Libby Davies

[Taxation, June 12th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, we also know that the truth is the government's priority has been to help out the big banks.

I wonder, when the finance minister delivers his gift to the big banks, will he have anything to say to Canada's children? Not only is Canada failing internationally, as pointed out by the leader of the NDP, but to add insult to injury, now Statistics Canada, with a stroke of a pen, wants to change the low income cut-off.

Why is the finance minister still willing to help the banks but cover up poverty in Canada?

[Child Care, June 7th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the problem is that we have seen no action.

This week the provincial social services ministers are meeting in Toronto. It is a perfect opportunity for the government to back up its big talk finally with some action.

I would like to ask the minister again, will she come to the table this week with something tangible on child care and on the children's agenda, and if not, why not?

[Child Care, June 7th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, study after study and poll after poll confirm that accessing quality child care is a major concern for parents.

This week the B.C. government announced a $7 a day child care plan. Last month the Manitoba government committed an additional $9 million to child care initiatives.

Is the HRDC minister going to take the lead from these NDP premiers and commit to extending these excellent initiatives so that all Canadians can benefit?

[Supply, June 6th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that not all opposition parties could put a question to the minister, but I will put a question to the hon. member who just spoke.

One of the real issues that needs to be addressed is to ensure that there is a code of conduct within all departments for the disbursement of grants and contributions to provide an assurance to Canadians that there is not partisan decision making.

Would the hon. member support something like that, to ensure that there is fairness, transparency and consistency of practice in the decision making process for grants and contributions?

[Supply, June 6th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate the comments from my colleague because I know she has had the most difficult time in getting very basic information. It is pretty outrageous that projects have been approved without her concurrence.

Again, I would say that is why we in the NDP are calling for a code of conduct. We want to have enforceable rules through treasury board. We want there to be very clear rules about how these grants and contributions are made.

[Supply, June 6th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, very briefly, I am a bit worried that the member has already in his own mind, perhaps in debate with other government members, gone down the road so far in terms of articulating how the restructuring of HRDC might take place. I think that is something that has to be done in a very public way, with a lot of public debate.

What we call for in our report is that there be an independent review of the restructuring of the department, which would include the public and private sectors, and which would include labour, because obviously the unions involved would be affected.

I believe very strongly that there have to be principles involved. This must not be used as a cover for any privatization of services or contracting out. This is about making a department more manageable and accountable.

I agree that there are some areas where a particular function of the department in terms of its statutory obligations could be in one area and then other areas dealing with social policy could be put under another department or secretary of state. However, it seems to me that the real issue is, if the government is going to take that up, then there has to be a commitment that there will not be privatization or contracting out, and that the debate will be held in public and not behind closed doors.

[Supply, June 6th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question.

In terms of what framework a public inquiry could take, there have been a couple of suggestions made already. One suggestion was made by the Canadian Alliance. The member for Calgary—Nose Hill suggested earlier that we could have an inquiry made up of equal numbers of members of parliament from each of the five parties, so there would not be any partisanship. That is something which could be agreed to by all parties in the House.

I would think that another framework could be to have something completely outside the involvement of members. That might involve someone from the judiciary, or a panel of civilians, or people who have a lot of credibility in the community, but again on the basis that there would be an all-party agreement. As we know, it is very easy to appoint friends to such places and say it is independent.

I have a brief response in terms of the code of conduct. What we have said in our report, and I would urge the member to look at the report, is that we believe a code of conduct should be developed by treasury board and should include a number of principles concerning the disbursement of grants and contributions: that disbursements should be made in a way that is transparent, that there should be full disclosure, that there should be fairness, and most important, that there be a standard practice. What we envisage is that this would be developed as a document which departments would be required to live by in terms of making decisions about awarding grants and contributions.

I do not think it is mutually exclusive to a member of parliament having some involvement in that. One of the things that has been suggested by witnesses is that there could be advisory committees in local areas.

We want the departments to live by this kind of code so that we do not have this kind of scandal in the future.

[Supply, June 6th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, in reply to my hon. colleague's question, when I mentioned the examples or evidence of political interference I was going by what I heard at committee. I read to members of the House reports from outside consulting firms, which brought forward information from the people they interviewed during their reviews, and they said there was political interference and they were concerned about it. Those documents have already been tabled.

I strongly believe that there are lots of other instances that we do not yet know about. I have an inkling about them, but we do not yet have the full evidence of what took place.

If the member is saying let us table the documents and get that information, then that is another reason I would say yes, let us have an inquiry to do that.

In terms of the auditor general, he has played a very good role. In fact, I was hugely concerned by what I heard at committee from the auditor general. He made it quite clear to members that for years and years he has made recommendations about changing procedures on how these disbursements are made and following up on problems within the department. Those recommendations were basically ignored.

The NDP is recommending that there be rules that are enforceable. How many more reports does the government have to get from the auditor general? He said that he has made reports since 1974 on these kinds of issues. Yes, we want enforceable rules.

[Supply, June 6th, 2000]

My colleague says “Maybe he made a donation to the Liberals”. These are serious questions. In fact we in the NDP have called for a code of conduct. This is something we have included in our minority report. It is very important that there be transparency in the decision making process.

We do not object to members of parliament being involved in a process by signing off on a particular grant or contribution. A member of parliament should be involved. The question is: Are the rules being applied fairly, consistently and without an overriding political culture? That is where we have a problem.

We in the New Democratic Party have recommended to the government that the treasury board, in conjunction with the Auditor General of Canada, develop a code of conduct for all departments, not just HRDC, that award grants and contributions. We believe this code of conduct should incorporate transparency, disclosure, fairness and standard practices. That is something Canadians could agree with. Everyone in the House would agree that the same rules should apply for everybody. The government side should not be favoured because it is using the funds for partisan purposes to bolster its re-election efforts.

If we are genuine about wanting to invest in job creation, let us do it on an objective basis. Let us do it on a basis that we can all live by. Then Canadians could see where the funds are going, that they are being put to good use to create real jobs and not just a political slush fund.

Again I come back to the motion that is before us today and reiterate our support and our ongoing call for an independent inquiry, which we have called for from day one. We will continue to do that until there is accountability, until there are answers to the questions, some of which I gave today, many of which we have put in our report and many of which have been put at committee.

The last matter I want to speak to is the future of the department. The NDP, as well as Bloc members I think, agreed with the main report, with some reservations. Because there has been such a spotlight on the department, one of the things which came to light is that this massive department, which is the largest federal department, needs to have a further review in terms of its ongoing mandate and structure. I want to be very clear that we want to do that to restore the confidence in the programs that have been delivered and should be delivered. We do not want to use the people who work there as scapegoats, nor do we want to use them as a further reason for cutbacks or massive layoffs. For that reason we would support a further review.

We cannot escape what needs to be done in the House. There must be an independent public inquiry to really get to the bottom of what happened in the department. We will not rest until that happens.

[Supply, June 6th, 2000]

No. One transitional jobs fund went into Vancouver East just before the election when it was held by a Liberal member.

Why were all members of the House not aware of this loophole? Where did this rule come from? How was it applied across the country? Why in some areas like Vancouver East did the riding qualify under the pocket rule just prior to an election but after the election apparently did not qualify any longer?

Why did 49 of Canada's most profitable companies receive grants and contributions from HRDC, including all five of the big banks, Canadian Pacific, Loblaws, Shell Canada, Investors Group, Fairfax Financial, Bombardier, Power Corporation, Onex Corporation and Southam. This is a who's who of corporate Canada.

It strikes me as ironic that major profitable corporations are receiving grants and contributions apparently without question and sometimes without adequate paperwork or follow-up. Why are we giving money to these hugely profitable corporations? Why are these public funds not being invested in local communities where real job development is taking place?

I remember a sock company, although I forget its name. The guy wanted to create a world monopoly in socks and put other sock companies out of business. Why did that company get a transitional jobs fund? I do not know. I can only guess.