Session overview
- The HRDC grants-and-contributions scandal dominated Question Period, with Reform and Bloc members citing the department's own internal questions-and-answers document to allege that officials were routinely told to disregard the Financial Administration Act and Treasury Board guidelines for political reasons; Minister Jane Stewart repeatedly rejected the allegations and cited the six point plan and the closing of 37 reviewed accounts.
- René Fugère's unregistered lobbying activities and his relationship with the Prime Minister and the PMO were challenged by Bloc and PC members; Prime Minister Chrétien initially said Fugère 'has never worked for me' before acknowledging he acted 'on a voluntary basis as a replacement' on one or two occasions, and confirmed the ethics commissioner had been asked to look into the failure to register.
- The Placeteco file was scrutinized by Bloc members, who questioned whether the $1.2 million transitional jobs fund grant — most of which allegedly went to pay debts rather than create jobs — would be subject to repayment like the Vidéotron case, and whether the appointment of trustee Gilles Champagne to Canada Post's board of directors influenced the government's refusal to order an investigation.
- NDP members pressed the government on two science-related issues: the human genome and whether raw gene sequences should be protected from commercial appropriation following the Blair-Clinton announcement, and the WTO ruling against Canada on pharmaceuticals that could cost Canada's health care system $200 million.
- Alberta's Bill 11 and its potential violation of the Canada Health Act was pressed by NDP member Judy Wasylycia-Leis; Minister Allan Rock declined to give a yes-or-no answer, noting the bill had yet to receive second reading and that regulations had not yet been published.
- Minister of Finance Paul Martin denied that a decision had been taken to privatize the Canada savings bonds program, but PC member Scott Brison produced an internal Bank of Canada document from Roy Flett, chief of GSS, stating he had been asked to prepare Government Securities Services to move the Retail Debt operations outside the bank over the next 12 to 18 months; Martin clarified that what was under examination was a possible merger of the Bank of Canada and Canada Investment and Savings functions under the Department of Finance.
Minister Martin concretely revealed that what was actually under examination was not privatization but a possible merger of the Bank of Canada's retail debt administration and Canada Investment and Savings under the Department of Finance, a specific factual clarification that reframed the question of public versus private ownership of the Canada savings bonds program.
Precisely chronicles four specific dates (November 17, December 13, March 2, March 13) with the minister's exact responses on each occasion and asks a single binary yes/no question: does Alberta's Bill 11 violate the Canada Health Act.
In response to detailed allegations citing a specific criminal penalty under the Financial Administration Act and the claim that violations had become routine in her department, Stewart's entire answer was 'Mr. Speaker, we do not break the law,' offering no factual rebuttal, no context, and no engagement with the substance of the question.
Outstanding questions
- Miss Deborah Grey and Mr. Monte Solberg both asked whether Minister Stewart had referred potential breaches of section 37 of the Financial Administration Act to the RCMP; the minister never answered this question, redirecting each time to the six point plan.
- Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis asked Minister Rock for a clear yes-or-no answer on whether Alberta's Bill 11 violates the Canada Health Act, and for a timetable for completing the government's analysis; no direct answer or timetable was provided.
- Mr. Ghislain Lebel asked whether the government's refusal to order an investigation into Placeteco was related to Gilles Champagne's appointment by the Prime Minister to Canada Post's board of directors; the minister did not address the Champagne-Canada Post connection at all.
- Mrs. Christiane Gagnon asked Minister Stewart to table in the House the documents proving that the pockets-of-poverty criterion existed at the time grants were made to her riding of Brant; the minister referred only to a local newspaper article and tabled no documents.
- Ms. Alexa McDonough asked whether the government would appeal the WTO ruling against Canada on pharmaceuticals, which she said would drain $200 million from Canada's health care system; Minister Pettigrew described the procedural timeline but did not state whether Canada would appeal.
Why was the government operating for years outside the Financial Administration Act and Treasury Board guidelines, as documented internal Q&A materials show staff were told to be flexible and not to lapse funds?
Cites obtained documents and quotes staff language about being told to be 'flexible and responsive' in apparent violation of the Financial Administration Act and Treasury Board guidelines, with a clear accountability ask, though framed with rhetorical flourish.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have obtained documents that show HRDC officials regularly flaunted the Financial Administration Act and Treasury Board guidelines because their political masters interfered. Departmental questions and answers were prepared in response to the fallout of this damning internal audit. Staff said “We were told to be flexible and responsive and not to lapse funds. Now we are being told we have to obey the Financial Administration Act and Treasury Board guidelines”. How inconvenient. Why was this government operating for years outside the law?
Stewart rejected the allegation, cited the internal audit as the basis for administrative improvements, and reported that 37 accounts were closed and most overpayments collected, with $600 still outstanding.
Stewart categorically rejects the allegation and pivots to the six-point plan and progress on the 37 accounts, providing some concrete numbers ($600 outstanding) but never addressing whether political interference caused staff to operate outside the law.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as is becoming usual, I categorically reject the allegation made by the hon. member. Those members are not interested in dealing with facts, so let us review them again. We received an internal audit which said that we could improve our administrative practices with regard to grants and contributions. I asked for a tough response. We are now implementing that response. I am glad to say that as of yesterday we closed the 37 accounts that we were reviewing as a result of the audit. Of the overpayments identified, the majority has been collected, and $600 is yet outstanding.
Given that breaking the Financial Administration Act carries a five-year prison term and staff were routinely told to ignore it, what laws will the minister not break for political gain?
Points to concrete facts — employees taking out radio ads and section of the Financial Administration Act carrying a five-year prison term — but the ask devolves into a broad rhetorical charge about what laws the government will not break.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, she is not out of the crisis yet because very recently her own employees have resented the fact that she continues to blame anybody but herself. In fact, they have resorted to taking out radio ads to defend themselves. They were told to play with the rules. They were told not to pay attention to details like the law. Breaking the Financial Administration Act carries with it a five year prison term, but in HRDC it had become routine. What laws will the minister and the government not break for their own political gain?
Stewart stated only that the government does not break the law.
The minister's entire answer is four words — 'We do not break the law' — with no engagement whatsoever with the specific statutory provision or the employee radio ads cited.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we do not break the law.
Given that the department's own Q&A documents show the deputy minister telling staff they must obey the Financial Administration Act only 'starting now,' why did the minister allow prior non-compliance to continue?
Quotes verbatim from departmental Q&A documents, including the deputy minister's statement that 'We have to work within the rules, starting now,' making the implied question — why was the law not followed until now — factually grounded, though the explicit ask is vague.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that is one girl's opinion. I would like to quote from her own employees.
Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker, let me quote from the actual questions and answers, which I did not dream up. This was something the department came up with and I would like to quote verbatim. The staff said “Now we are being asked and told that we have to obey the Financial Administration Act”, to which the deputy minister has stated “We have to work within the rules, starting now”. I would like the minister to stand and say why in the world she allows this to continue.
Hear, hear.
Stewart said the department had identified administrative improvements to make, that a six-point plan was being implemented, and praised employees for working hard on the plan.
Stewart references the six-point plan and praises employees' efforts but does not address why the deputy minister's 'starting now' formulation implies prior non-compliance, deflecting with general progress claims.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this girl will answer as she has over the—
Mr. Speaker, let us look at the facts. We have identified that we have administrative improvements to make in my department. We are implementing a six point plan. I have had the opportunity to travel and visit offices where our employees are working their heads off to make sure this plan gets implemented and to improve the system on behalf of Canadians.
The department's own Q&A document acknowledges staff were told not to lapse funds, which directly contradicts section 37 of the Financial Administration Act; will the minister explain that contradiction?
Cites the specific departmental Q&A document by title, quotes it directly, and cross-references section 37 of the Financial Administration Act verbatim, making a precise and well-grounded accountability ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I refer to the questions and answers from the human resources minister's own department. The title is: “Responding to What We Learned from the Internal Audit Report”. Question one reads: “We were told—not to lapse funds”. However, section 37 of the Financial Administration Act specifically states: “The balance of an appropriation that remains unexpended at the end of a fiscal year—shall lapse”. Clearly what the department acknowledges it told its employees flies in the face of an act of parliament. Will the minister explain that please?
Stewart said the department had identified administrative improvements and was implementing the six-point plan, and praised HRDC employees for committing to improving the process.
Stewart does not address section 37, the quoted document, or the contradiction between what employees were told and the statutory lapse requirement, instead repeating the six-point plan and praising staff.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what is clear is that we have identified that we will make improvements to our administrative process. What we are doing now is implementing our six point plan, and we are making serious progress. When it comes to the work of the employees of this department I can tell that party that the men and women of Human Resources Development Canada are together in committing themselves to improving the process for the service of Canadians.
Can the minister explain why her own employees were told to contravene the law of the land by not lapsing funds, contrary to the Financial Administration Act?
Narrows the ask to a specific directive given to employees — not to lapse funds — and ties it explicitly to illegality, though it largely repeats the ground of Exchange 4 without new documentary citation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the minister has some serious explaining to do about what her own employees were told by the people in charge; that is to say, herself. Clearly her employees were told not to lapse funds. They acknowledge that. The law says that is illegal. Can the minister explain why her own employees were told to contravene the law of the land?
Stewart said the department built a six-point plan, would apply Treasury Board requirements, and ensure employees have training and resources, without addressing why they were previously told otherwise.
Stewart does not explain why employees were told to contravene the law, instead restating the six-point plan and Treasury Board requirements, a clear deflection from the specific question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what we have done together as a department is to build the six point plan that will improve the administration of our grants and contributions. We will apply the Treasury Board requirements. We will ensure that our employees are trained and have the resources they need to do the job. We are committed to improving our processes for the betterment of grants and contributions that make a difference in the lives of Canadians.
How can the Prime Minister justify political interventions by his government given that HRDC officials say they are constantly subjected to political pressure that leads to poor management?
References HRDC officials' stated reason for poor management — constant political pressure — and asks the Prime Minister to justify such political interventions, but the ask is broad and lacks specific documentary citation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in spite of the repeated denials of the Prime Minister, Human Resources Development Canada officials maintain that the reason why the department is so poorly managed is that they are constantly subjected to political pressure in their work. In view of this, how can the Prime Minister justify such political interventions by his government?
Chrétien said that for moneys transferred to ridings for job creation, members for each electoral riding, from both opposition and government, must be consulted.
Chrétien acknowledges that members of both opposition and government ridings are consulted on job-creation fund transfers, which is tangentially relevant but does not address whether political pressure caused mismanagement.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on the issue of moneys transferred to ridings for job creation, it is provided that members for each electoral riding, both from the opposition and the government, must be consulted.
Is René Fugère — who is the subject of two investigations including one related to a $100,000 HRDC grant to the Auberge Grand-Mère Inn — an illustration of the dubious political interventions that HRDC officials are condemning?
Names a specific individual (René Fugère), identifies two specific investigations (Auberge des Gouverneurs and Auberge Grand-Mère Inn with a cited $100,000 grant), and asks whether this illustrates the political interventions HRDC officials are condemning.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are talking about more than mere consultations. In the series of investigations targeting Human Resources Development Canada, a frequently mentioned name is that of René Fugère. It would appear that he is well known by the Prime Minister. Mr. Fugère is the object of two investigations, one concerning the Auberge des Gouverneurs, in Shawinigan, and another concerning the Auberge Grand-Mère Inn, which received a $100,000 grant from the Department of Human Resources Development. Is this not an illustration of what HDRC officials are condemning, namely that there all kinds of dubious political interventions?
Chrétien said that in every case the PQ MNA and PQ government were consulted and approved the grants that helped create jobs in the riding of a PQ minister and PQ member of the National Assembly.
Chrétien deflects by noting that the PQ MNA and PQ government were consulted and approved grants that created jobs in PQ ridings, which does not address the specific investigations into Fugère or the $100,000 grant.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in every case, the PQ MNA and the PQ government were consulted, and they approved the grants that helped create jobs in the riding of a PQ minister and a PQ member of the National Assembly.
According to TVA, René Fugère is also collecting lobbyist fees, lobbying HRDC in particular; how can the Prime Minister deny political intervention in HRDC given his known closeness to Fugère?
Cites a TVA report alleging Fugère collected lobbyist fees targeting HRDC specifically, and asks the PM to reconcile his denial of political intervention with his known closeness to Fugère, though 'known closeness' is asserted rather than documented.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, according to TVA, René Fugère, not content to act as the Prime Minister's representative, is also collecting fees as a lobbyist, lobbying Human Resources Development Canada in particular. In this context, how can the Prime Minister deny political intervention in Human Resources Development Canada, as the departmental employees have decried, given his known closeness to René Fougère?
Chrétien stated Fugère never worked for him, acknowledged the allegation that Fugère was never registered as a lobbyist, said the ethics commissioner was asked to examine the matter, and noted this would be an offence under administrative law, not the Criminal Code.
Chrétien provides a direct denial that Fugère worked for him, acknowledges the lobbyist registration issue, confirms the ethics commissioner was asked to look into it, and distinguishes administrative law from the Criminal Code — a reasonably substantive partial answer.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I wish to state that Mr. Fugère has never worked for me. There is legislation on lobbyists. There is a claim that he was never registered, and we ourselves asked the ethics commissioner to look into this. This is an offence, not under the Criminal Code, but under an administrative law.
Given proof that Fugère used the PMO address, the Prime Minister's telephone and fax numbers, and a PMO letter designating him as official representative at a regional tourism symposium, how can the Prime Minister say Fugère never worked for him?
Cites specific documentary evidence — a PMO letter designating Fugère as official representative, use of the PMO address, the Prime Minister's telephone number and fax number at a regional tourism symposium — directly contradicting the PM's prior denial.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I do not know how the Prime Minister can say what he has just said in this House, when there is proof that René Fugère acted as a representative of the PMO in a regional tourism symposium, using the PMO address, the Prime Minister's telephone number, the Prime Minister's fax number, and what is more, had a letter from the PMO designating him as his official representative? How can he say such a thing?
Oh, oh.
Chrétien conceded Fugère acted on one or two occasions on a voluntary basis as a replacement for someone in his office who was unable to attend, but maintained Fugère was never paid by the Canadian government or his office and described him as a strong party member from his riding.
Chrétien partially concedes the point, acknowledging Fugère acted 'on one or two occasions on a voluntary basis as a replacement,' but insists he was never paid by the government, offering a partial and partially responsive answer that shifts rather than fully addresses the contradiction.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, he did act on one or two occasions—
—on a voluntary basis as a replacement for someone in my office who was unable to attend. He was a volunteer. He was never paid by the Canadian government, by my office, to do so. He is a strong party member from my riding, who works on behalf of business, who has represented the native peoples, who has represented others. This is what he does as a profession.
Will the Prime Minister follow the lead of Messrs. Blair and Clinton and assure Canadians that the raw sequence of human genes is not for sale?
References the Blair-Clinton announcement on the human genome and frames a clear policy ask — will Canada ensure raw gene sequences are not for sale — though the question is broad and could be sharper on what specific commitment is sought.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Decoding the human genome is an important key to scientific and medical research. The profits of research into the human genome should be measured in human lives and not in dollars. Will the Prime Minister follow the lead of Messrs. Blair and Clinton and assure us that the raw sequence of human genes is not for sale?
Manley acknowledged the importance of the Blair-Clinton announcement, noted a case before Canadian courts regarding the so-called Harvard rat, and said the government would consider other aspects of the Clinton-Blair announcement with respect to continued protection of intellectual property.
Manley acknowledges the importance of the Blair-Clinton announcement, notes the Harvard rat case before Canadian courts, and says other aspects will be considered, but does not commit Canada to any position on whether raw gene sequences are for sale.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we know that this was a very important announcement by Prime Minister Blair and President Clinton. We also know that there is already a case before the courts in Canada that will address the question of trademarks with respect to the so-called Harvard rat. Some questions are already before the courts. We will also consider the other aspects of the announcement by Mr. Clinton and Mr. Blair with respect to the continued protection of intellectual property.
Is the government prepared to appeal the WTO ruling against Canada on pharmaceuticals, which will mean another $200 million drained from Canada's health care system to multinational pharmaceutical manufacturers?
Cites the WTO ruling against Canada on pharmaceuticals and a specific dollar figure ($200 million) drained from the health care system, with a clear ask about whether Canada will appeal, though the question trails off into a broader rhetorical concern about access.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I hope again that the Prime Minister will take the opportunity to indicate where he stands on this issue. The Prime Minister knows that the WTO has ruled against Canada on pharmaceuticals. That ruling will mean another $200 million drained from Canada's health care system to the multinational pharmaceutical manufacturers. Is the government prepared to appeal that ruling, and what steps is Canada taking to ensure that the benefit of modern pharmaceuticals and of genetic research will be available to all human kind and not appropriated primarily for the commercial—
Pettigrew said the WTO panel's interim report was provided to the parties on March 3 on a confidential basis, that Canada provided comments to the panel on March 10, and that the final report to all WTO members is expected in mid-April.
Pettigrew provides specific procedural facts — the interim report provided on March 3, comments submitted to the panel on March 10, final report expected mid-April — but does not address whether Canada will appeal or its position on access to medicines.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the WTO panel's interim report was provided to the parties on a confidential basis on March 3. We are in the process of carefully examining the report and provided comments to the panel on March 10. It is very important at this stage to look at it very carefully and measure its implications. The panel is expected to issue the final report to all WTO members some time in mid-April.
Why is the Minister of Finance supporting the Bank of Canada's decision to privatize the Canada savings bonds program?
Asks a direct yes/no accountability question about whether the Minister of Finance supports the Bank of Canada's decision to privatize the Canada savings bonds program, though it presupposes a decision has been made.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Why is the Minister of Finance supporting the Bank of Canada's decision to privatize the Canada savings bonds program?
Martin stated that the decision to privatize the Canada savings bonds program has not been taken and is not being contemplated.
Martin directly denies that a decision has been taken and states it is not being contemplated, which is a clear and direct answer to the question asked, though he opens with a partisan jab.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to see the hon. member. I have not seen him since 6.30 this morning when he voted both ways on the clarity bill. Let me say that decision has not been taken and it is not being contemplated.
Given an internal document from Roy Flett, chief of GSS with the Bank of Canada, stating he has been asked to move Retail Debt operations outside the bank over the next 12 to 18 months, why does the minister say the decision has not been made?
Quotes directly from an internal document attributed to Roy Flett, chief of GSS with the Bank of Canada, describing a 12-to-18-month mandate to move Retail Debt operations outside the bank, directly contradicting the minister's prior denial.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, at least I admit my mistakes. This minister tries to cover his up. The fact is that the decision has been made. I have an internal document from Roy Flett, the chief of GSS with the Bank of Canada, who said I have been asked...to prepare Government Securities Services...to move the Retail Debt operations outside the bank. Achieving this objective will be my main preoccupation over the next 12 to 18 months. If the decision has not been made, why is a senior bureaucrat devoting the next 12 to 18 months of his life to making it happen?
Martin explained that the Bank of Canada administers Canada savings bonds while Canada Investment and Savings, an agency of the Department of Finance, handles marketing, and said what is being examined is whether to merge the two under the Department of Finance, which is part of the public sector.
Martin clarifies the institutional structure (Bank of Canada administers, Canada Investment and Savings markets), explains what is actually being examined — whether to merge the two under the Department of Finance — and notes that the Department of Finance is part of the public sector, substantially addressing the contradiction.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member ought to know that the Bank of Canada administers the Canada savings bonds. In fact the marketing is done by Canada Investment and Savings which is an agency of the Department of Finance. What is being examined is whether the status quo should exist or that they might merge the two under the Department of Finance. I would simply remind the hon. member that the Department of Finance is part of the public sector of this country.
Given that on November 4 the minister told the House she found no breach of law when HRDC funds were put in a trust in the Prime Minister's riding to avoid lapsing under section 37 of the FAA, has she referred this matter to the RCMP?
Cites a specific date (November 4), a specific ministerial statement to the House about no breach of law, references section 37 of the FAA, and asks a binary and highly specific question — has the minister referred the matter to the RCMP.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on November 4 the minister told the House that she found no breach of the law when HRDC funds were put in a trust in the Prime Minister's riding so that they would not lapse at the end of the fiscal year, completely contrary to what is stated in section 37 of the FAA. The minister's opinion does not count for much in a situation like this. I want to know from the minister, has she referred this matter to the RCMP.
Stewart said it is clear there are administrative improvements to be made in the department regarding grants and contributions, and that a plan is being implemented with department employees.
Stewart does not address whether she has referred the matter to the RCMP, instead repeating the administrative improvement framing and the six-point plan, a complete non-answer to the specific binary question asked.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, again it is clear to all that there are administrative improvements that we can make in our department with regard to the management of grants and contributions. That is a fact. It is also a fact that along with the men and women who are employees of the human resources development department we have a plan that is being implemented to improve this undertaking. Those are the facts and that is what this story is all about.
Has the minister referred to the RCMP the potential breach of section 37 of the Financial Administration Act by her department, given that she has only offered her own opinion that no law was broken?
References employees running radio ads, explicitly invokes section 37 of the Financial Administration Act, and again presses the specific binary question of whether the matter was referred to the RCMP, though it re-treads Exchange 14.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, right now employees of her department are trying to defend themselves in radio ads because of her incompetence in running that department. We are not merely talking about an administrative matter; we are talking about a potential breach of the law. I am suggesting to the minister that the actions of her department have violated section 37 of the Financial Administration Act. She has said that is not the case. She has offered that opinion to the House but her opinion in this matter does not count for anything. Has the minister referred it to the RCMP?
Stewart said she has spoken with department employees and that they are not defending themselves from her but from the maligning they are receiving from the Reform Party.
Stewart does not address the RCMP referral question at all, instead claiming employees are defending themselves from the opposition party's maligning rather than from her, a complete deflection.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I have had the chance to talk to the employees of my department on a number of occasions. They are not defending themselves from me. They are defending themselves from the maligning that they are receiving from that party.
Given that Vidéotron had to repay $220,000 for uncreated jobs and Placeteco used $1 million of a $1.2 million grant to pay debts with $200,000 unaccounted for, will Placeteco be required to repay as Vidéotron was?
Cites specific figures ($220,000 for Vidéotron, $1 million of $1.2 million for Placeteco) and asks a single clear yes/no accountability question about whether repayment will be required.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in the course of the Human Resources Development Canada administrative scandal, we learned that Vidéotron had to give back $220,000 for 44 jobs that were not created. In the case of Placeteco, $1 million of the $1.2 million grant was used to pay off debts rather than create jobs, and $200,000 has been lost track of. Are we to understand that Placeteco will receive the same treatment as Vidéotron and that repayment will be required?
The minister confirmed administrative problems but said invoices provided by the company covered the transitional jobs fund contribution and that payments were consistent with program terms and conditions.
The minister confirms administrative problems and that invoices covered the contribution amount, but does not directly answer whether repayment will be required as in the Vidéotron case.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the particular file to which the hon. member is making reference, I can confirm as I have before that there were administrative problems with this particular file. I can also confirm that my department has verified that the company provided invoices for supplies and salary costs which covered the amount of the transitional jobs fund contribution, and that in fact payments to the sponsor were consistent with the terms and the conditions of the transitional jobs fund program.
Since at least $1 million was used to pay bills rather than create jobs, will the minister require an investigation into the Placeteco case?
Sharpens the prior exchange by pointing out the purpose of the grant money was job creation, not debt payment, and asks a specific question about whether an investigation will be ordered.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the grant money was to create jobs, not to pay bills. Since at least $1 million was used for purposes other than creating jobs, should she not require an investigation into this case as well?
The minister reiterated that the invoices were appropriate within the context of the transitional jobs fund program and noted that 159 people are working as a result of the program.
The minister repeats that invoices were appropriate and pivots to citing 159 jobs created, without addressing the question of whether an investigation will be launched.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I will say again that the invoices we received were appropriate with the context of the transitional jobs fund program. Speaking about jobs, there are 159 people, who otherwise would not be working, who are working as a result of this program.
Documents from the minister's own department state the minister and deputy minister instructed staff to follow the rules starting immediately; what was the minister telling them before that point?
Quotes directly from departmental documents stating the minister and deputy minister instructed staff to follow rules 'starting immediately,' and asks a pointed accountability question about what instructions were given before that point.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the minister has not denied that the grant rules were broken in the House today. Documents from her own department state, and I quote “The minister and the deputy minister have instructed us to follow the rules starting immediately”. If the minister had to tell her department to start following the rules immediately, what was she telling them before this point?
The minister said employees are implementing the six point plan and working overtime, then accused Reform members of contradicting themselves over whether department employees should be fired or defended.
The minister ignores the quoted document entirely, talks about the six point plan and employee effort, then attacks the Reform Party for inconsistency — a clear deflection.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, again I will confirm that the employees of the department are working very hard to implement the six point plan. The men and women of this department are working overtime to review the files and implement the aspects of the plan that will make a difference in the structure that is so important to us. I would ask the members of that party to remind themselves that it was not too long ago that they were asking me to fire employees in my department. Now they seem to be defending them. Which way would they have it?
Why did the minister's department have to ask 'Do we really have to start these measures before this year end?' if following the rules was not a new practice?
Cites a specific quote from departmental documents ('Do we really have to start these measures before this year end?') and asks a focused question about why the department had to be told when to start following the rules.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what is very clear is that the minister is refusing to answer these very serious questions. The minister's department did not follow the law. They had to be instructed to start doing so. They said things like this “Do we really have to start these measures before this year end?” If following the rules was not a new practice for the minister, why did her department have to ask about when to start following the rules?
The minister said the department is implementing a plan to improve grants and contributions administration, citing the closing of 37 files and recapturing of overpayments with only just over $600 unrecovered.
The minister does not address the quoted document or the question at all, instead describing the six point plan and citing the closing of 37 files and recapture of overpayments — a pivot away from the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, again let me be clear. The department is implementing a plan that will improve the administration of our grants and contributions. We have made that a priority for the department. We have already showed the results of the plan with the closing of the 37 files and the recapturing of any overpayments with the exception of just over $600. Together as a team we are improving the activities of our department and that, quite frankly, is what Canadians expect.
How can the minister justify grants to her own riding using the 'pockets of poverty' criterion when her own officials say that criterion did not exist at the time?
Points to a direct contradiction between the minister's repeated justification of grants using the 'pockets of poverty' criterion and the statement by her own officials that this criterion did not exist at the time.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development has spent days in this House justifying the fact that her riding received grants under the transitional jobs fund citing the famous pockets of poverty criterion. How can the minister decently justify the grants received in her own riding by talking of pockets of poverty, when her officials tell us that this criterion did not exist at the time?
The minister simply stated that is not what the officials said, without any further explanation.
The minister's entire answer is a single sentence flatly denying what the officials said, with no elaboration, evidence, or engagement with the substance of the contradiction.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that is not what the officials said at all.
Since the minister and her officials are contradicting each other, will she table documents in the House proving that her account, rather than her officials', is correct?
Presses the minister on the contradiction between her account and her officials' account and asks her to table documents proving her version, which is a concrete ask but somewhat rhetorical in framing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the minister and her officials are totally contradicting each other. Does the minister realize that she now bears the burden of proof and that she has no choice but to table in this House the documents proving that she and not her officials is right.
The minister referred the member to a local newspaper in her riding of Brant that reviewed every program and found nothing wrong.
The minister does not table any documents; instead she refers the member to a local newspaper article that reviewed the programs and found nothing wrong — an indirect and unverifiable deflection.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, time and again I have talked about the use and the value of the transitional jobs fund in my riding of Brant. I would ask the hon. member to look at the local paper in my riding that was presented last week that went through every single one of these programs and found that there was nothing wrong.
The department's own question and answer sheet states 'The rules are not new; they are just being enforced,' suggesting rule-breaking was policy; what made the minister think she could break the law?
Cites a specific departmental question and answer sheet ('The rules are not new; they are just being enforced') and begins asking what made the minister think she could break the law, though the question is cut off before completion.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, breaking the law was not an accident at HRDC, it was policy. The department's questions and answers—
Oh, oh.
Breaking the rules was not an accident at HRDC, it was policy. The department's question and answer sheet produced after the audit says “The rules are not new; they are just being enforced”. Officials are being told to disregard the rules and all for partisan political gain. What made the minister think that she could break the law—
The minister categorically rejected the allegations and said departmental policy was to ensure grants and contributions were administered to help Canadians with disabilities, young people, and communities across all ridings including Reform ridings.
The minister categorically rejects the allegations and pivots to describing how grants benefited all ridings including Reform ridings, without engaging with the quoted document or the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, again let me categorically reject the allegations made by the hon. member. What was policy in my department was to ensure that these important grants and contributions got administered in the ridings of each and every one of the members of the House and that includes members of the Reform Party. They know that when they are back home in their ridings the money that comes from the Government of Canada to help Canadians with disabilities, to help young people who have not been able to find jobs and to help in their communities where men and women do not have the opportunity for employment, is money well spent.
The member alleged that HRDC officials were ordered by their political masters to break the rules and began asking why the Liberals thought they could do so, but the question was not completed.
Makes sweeping allegations that officials were told by political masters to break the law but the question is cut off before being completed, leaving no answerable ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, all the training in the world does not help when we are ordered to break the rules. Even the minister's own officials are saying that they were forced to break the rules. This minister and her predecessor mismanaged millions of taxpayer dollars. Now we find out that much of it was done illegally. HRDC officials were told by their political masters to break the law. Why do the Liberals think they are—
No ministerial answer was recorded for this exchange.
There is no ministerial answer recorded for this exchange.
Will the federal government suspend the excise tax of 10 cents a litre on gasoline and 4 cents a litre on diesel fuel to give relief to taxpayers facing rising gasoline prices?
Identifies a specific proposal (suspending the excise tax of 10 cents a litre on gasoline and 4 cents a litre on diesel fuel) and asks the Prime Minister directly whether the government intends to act on it.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour and deputy chair of the team in charge of organizing the next election, established yesterday by the Prime Minister, expressed her opinion on the current increases gasoline prices. She has adopted the idea already proposed by the Bloc Quebecois of suspending the excise tax of 10 cents a litre on gasoline and of 4 cents a litre on diesel fuel. My question is for the Prime Minister. Could he tell us whether the federal government intends to do its share to give relief to taxpayers by suspending excise taxes on gasoline?
The minister clarified that the Minister of Labour had raised the fiscal question with the Minister of Finance, confirmed the excise tax rates of about 10 cents a litre on gasoline and about 4 cents a litre on diesel, and noted the diesel tax has not changed since the government took office.
The Minister of Natural Resources clarifies the record on the Minister of Labour's communication and confirms the exact excise tax figures, but does not answer whether the government intends to suspend the taxes.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, just to clarify the record, the Minister of Labour communicated with the Minister of Finance with respect to raising the fiscal question. I should point out to the hon. gentleman that the excise tax on gasoline is about 10 cents a litre. The excise tax on diesel is about 4 cents a litre, and particularly with diesel where the concern is concentrated, that tax has not changed since we have been in government.
Will the minister update the House on how Canada is doing on exporting fish products?
A government backbench softball asking the minister to update the House on fish export performance, with a partisan jab at the opposition included.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as a nation we are one of the largest exporters of fish products in the world and export to about 100 different countries. Last week in Boston, the famous Boston seafood show was attended by our minister and by representatives of our various provinces and Canadian companies. Would the minister please update the House on how we are doing on exporting fish? The side over there needs a lot of fish products. It would be good for them and would develop some of their brains too.
The minister announced that Canada broke all records for fish and seafood exports at $3.7 billion, a $500 million increase over the previous year, as announced at the International Boston Seafood Show.
The minister provides a concrete figure — $3.7 billion in fish and seafood exports, a $500 million increase over the prior year — which is specific and factual.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Miramichi for taking an interest in the subject. I had the opportunity to visit the International Boston Seafood Show which, by the way, was started by Canadian companies and is now world renown. At the International Boston Seafood Show I had the opportunity to announce our export figures. We have broken all records for our fish and seafood products which are at $3.7 billion, a $500 million increase over last year.
The minister's own departmental briefing notes show officials were told it was okay to break the rules; if the audit had not caught the minister, would she ever have stopped the rule-breaking?
Quotes directly from the minister's own departmental briefing notes ('We were told to be flexible. Now we are being told to obey the Financial Administration Act and Treasury Board guidelines. Why doesn't management make up its mind?') and asks whether the rule-breaking would ever have stopped without the audit.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the minister cannot hide from the fact that her own departmental briefing notes, the very papers that she uses for her departmental officials state: “We were told to be flexible. Now we are being told to obey the Financial Administration Act and Treasury Board guidelines. Why doesn't management make up its mind?” In other words, officials were told that it was okay to break the rules and only after she got caught did the minister slam on the brakes. If the audit had not caught the minister red-handed, would she have ever stopped the rule breaking?
The minister said the member was incorrect and expressed surprise that he would not support a system of service delivery that speaks to communities and modern comptrollership to improve accountability.
The minister says the member is incorrect but does not address the quoted briefing notes, and instead pivots to praising modern comptrollership and service delivery — a near-complete deflection.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, again the hon. member is incorrect in his assertions. I know him to be a proponent of strong public administration. That is why I am surprised he would not be supporting us to continue to have a system of service delivery that speaks directly to communities and individuals, and to work together to build a system of modern comptrollership that allows us to be even more accountable to Canadian taxpayers.
Given that the department's own question and answer sheet states 'the rules are not new, they are just being enforced,' would the minister ever have changed the rule-breaking had she not been caught red-handed?
Again quotes the departmental question and answer sheet ('the rules are not new, they are just being enforced') and asks directly whether the minister would have changed the rules if she had not been caught.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the minister still will not acknowledge what is in her own departmental questions and answers. It is clear there was no intention to have HRDC officials abide by the rules. To have done so would have made it impossible to channel all these loans into Liberal ridings. To quote the question and answer sheet again, “the rules are not new, they are just being enforced” from now on. The minister obviously changed her mind about the rule breaking after she got caught. I will ask again, if she had not been caught red-handed, would she have ever changed the rules?
The minister called the assertion absolutely incorrect and said the department has agreed to build a strong system of modern comptrollership to strengthen management of grants and contributions, with the plan already at work.
The minister again calls the assertion incorrect without addressing the quoted text and describes the plan to build modern comptrollership — another complete deflection from the specific question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, again the assertion is absolutely incorrect. The facts are these. We have agreed within the department that we are going to build a strong system of modern comptrollership to strengthen our management of grants and contributions. The plan is already at work. We are improving our system in order to better serve Canadians.
After months of saying 'we are studying it' in response to Alberta's Bill 11, does Alberta's Bill 11 violate the Canada Health Act, yes or no?
Precisely chronicles four specific dates (November 17, December 13, March 2, March 13) with the minister's exact responses on each occasion and asks a single binary yes/no question: does Alberta's Bill 11 violate the Canada Health Act.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on November 17 Alberta made its plan known for privatization of health care. The Minister of Health at that time said “We are looking at it”. On December 13 the Alberta health minister confirmed its intentions. The Minister of Health stood in the House and said “We are studying that matter”. On March 2 Bill 11 was tabled. The minister said “We are studying it”. On March 13 the minister said “We are still studying the matter”. On the most important issue facing Canadians, Canadians deserve an answer today from the minister. Does Alberta's Bill 11 violate the Canada Health Act, yes or no?
The minister assured the House the government will do whatever it takes to protect the Canada Health Act principles, but noted Bill 11 has yet to receive second reading, may still be amended, and regulations have not yet been published.
The minister commits to protecting Canada Health Act principles but refuses to answer yes or no, instead noting the bill has not received second reading and regulations have not been published — a substantive but evasive response.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should rest assured that the government will do whatever it takes to protect the principles of the Canada Health Act. With respect to Bill 11, I invite the hon. member to observe that the premier of Alberta himself is still talking about possible amendments to that bill. It has yet to receive second reading in the legislature. We have yet to see regulations which are referred to extensively in the bill. If the hon. member has a legal opinion with respect to it now, I wish she would share that with the House.
Since the minister said he would act if Bill 11 violated the spirit and letter of the law, will he act today, provide a timetable for completing his analysis, commit to preserving medicare at all costs, and say no to Ralph Klein?
Holds the minister to his prior commitment to act if Bill 11 violated the spirit and letter of the law but asks multiple compound questions (act today, provide a timetable, commit to preserving medicare, say no to Ralph Klein), diluting the accountability value.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is the minister who said he would act if Bill 11 violated the spirit and the letter of the law. It is absolutely clear. Bill 11 violates the spirit of the Canada Health Act. Canadians want an answer. Since the minister is spending more time developing slogans than on actually developing a response to save medicare, will he act today? Will he give Canadians a timetable for when he will have completed his analysis? Will he state clearly that medicare is a program that will be preserved at all costs? Will he say no to Ralph Klein?
The minister said the government will do what is required to protect the Canada Health Act and then attacked the NDP for aligning with forces on the right instead of working with the government to renew medicare.
The minister restates that the government will do what is required but then turns the answer into an attack on the NDP for aligning with forces on the right and urges them to work with the government — a deflection rather than any of the specific answers sought.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we will do what is required to protect the Canada Health Act. Let me remind the hon. member that she can make a real contribution to preserving medicare by working with us to renew it for the 21st century rather than aligning herself with the forces on the right who would destroy medicare. I wish the New Democratic Party would work with us toward making the long term changes that are necessary, rather than playing into the hands of the Reform Party and others who would destroy medicare in the country.
Will the Prime Minister admit that he knows René Fugère and that Fugère has been using the Prime Minister's name to advance his business career?
Asks the Prime Minister to admit he knows René Fugère and that Fugère used the Prime Minister's name to advance his business career, which is a reasonably specific accountability ask but relies on partisan framing about coming clean.
Source text
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?
The Prime Minister said many people in Canada know Jean Chrétien given he has been elected 11 times in Saint-Maurice since 1963 and has worked to create jobs as a member of parliament.
The Prime Minister does not confirm or deny knowing Fugère specifically, instead speaking generally about knowing many people in Saint-Maurice after being elected 11 times since 1963 — a clear deflection.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of people in Canada who know Jean Chrétien. I have been elected 11 times in Saint-Maurice. I have been the member of parliament for Saint-Maurice since 1963. A lot of people have worked for me and I know a lot of people in my riding. I am grateful that they keep electing me. The more questions I am asked like that, because I am doing my job as a member of parliament to create jobs, the more votes I will get in the next election.
Dubé asks whether the Prime Minister will request an RCMP investigation into René Fugère's lobbying activities on behalf of the Opitciwan sawmill while unregistered as a lobbyist.
The question cites a specific individual (René Fugère), a specific file (Opitciwan sawmill), a specific legal issue (unregistered lobbying under the Lobbyists Registration Act), and makes a clear single ask about RCMP investigation.
Source text
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?
Manley states that the government does not ask the RCMP to investigate individuals, and that the assistant deputy registrar general is responsible for compliance with the Lobbyists Registration Act and will take appropriate action where there is non-compliance.
The minister clarifies the correct enforcement mechanism (assistant deputy registrar general under the Lobbyists Registration Act) rather than the RCMP, which is relevant, but does not confirm whether a referral or investigation is actually underway.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that we do not ask the RCMP to investigate anybody. What will happen is that the assistant deputy registrar general of Canada, who is responsible for registrations under the Lobbyists Registration Act, will ensure that it is complied with. Where there is failure to comply, the appropriate action will be taken.
Myers asks the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to update the House on cost recovery fees and how they pertain to his portfolio.
A governing-party MP asks a minister to 'update the House' on cost recovery fees — a classic backbench setup with no accountability value.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, members in the House are well aware of the tough times that farmers in Canada are facing. One of the pressures is cost recovery fees. Can the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food update the House with respect to cost recovery fees and how it pertains to his portfolio?
Vanclief announces a freeze on mandatory fees by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency until at least end of 2002, and references $83 million announced the previous week to cover debts and freeze Canadian Grain Commission fees until 2003, alongside broader support figures of $600 million annually and $2.3 billion over 18 months.
The minister provides specific dollar figures, agency names, and concrete policy announcements directly responsive to the topic raised.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's question. It gives me a chance to remind everyone of the government's commitment to agriculture. Not only is there the $600 million a year to support farmers but there is also the $2.3 billion we put out in support in the last 18 months to farmers. A week ago I announced another $83 million to cover the debts and to allow the Canadian Grain Commission to freeze its mandatory fees until 2003. I am pleased to announce today that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency will freeze mandatory fees until at least the end of 2002.
Mills quotes HRDC officials asking how flexible 'flexible' is, and asks whether the minister's instruction not to follow the law applied only to the Prime Minister's riding or everywhere.
The question quotes an official document ('How are we supposed to know how flexible is flexible?') and asks a pointed accountability question about whether flexibility applied only to the Prime Minister's riding, but the ask is somewhat compound and rhetorically framed.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the minister's own officials are asking her, “How are we supposed to know how flexible is flexible?” When she instructs her officials to not follow the law, did that flexibility only apply to the Prime Minister's riding or did it apply everywhere?
Stewart flatly denies that employees of Human Resources Development Canada were ever instructed not to follow the law.
Stewart gives a one-sentence denial that employees were instructed not to follow the law but does not address the substance of the quoted memo or the question about geographic scope of flexibility.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the employees of the Department of Human Resources Development Canada have never been instructed not to follow the law.
Lebel asks whether the government's refusal to order an investigation into Placeteco is connected to Gilles Champagne — the trustee appointed by Human Resources Canada who failed to protect $1.2 million and whose own client Claude Gauthier benefited — whom the Prime Minister himself appointed to Canada Post's board of directors in 1996.
The question names specific individuals (Gilles Champagne, Claude Gauthier), cites a specific dollar amount ($1.2 million), names a specific program (Placeteco), identifies a specific role (trustee appointed by Human Resources Canada), and draws a specific link to the Prime Minister's 1996 appointment of Champagne to Canada Post's board of directors — a highly grounded accountability ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in the Placeteco issue, the trustee appointed by Human Resources Canada, Gilles Champagne, had a responsibility to protect the $1.2 million from HDRC. He did not do so and his own client, Claude Gauthier, benefited from that money. My question is for the Prime Minister. Is the government's refusal to order an investigation into Placeteco not related to Gilles Champagne, whom the Prime Minister himself appointed to Canada Post's board of directors, in 1996?
Stewart acknowledges the trust fund creation was inappropriate and that the department closed it, and notes that the company invested $5 million and the Government of Quebec also approved the project, but does not address the Champagne-Canada Post appointment or the investigation question.
Stewart acknowledges the trust fund issue was inappropriate and that the department was advised to close it, but does not address the specific question about Gilles Champagne's dual role, his appointment to Canada Post, or the government's refusal to order an investigation — instead pivoting to other investors' involvement.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on a number of occasions in the House I have accepted that the creation of trust funds in this particular file was inappropriate. The department was advised to close the trust fund. It did that. I would remind the hon. member that in the case of this particular project, it was not only the Government of Canada that was a partner. The company itself invested $5 million and it was HQ, headquarters, the Government of Quebec, that also agreed that this was a wise investment.
Dockrill points to inconsistent ministerial answers about jobs and money related to Scotia Rainbow, notes that after $20 million in government subsidies the company is in receivership, and asks whether the minister will agree to a forensic audit.
The question cites $20 million in government subsidies, notes inconsistencies in previous answers about jobs and money, references Scotia Rainbow's receivership, and makes a specific ask for a forensic audit, though framed with rhetorical colour ('fishy smell').
Source text
Mr. Speaker, question after question about the mismanagement of public funds by the government and Scotia Rainbow have resulted in a series of inconsistent answers. There are inconsistencies about how many jobs were created and inconsistencies about how much government money. The fact is after $20 million in government subsidies, Scotia Rainbow is now in receivership. Will the minister now attempt to clear the air of this fishy smell and agree to a forensic audit?
Baker states that the federal government invested the least in the enterprise compared to chartered banks, private investors, and the provincial government, and claims community and editorial support while criticizing NDP members for being out of step with their constituents.
Baker does not address the request for a forensic audit at all, instead ranking investors by contribution size, citing community and editorial support, and attacking NDP members — a near-complete deflection.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as has been pointed out in the House before, the federal government has invested the least in this enterprise. The most was invested by the chartered banks, private investors, then the provincial government, and then way down is the federal government. We have received support from all of the communities in Cape Breton Island and all of the newspaper editorials. The only people out of step are NDP members. When are they going to get in step with their own constituents?
Casey asks whether the Minister of Industry has adjusted the research chair program's funding formula to include smaller universities such as Nova Scotia Agricultural College that were left out of the original design.
The question identifies a specific program (research chair program), a specific excluded category (small universities like Nova Scotia Agricultural College), notes the issue has been raised several times before, and asks a direct yes/no whether the plan has been adjusted — reasonably specific but lacks documentary grounding.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry. When the department developed the research chair program to provide research money for universities across the country, it left out a small group of universities that do great work, like Nova Scotia Agricultural College and many, many more. We have raised this question in the House several times before. I would like to know if the minister has adjusted the plan now to include universities like Nova Scotia Agricultural College.
Manley states he hopes to announce the funding formula before the end of the month and highlights the program's scale — 2,000 research chairs and $900 million — but does not confirm whether Nova Scotia Agricultural College or similar institutions will be included.
Manley says he hopes to announce the funding formula before the end of the month, which partially addresses the timing but does not confirm whether institutions like Nova Scotia Agricultural College will be included, pivoting instead to broader program statistics.
Source text
Mr. speaker, I hope before the end of this month to be able to announce the funding formula that will be used in order to allocate the research chairs. I would like to point out to the hon. member what a significant difference this program is going to make to Canadian universities: 2,000 research chairs across Canada, $900 million. That is the equivalent of creating two virtual MITs in Canada. This will make Canada competitive in the 21st century.