Debates of April 4th, 2000

Supply

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am referring to a completed internal audit report, not a draft report. We make the distinction here.

As soon as this report is completed, it is in the public domain. It must therefore be made accessible to all members of the public, and all parliamentarians, on request, without having to use the Access to Information Act. This is a far more open approach than to require people to take the access to information route.

That is why I say that today's motion is pointless, in that these documents are already in the public domain and can be requested by any parliamentary committee.

[Grant McNally, Reform, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to follow up with another question because the minister has been asked this several times but has not answered.

She knows that opposition parties have filed access to information requests for internal audits because they have not been released, even though treasury board guidelines say they should be released, and then directives have been sent after that within her own department saying to release these internal audits because they are supposed to be public. They are supposed to be public, but they are not. In other words, treasury board is hiding these audits, not releasing them or not putting them out in a timely fashion. That is why this motion is before the House today.

I will ask the minister once again. Why is it that her department is not releasing these audits in a timely fashion when there are already access requests which she says do not even need to be applied? She is right on that, but we are bringing this to her attention and the government's attention so they will do something about this problem and fix it.

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it seems fairly obvious to me that the hon. member does not understand the difference in public administration between the responsibility of the departments and that of the Secretariat of the Treasury Board.

Responsibility for making an internal audit public rests with the department itself and not with the Secretariat of the Treasury Board. Each department is responsible for its own management and must follow the policies of Treasury Board. Each department must therefore make public an internal audit report at the request of an individual. This is how the system works and it is Treasury Board policy. We will actively monitor this policy.

[Eric C. Lowther, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, after that interchange, it may be a good time to step back a bit and review the rules, the goal line and what we are trying to accomplish.

Some time ago there were some laudable goals put in place by treasury board and the government. These goals and guidelines were designed to establish a simple and open process for people to get access to public information. That public information included audit reports. A few years back the treasury board, for which the minister who just spoke is responsible, said that it required departments to make the final version of review reports, including internal audits and evaluation reports, accessible to the public without requiring formal access requests. I heard the minister say that. It is a great idea, it is a laudable goal and we applaud that open approach to public information.

Recently, the same concept was reiterated by the information commissioner. He said that he regards the right of access as one of the cornerstones of the democratic process and one of the best tools available to ensure responsible government. The problem today, and why this motion is on the floor, is that something has changed in recent times. Although those are the goal lines and although that is what we are trying to achieve, something is off the rails. That is why we brought this motion forward.

Currently, there are audits done which are public reports. To get access to these public reports, we have made formal requests. It is clear that we do not have to make a formal request, but to make it official we have made them formal. We are now waiting to get access to these audit reports.

I should mention, Mr. Speaker, that I am sharing my time with the member for Dewdney—Alouette.

In the past when we made these requests for information, the response was generally not too bad. In recent times something has changed. In fact, there are reports, which are public information and paid for by public money, that we have made formal requests for and 45 days later we are still waiting for them. I do not think it is any coincidence that five of these audit reports are directly related to Human Resources Development, the area where the billion dollar boondoggle was exposed by a previous audit report. There are five more reports that we are waiting for. It has been 45 days plus and there is no sign of those reports.

It does not stop at HRDC. This delay tactic seems to be spreading. It is not only HRDC. Now we have requests for public reports, paid for by public money, from a number of other departments and agencies in the government that we are still waiting for: Agriculture and Agri-Food; Canadian Customs and Revenue, the new Revenue Canada; Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation; the Department of Citizenship and Immigration; the Department of Fisheries and Oceans; the National Capital Commission; and the list goes on. This delay approach is spreading to other departments. That is the reason for our motion today. It is the government's own guidelines and own rules and we as the official opposition have to bring a motion forward to get it to respect its own rules because we see a trend of delay in getting access to public information in these audit reports.

When did all this start? I do not think it takes a genius to figure out that when the report for human resources development came out, when we got access to it and the minister for that department was aware that this was going to be exposed, that is when it all started.

The government now has put in it appears a new vetting process of any new audit. This vetting process requires that audits, before they are released to the public as a public document of reports and audits, be now cycled through the treasury board and the Privy Council Office. They want to know what has been requested, what is being asked for and what this public report says. Then they develop a media spin to make sure that when the report is released they have all the answers ready and they can package this in a way that can do damage control, which is basically what it comes down to.

The problem is that this is causing increasing delays. That begs another question. How big are the problems? If the HRDC audit which has exposed a billion dollar boondoggle is an example, I am wondering if perhaps we have just seen the tip of the iceberg with that particular boondoggle.

Why are so many audits being held back for so long? It is taking 45 days for the government to figure out how it is going to spin some of these audits in the public arena. It is more than 45 days. We have been waiting 45 days. How much damage control does it take to release a public document which reports on the working of the government? Apparently it is taking more and more.

In light of that, let us reflect again on the statements of the information commissioner. He said, “The right of access is one of the cornerstones of our democratic process, one of the best tools available to ensure responsible government”. I like another quote from the information minister. He said, “Information delayed is information denied”. That is effectively what has been happening with these damage control tactics of the Liberal government on reports that expose things like the billion dollar boondoggle which we suspect, and could make a pretty good case for, is probably the tip of the iceberg based on these many audits that we are waiting for.

What did we find in the HRDC audit when it came out? What is being hidden here? Let us look at the HRDC audit for a moment. This audit of a billion dollars a year in grants and contributions handed out by HRDC revealed some interesting things which have concerned Canadians across the country: 15% did not have an application on file; 25% of these grants that were handed out did not have a description of the activities to be supported; 87% showed no evidence of supervision.

To quote from one of the specific examples, McGill University submitted a $60,000 proposal. It received $160,000, but when it was audited it should have only been $30,000. If that is the tip of the iceberg, we can see why the official opposition is asking that these public reports not be hidden from the public so that appropriate action can be taken and these out of control programs can be dealt with in the light of the scrutiny of the public.

The minister who spoke before me talked about modern management practices and that being why these delays were put in place. I submit to her that modern management practices are open, accountable and responsive to the problems and do not use delay tactics to cover up problems and spin-doctoring to misrepresent facts to the people.

In light of that, if the minister really wants to modernize the approaches taken by the Liberal government she would support the motion because it is modernization and enforcement of their own guidelines.

It should be easy for government members across the way to support the motion on information being given to the public in a timely manner from an open and accountable government. That is what the motion is all about. We look forward to them supporting it.

[Rey D. Pagtakhan, Liberal, Winnipeg North—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the end of the debate of the hon. member and it occurred to me to call to the attention of the House, by way of commentary, that this morning we listened to the President of the Treasury Board inform us of the many initiatives her department has embarked on to further strengthen management control within government.

An outline of those initiatives would include assisting Human Resources Development Canada, which is proper; strengthening the management of grants and contributions; strengthening the internal audit system; and active monitoring. Last Thursday the minister tabled “Results for Canadians: A Management Framework for the Government of Canada”. It is a very important document which describes the various efforts that are taking place to modernize government management practices.

The member spoke about tabling all the audit reports. While it is one thing to ask for them to be tabled, it is another thing to study the reports. Since “Results for Canadians: A Management Framework for the Government of Canada” was tabled on Thursday, has the member had an opportunity to read the report?

[Eric C. Lowther, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question and I am glad to hear the report was tabled. I hope that the five others from HRDC for which we have been waiting for 45 days will soon be tabled and that the public reports of the seven other departments in government for which we have asked will soon be tabled. Those are the ones for which we have made specific requests to be tabled and we are still waiting.

The member opposite does not seem to understand what the HRDC fiasco has exposed. When grants and contributions are given out to certain entities in certain riding and members of parliament have a hand in it, there is a concern that there is a perception of conflict of interest, that those grants can be used to advance certain political agendas.

Whether or not that is the case, the appearance of the conflict of interest potential is there. That is exactly why there must be openness in government. As the commissioner said, the openness and availability of public reports must be there so that we can protect everyone in the House against the accusations of conflict of interest through having access to the audit reports on various departments of government.

[Rey D. Pagtakhan, Liberal, Winnipeg North—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear that the member was alluding only to perception and not to reality. We must underscore what he said, but it is not responsible to keep repeating the perception with the hope or at least the unwitting result of creating a reality out of a perception. I am sure the member did not mean that. I am glad to note that he indicated that it was a perception. Of course the corollary is that it is not a real fiasco.

[Eric C. Lowther, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, regarding perception and reality, when the perception is continually laid before the Canadian public that grants and contributions are going to the ridings of certain members and that they have had a hand in it or some involvement in it, the problem is that unless there is openness on audit reports, unless there is openness to requests for information, which is the treasury board minister's guideline, there is concern. They will never get away from that perception unless they allow openness in the public reports generated by the government.

If they are really concerned about the perception, they should deal with it by endorsing the motion the opposition has brought forward today and by saying that they will let us have access to public reports paid for by public money for which we have been waiting for more than 45 days.

[Grant McNally, Reform, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, government members opposite talk about perceptions and realities. Let us take a look at them. Of course they would like the perception of all Canadians to be that they are prudent financial managers and taking care of taxpayer dollars.

The reality is the very opposite. This has been exposed to the light of day through the HRDC fiasco. It is unbelievable and it cannot be hidden. That is reality. That is the reality government members are running from. They would like to create a smokescreen, a diversion, and make up a bunch of excuses about what they are doing, as though they really are prudent financial managers.

Let us take a look at some of the information that has somehow slipped through the minister's fingers, because we know she likes to hang on to it very tightly. Here is some that has slipped through the net. I will read from a letter from the minister of human resources when she wrote:

It greatly concerns me that Treasury Board regulations were not complied with in relation to issuing advances to sponsors and carrying over between fiscal years. This is an unacceptable practice that is completely avoidable. Every officer responsible for managing this fund should be cognizant of the regulations under which they work.

These are the minister's comments to people within her department. She acknowledges that treasury board guidelines are being broken. This is the minister and the government that put these guidelines in place. They are the ones who need to be held accountable and responsible for what it is they have done. We are bringing the motion forward in the House today to hold the government accountable.

The President of the Treasury Board said earlier in the House that the motion brought forward by the Canadian Alliance did not mean much, that it was meaningless. I would argue exactly the opposite. The President of the Treasury Board knows that the treasury board has been issued with directives to release the internal audits for which we are asking, and it has not done so.

Members of the official opposition, members of the Canadian Alliance, even filed access requests for some of the information which should be made public. It should already be out there in the open, and it has not been released.

We are bringing forward the motion today because of the smokescreen mentality of the government. It does not want the information to flow which should be in the public domain because it would expose the government further to what it really is, an irresponsible manager of the public purse. It has demonstrated that through its actions throughout the HRDC fiasco.

We see it spreading to other departments now. The government would like for Canadians to believe that it is a good manager when the opposite is true. It cannot hide from that reality. That is a reality and the government is in the midst of it. Canadians are not happy about it at all.

I would like to read a little more from some of the information we have from within the human resources department, some questions and some draft talking points given to employees which indicate in many ways that HRDC was not complying with the rules.

Here is a question within an internal document:

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. Why doesn't management make up its mind?

That is a fairly indicting comment from within the department itself about its own guidelines. It has to issue questions and answers to its own employees about why management does not make up its mind, be flexible or obey the rules. That is unbelievable.

That is the kind of information that is being exposed in the light of day when we get it. This information is not forthcoming from the current government because it has to run and hide and get into damage control mode any time information is released. It is accountable for Canadian taxpayer dollars and it is blowing it in a big way. The document goes on to say in answer to the first question posed:

—the minister and the Deputy Minister have instructed us to follow the rules starting immediately.

What does that imply? It implies that the rules were not followed previous to this directive. It is unbelievable that employees had to be reminded to follow the rules. Another question was:

So what are the new rules? We have to know before we can talk to partners/sponsors.

The answer was:

The rules are not new. They are just being enforced.

They were not enforced before. That is the implication of that comment. Again I would state that this is glaring evidence of the problems the government is running from with the whole fiasco and why the President of Treasury Board and the government are not releasing information as quickly as they need to do. They are over the time limit in releasing information and as a result information is not coming forward. That is simply wrong.

This document from the human resources department goes on further with another question:

Do we really have to start these measures of enforcing the rules before this year's fiscal year-end?

The answer was:

We must obey the Financial Administration Act and the Treasury Board guidelines. This is not an option.

It is as though it were some new piece of information that they should be obeying the regulations and following the rules and guidelines, thereby implying that the guidelines were not being followed previously. That is why there are major problems and that is why we are bringing the motion forward today.

Canadians need to know this. They need to sift through the information screen being placed in their way by the government and take a look at the reasons behind it. The Liberals will stand to say one thing but they will do a very different thing with their actions.

I suggest that Canadians judge the government on its actions. What are its actions? Its actions have shown very clearly that it is a very poor manager of the hard earned tax dollars of Canadians. Money has gone out through some of the HRDC programs without individuals even applying for funding. Yet they receive funding and very few checks and balances have been placed on that funding.

That is not government money. The Liberals seem to think somehow that it is government money. They are taxpayer dollars, hard earned dollars that people go to work every day to earn, to make a living. The government, which imposes the highest tax rate possible on Canadians, then squanders away much of this money in an unaccountable fashion.

I do not think people have a problem if dollars are being managed wisely. Canadians are generous people, but they sure have a problem when they see their money wasted and they see their money blown on programs that do not even have accountability measures built in.

That is unacceptable and that is why we are bringing the motion forward. That is why we are holding the President of Treasury Board, the Minister of Human Resources Development, the Prime Minister and the entire group over there accountable for releasing information. They need to do that and they have failed to do so.

It is almost like the Wizard of Oz. When we pull back the curtain and see a little man sitting behind it we wonder how we were bamboozled by this individual. It is amazing. I ask Canadians to pull back the screen and examine in the light of day the actions of the government and exactly what it has done with Canadians' hard earned tax dollars. They will be appalled. The government should be and needs to be held accountable.

We are waiting in its stead to fill the void that is being created by a government that has simply lost touch with Canadians and with its responsibility to manage taxpayer dollars. That is why we brought this motion forward.

We implore all members of the House to support this motion, which will hold the government accountable, so that we get the information that should be public but is not being released, to examine the actions of the government and to make the government accountable.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Broadview—Greenwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is amazing to see the happy faces of my friends in the Canadian Alliance today. I have listened to many of the remarks by the opposition today and I do agree on the issue of holding us accountable. Many of us have been in opposition and we know it is the opposition's job to hold us accountable. We do not have a problem with that.

We would also like to remind members opposite that when they asked for all the records relating to the human resources development grants that happened across the country, we produced them.

The thing that troubles me about this exercise that the opposition is on right now is that it goes against the very essence of what this Chamber is supposed to be doing. What do I mean by that? I mean that we were elected to come to this Chamber, which I sometimes call the nation's boardroom, to speak for those in our communities, those in our country who need the most help.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from the beautiful county of Dundas.

We are not here to speak for the advantaged, although we do not ignore the advantaged, but we are here to speak for those who need the most help. In the last few years I think most Canadians would agree that we have gone through a very difficult and stressful time because of a tough economy. In a tough economy there are a lot more people who need help.

In my mind, what the opposition members have done over the last few months has been to put a spike in the heart of the essence of why we are all supposed to be here. They have taken the human resources development file, HRDC, and have tried to cast aspersions on thousands and thousands of projects in every riding across Canada, projects that have helped young people get into the workplace, projects for seniors, projects for the disabled and projects for farmers. The list goes on of thousands and thousands of projects right across Canada. They have tried to create a perception that this entire fund was mismanaged. They tried to create a perception that somehow $1 billion—one member today even went as high as $3 billion—just vanished, that it went out the back door. I think Canadians are beginning to realize that in all but a few examples, 99.9% of that money went to important community-building projects in every riding right across Canada.

Members in the House will cite examples where maybe the accounting procedures or the accountability of a particular project should have been better. I have no problem when the opposition stands up and tries to ask us about a specific project. Ultimately, we, as the government, have to take responsibility for all the officials. The notion of blaming the officials, in my mind, is awful. It is terrible to strike out at people who cannot defend themselves. It is our duty as elected members to say that the buck stops with us. We have to speak up and defend the officials. If they have made a mistake we have to take responsibility. However, we do not, for the sake of 40 or 50 examples out of over 35,000 projects, have to cast aspersions on the whole human resources development file. I, for the life of me, cannot figure it out.

Does this mean that the opposition wants to do away with HRDC projects? Is that what this line of attack means? Does the opposition want to cast aspersions on the $1 billion that went to all the projects? I see one of the members shaking his head no. If they do not want to cancel the HRDC file, then why are they trying to stain the whole envelope because of a few files that they want to challenge? That is where I take exception to the opposition's line of attack and line of accountability.

The opposition members have taken 40 or 50 files out of 35,000 and have tried to cast aspersions on $1 billion and sometimes even as high as $3 billion. I think Canadians see through that. If this had been a more straightforward accountability, they probably would have had better luck with the public. However, because they tried to take a few examples and say that the whole waterfront was money out the back door, I will bet my seat in the next election that all of those HRDC projects in my community, which I am proud of and which I stand by, will help get me re-elected.

The member across the way talks about this as being pork-barrelling. That casts aspersions on the public service. I am not sure if opposition members realize that public servants, officials and bureaucrats—and I think it is important for the public to know this—are bound by the Financial Administration Act of Canada. Unless a project meets the criteria, there is absolutely no way a contract will be processed because these public servants risk their own integrity and their own future in the public service.

I want to touch on one other area that is separate and apart from the human resources development file. It has to do with the Export Development Corporation. When the opposition members saw that the HRDC campaign to discredit all those good projects in every riding across Canada was beginning to falter, they began turning their sights on the Export Development Corporation. Boy, did they ever make a mistake there. This is an agency of the Government of Canada that has a reputation for being one of the most entrepreneurial units in the Government of Canada. Its economic track record shows us that. It has a responsibility to assist Canadian manufacturers of products to do business in every part of the world. To try to discredit EDC is really a shame.

In summary, I have no problems in being accountable to the opposition, but I wish it would deal with the specific facts and not cast aspersions on all departments and all the good work that tens of thousands of public servants do across Canada on behalf of millions of deserving Canadians.

Business Of The House

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to give the House my assurance that discussions have taken place between all the parties and pursuant to Standing Order 45(7) I believe you would find consent for the following motion. I move:

That at the conclusion of today's debate on the Canadian Alliance's opposition motion, all questions necessary to dispose of the said motion be deemed put, a recorded division requested and deferred to the conclusion of today's debate on Bill C-222.

That at 5.15 p.m. today, the House shall resume debate on Bill C-222 as listed on today's order paper for Private Members' Business.

That at the conclusion of the debate on Bill C-222 all questions necessary to dispose of this item be deemed put, a recorded division requested and the bells to call in the members shall ring for not more than 15 minutes.

That the order for the taking of the recorded divisions later this day be as follows: all questions necessary to dispose of today's opposition motion; the motion of the Minister of Industry with respect to Bill C-6; second reading of Bill C-238; and all questions necessary to dispose of the motion concerning Bill C-222.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the amendment.

Supply

[Grant McNally, Reform, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, taking a look at the defence offered by my colleague on the Liberal side, he has used two modes of defence in his debate. One is the minimize defence, which is that this has not been very much of a problem at all. So the first tactic in his argument is to say that this is not really a big problem and that we should not worry about it. Mismanagement of a billion dollars is okay.

I would also say to my colleague that there is between $13 billion and $17 billion offered up in grants and contributions—

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Broadview—Greenwood, ON]

We have him up to 13.

[Grant McNally, Reform, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

The hon. member will not listen. I am saying to him, and I will say it slowly and clearly so he can hear me, that $13 billion to $17 billion is spent in government departments in grants and contributions. I am only stating the facts. I do not think he would disagree with that. What we are asking is that if there is mismanagement in this billion dollars with HRD, is there a possibility that there could be some mismanagement in other departments with government funds? I would say, yes, there is a possibility of that.

The hon. member's second defence is the casting aspersions defence. He said it about nine different times. This is an attempt by the member to say that those who would ask questions might somehow be casting aspersions on individuals.

What we are doing is holding the government accountable and we are holding the minister accountable for her responsibility. Individuals within the different departments, the departmental officials which he noted, are between a rock and a hard place many times because they have to comply with those rules and regulations that are ever changing from directives of the minister.

After using his aspersions defence and his minimize defence, how can the member possibly defend this kind of spending of taxpayers' dollars as though it were nothing major and was just a minor thing happening—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

That is the question. The hon. member for Broadview—Greenwood.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Broadview—Greenwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, maybe we will get unanimous consent to extend this.

First, I would not want anyone in Canada to think that I was trying to minimize any mistake. By the way, I said earlier today in the debate that there is not a businessman or woman in Canada, there is not a government agency whether municipal, provincial or federal, there is not a perfect agency anywhere in the country or for that matter anywhere in the world. The notion that we think somehow that everything we do is perfect, forget it.

Canadians know that we make mistakes. What we are defending here is we do not think it is proper that in the opposition's process of making us accountable for certain files that were maybe not up to snuff, it has also cast aspersions on the whole Government of Canada process and 99.99% of the work that is proper. That is my point.

[Grant McNally, Reform, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, again we have seen the minimize defence.

I appreciate the fact that my colleague has admitted that the Liberals have made mistakes. Unfortunately the Minister of Human Resources Development has not done that. Had she done that right off the bat, then this would have subsided and would not have been the huge problem it has become for the government.

Would the hon. member talk to the minister and ask her to make the same kinds of comments he has just made in this place?

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Broadview—Greenwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is really amazing. In my mind the minister has been doing a magnificent job. The minister's role is to defend not the 25 or 30 files where we are being held accountable, it is her responsibility to defend the integrity of all those projects in every riding in Canada that have been serving millions of Canadians. That is her responsibility.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Wentworth—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is late in the afternoon and there have been hours and hours of rhetoric. I think it is high time for a reality check. I do not include the hon. member for Broadview—Greenwood in the rhetoric. I was referring to the rhetoric coming from the other side. I must correct myself on that.

[Grant McNally, Reform, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would offer that if this is a reality check, that is just unbelievable. The reality is that the government is trying to create a perception that is not so.