Jason Kenney

[Supply, March 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in debate on this supply day motion from my colleagues in the third party, that the House condemn the government for the very poor management brought to the attention of the Minister of Human Resources Development, notably in the allocation and use of grants for partisan purposes, and recommend the creation of an independent public inquiry commission whose members would be named by the House and whose mandate it would be to investigate the overall practices of that department and to report to the House no later than September 19, 2000.

Speaking on behalf of members of the official opposition, we intend to support this motion, although we would like to see an inquiry into this very grave matter conducted by the auditor general rather than an independent commission.

The predicate of this motion is that the government has engaged in classic pork barrel political spending of the most grotesque kind, the kind of politics which I thought a modern liberal democracy would have advanced beyond. But in fact what we see through the granting programs administered by the Minister of Human Resources Development and many of her other colleagues is that public money is increasingly being used under this government for partisan purposes. That ought not to be happening in a liberal democracy under the rule of law.

Due to the very diligent research of the official opposition, we have managed to uncover a mountain of information about the misadministration of over a billion public dollars through the human resources department. We know that because of access to information requests submitted by the official opposition special audits revealed that 80% of grants made by HRDC showed no financial monitoring, 87% showed no supervision, 97% showed no attempt to find out if the recipient already owed money to the government, 11% had no budget proposal on file and, incredibly, 15% had no application on file for money that was received from the government.

We have uncovered more and more information as the weeks have gone by. Just yesterday we revealed in the House an internal audit conducted of the TAGS program during the period 1994 to last year which revealed similar misadministration and abuse of public funds.

The Prime Minister and the minister of HRDC say that this is just an administrative error, a series of coincidental administrative errors for which the political ministry takes no responsibility and merely passes the buck to what the parliamentary secretary to HRDC yesterday referred to as lowly bureaucrats.

Not only have we seen the complete rejection of the concept, tradition and convention of ministerial responsibility, but, more shockingly, what we see when we look below the surface, when we look at these grants, is the gross politicization of granting programs of this nature.

To take an example, the number of grant approvals from the HRD department skyrocketed near the end of the last election. What a surprise. What a coincidence.

Some members may recall having seen a graph. I think it was published on the front page, above the fold, in the Ottawa Citizen some three weeks ago. It graphically represented the findings of the official opposition's research, which showed that the grant approvals and announcements were on a flat line throughout most of 1996 and 1997. Then, all of a sudden we came to April, May and June, the time of the last federal election, and there was this huge spike in the number of approvals and announcements of HRD grants.

I am sure it was just a coincidence that it was concurrent with the last federal writ being dropped in May 1997. When we look at the hard numbers, though, 592 approvals were made in April 1997 when the government knew it would drop the writ for the last general election, and that number, the 592 approvals, was four times higher than the monthly average of targeted wage subsidy approvals for the period April 1996 to August 1999.

What we see is clearly the government abusing its power, abusing its control over public resources, abusing its control of the bureaucracy to force the approval of granting programs in the targeted wage subsidies administered by HRD for its own political advantage. I find this to be really quite reprehensible.

There is further evidence. Last year the minister of HRDC's riding received over three times the national average in targeted wage subsidy money. In spite of the fact that her own riding did not qualify for any such grants, in spite of the fact that it had one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country, it was receiving more grant money than ridings with much higher unemployment rates which qualified for the program. This is more political interference.

The Prime Minister's riding, the home of the famous Versailles water fountain, the home of the hon. member for let them eat cake, received more grant money than all of the prairie provinces combined. I am sure that is just a coincidence. I am sure that all of the phone calls, faxes and letters from the Prime Minister's office to bureaucrats in HRDC asking for the expedition and approval of granting programs, some of which had not yet made application, were merely coincidental. There was no political pressure. I am sure it was just one lowly—to coin a phrase—member of parliament doing his job for his constituents. If members buy that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn for them.

Canadians do not buy that kind of evasion. Canadians know the abuse of public funds for political purposes when they see it, and they see it now in spades with the Right Hon. member for Shawinigan.

A letter from a human resources department official reveals that the Prime Minister deliberately broke the rules regarding regional distribution of grant money, because he was instructed to approve grants in the Prime Minister's riding. We see this pattern over and over again. We find that there is substantial and compelling evidence that the government has systematically engaged in the partisan use and abuse of public funds for its own political benefit. I am talking about senior ministers' ridings and the Prime Minister's riding. Grants have been forced to be approved and announced immediately before election time. This demonstrates the kind of corruption which is at the heart of the granting process.

We believe that in a modern liberal democracy, governed by the rule of law and parliamentary conventions, these kinds of pork barrel spending programs are outdated. I am sure this is news to the Prime Minister, but this is not money that belongs to the Liberal Party of Canada. It is not money held in trust by the member for Saint-Maurice. It is not money that belongs to anybody but the people who have earned it and paid for it, and who have had it taken away from them by government.

Yesterday in this place we debated the fact that the government has cut some $21 billion from health care during its tenure since 1993, all the while increasing boondoggle prone spending such as the HRDC grants. We saw in the recent budget tabled in the House by the hon. Minister of Finance that the government is going to increase boondoggle prone spending and granting programs like the transitional jobs fund and the targeted wage subsidies faster than it is going to increase spending on health care, which is by far the highest public priority. Why? Not because these programs create jobs. On average, the jobs created by these programs cost several times more than the job is actually worth on an annual basis. It is because the government is seeking to gain and maximize political partisan benefits for its members and perspective candidates in the next election. That is why we will concur and support the Bloc Quebecois motion to seek an independent inquiry, although we would rather see it conducted, as we have asked already, through the office of the auditor general, an officer of the House.

The Leader of the Official Opposition has written to the auditor general seeking such an inquiry. We hope that he will respond. If not, we hope that an independent inquiry, the likes of which are contemplated by this motion, will finally get to the bottom of this mess and this corruption.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Veterans Affairs has embarrassed himself because the audit I hold in my hand speaks of the TAGS program coming into effect on May 16, 1994. It seems to me that his was the party in power.

When did that minister become aware of this special internal audit? When did the government decide to do something about it? Or, did it decide, like the HRDC grants scandal, to just sweep it under the rug?

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs, who just told us that it is good Liberal common sense to waste tax dollars as has happened in the TAGS program.

We have an audit report from April of 1999, five years after the program began and five years after Liberal administration. It states that most files showed no evidence that project applicants were checked for eligibility, one-third of the files had no rationale for selecting the projects and one-third of the projects did not even meet the criteria for the program.

How can the minister stand in his place and say this is a common sense program when in fact the audit shows that it was another boondoggle by the government?

[1911 Census Records, March 2nd, 2000]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take all necessary steps to release the 1911 census records once they have been deposited in the National Archives in 2003.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to a motion on an important matter which has been of some concern. It reads:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take all necessary steps to release the 1911 census records once they have been deposited in the National Archives in 2003.

On its face the motion may appear to be a rather technical and arcane matter of concern only to a small community of genealogists and amateur historians, but in fact the motion speaks to a very important matter about access to our shared history as a country.

All members of this place will know, having been contacted undoubtedly by members of genealogical organizations, historical associations, archivists and others, that the rules respecting the normal release of the census data collected from the 1911 census have been interpreted in such as way as to prevent their public release and access. Hence, for the first time in Canadian history, historians will not have access to the data collected in the 1911 census.

Up to and including the 1901 census in Canada, the census records were transferred to the National Archives and were subsequently made available to the public 92 years after collection. This was possible because clauses in the Privacy Act allowed for the release of certain pieces of information to the National Archives subject to certain aspects of the Privacy Act.

However, in 1906 the Government of Canada passed an act respecting the census and statistics in which section 68 empowered the governor in council, the cabinet, to make regulations respecting confidentiality. The government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier in 1906 did in fact promulgate certain orders in council which restricted access to the census of 1911.

Apparently it did this because at that time there was concern among the public that the data collected could be used in the assessment of taxation and perhaps for the conscription of Canadians in a future wartime conflict. There was some political sensitivity and a feeling at that time that the public should be assured the information it was obliged to surrender to the government would be kept in confidence and not used for other public purposes.

However, no commitment was made by the government either in statute or regulation at that time that this information would be kept secret in perpetuity. It was clear to all concerned, according to many of the historians who have examined this matter, that the regulation applied in the context of the day. People understandably did not want to have bureaucrats, politicians or others having access to personal information which they were required to surrender under the Statistics Act.

It is a long and much honoured convention both in this country and in similar jurisdictions that such information eventually after a reasonable time, roughly the maximum period of an average lifespan, ought eventually to become publicly accessible for research and academic purposes.

In 1985 the justice department arrived at a legal opinion, an interpretation of the statutory and regulatory decisions in 1906, in which it decided the census data had to remain in secret in perpetuity following the 1911 census. Thus today we find ourselves in the position where in the last couple of years archivists, genealogists and historians have suddenly discovered that the huge treasure trove of historical data which they anticipated would be deposited at the National Archives in 2003, the data obtained in the 1911 census of Canadian subjects and citizens, would not be made available.

All across the country there are tens of thousands of concerned Canadians who take a deep interest in the history of the country. They began to express their concern about the secret nature of the census records.

This is important because as we all know, in the first decade of the 20th century, there was an enormous wave of immigration into Canada. Many people today can trace their ancestors' arrival to Canada to that period between 1901 and 1911. Many millions of Canadian families have some ancestors who arrived, acquired land and began their lives in this great country during those early years of development, immigration and settlement.

The 1911 census represents a critical link to the past for historians and genealogists. For us it is a window which allows us to find who arrived generally from Europe at the time, where they settled, how many people were in their families, their birth dates, their relatives, the location of their land and their occupations.

I do not think the release of this very basic genealogical data would in any way violate the privacy of those who lived in the country between 1901 and 1911. It goes without saying that the vast majority of those people who were subject to the 1911 census are today posthumous Canadians and indeed have no living interest in the release of this information, but there are some. I can say with some pride that next week my grandfather, Mart Kenney, a great Canadian musician, will be celebrating his 90th birthday. He was born in 1910 in Vancouver. I asked him if he would be concerned if I and his other descendants could have access to census information concerning his family in 1910. He said of course not, that is ridiculous.

If we could consult those who lived at the time of the 1911 census and ask them whether they would object to their grandchildren and great grandchildren, and academic and professional historians, looking at the information to find out where they settled, where they lived, how many people were in their families and other data of this nature, I am sure we would find that they would not raise any objection. I am sure they would be intrigued to learn that there are so many thousands of Canadians who are deeply concerned about their familial past, their regional past and national past and hope they will have access to this information.

Virtually every other jurisdiction in the developed democracies recognize the principle that we must respect the privacy rights of citizens when the government or state requires people to surrender information under sanction of law. That ought to be managed with great discretion. Information should for a lengthy period of time be kept secret. However, these jurisdictions also recognize that a time comes when such information no longer poses a privacy interest for individuals but rather poses a public interest for access by historians and others.

I can give examples of such jurisdictions. Australia releases its census data after 100 years. France releases its census data a century after collection. Denmark releases such data 65 years after collection, well within a normal lifespan. In the United Kingdom efforts are being made to release data after 100 years.

Surely the 92 year rule which we have respected in Canada until today is an adequate period of time to ensure and protect the privacy interests of those who filled out census forms in 1911.

The legal status quo is interpreted by the justice department and applied by Statistics Canada. It does not only affect the 1911 census. It affects all censuses taken since then. If we maintain the legal status quo in this regard, never again will Canadian historians, archivists or genealogists be able to reach back in time and research the important information which gives us clues to the past from whence we came.

Too often we forget the importance of our history. In this country in particular we can read the brilliant best-selling book Who Killed Canadian History? authored by eminent Canadian historian Jack Granatstein last year. We can look at the polling information which suggests that the vast majority of Canadians, and young Canadians in particular, have an astounding ignorance about the basic facts of our national history, our political history, our military history and our social history. One could make the argument that this country is losing touch with its past. A country which does not know from whence it came is a country that has no clear direction in the future.

It is essential for a thriving, modern democracy like Canada to have a deep sense of its past. That is not just done by academic historians writing sweeping histories about the socioeconomic and political history of the country. That understanding of our history is, at its most profound level, conducted by amateur genealogists and historians who dig into the past of particular families with their own particular traditions. This is very important information. It helps the thousands and thousands of people every day who are collecting the data on who settled in Canada, where they settled and how they built their lives in this place. It contributes collectively to our historical understanding as a nation.

It is extremely important that parliament hear the voices of those Canadians who are concerned about our history by opening up access to the 1911 census and all census data which has been collected since then.

This motion is limited in its scope. Once more it seeks only to release the 1911 census records, something which could be achieved by amending the Statistics Act to make it evident that this will be public information once deposited at the National Archives in 2003. Again the scope is limited. It only deals with that census. However, should the House in its wisdom decide to vote for this private member's motion, which in fact has been granted votable status by the relevant committee, that I hope would be taken by the government as direction from parliament to amend the Statistics Act to permit access to all census data collected from 1911 onward, and indeed from the 2001 census into the future.

This may seem to be a modest motion, and indeed it is, but it is an important one. I believe that the overwhelming number of Canadians who have an understanding of this issue desire for the government to open up access to our past, not to lock away this important historical information into some vault, and certainly not to destroy that information as some, shall we say, absolutists in the privacy field have suggested.

There are those who do not see the need for a balance between the interest of privacy and the public interest of access to information. There are those whom I would characterize as absolutists on the question of privacy and who actually have recommended that the National Archives destroy the census data once it has been deposited there so that no one in the future can ever gain access to it.

Let us send a clear signal to the chief statistician, the national archivist and the Government of Canada that Canadians want access to our past. They want to respect Canadians' privacy, but we believe that can be done with the 92 year timeframe in place and contemplated by my motion.

I look forward to the debate which will ensue. I hope that when it is concluded, members of this place will choose to vote in favour of Motion No. 160 and allow us to open up a window into our past while respecting the privacy rights of Canadians who have gone before us.

[Health Care, February 24th, 2000]

Let us be very clear. We want to get low income people who are below the poverty line off the tax rolls and we want increased spending on health care.

Why does the government continue to place a greater priority on corporate welfare for its big business friends than on increased spending for health care and tax relief for working families?

[Health Care, February 24th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the only way the minister could answer the question and justify the government's increased spending on corporate welfare and cuts to health care is by misrepresenting, I am sure incidentally, the position—

[Health Care, February 24th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, since taking office the government has increased spending on corporate welfare, pork barrel spending and patronage for its big business friends, but at the same time has cut health care spending by two-thirds or $21 billion.

Given that Canadians think health care is a more important priority than corporate welfare, why has the government and the Minister of Finance placed a higher priority on corporate welfare to companies like Wal-Mart than on health care spending for Canadians?

[Points Of Order, February 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, during the course of the question period just ended Your Honour ruled out of order, I presume, the question I put to the Minister of Human Resources Development and did not permit me to put a second question.

I infer from the Speaker's ruling that you objected to my use of the term not telling the truth. I refer Your Honour to article 490 of Beauchesne's which states:

Since 1958, it has been ruled parliamentary to use—

[Human Resources Development, February 17th, 2000]

I will, Mr. Speaker, and I wish the minister would choose her statistics wisely. A moment ago she told us that the unemployment rate in 1997 in her riding was 10.3%. I have in my hand the unemployment statistics of the human resources development department for Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant with respect to comparative unemployment rates, which indicate in 1997 an average rate of 8.4%, and in every month, save one, a lower unemployment rate than Ontario and the national average.

How can this minister stand in her place and not tell the truth, that her riding did not—

[Human Resources Development, February 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the minister's nose is growing. A minute ago she told us—