House of Commons Hansard #78 of the 36th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was public.

Topics

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:05 p.m.

Reform

Ken Epp Reform Elk Island, AB

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This individual is now so far away from the motion of the day that there is no question he is irrelevant, so please call him on it.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:05 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

I can see that when we get into debates on party names we do tend to get away from the motion. The hon. member I know will address his remarks to the motion.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:05 p.m.

Liberal

Lou Sekora Liberal Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC

Mr. Speaker, certainly in my community there have been a lot of HRDC grants. I can assure the House that they are well accepted and well represented in my riding. There are wheelchair cases, handicapped people and kids who need parks in my community. There are many, many things that can be done in my community. I think it is a great place to spend our money and a great accomplishment for our communities.

The Canadian Alliance Party members do not realize that. They do not believe in it. They do not believe in taking HRDC money, outside of a few of them maybe who write letters, like I have on my file, stating how good it is for their ridings once they get the money. But I do not believe they endorse it, outside of a latecomer's letter that will arrive about six months later stating how good it is for communities after they wake up and spend some time in their ridings.

Those are things that I stand for and this is what our government stands for. I hope that there will never come a day when we will lose that identity to be part of all governments across Canada, provincial, municipal and otherwise.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:05 p.m.

Bloc

Jean-Guy Chrétien Bloc Frontenac—Mégantic, QC

Mr. Speaker, I took some notes in preparing questions for my Liberal colleague from British Columbia. He said from the outset that he was disappointed to see that opposition parties did not understand all the things that this good Liberal government is doing for his fellow citizens.

This government created a big mess in health care services across the country. This government made it harder to qualify for employment insurance, with the result that barely 58% of contributors to the employment insurance fund can qualify, and most do not even have access to social assistance.

This same government created a scandal the likes of which we have never seen under the Progressive Conservative Party, a scandal that could total anywhere from one to three billion dollars.

The member said that his government was spending in a reasonable manner. Is it reasonable to spend in the Prime Minister's riding to help the Placeteco plant, when HRDC paid out $1.2 million, of which more than $1 million was transferred directly from HDRC to the National Bank to repay a loan, or else the company would have gone bankrupt? As for the other $200,000, we do not even know where it went, to whom it was paid.

Is this the member's idea of spending in a reasonable manner? I challenge the Liberal member to give me three examples where, in the past seven years, his government acted reasonably. Let him quickly give me three examples.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:10 p.m.

Liberal

Lou Sekora Liberal Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC

Mr. Speaker, the one thing that we have been very responsible for is health care, not like the Bloc across the way.

It was with great dissatisfaction that I found out that Quebec did not spend the money which was given to it by the federal government on health care. If the money has not gone to health care, a report card must be given to the federal government explaining where every dollar went. Quebec has some $8 billion from years ago that it did not spend on health. If it has a problem with health care maybe it should dig into that money. It is there for health care. British Columbia has $471 million, Alberta has millions of dollars, and I can go on.

I would like to ask the Bloc members why they are not here singing “O Canada” with us every Wednesday? How come it does not feel a part of Canada although it is? Is there something wrong with being a part of Canada?

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:10 p.m.

Bloc

Jean-Guy Chrétien Bloc Frontenac—Mégantic, QC

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hope that you understood the question I put to the member. I asked him to give me three examples, not to sing the national anthem. I made no mention of the parties of Mike Harris or Lucien Bouchard. I want him to give us three examples.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:10 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

I believe that what we have here is an argument, not a point of order. The hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam.

SupplyGovernment Orders

April 4th, 2000 / 1:10 p.m.

Liberal

Lou Sekora Liberal Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC

Mr. Speaker, the clarity bill was one and certainly health care was another. I could go on for three-quarters of hour.

I came here two years ago. Every Wednesday all members of the House get together and sing “O Canada”. We put our political stripes aside and everything else. Does the Bloc join us? No. It does not want to be part of Canada. I wonder when that is going to cease and it becomes a party that helps the government? It seems to resent us calling it to come aboard. It wants to stay away from here, especially when the national anthem is sung. They have some other kind of song to sing and nobody wants to listen.

The fact is all the money across in the provinces is for health care.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:15 p.m.

Liberal

Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON

Mr. Speaker, with the House's indulgence, I want to congratulate the member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière on the success of his private member's motion on shipbuilding. I know he has been working very hard on that and it is always good to see a private member have success in this place. It makes us all feel some measure of achievement.

I also seek the indulgence of the House to welcome, on behalf of the House, the Forum for Young Canadians who are here again this week. As members know, these are high school students from right across our country who have come to observe parliament. Today I have two guests in the lobby, Derek Snyder from your riding of Kingston, Mr. Speaker, and John Bowden from my riding of Mississauga, who are here to observe the process. I know they will have a good time learning about our government.

Today is a supply day, which means that an opposition party, in this case, the Canadian Alliance, has the opportunity to table in the House a motion for debate by the House.

I must admit that when I saw the motion I had some difficulty with the flow of it and understanding it. For the edification of those who may not have seen the motion, I will take the opportunity to put the motion forward again. It says:

That an Order of the House do issue for all departmental audit reports to be tabled within 15 days of their completion and permanently referred to the appropriate standing committees, that audit reports since January 1, 1999, be tabled within 15 days after the adoption of this motion, and that all audit reports requested under the Access to Information Act be tabled forthwith.

It is a complex motion. There are some elements in it that deal with audit reports, on which I will make some comments. I will also comment on the part about referring information or additional responsibilities to committees. The last thing I hope to comment on are some of the rules in the Access to Information Act.

As an overriding statement, all members will fully appreciate that on behalf of the people of Canada, the Parliament of Canada and the government departments of Canada work to the very best of their ability to ensure that the best interests of Canadians are represented and protected.

It is so very important that we work every day on the integrity and credibility of this institution. The motion raises an important issue. I am not sure whether the motion hits the target squarely but I think the motion is important in terms of its subject matter. It is important for us to reassure Canadians that there are rules and policies in place that give us and Canadians the tools to ensure that credibility, integrity and the best interests of Canadians is kept in mind in this place.

The motion generally calls for audits to be referred to standing committees for review. I want to advise the House that internal audits are released by departments to the public domain immediately upon their completion. This has been the policy of the Treasury Board since 1995. This is not a reaction. This has been our policy since 1995. With regard to accessibility to that information, to internal audits, it is a very important part of the policy. The policy states:

Departments should make these review reports, or summaries of them, accessible to the public in both official languages by making use of electronic public networks, timely press releases to inform the public of the results, or by placing them in departmental libraries.

In other words, the policy does in fact direct itself specifically to the concerns raised in the motion, and it has been in place since 1995.

The policy also states that “Completed internal audits are available for review by every interested Canadian immediately”. Therefore, there is no need for some formal process to make that happen because it is already happening.

It continues to say:

Further, there is no need to make access to information requests for completed internal audits.

The motion calls for that and yet it is already in place.

The issue of access to information requests does come up with regard to other internal audits that may not have been completed or other reports that have been prepared by a department but not released. These audits or other internal departmental material may be subject to access to information requests. Indeed, that is in place and it is done.

Canadians should be very assured that mechanisms are now in place to safeguard the interests of Canadians. The principles that guide us, in terms of right of access, are: first, that government information should be available to the public; second, that necessary exemptions to the right of access should be limited and specific; and, third, that decisions on the disclosure of government information should be reviewed independently of government. That is directly contrary to a part of the motion which asks committees to look at this.

Knowing the mover of this motion, the hon. member for Calgary—Nose Hill, HRDC has been of particular interest to her. I do not know whether there was information that prompted her to take some interest in this department through access to information or whether it was an audit report that was the subject of the information.

When the HRDC officials appeared at a press conference shortly after this issue broached the House, the officials described a process whereby HRDC personnel visited over 400 locations where applicants had received funds from HRDC programs and projects. They described those visits as look-see visits. They looked at a file or something else and they had what was described as a bingo chart on which they ticked off what they saw and what they did not see. As a result of that, some 37 files showed deficiencies. In a nutshell, that is what happened.

All of a sudden it comes out that there is this damning audit report which indicates that money has been misappropriated, misused or mismanaged by applicants or someone else. In the first instance, this motion is talking about audits. I would suggest to the House that what kicked off this whole HRDC question had nothing to do with an audit. It concerned information that was assembled by HRDC personnel through visits but which did not constitute an audit.

As a chartered accountant, I have been involved in the public auditing process. I was also in charge of an internal audit department during my corporate life. I know what is involved in planning, preparing and executing an internal audit. What was done by HRDC with regard to those 37 files was not an audit or an internal audit by any definition. I would challenge any member to find anybody in the industry to suggest otherwise.

The proof was in the pudding when the auditors were subsequently sent out to these 37 locations to follow up on the points raised by the visits from those HRDC personnel. In all the cases—and I believe 34 of the cases are now complete—every single item raised as being a deficiency in the file was cleared because they asked the questions or looked for the documents. If an audit had been done, those questions would have been asked, the search would have been conducted and they would have been cleared even before the original visit was completed.

Admittedly, the issue here is the credibility and the accountability of the government and parliament to the people. I believe that the provisions and the tools are in place for this to happen. I also believe it would be inappropriate to suggest that we need to have more of the operating information from departments come through the House and go to our committees. Our committees are not trained to do this and they would be obligated to actually review them and to do reports. Committees already have the opportunity. They are the masters of their own agenda. They can call for this information if they want to look at it. They can make the decision themselves whether or not it is important to review. I do not believe that all reports should have reviews. I believe that only those reports that merit review by a committee should be reviewed. That is contrary to what is prescribed in this motion. As a consequence, I will not be supporting the motion.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

Reform

Ken Epp Reform Elk Island, AB

Mr. Speaker, I would have loved to have got my debating claws on the previous member who spoke, but I guess that opportunity slipped me by.

I listened intently to the speech of the member who just spoke. I was absolutely amazed to hear him declare that he was voting against the motion. I he had read the motion he would have seen that is almost exactly what are presently Treasury Board guidelines. Treasury Board said that these internal audits and other internal reports were to be released within 30 days. The motion, if it were amended, would say that we should release them within 30 days.

How can the hon. member possibly stand in this place and say that he will vote against the motion that we are putting forward that will simply underline the importance of doing what the Treasury Board guidelines say? He is saying “No. I'm going to vote against it. I don't agree with that”.

What does he propose in its place? Does he proposed to hide them forever? We have all these audit reports, which are long overdue, and they are not available. We are not getting them through access to information. Does he want to continue to hide it? If he votes against this motion does he have an alternate proposal?

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

Liberal

Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON

Mr. Speaker, as I outlined in my speech, the rules of Treasury Board are already in place. They require that internal audits are released by departments into the public domain immediately upon their completion. That cannot be clearer.

The member asked directly why I would not be voting for the motion. I will repeat directly why I will not be voting for the motion. First, it is very poorly worded and, in particular, it requires that all these audits from all departments at all times, everything that has ever been done, somehow be magically referred permanently to committees which would be responsible for reviewing them. It would simply tie parliament up totally and not put the priorities of the nation ahead of ordinary day to day work.

The motion is flawed not only in its language but also in its intent.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Peter MacKay Progressive Conservative Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS

Mr. Speaker, I have to take some umbrage with the latter comment by the hon. member opposite, who I have the greatest respect for and who I think has the highest degree of integrity.

However, we have found, throughout this entire affair that has been going on now for some months, that there have been incredible efforts undertaken by his government to not only deny that the problem existed but to then point an accusatory finger across the way at the opposition.

It would be ludicrous for me to suggest that there was not a political element to all this. However, when it comes down to the facts of the case that are before the Canadian public, we have the auditor general himself saying that 85% of the programs were flawed in one form or another. We know that when we talk about flaws we are discussing things like companies getting more money than they applied for, companies applying for money under numbered companies and then did not set up the company in the way that they were supposed to or create the jobs that they were supposed to. Therefore, there is a very serious undertone to the motion that is before the House.

The hon. member should not simply shrug his shoulders and say that there is a process in place that is doing this work. He should admit that the problem is there. This motion is worded in such a way as to perhaps give Canadians some confidence that this problem will be dealt with in a very open and transparent way, which is again just a word when it comes to this government and is not in fact the practice.

I think Canadians would like to see—and it applies to opposition members as well—the government stand before the Canadian public and say that it was wrong, that it made a mistake and that maybe, based on the information it had at the time, it did something that it would have done differently in retrospect. Canadians have now come to expect that from the government.

Will the member please elucidate to us why it is that the government is not prepared to admit that the problem is there and that it will do something in a substantive way to give Canadians confidence in the future about this?

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

Liberal

Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his kind comments and his words of encouragement.

First of all, the member will readily admit that when the HRDC issue came up, whether it was $3 billion or $1 billion or whether it was mismanaged by the government or the applicants, a lot of politics was being played. That is unfortunate because it is at the expense of the interests of Canadians.

Canadians have a right to know the facts. The facts are that of the original 37 files in the HRDC matter which is what the member is referring to, 34 have been completed. It was found that none of the deficiencies in the files were valid and all of the items were cleared.

The motion calls for all audit reports to go to committee. I will not be supporting this. I am sure the member would not support it on that basis. Certainly the House has the right to send audits to committee, but all audits would just grind parliament to a halt.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

Reform

Val Meredith Reform South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to the comments made by the Liberal member. I am a little concerned because I get the impression members such as the member for Mississauga South do not realize the concern that Canadians have.

Canadians have watched over a period of time what they consider to be democracy and accountability in government diminishing. We have seen how a government has taken authority away from this place, the Parliament of Canada, and has placed it in the courts of the land and in the orders in council, the executive branch of government. We have seen how the executive branch of government, which is really a handful of individuals hand picked by the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister himself, is running the country. This motion has brought to our attention the fact that not only is it running the country, making the decisions and ignoring parliament, but it is also refusing to share information which is legally available to Canadians.

I think there was some misinformation about the motion. I am going to read it just so Canadians know exactly what the motion is about:

That an Order of the House do issue for all departmental audit reports to be tabled within 15 days of their completion and permanently referred to the appropriate standing committees, that audit reports since January 1, 1999, be tabled within 15 days after the adoption of this motion, and that all audit reports requested under the Access to Information Act be tabled forthwith.

All the motion is trying to do is to make information that is to be public made public through the committee process.

The hon. member for Mississauga South was quite right. This motion really should not be needed because treasury board has policies under which it is to operate. I will read from a memo from André Robert, the acting director of internal audit division of Treasury Board Secretariat. His memo is quite specific as to what the requirements under ATIP, access to information, are:

With regard to the issue of accessibility under ATIP as raised in the first paragraph of page two of my February 14 memo, I would like to clarify that once such reports are completed, they are public documents. This means that when completed, they should be accessible to the public without requiring a formal request under ATIP.

The memo is very clear. And, Mr. Speaker, I am sharing my time.

Requests for “draft material” of any kind should be dealt with through the normal ATIP process. Your departmental ATIP co-ordinator is familiar with these matters and requests received for draft reports should be referred to your departmental ATIP co-ordinator for appropriate action.

As a final point, I would ask that you please disregard my previous request to fax a copy—

It is very clear from this memo that the policy is in place. The problem and the reason this motion is before the House is that the government is completely ignoring the policy that is on the government books.

That policy is prohibiting Canadians from accessing information they are entitled to. It is their money that is being used. This policy has been in place for a period of time and everybody on the government side is aware of it, yet we have access requests for audits that we know are completed which are 45 days overdue.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

Liberal

Dennis Mills Liberal Broadview—Greenwood, ON

You do not need access. We gave you the file.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

Reform

Val Meredith Reform South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC

Precisely. A member on the opposite side says we do not need access. Then why are the audits not available to us if we do not need access to information? The truth of the matter is that the government is withholding this information. Why?

The member for Mississauga South claims that the government was ensuring its credibility, its integrity and its accountability. He did not use the word transparency because he could not. If this is true, then why do we have to go through the access to information process to get audits that are supposed to be available without an access request?

It is because the government is hiding information and one has to ask why. It is to control the timing of the release of the information. The government wants to withhold this information until the summer recess when we are not sitting here and cannot draw the public's attention to the mismanagement of government departments. Or perhaps it is withholding this information until after the next federal election so the Liberal members do not have to hold themselves accountable to the electorate during that election. The government is controlling the timing by refusing to release these audit documents.

Most important is that the government is breaking its own policies. It is breaking the policies and the established process of releasing government audits. It is the government that is to rule under the law but it seems to have no hesitation to break it whenever it is appropriate to do so.

The member for Mississauga South commented that it was information that came up, that perhaps it was not an audit at all that raised this concern in the Department of Human Resources Development. He also said that it was one audit.

It is not one audit. Canadians are smart enough to know that it is not one audit we are talking about. It is a number of audits, and it is a number of audits that we cannot get our hands on. And it is not just one department. A number of departments other than human resources development hand out grants and subsidies to individuals and corporations in this country. It is their audits as well.

Our job in opposition is to hold the government accountable for spending the good hardearned tax dollars of the Canadian public. The government does not seem to be responsible or really care whether it is held accountable or whether the integrity of government is protected.

We in opposition feel that it is important for the government to share information. Government departments should be available to the public for scrutiny. It is very important that a government that places so much control and power with the executive branch show itself to be transparent so the Canadian public can have some degree of confidence that the government is doing what is in the best interests of the Canadian population.

Everything we have seen in the past three months in the House would indicate a number of things, that the government is contemptuous of the Canadian taxpayer, the government has no intention of being transparent and its integrity is in question. The government has to decide whether it is going to continue down the path of withholding and controlling information or whether it is going to offer to the Canadian public information so it can be held to account for how it spends the tax dollars that are provided to it to provide programming for Canadians.

I ask the government members if they intend to uphold the laws of the land or if they feel they are above the laws of the land.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:40 p.m.

Liberal

Dennis Mills Liberal Broadview—Greenwood, ON

Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the member from British Columbia that all of us on this side of the House and in government understand it is the opposition's duty and responsibility to hold us accountable. Many of us have been in opposition and we know what that role is. We do not challenge that role.

We also would say that we do not know of a business or a government in Canada, even this government, that has not made mistakes. There will always be mistakes. That is the way life is. We are not proud of mistakes, but we will admit there are some mistakes.

It is absolutely shameful that the members of the Canadian Alliance try to create the illusion that somehow $1 billion sort of vanished when—

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:40 p.m.

Reform

Leon Benoit Reform Lakeland, AB

No, the government is mismanaging $13 billion.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:40 p.m.

Liberal

Dennis Mills Liberal Broadview—Greenwood, ON

Mr. Speaker, now the members opposite want to create the illusion it was $3 billion that just vanished.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:40 p.m.

Reform

Leon Benoit Reform Lakeland, AB

No, it was $13 billion.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:40 p.m.

Liberal

Dennis Mills Liberal Broadview—Greenwood, ON

Mr. Speaker, most Canadians realize that every one of those Canadian taxpayers' dollars went for projects in every single riding across Canada for people in our communities who tend to be most in need.

I say with respect to the member, we have to be transparent. We put 10,000 pages of documents out there and I cannot believe that members opposite have read all of those documents.

The point I want to make is that whether we are on the government side or the opposition side, we are all here to look out for those people in the country who are most in need. The people who are most in need tend to be those clients of HRDC. I respectfully ask the member, why would she cast aspersions on 99.9% of those dollars that go to good causes for children at risk, for seniors, for people with disabilities? Why would the member or her party do that when essentially her argument is with those few files where there have been honest, human mistakes?

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:40 p.m.

Reform

Val Meredith Reform South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC

Mr. Speaker, I thought I made it quite clear that HRDC is only one department and that the problems do not sit just with one department.

When we talk about $1 billion, one audit of $1 billion worth of projects showed very high instances of non-compliance, of poor management.

When the hon. member talks about those most in need benefiting from this government largesse, we know that is absolutely misrepresenting the facts. The Liberals cannot tell me that the government in helping Amtrak, the U.S. passenger rail service, is helping those most in need, that Bombardier, a very large international corporation which has 32 plants around the world is in dire need, that they are those most in need.

The government member is misrepresenting to Canadians where all the money is going. It is not just HRDC. It is EDC, it is DIAND, it is industry, it is HRDC. The taxpayers' money goes to many different areas in government spending.

All we ask in the motion is that the internal audits done on how the government is spending taxpayers' money be made public and available to the opposition and to Joe Blow citizen so that we can hold the government accountable and be able to decide whether the government is spending our money wisely.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:45 p.m.

Bloc

Antoine Dubé Bloc Lévis, QC

Mr. Speaker, I have a brief question, because I know that there is not much time left.

In the first part of her speech explaining the reasons for the motion, the member said that more transparency was necessary. She had harsh words for the way the federal government now operates.

I agree with her, in that the Prime Minister of Canada is not elected by the voters of Canada. Yet the Prime Minister appoints judges and senators. Through his executive power, the Prime Minister has almost complete authority.

Could the member tell whether she and her party agree that reform is in order on this point?

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:45 p.m.

Reform

Val Meredith Reform South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC

Mr. Speaker, this party agrees with the need for some reformation, some changes in how parliament operates and in how the patronage system needs to be corrected.

The concern is not just about the appointments. The concern is about how the government is bringing legislation to the House that removes power from the House and places it with the executive branch of government. That has to stop.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:45 p.m.

Reform

Gurmant Grewal Reform Surrey Central, BC

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to support my colleagues in the official opposition on our supply day motion which reads as follows:

That an Order of the House do issue for all departmental audit reports to be tabled within 15 days of their completion and permanently referred to the appropriate standing committees, that audit reports since January 1, 1999, be tabled within 15 days after the adoption of this motion, and that all audit reports requested under the Access to Information Act be tabled forthwith.

We are recommending these actions because we are finding that the government is being less than forthcoming with respect to reporting and providing information to Canadians on how our tax dollars are spent.

The motion we are debating today simply asks this weak Liberal government to reaffirm its own regulations. The wording of the motion is the same as the regulations of the treasury board and the privy council office. That means if anyone is opposing the motion, he or she is opposing the government's own regulations.

A very serious and disturbing point has recently come to light in terms of how the government is governing our nation. All Canadians respect the fact that certain information is not made public in order to protect our national security. That is okay. Other information may be kept secret in order to ensure fairness in competition in certain cases, but for the most part we expect our federal government to come up with the facts and figures on the nation's finances in detail and without hesitation.

We only expect to be stonewalled if there is something to hide. We are proud of and trust our public service employees. If there is something to hide it is the political managers that want to hide something. Who are those managers? It is the Liberals who are hiding something. They have found out that it is too difficult to hide a $1 billion boondoggle.

The official opposition has received no reply to formal requests for audit reports from the following government departments and agencies. I will list some of them. The official opposition put forward many ATI requests to the Department of Human Resources Development, and HRDC is late in replying. It does not want to reply. Five of these requests are for departmental audits that should be public information according to treasury board guidelines and are now 45 days overdue.

Canada Customs and Revenue requested a 30 day extension on March 9. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation requested an undefined extension due to third party consultations. The Department of Citizenship and Immigration requested a 90 day extension on March 9. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans provided some audits and asked for a 30 day extension for others. Similarly the National Capital Commission, the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food and so on are on the list.

I want to speak about the treasury board guidelines. Treasury board policies were announced in a May 26, 1994, letter of decision which stated in part:

To simplify the process for acquiring copies of reports, and to deliver on the government's commitment for more openness, the policy requires that departments make the final version of review reports, including the internal audits and evaluation reports, accessible to the public, without requiring a formal access request—

The treasury board is now breaking its own policy by withholding such information even when a formal request is filed. HRDC had a good record of responding to ATI requests on time until the billion dollar boondoggle came along. As a result of the HRDC experience, the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Privy Council Office now insist on being told what audits have been requested, whether they contain bad news, and what the official political media line will be before the audits are released.

In testimony before the HRD committee last week the information commissioner attributed the backlog of information requests in the department largely to new treasury board and privy council rules. Let me give some quotes from the information commissioner to the HRD committee on March 28 of this year. The information commissioner said:

The right to access is one of the cornerstones of our democratic process and one of the best tools available to ensure responsible government.

He further stated:

With respect to the audit reports, there has been a slowdown, but the slowdown is government-wide, and the reason for that is that as a result of the HRDC experience...all audits requested now go through an additional process by Treasury Board and the Privy Council. What has happened is that the Treasury Board and the Privy Council Office want to know what audits have been requested, whether they contain bad news, and what the official media line will be...The problem, however, arises when the communication concerns of the Government are allowed to take precedence over the public's right to timely access to information.

The information commission said as well that it was clear from what had been said by the access to information commissioners in the various departments that they could not meet the 30 day stipulation because of the new process that had been put in place by the Liberals. He also said that information delayed was information denied.

The government should have no problem supporting a motion that would entrench its own policies with regard to the release of audit reports to the public on an order of the House. That way the House would have some recourse if the government failed to live up to its recent self-stated commitment to openness.

We have clearly witnessed in the government time and again a lack of openness and a lack of transparency. We have seen in the government time and again a lack of respect for democracy. It has limited debate many times. It has used time allocation many times. It has beaten the record of Brian Mulroney.

Similarly we have seen changes to the Canada Elections Act before the House which favour the governing party, in this case the Liberal Party. It is so undemocratic that it is almost anti-democratic.

The government denies information. It hides facts. It exaggerates its own achievements. It does not answer questions in question period, as we will see in five minutes. It misrepresents the opposition parties time and again in the House. It has not kept its promises to the Canadian public.

We know about the GST and national day care programs. The government time and again has exhibited a cover-up mentality. Despite its own mistakes it continues to ignore, ridicule the opposition and defend itself and its ministers, but it will not apologize or confess that it was wrong. It will not correct mistakes and rectify the problems.

We are witnessing the lack of political will by the government to fix the system. We are witnessing arrogance by the government. It has lame excuses, delays and denials. It abuses its power time and again in the House. It promised to introduce visibility legislation and it has not done that. I will introduce a private member's bill.

We see the role of committees. All parties tend to be partisan. The committees can be more productive and can analyze the audits we are talking about. They can analyze other issues and make recommendations to the government.

The public's only access to audits occurs when they are leaked to the media. I remember that CIDA released a very important audit just before the Christmas holidays. This attitude is continuing. All members in the House should support the motion.