Angry in the Great White North

First, an example of crappy debating, on the subject the Technology Partnerships Canada scandal:

Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc, CPC): Mr. Speaker, here is something more about former minister David Dingwall. It had been reported that he had received $350,000 to help Bioniche obtain a grant through Technology Partnerships Canada. This is expressly forbidden by the government's own rules.

Yesterday we learned, however, that Bioniche has in fact paid back $460,000 to the government for violating its agreement. That is more than $100,000 difference.

Will the industry minister come clean on this issue and tell us how much money was paid to that former Liberal cabinet minister?

Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has a contractual relationship with the companies that are in receipt of contributions under Technology Partnerships Canada. We have audited those programs and we have found breaches in those contracts. We are remedying those breaches and recoveries are being made to taxpayers.

Of the $2.8 billion in TPC funds that have been put out, we have got back $14 billion when we consider the amount that private sector companies have spent on innovation in Canada.

Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc, CPC): Mr. Speaker, $2.8 billion, 5% repayment, that is the truth about what the government has recovered. The fact about any proprietary information is that this is taxpayer money and taxpayers deserve an answer to these questions.

There is a discrepancy here between $350,000 and $460,000. Why does the government continue to hide how much money former Liberal cabinet minister David Dingwall received?

Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said before, the government's relationship, under the technology partnerships program, is defined in contracts with business. We are dealing with those contracts, we are remedying the situation and the Canadian economy is benefiting. It is nearly 90% small business that benefits from these programs.

Emerson never actually answers, or even acknowledges, the question, which is why if Bioniche paid David Dingwall $350,000 for lobbying fees, did it return $460,000 to the government?

A perfectly acceptable answer would have been "I don't know. Have your people send my people the details they have on this, and I will get back to you in next week privately, and again on the floor during Question Period."

Why don't we ever hear that sort of honest and constructive give-and-take?

The only time members of the House seem to be listening to each other is when they are from the same side of the floor. In yesterday's prime example, Belinda Stronach burps out a pre-canned response, no doubt worked on dilligently by her staff, and arduously memorized and practised, to a softball question lobbed at her by fellow Liberal Alan Tonks:

Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the HRSD standing committee recently reviewed the impact of new directives put in place in the awarding of grants and contributions in the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development. The committee heard dramatic testimony expressed by the voluntary sector that was heavily affected by these changes.

Would the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development please tell the House what her department has done to address the concerns expressed by this most critical non-governmental sector?

Hon. Belinda Stronach (Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and Minister responsible for Democratic Renewal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we take the work that the voluntary sector does very seriously and we have put certain steps into place. We have put a task force in place that involves the deputy minister, the parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Peterborough, and the voluntary sector to take a look at how we can streamline the process and make it fairer to the voluntary sector.

In addition to that we have put together an office for client satisfaction, and a fairness adviser to facilitate and strengthen the process, so that we have a stronger relationship with that voluntary sector.

What is the purpose of these silly exercises? Well, during Question Period, the governing side can ask a few questions too, and it uses these opportunities to highlight some successes. Fair enough.

But how do they decide who gets to look good? I wonder if Belinda Stronach was picked, or begged to be picked, after her awful performance the day before, when she came off as someone suffering from a verbal tick: "A great story! A great story!"

This is one of those times when I just complain. I can offer no solution. I have no idea how to compel members of the House to debate better, to make honest attempts to answer questions, to avoid using cheap shots and insults in place of truthfulness.

I worry that the House of Commons is truly a reflection of the state of the country. Damn.