Jean Dubé

[Supply, March 21st, 2000]

Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, trying to get some money from the government to create jobs in your riding. Forget the application, it is not needed. Many files that were opened did not even have an application. That is terrible. As a matter of fact some of the files were empty. I am talking about billions of dollars.

The premiers of Canada were in Quebec City demanding—

[Supply, March 21st, 2000]

Canada is a bilingual country. I think we all agree on that. The reason why copies of the audits were not distributed to the opposition parties is that the 1991 and 1994 documents have not been translated.

[Supply, March 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party to take part in this very important debate. Canadians have many questions about what went on at Human Resources Development Canada.

It is certainly a pleasure to enter into the debate today because we still have many questions that are unanswered. The government has tried to downplay what has happened in HRDC. Not too long ago the Prime Minister got up in the House and said that it was only 250 some odd dollars. I said what did we do? Was that a mistake? Obviously, on our part, it was not. Something went terribly wrong in HRDC and something went terribly wrong with the administration of public funds.

When it all started about six or seven weeks ago, this was supposed to go away really quickly. This was supposed to be buried underneath the carpet. It would take a couple of days and we would not hear any more questions on HRDC.

The department first started auditing the grants and contributions programs in 1999 and it came up with a report in January 2000. We certainly were not aware that there was an audit going on. It did well in keeping us in the dark. When the department released it, as critic for HRDC for my party, I called for a copy of the audit so I could go over it and review what had gone on with HRDC and the grants and contributions programs.

When I called for my copy, I received it. Maybe 10 minutes later I received a call from HRDC to tell me that it had sent me the wrong cover sheet and if I would be so kind to destroy the cover sheet, it would send me a new one. La-di-da, I still have the original cover sheet on my desk today. I did not destroy it. Is that not a shame? I received the second cover sheet. I do not want to use the sheets as a prop, so I will not put up the cover sheets. When I look at the both of them, the original one is dated October 5, 1999 and is signed off by the director, Gilles Duclos, and James Martin. On the other one, there are the names of the people who signed off but no date. The date has been deleted. This is a major cover-up. This is the biggest scandal in Canadian history. It is scandalous to try to keep Canadians in the dark on the goings on in a government department, a department which is owned by Canadians. This is Canadians' parliament. They have a right to know the truth. From the very beginning everything that has gone on has been tainted. The government has tried to cover up important information from the Canadian taxpayer.

When we look at and read about this issue we keep uncovering something new everyday. Every opposition party goes through it. We have been working hard to try to get to the truth. We even asked for the audits for 1991 and 1994.

We have asked for a copy of the 1991 audit, an audit conducted nine years ago, as well as the 1994 audit. That was three weeks ago. Why have we not received anything yet? Let me tell you why.

[Witness And Spousal Protection Program Act, March 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada and also on behalf of the constituents which I have the privilege to represent, the citizens of Madawaska—Restigouche, New Brunswick.

Let me begin by stating that the PC Party will be supporting Bill C-223. I agreed with my colleague who, when this bill was last debated in November, felt that this bill might not be necessary, given the current criminal harassment laws and the protection given under the witness protection program.

Logically I would like to see increased spending on policing to protect spouses who suffer from domestic abuse. I would like to see more meaningful sentences handed down by the courts to send a message that the abuse of a spouse will not be tolerated. I would also like to see more funding directed to counselling programs for the abusive spouse and for the victim.

It is only through addressing these problems and correcting the behaviour that this type of behaviour can be dismissed and hopefully eliminated. However, the Liberal government has consistently shown that it will not commit to allocating the necessary funding to protect society from violent predators. Sure, the Liberals will proudly state that the recent budget allocated an extra $810 million for policing and protection, but it will neglect to mention that this allocation will be over the next three years and that 62% of the new money will not be available until 2001-02.

Thus, although I agree with my colleague that under a responsible government Bill C-223 would not be needed, I must agree that the government's dismal record in protecting the public, especially the most vulnerable in society, has made this legislation necessary.

Currently, abused spouses, most often women, endure a living hell as they try to protect themselves and their children from the wrath of their abusive spouses. We hear stories of victims moving into shelters or trying to escape to another city, province or even another country to get away from abusive relationships.

Sadly, these victims cannot remain anonymous and are eventually found by their abusive spouses. The result is often violent. In recent years we have heard of too many incidents where the results have been death.

Since the government will not take meaningful action to deal with these violent predators, Bill C-223 is a necessary means to protect these victims.

Bill C-223 is an act to amend the Witness Protection Program Act and to make a related consequential amendment to another act (protection of spouses whose life is in danger). It is an act to provide for the establishment and operation of a program to enable certain persons to receive protection in relation to certain inquiries, investigations or prosecutions and to enable certain certain spouses whose lives are in danger to receive protection.

The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada supports the bill. We have been consistent in our support of law and order, protection of society and victims' rights.

I feel that most of the amendments brought forth by this legislation already exist under the current witness protection program. However, I agree with the hon. member that the witness protection program is currently only mandated to protect crown witnesses and is not used for abused victims. Broadening the mandate is a welcome change.

I also agree that Canada's anti-stalking law can do nothing to protect a victim who is confronted by a violent spouse who has refused to desist or who has violated a restraining order.

I agree with my colleague that stronger laws to protect these people would be a better alternative than having the abused spouse change his or her identity and flee. Nevertheless, this alternative would require more meaningful, well placed funding which the Liberals have shown they are unwilling to do.

Therefore, if a change of identity is the only viable solution for the protection of the victim, then I feel that all members should be supportive of this initiative.

When dealing with a program such as this, one must also be cognizant that certain individuals may attempt to use the program in an unlawful manner. For example, some could try to use the program to obtain a new identity while trying to escape creditors. This will not be the case with Bill C-223 as there is a detailed list of factors that the witness protection program will have to consider before determining whether a spouse should be admitted to the program. These considerations include the nature of the risk to the security of the spouse, the circumstances that cause the spouse to believe his or her life is in danger, the nature of the injuries, psychological damage, whether the other spouse has a criminal record and whether alternative methods exist for protecting the spouse without admission to the program.

An example of how the program could succeed can be seen through the success of new identities for humanitarian reasons. This unofficial program, which began in 1992 and works through HRDC and Revenue Canada, does not reveal the names of those who conduct the program. As well, Revenue Canada ensures that the income tax history and child tax benefits of the victims follow them into their new lives without linking them to their past names. HRDC provides them with a new social insurance number and transfers their pension benefits. Police and women's shelters refer candidates for the program so there is no formal application process.

Presently the criminal code states that one cannot force someone to testify against his or her spouse. In many cases the victim of spouse abuse can give damning information that police and prosecutors need to obtain a conviction of the spousal abuser. Yet, as spouses cannot be compelled to testify against each other, spousal intimidation can play a factor and create problems in securing a conviction against the abuser.

Intimidation of witnesses in general, and spouses in particular, has had an adverse effect on the justice system for years. As the witness protection program is mandated to protect crown witnesses and not abuse victims, this intimidation could continue to occur in spousal family situations.

The new identities for humanitarian reasons program helps in this process but lacks needed funding and recognition in policing and counselling circles. If this type of program were allowed to be incorporated under the witness protection program, as suggested by Bill C-223, some of these problems could be regulated.

In closing, I would like to thank the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River for bringing this bill forward. I feel that it is a sound bill that will offer further protection to victims involved in the most severe cases of spousal abuse. Indirectly, it also brings attention to the lack of funding from the federal government for matters of public safety. Public safety has always been a priority of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada and thus we will be supporting this legislation.

[René Fugère, March 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are starting to know the Prime Minister and the actions of his government through the HRDC debacle.

René Fugère advised HRDC that he represented the Opitciwan sawmill when it was negotiating with HRDC. Fugère was not registered at the time as a lobbyist.

Will the Prime Minister ask the RCMP to investigate the lobbying activities of his friend René Fugère?

[René Fugère, March 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, René Fugère had a close working relationship with the Prime Minister. He represented the Prime Minister at events. Yet the Prime Minister would like us to believe that he does not know this unregistered lobbyist.

Would the Prime Minister come clean and admit that he knows Mr. Fugère and that he has been using the Prime Minister's name to advance his business career?

[Human Resources Development, March 1st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I will try again for an answer.

On August 3, 1998 Opitciwan sawmill advised HRDC in writing that it had hired René Fugère, the same René Fugère who is being investigated by the RCMP for being an unregistered lobbyist. He is still not a registered lobbyist.

Has the HRDC minister asked the RCMP to investigate his latest lobbying efforts with the department?

[Human Resources Development, March 1st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, by adding PLI Environmental to our list of companies being investigated by the RCMP, we now have four grants totaling $6.2 million that are currently under investigation. This is a far cry from the original amount of $251.50.

Could the Minister of Human Resources Development tell us if, as of today, there are more than four grants under investigation by the RCMP?

[Human Resources Development, February 29th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I will ask the question a second time. Not once but twice the sawmill was refused a grant by local HRDC officials. The same company used up two lifelines. Then it called a friend, a friend of the Prime Minister, and guess what? It received a grant of $300,000.

Can the minister tell us why the Prime Minister's friends have more influence with her department than her own local HRDC office employees?

[Human Resources Development, February 29th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, not once but twice, the Obedjiwan sawmill was refused a grant under the transitional job creation fund by local HRDC offices.

This same sawmill turned to René Fugère, and guess what? A $300,000 grant was approved.

Can the minister tell us why a friend of the Prime Minister has more clout in her department than her own local employees?