things are managed and, even though we do not always agree with the way the money is distributed, I tell myself that a dollar invested in my riding should be invested as well as possible.

Today we are calling for an inquiry in part because of the lack of an answer. Although we have an Oral Question Period every day here, we do not have an answer period.

I am a bit disappointed by the responses we have had to our questions. In fact, we have had no responses at all. It seems that the minister is avoiding questions, that she is trying to get round them and has been for several weeks now. I think she has definitely honed her political sense of not answering questions. It is deplorable.

If we cannot get answers here, where are we going to get them? I think this issue must be brought to light. An independent inquiry would certainly be a relevant way to get the answers the party opposite does not want to give us.

I am disappointed by this whole scandal. In a time of plenty—I am talking like an old hand at politics, but it is nothing—a few decades ago, when governments were floating along on the wealth and money flowed, which perhaps contributed to the incredible debt our generation will have to pay all its life, there was some limit to spending here and there. A zero deficit and balanced budget policy was instituted. I said to myself “From that point on, expenditures were probably made judiciously”.

As proof, in my riding, when an organization or company applied for funding, for example under the FPCE, I saw the forms regularly. There had to be a concrete and highly detailed explanation of why the money was needed. There was an audit carried out. It all seemed to be above board.

Now the scandal has broken, and I realized that the public's money has far too often been used to win votes. I know that the hon. member across the way is going to say shortly some opposition members got more money that government MPs, but the timing has to be looked at. When 54% of funds were allocated in the six months before the election, and when there was no audit, this is a great disappointment.

The reason why the public has less and less faith in politics is obvious. A public inquiry, such as that being called for by the Bloc Quebecois today, would strike me as one way of casting some light on the matter and perhaps even bringing some peace. I hope that my colleagues across the way will be voting in favour of this motion.

I have no more time left. I am sorry this is so, because I would dearly love to continue, but I will yield the floor to my colleagues.

[Human Resources Development, March 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I will ask the minister this: Why is her department telling us that the case is under investigation?

[Human Resources Development, March 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is boasting of the 10,000 pages of information she has been made public, and refers us to a phone number if we require more information. That is the number that was used in relation to the Placeteco affair.

Can the minister explain to us why her department is refusing to respond to our request for information, because Placeteco is apparently under investigation?

[An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference, March 13th, 2000]

moved:

Motion No. 113

That Bill C-20 be amended by adding after line 28 on page 5 the following new clause:

“4. (1) On the expiration of three years after the coming into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be referred to such committee of the House of Commons as may be designated or established by Parliament for that purpose.

(2) The committee designated or established for the purpose of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable, undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act and shall, within 14 months after the review is undertaken submit a report to the House of Commons thereon.”