Debates of April 4th, 2000

Supply

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

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member opposite would just wait for about two minutes, we will give him his little reality check.

The gist of the opposition argument is while acknowledging that treasury board practice and policy is to release audits as soon as possible, it is suggesting that the government is somehow dragging its heels because it cannot get the audits it requests under the Access to Information Act in a timely fashion.

The reality check is that I am going to read from the Access to Information Act. Section 21(1)(a) says:

The head of a government institution may refuse to disclose any record requested under this act that contains advice or recommendations developed by or for a government institution or a minister of the crown.

In other words, since 1994 it has been this government's policy to release the very information that the Access to Information Act entitles it to refuse.

Read the section again, I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker. You will see it very clearly states that the minister does not have to refuse to release that information and yet we have a government that, starting in 1994, almost as soon as we came to power, opened up that kind of information.

Mr. Speaker, when you resort to the Access to Information Act to try to get this type of information and the government is withholding it, if you will forgive me, Mr. Speaker, the suggestion is false. I believe that is in order, Mr. Speaker, the suggestion is false.

In fact, all that is happening is that of course the government when it is doing an audit wants to give time for its officials to examine the results of the audit. That is what timely release is all about. You have to give the government time to consider the results and then release it to the public.

The member's colleagues suggest that all these internal audits should be released to standing committees. This government, which is very sincere in its desire to bring the best level of management possible, does internal audits all the time, not just financial audits but performance audits. If all of those audits went out to a standing committee, the standing committee would be absolutely smothered.

The real answer is to put this kind of information on the Internet. Put it on the Internet where everyone can see it, Mr. Speaker, and then you will have the type of management control by the people of Canada that is the target of this government and I think is very, very poorly understood by the members opposite.

Indeed, if they really and truly wanted to ensure that it was government legislative policy and it was the law that the government had to release these audits, then all the members opposite would have to do is to support a certain private member's bill that is around. Bill C-206 offers them the opportunity to make amendments to the very clause I cited. This particular private member's bill, Bill C-206, uses that clause and adds the words that public opinion polls are to be disclosed automatically. You could easily add the words that government audits should be disclosed automatically to that clause, but no, that is too simple.

To think that the Reform Party, or the Canadian Alliance as it is now known, would actually take advantage of a legislative initiative of a private member in order to bring more openness to government is, just too much to ask. The party opposite has made it very clear that it does not support reform to the Access to Information Act. It does not support it at all. It will be very amusing as time goes on to see it vote against a bill that calls for openness in government. But we will see.

However, I am glad of the opportunity to speak on this particular issue because if they were really interested in bringing more transparency to areas that really matter to Canadians, then they should be looking at this whole question of making the audits of non-profit organizations, charities and crown corporations available to the public. This is a huge area of secrecy. We have a President of the Treasury Board who has established a policy despite the restrictions of the Access to Information Act, a policy that does call for audits to be open and yet we have all these other bodies that spend billions and billions of taxpayers' dollars, who, when they are audited, can keep those audits secret.

I would suggest again that there is an incredible opportunity for the opposition members if they really want these audits made public, and I think the majority of Canadians would say that is correct, they should be supporting a certain private member's bill, Bill C-206. If it passes and goes through, it would overtake the Income Tax Act and its restrictions on the disclosure of the audits of charities and non-profit organizations and would make these available to the public.

I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what is wrong with the opposition? What is wrong with the opposition that it cannot get on board with legislation that is supported by 70 backbenchers on this side alone and dozens of backbenchers or members of the opposition on the other side? For some reason I cannot understand, the Reform Party has abandoned the issue entirely and so has the Bloc Quebecois. They do not care about openness and I know why.

It is because a government that is closed is a good target. A government that is open, as we have seen from the minister of the treasury board as she explains that these audits are available now, you can get them now. Well, Mr. Speaker, that does not give much opportunity to the members of the opposition. And so they come up with a motion, Mr. Speaker, that I can even barely understand. Mr. Speaker, I am in despair with them. I just do not know what I can do with them.

What they do not seem to understand is that our time in this House is precious. They should get behind legislation, either government legislation or private members' legislation, that is good for Canadians, instead of putting trivial motions on the floor that we have to vote against because the motion goes nowhere and suggests by implication that the government is not doing its job when in fact it is doing more than its job.

This is a government that stands for transparency. We are moving in the right direction. I do wish the opposition would get on board.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member opposite for his impassioned plea for the opening up of the Access to Information Act and to become more transparent than is currently the case. I could not agree more.

I also agree with his advocacy that charitable organizations open their books to the public insofar as it is desirable to do so. I do not disagree with that at all.

I think the hon. member actually is in agreement with everything we stand for over here. The interesting thing which I cannot figure out is why in the world he moved from one bill to another bill and somehow thinks that the second bill is better than the first. He has not explained that to me at all. I do not think he has explained it to anyone. I think that is why he is in trouble right now, because he has failed to explain exactly what it is that he wants.

He wants more access to information and that is correct. So do I, as does this whole side of the House, whether it is the Canadian Alliance or others. And I would like to educate the hon. member opposite that there is a Canadian Alliance and there is no Reform Party in Canada. Would he please remember that is the case.

I ask the hon. member, exactly what does he understand an audit to be?

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

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I have difficulty grasping this new name, but I believe it is in order if I still call it the former Reform Party. I do not think there is any rule in the House that requires me to call it the perfidious alliance or whatever it is.

Apart from that, there are two types of audits. There is a financial audit and there is a performance audit. Actually since this government came to power in 1993, the civil service has been moving more and more toward performance audits.

There is no question that there has been a very serious problem in governments before and we are moving in the right direction. The problem has been that the money has been spent and there has not been a decent tracking of whether that money has been spent wisely and well.

I think what we are talking about here in reforming accounting practices and reforming the Access to Information Act is keeping track of the money and making sure that money is spent well.

It is really transparency that you must have before you have accountability, and I do believe, not just the political government but our bureaucracy is headed in that direction as fast as it can go.

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, to the member who just spoke, I find it interesting that there is a party now in the House that would like to distance itself so quickly from its previous name that members are standing constantly and saying there is another name and they must distance ourselves immediately from that party formerly known as the Reform Party. It is very interesting that they not only distance themselves from their name, but from their leader, their party and their principles.

The issue of the day obviously is audits. The hon. member said that performance audits are a very integral part of management as we know it today in our society. It is true by the way. I am very familiar with performance and proficiency audits.

The member also said that in previous governments it was seen that those departments were not acting in a proper manner. Certainly the performance audits being brought in now are the ones now functioning in a proper fashion.

Can the member then answer please why it is that some of those performance audits I have been asking for from other departments are not forthcoming from his government? They are not forthcoming and access to information seems to be the only way to get those particular audits. Is there some reason why this member feels that transparency was only good in this government and not in previous governments? Why can I not get my audits?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think part of the problem is the Access to Information Act itself which was passed in 1983. It has not been upgraded or overhauled since that time.

We have to get at that legislation and make it so that it is very clear the type of information that the bureaucrats should release automatically. In other words, if he wants to perform his audit, I would say to him that it should not be a matter of an access to information request. It should be so defined as being the type of information that should be automatically released, and I think better out through the Internet.

I think we are headed in the right direction. I served a little while on the government operations committee in 1995. I was very surprised to see how behind the times a lot of this performance management, or lack of it, was. I think we are headed in the right direction, but it is really up to us, the politicians, to lead.

I really deplore it when I see members of the opposition, and not the member who just spoke, because I know he is very interested in reforming the Access to Information Act, but I really deplore it when other members of the opposition do not support what Canadians think is the right thing to do, for minor political gain, for their party, Reform, former Reform. I am not sure what it is, but whatever it is allied to, I am sorry, I have just forgotten.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst, Transfers to Provinces; the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas, Criminal Code; the hon. member for Brandon—Souris, Agriculture.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise you that I am sharing my time with the member for Kelowna.

When we listen to some of the members opposite, we would think that there is not even a problem. But things are so bad that we had to bring forth this motion today on behalf of all the opposition parties.

I will be revealing something a little bit later on in my speech that will probably be like a bombshell thrown into this place. But first of all I want to describe my personal experience.

When I first came to parliament back in 1993, I thought that if we spoke the truth and if we put forth arguments that were reasonable and analysed the information available, it would affect the decisions made in this place. What a surprise I received when I got here. Government members really do not listen. They invoke closure on controversial legislation that we oppose, but most serious of all, we cannot analyse the information because it is not available in a timely fashion. The government delays its release.

For example, I have made about 80 access to information requests. Hon. members will wonder why I even have to apply for the information. They would think that it would be shared freely. In fact, the government boasts that it is doing a good job managing our money and running effective programs. We would think that it would be anxious to share that information with us and the public. But there really is a problem with open and transparent government. That is the reason we brought forth this motion.

The government, as the President of Treasury Board has said, talks about the complexities of government and the need to modernize. Canadians expect a government in modern times with the technology available to have information readily available. In fact, it appears as if the government is using the modern means available to it to hide the information.

Some of the examples of government hiding information are almost unbelievable. The information which should be made available in 30 days sometimes has taken almost a year. Hon. members have heard that right, almost a year. In fact, after the government was stonewalling some of my requests, I had to complain to the information commissioner. It took almost one year to find out how much money was being wasted by the RCMP on the gun registry. Probably the information was embarrassing, but it is not being released as it should be.

There are other problems. A billion dollar boondoggle is unfolding with regard to the gun registry.

Over $300 million has already been wasted on laying a piece of paper beside every gun in Canada rather than improving public safety by putting more police on the street, and the government does not want the public to know about it. That is probably why I am having difficulty having my access to information requests complied with.

What are some of the other problems? I revealed on approximately March 9 that the justice minister blocked 172 pages of the Canadian Firearms Centre budget documents. The excuse was cabinet secrecy. I did not know about that until I started trying to find out how much the government was spending. It has come up with a new excuse, cabinet secrecy.

The minister's departmental officials are even refusing to provide the proposed budget allocation for this coming year, saying that they do not need to release that information. The government has also used cabinet secrecy to withhold from the public a 115-page report on the negative impact of the Firearms Act on the economy. It has done the study but it will not release the results of the study and the cost of its legislation for businesses, how it will destroy thousands of jobs and all the money that will be wasted.

It gets even worse than that. I discovered through access to information that not only does the government hide information from members of parliament so we cannot hold it accountable and tell Canadians what a mess it is making, it even hides it from the courts.

That is the bombshell I will tell members about. Here is what I found out.

I will give a preamble. An eight page document was released to me entitled “Cost Presentations Options” was dated February 5, 1998. Here is what option C, the incremental approach, says when it comes to releasing the costs, “If pressed, confirm actual spending of the past three years on C-68. Provide arguments why we can't produce a definite cost forecast”. In other words, the government already planned strategy as to why it would not release the information as to how it would explain it does not want to release the information.

Under timing considerations it proposed releasing the cost of the gun registry at the same time that the government went public with the federal budget. The reason was that “A lot of numbers are mentioned during that period,” referring to the budget, “and we benefit from the sheer volume of numbers being released (i.e. unlikely to attract a lot of attention)”.

The hon. member said that if the government does things in a certain way, put it on the Internet and so on, that will help. We have clear evidence here that it will release so much stuff, so many numbers will be put out, that it will be mind boggling and the public will not know. This is clear evidence that it is like a culture of deceit over there.

Here is the bombshell. This is what the minister's bureaucrats admitted in a document I received through access to information.

During the Alberta reference court proceedings, we argued that we were not in a position to reveal costs. Announcing the costs before a decision may add a bad `obiter' in their decision.

Documents provided to me in response to previous access to information requests proved the justice department had been keeping an annual summary of the gun registry costs since 1995 and even though those detailed financial documents were available, they were telling the Alberta Court of Appeal that they could not reveal them. They would not even tell the courts and one has to ask why.

Deceiving the public is bad enough, but deliberately deceiving the Alberta Court of Appeal must surely have some consequences. Why should Canadians care about whether we have open and accountable government? Does this debate even matter today?

Let me say this. This strikes to the very heart of democracy. There must be a free exchange of information. Without information as to how the government operates, we cannot hold the government accountable. Democracy just cannot work. Second, it is the money of the Canadian people that is being spent. They should know where that money is. We are talking big bucks. When almost half of some people's income is going to government, that is a lot of money.

Third, if the money is being used to buy votes, that thwarts democracy and it should not be happening. How can proper decisions be made if we do not have all the information available? That really thwarts democracy. If it is being misused, that is also of great concern.

Why does someone who has been drinking refuse a breathalyser test after being stopped by a police officer on a public highway? Why do they say “No, I do not want to take the breathalyser”? If a person refused a breathalyser, they can be assumed to be guilty. Is that why the government refuses to be open and accountable and release the information?

The fourth point I want to make as to why Canadians should care about what is going on here is the big issue of trust. Trust does not just reflect on the government. It reflects on all of us in this place. People do not trust the government because of the fact that they discover huge boondoggles long after they have been out of this place.

Maybe there is another bombshell I can drop right here. I made a request on the cost of the gun registry and Canadians may find this unbelievable. I cannot use a prop in the House but I received a budget document on the cost of the gun registry. Everything was itemized except the column where the numbers should have been. It was completely blocked out. Is that access to information? That is what I am concerned about. That has to stop. We need to have that information because without it I cannot do my job and that should be a concern to all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, did I really hear right? I do believe the member opposite said that the government is deceiving the people by giving them too much information, too many numbers. That is exactly what he said. I must say he really underestimates the Canadian public because there are lots of people who have computers. He may not know about computers but there are lots of people with computers who can crunch numbers and check the government's numbers if we can only get them out to them.

I listened to the member carefully when he talked about blank spaces in the documents he was getting via access to information. This is not a problem that exists with government, it is a problem that exists with legislation that needs to be reformed. If he wants that information, then he should get on board with the rest of the backbench MPs and change the Access to Information Act into an open government act so we can get that information. He should get on board rather than sitting here whining in the House and blaming the government when in fact it is his Reform Party's lack of initiative, lack of getting behind the private members who are trying to change the way government operates, trying to make government open. I do not know why he simply stands here and complains when he could get on board with the rest of the MPs on both sides of the House and make a difference.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member has asked two good questions.

With regard to the first question about the public and all the information, what I was trying to explain to the member is that the government has a deliberate strategy to put so much information into a certain place and to put in so many numbers that it is confusing. The government has a deliberate strategy to confuse. That is the point I was trying to make.

In the access to information request that I put forward, I read that part of the government's strategy is to try to deceive people by putting information in and taking information out. When questions are asked, the government indicates that it is explained. The government puts out information that needs to be cross-referenced and wiggles out of almost any accountability. That is the problem.

As far as what the member was saying in regard to access to information, that is exactly what we are trying to do here today. We agree that needs to be fixed. We do not have a problem with that, but it is the government that has to fix it.

The member knows that a private member's bill is open to a free vote and we have no problem with having a free vote on that kind of thing.

However, without our raising the issue, I do not think the member opposite would get much support. In fact I think he only has 70 members supporting it so far. Perhaps we have to start putting public pressure on the government to open up the information act and make sure that it is available to everyone. That is our point and that is why the debate today is so important.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his reasoned reply. We have over 70 backbenchers on the Liberal side who are supporting it and about 40 members or so on the opposition side. Therefore, the will is here.

I have to stress that I am a legislator too. It is not just the government that passes laws or creates laws, it is we backbenchers. In fact we are the very bread and butter of the laws. It is right and proper for a bill of this type, of this nature, of this importance to come from the backbench. There is nothing wrong with that. Why should we always rely on the government to have the initiative? Why can we not band together and do good things around this place?

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, give me a break. I cannot believe it. We are all here to try to improve the lot of Canadians and to pass good laws. For this member to give the impression that it is only the government that cares about it is demeaning to what we are trying to do on this side of the House. I really resent that.

I want to make the point that it is an advantage not just to backbench MPs on the government side, but to all MPs in the House that we have a free flow of information. With a free flow of information and openness in government all Canadians would benefit. That is the bottom line. The only way democracy can function is if we have a free flow of information. If something is hidden we cannot make good decisions. That is what this discussion is all about. The government hides information so that we cannot hold it accountable, and it is the people of Canada who in the end suffer. That is my main point. Let us not lose sight of that.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is really a very interesting debate that is taking place this afternoon. I would like to commend my hon. colleague from Yorkton—Melville for the very explicit and detailed analysis that he has done and also the very specific examples that he used to illustrate and support his particular arguments. I appreciate that very much.

I would like to focus our attention a little more concisely, because information is such a big word. In fact it has come to the point today where to simply use the word information is almost ambiguous. We have to ask ourselves what kind of information it is that we want.

We are talking about audits. Audits have been divided by various groups into different kinds. There are internal audits, external audits, financial audits, performance audits and a variety of audits. What we are talking about, at least in part, has to do with financial audits. In fact I wish to speak about financial audits primarily.

These audits have to do with examining in an official capacity the financial statements and the financial records and accounts that are kept by government, that are kept by business and that are kept by individuals. The audit is a reflection, an accurate statement, an official statement of the expenditures that have been taking place in a particular government department. That is what we are talking about this afternoon.

The audit is the official examination of whether there is an accurate statement of the revenues that have been received and an accurate accounting and record of the expenditures that have taken place. However, the audit also follows the trail of the money: Where did it come from? Where is it going? What was the process used in spending the money? Was it spent according to the plan that was originally established? That has to do with the budget.

The audit compares where the money was supposed to come from, where the budget suggested that the revenues be collected, and where the money was supposed to be spent, and we have the official record of the estimates.

Invariably, every year there is a statement that is brought forward called the supplementary estimates. These are estimates that are added to the original budget. They change certain lines and they add certain amounts of money to certain lines so that the intentions of the original budget document can be met.

The budget is the guiding document. It is the policy document. In fact the budget is a piece of legislation. It has the force of law, it is the law and it must be observed. The audit is a very clear comparison of what the budget said should happen and what actually happened. It has to do with projects, with programs and with the intentions of government as to where our money should be spent.

There are two words that refer to the audit. One has to do with accountability, that is, to hold the government to account as to whether the money was spent the way it was supposed to have been, and also to give an account. To whom should that account be given? That account shall be given to the people whose money was spent. The money the government has is not its own. Whatever money the government has is money that has been collected from the taxpayers, either directly or indirectly. It is money that is held in trust. The whole concept of holding to account has to do with giving an account of how the money that was collected was spent. The government said it needed the money for these projects and programs. Did the government deliver the projects and programs? That is the first level of accountability.

The second level of accountability is, did the government spend as much as it said it would spend, less or more? If less was spent, why were the costs of the project underestimated? If more was spent, why? Was it inefficiency or were there other reasons? The government had better explain why it did not hit the mark set in the budget.

The budget also establishes responsibility. It says who shall get the money: the Minister of Human Resources Development, the Minister of National Revenue, the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of Natural Resources, the Minister of Industry, and so on. The budget clearly identifies who shall get the money and on which projects and programs it shall be spent. If the minister does not do that, he or she should be held to account. The responsibility is his or hers and no one else's.

The point has been made that the servants of government, the public employees, are doing an excellent job of managing public money. They had better, because it is the minister who holds them to account. If the minister does not hold them to account, then the minister is the one whom the audit should reveal and say “Mr. Minister, you are the one who had this account. This is your responsibility. Make sure that it is done according to the regulations and policies that have been set up to do the job”. That becomes the issue.

The budget clearly identifies not only what money should be spent, how much should be spent, where it should be spent, but who is to be held to account, who is responsible for the expenditure of that money.

Then we have to look at the honesty, the integrity, the openness and the freedom of the people to do what the government said they should do, in trust for the people, in the name of the people. When the Minister of National Defence spends money, he spends it in the name of the people. The people trust that minister to spend the money in such a way that their security and the security of the nation will be looked after. If it is not, then the minister is held to account, and the Prime Minister is held to account for all of the ministers in his cabinet.

What is meant by honesty? It means that the government and the minister have to be able to say “This is the financial statement. These are the revenues that we received. This is how they were spent. This is an honest statement of what happened”. There are not two sets of books. There is one set of books. That is honesty.

Then there is integrity. Integrity is very interesting because the minister recognizes that it is his or her responsibility and that he or she is accountable. The responsibility cannot be pushed off by saying “I have delegated this to my deputy. Therefore, I am not responsible, it is the deputy's responsibility”. If the minister is a person of integrity the response would be “I am responsible”.

What about openness? “Sure, here are the books. Here is where I spent the money. Have a look and see whether it is not so”. They do not bother to white out columns so as not to show certain numbers. Why would they not want to let out this information? It is a cover-up of some kind. It is either the cover-up of a number on a sheet of paper or it is the cover-up of a decision that is represented by that number. In any event, any kind of whiteout, any kind of resistance to give information is a lack of openness. This is all part of responsibility. This is all part of integrity and honesty.

There is also something else, and that has to do with freedom. When it comes to the business of people giving to the government their money, which the government is to spend on their behalf, in trust, to do the kinds of things that the government said it would do in its budget, the people have the right to know. They should have the freedom to ask the minister and to ask the Prime Minister if the government spent their money the way it said it would. That openness has to be guaranteed.

It is not just openness for the sake of openness; it is openness in a timely fashion. If a department's books are opened five years later, it might be useful, but there would be a totally different set of circumstances. There has probably been an election and there may be a different government in power. Timeliness is absolutely critical.

We need to be very, very careful when we talk about these audits, that they are timely, that they are open, that they can hold people to account and determine clearly where the responsibility lies.

If that is the case, then we need to examine why it is that a corporation like the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation can request an extension because it needs to consult a third party. Whose money is this? Who made the decision? The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation made the decision. It had the money. It kept the books, but it now needs to consult a third party to see whether in fact it is an accurate statement. What is going on? Why does it have to consult a third party? The corporation is responsible. The minister is responsible. He should be open and he should be able to account.

The debate is very significant. It is very necessary and it is in the interests of the people who are listening. I am here to hold the government to account. The government should not be afraid. If it is making good decisions, the people will say “Yes, the government has managed my money well”.

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

Mr. Speaker, I followed the member's speech with great attention, but I found myself losing the thread slightly in the sense that he seemed to be speaking about financial audits and which numbers count.

He will realize, of course, that anyone who has anything to do with reading the annual reports of any type of company, incorporated or otherwise, will know that often these financial audits tell us very little, other than the fact that money came in, money went out and there was no criminality or fraud involved.

It seems to me, when we look at HRDC, that what we are talking about and what we want from government are the results of performance audits. The whole kerfuffle about HRDC is not about the actual moneys spent; it is whether or not the moneys were spent effectively and properly, whether the proper records were kept and whether there was proper management of the moneys. It seems to me we are talking about two things.

When he is talking about numbers, is he not really criticizing public accounts record keeping, criticizing the estimates and the way the government keeps the estimates? If he is, I would agree with him that work has to be done there. However, I am not sure that this motion is really focused in quite the right direction if it is the numbers which concern him.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for giving me the opportunity with that question to expand further on this issue.

Yes, it is an expansion of the motion to a degree, but it is a very necessary expansion. The audits themselves reveal the processes to be used to follow the money to determine if it was spent where it was supposed to have been spent. That is a financial audit. We could call it a performance audit, if we wished. It is a very fine distinction and one which the people really do not care about.

What the people want to know is if their money went where it was supposed to go and was it used for that which it was originally intended.

One thing they do not want that money to be used for is to buy votes. That was never the intention when the people of Canada gave the money to the government and said “I will pay my taxes. I want you to look after those who are poor, who cannot look after themselves”, as in the case of HRDC. That is what they want. By the same token, they do not want that money to be used to buy votes to give particular advantage to particular people because they live in a particular way and have given money back to a political party. That they do not want. The audit will reveal that kind of thing if it is a proper audit and if it is open and timely. That is exactly what we want.

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question for the hon. member. He knows that I have a lot of respect for him.

I am surprised that there is this assumption that voters can be so easily bought. I have never yet met a voter who could be bought. Maybe I have not asked the right questions.

Voters in Canada are well informed. They are thoughtful and intelligent. I understand the political point the member is making, but are voters in Kelowna really that stupid that they can be persuaded to vote a particular way because somebody brings a government cheque to them? I would be surprised if his voters are really that dumb.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the best response is that is why they never voted in a Liberal.

I have too much respect for the minister to not recognize the seriousness behind the question. I want to recognize that the voters by and large are very intelligent. After all, that is what makes democracy work. I also know that we are sometimes very subtly influenced by getting certain kinds of money for certain advantages. We are kind of selfish people. Most of the people around here have a bit of a selfish interest.

We do have this kind of thing. We do have a penchant toward doing that. We want to avoid that. We do not want the appearance of public funds being used to influence a voter to cast his or her ballot in a particular direction. That is the issue. I do not think the voter would do so deliberately. To suggest that they are not influenced is not the way it really exists out there.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

So the hon. member is aware, the debate will terminate at 5.15 p.m. The hon. member has about 12 minutes.

[John O'Reilly, Liberal, Victoria—Haliburton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, being a former hockey player I was used to ragging the puck whenever I was able to get it.

Haliburton—Victoria—Brock had a large number of grants in the riding, in fact, the most in southern Ontario, next to Toronto. With over 200 programs, it was a great concern to me when the leader of the opposition started yelling the new word “boondoggle”. I was very concerned because this was a word I had never heard before and was one I was not sure if I was part of.

I asked the local press to audit some of the programs in my riding. The first one it audited was the Lindsay Boys and Girls Club because it was the largest recipient. It has a number of programs that cater to youth in the riding, that cater to boys and girls programs and provides a large variety of very worthwhile programs. It was one that I thought the municipality and the county could not afford. Therefore, we were very appreciative that these grants came into the ridings.

The audit on the Lindsay Boys and Girls Club looked at the applications made, the method of what checks and balances had to take place in order for them to receive and keep the grant and how the money was actually spent. I felt that that program withstood the scrutiny of the boondoggle by the opposition party formerly known as the Reform. As in the largest majority of the grants, I felt there were no problems.

We wanted to make sure that the minister was well aware of the good publicity received in our riding because we honestly took a look at just exactly what the opposition was talking about. Therefore, in doing our own audits and publishing the names of every organization that received grants, whether it was a local pizza parlour that was hiring youth for the summer so that they could have their first job, so that they could afford to go to university, so that they could pay their tuition, I felt that all of these programs stood on their own merits.

As we looked at each one of them and as we looked at the ones proposed again this year, we wanted HRDC to know that we are quite pleased with the amount of grants, the number of grants, and the proportion of them. Of course we would like more money. Who would not? But we want them to know that these grants mean something to ridings.

In Haliburton we do not have to go very far to find a population with a high unemployment rate, with a seasonal work problem. We have as many problems in trying to address that as the east coast and, to some extent, the great north.

HRDC has already provided the results of an internal audit in the grants and contributions program and we have done our own audit in our riding. This total audit identifies some shortcomings in the management of the department's grants and contributions program. I think that is normal.

If we take my riding with over 200 grants, we cannot look at that and say that there would not be someone who did not dot an i or cross a t or send back the wrong form. That is only human nature, but in fact the internal audits are made to identify things that need fixing. That is why organizational reviews and audits are basically tools used by modern managers to make sure the right structures are in place and the right resources are available.

We are in a changing world. We are in a world where certain pockets need more help than others. We have to admit that not everyone is caught up in the metropolitan Toronto boom. Not everyone is caught up in the high tech industries. In my mind, Ontario is not Toronto. That is maybe what happens with the party formerly known as Reform. It has kind of looked at Toronto as if it were Ontario. It really is not.

If we look at the riding of Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, there are 46 municipalities, 24 Santa Claus parades and 18 cenotaph services. We never have a time where we are not busy. In fact, last weekend I had the pleasure of accompanying the minister of agriculture for Canada as he toured one of the newest operations, one of the great new dairy operations.

If we go to that area we will find 450 active dairy farms. Let us think about that, 450 active dairy farms in my riding alone. The member for Wentworth—Burlington is waiting to heckle me because he does not have dairy farms. Does he have dairy farms?

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

I do so.

[John O'Reilly, Liberal, Victoria—Haliburton, ON]

Okay, he has good dairy farms, but when we look at that as a part of Ontario, not many people from Nova Scotia would think that Ontario has one of the largest fishing industries in Canada. The internal waterway is a great resource.

We have to think beyond the megacity of Toronto and the problems it has, and go out into the ridings and areas which represent mainstream Ontario and some of the recreational facilities.

It is important to note that the minister of HRDC voluntarily made the report public. She did so as soon as the department managers came together with an acceptable plan to meet the identified deficiencies. These are not things which were brought out by the party formerly known as Reform. They were brought out by good control within the department's own management system.

Regarding controlling payments, no payments are made without written confirmation that the criteria are met. I know that to be a fact in looking at my riding and correcting past problems. Some of these agencies are made up of volunteers or made up of people who are not paid to be auditors, who are not paid to be managers, so they do the best they can. There were 37 projects flagged in the internal audit report and all other active files are being reviewed. I think that is a compliment.

The HRDC people are key to fixing these problems. It is not something that will happen through access to information. I firmly believe we are the most open in the world on that. The professional and dedicated people of the government who work on HRDC are the ones who will certainly bring this program into line, if in fact it needs to be brought into line, or whether it is not just the new word “boondoggle” that the Leader of the Opposition had a tough time even pronouncing, let alone spelling.

When HRDC is ensuring accountability, it has established a performance tracking unit to monitor the corrective actions and to provide regular reports. I think that is what is going on in each individual member's riding in HRDC offices right across this country, access to the best advice available. HRDC is in fact in regular contact with the office of the auditor general and several major accounting firms, so it is following up on all the things that need to be followed up on and it has made a commitment to openly report and to report objectively on the progress.

What it boils down to is the six point action plan is certainly seeing its way through the system and producing the results that we thought it would produce, that is that there are very few programs with which we have any trouble, other than in the eyes of the party formerly known as the Reform Party.

As members of parliament, it is important that we let our officials get on with implementing the plan. Many thousands of Canadians depend on these programs. If I go back to the Boys and Girls Club of Lindsay, I do not know how anyone in fairness could stand up and openly contest the good work that it does. I had no trouble throughout all these discussions, always leaning back and looking at exactly what was going on in my own riding and how that was helping the community. It certainly was helping the community.

We have heard from Canadians all across the country. I have heard from Canadians in my riding who are in support of making sure that we look after people who need to be looked after, that we look after people who are less fortunate than ourselves, that we look after the needy regions of the country. They are not just on the east coast or in the north. They are all over this great country of ours. There are pockets that have great need.

I want to speak a little bit about the tens of thousands of Canadians who depend on the support from HRDC. Whether it is helping people become more literate or whether it is helping people make their way in a world that is certainly difficult for people with disabilities, I think that those types of programs are in need of our support.

I recognize, as the member for Wentworth—Burlington has pointed out so many times, there are some 73,000 registered charities in Canada, all of which write members of parliament every day and all of which lobby the government to try to get more money. Some of them are very worthwhile and some of them we have our questions about. Some certainly should be looked at more closely. I think that is an area that the parties in opposition could look at more closely and maybe find some result or find out exactly what is going on there.

Madam Speaker, I know my time is coming to an end because you are waving your finger. I want to wrap up by saying that I do think that the auditor general believes the minister and her officials are following the right course to improve the administration of the department grants and contributions program with the six point plan. I would encourage them to get on with it and they will find, as I have, that the plan is working and that the problems exist only in the minds of the opposition.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

It being 5.15 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, all questions necessary to dispose of the motion of the hon. member for Calgary—Nose Hill relating to the business of supply are deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until later this day, at the expiry of the time provided for Private Members' Business.

Pursuant to order made earlier today, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from February 25 consideration of the motion that Bill C-222, an act to establish the office of First Nations Ombudsman to investigate complaints relating to administrative and communication problems between members of First Nations communities and their First Nation and between First Nations, allegations of improper financial administration and allegations of electoral irregularities, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

First Nations Ombudsman Act

[Darrel Stinson, Reform, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today in full support of the bill by the hon. member for Wild Rose, Bill C-222. We are into the final hour of debate. We have heard a fair bit about the bill and I have listened to what members on the other side have had to say.

I am here tonight to tell those members that I have been to many of these meetings. I have listened to the aboriginal people who have showed up at these meetings. I have listened to their concerns. Some of the stories I have heard would bring tears to your eyes, Madam Speaker.

I had a speech for tonight. Instead, I will read into the record a letter calling for financial accountability. It states:

We have been working for 5 years trying to get accountability, democracy and equality to our First Nations communities. We worked for three years under the name Dakota Action Group and for two years under First Nations National Accountability Coalition of Manitoba. To date, we have gone national and are in the process of registering our organization under First Nations National Accountability Coalition. We have organizations in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and New Brunswick. We get calls from all parts of Canada with regards to mismanagement of band funds, corruption, nepotism, no services, no equality and dictatorship rule in the First Nations communities.

We have approximately 200 reserves that have joined our accountability coalitions and there are about 213 that have been in contact with our organization or affiliates. These band members want their rights restored under the Canadian constitution, the charter of rights and freedoms, the Human Rights Act and the Indian Act.

As aboriginal people and as Canadian citizens, we have been stripped of all rights by our very own aboriginal leaders as well as the department of Indian affairs.

The Corbiere consultation process is proof of that. The supreme court ruled in favour of the Batchewana off reserve band members to vote in band elections, but they could not do the consultation process nor could they get the funding for it. The government gave the defendants—the Indian affairs and the chiefs and councils—funding to do the consultation process. We believe the government is letting the fox get security for the hen house.

Our organizations, which deal directly with the “grassroots people” across Canada, were not informed of the Corbiere consultation process or of the funding for it. Again, the grassroots people have been neglected and forgotten. The aboriginal people have no rights. The majority are ruled “dictatorship style” on the reserves. There is no economic development in the First Nations communities. Most reserves have no money and huge deficits with no future in sight for band members. This is one reason the suicide rate has sky-rocketed and has reached epidemic proportions on the reserves.

The way the chiefs and the council operate their systematic government is demoralizing, demeaning and discriminatory. There are very few band meetings, if any at all. Few band members are privileged to be employed. The grassroots people are not informed of any developments on how their funds are spent. They can only observe the chiefs and council and their relatives drive new vehicles, get new houses or extensions on homes and the chiefs' and council's children sent to private schools. Nepotism is widespread. The band members are not educated and they are kept that way. The chiefs and councillors are not available to be accountable or to provide information because they are on exotic vacations/trips and they are paid twice for per diems, travel and honorariums.

Their cellphones are unlisted while grassroots people are forced to live in third world conditions. Many cannot access money for housing, medical, education, transportation, including all other programs such as native alcohol and drug programs. Any activity or requests for accountability results in all services being discontinued. The aboriginal leaders do not consult with the band members. They do whatever they want. They spend band funds any way they want with little or no sensitivity to the needs of their people. The grassroots people pay dearly and heavily for the extravagant squandering of band funds (tax dollars) by the chiefs and council. This is condoned by the department of Indian affairs.

If the non-native people ran their businesses the way the majority of the chiefs and councillors operate the band offices, they would be in jail. This is proof of the double standard that exists in a democratic country such as Canada. To go to Indian affairs or the RCMP is futile. Numerous packages have been given to both departments about fraud, corruption, embezzlement, etc. A blind eye is turned. RCMP liaise with Indian affairs and so it appears that Indian affairs investigated themselves and controls the RCMP. This leads us to believe that the chiefs and councillors are above the law. Their criminal activities are untouchable. The band members have nowhere to turn for help.

We knew the band members needed to have a native ombudsman, so we did a proposal and gave it to (the member for Wild Rose) to take to the House of Commons on behalf of the grassroots people. Without one, there will be more Waterhen, Gustufson and Oka crises. Situations have deteriorated so badly that people are threatening to take arms up against their chiefs and council and to give up their lives for change.

We have a crisis in our First Nation communities and it is crucial that a native ombudsman be enacted into legislation. Fortunately for the grassroots people from coast to coast, there is an organization like the First Nations Accountability Coalition where people can vent their frustrations, hopelessness and receive a glimmer of hope that there might be a solution which is the native ombudsman who will be there on behalf of the grassroots people.

We appeal to all members of parliament to support this native ombudsman Bill C-222. If the government is sincere to remain in good standing in their special relationship with Canada's First Nations people, and if they truly want accountability, democracy and equality in Canada, as well as lighten the tax burden, then they will support Bill C-222. We see this as a major milestone in building on a new relationship with the grassroots people of Canada and we are PEOPLE too!

This letter was written by Leona Freed who has worked very hard to bring some of these concerns to the attention of the government and to the attention of members of parliament.

I would like to quote from another article called “Chief Injustices”. It will give members something to think about. It says “if you dare criticize the abusers, you are ostracized. If you dare speak out in favour of support groups who are off reserve for urban aboriginals, if you speak out against the aboriginals, you stand the chance that aboriginal goon squads will come after you”.

This is not uncommon. It goes on and on.

We went to meeting after meeting. I attended a meeting in Alberta with the hon. member for Wild Rose. The native people came up to us an told us they were threatened. They were at the meeting even though they had been threatened not to talk to members of parliament and not to raise those concerns. Is this any way to live in this country when a person cannot take their concerns to their member of parliament, let alone the RCMP, without threats being made against their family? This is what is going on.

It is not just the communities that are saying this. I will now quote some examples given by a judge. The most high profile example of aboriginal corruption is on the oil rich Stoney Reserve, 60 kilometres west of Calgary, where an independent audit in financial mismanagement resulted in 43 complaints being turned over to the RCMP.

In a precedent setting decision in 1997, Alberta Judge John Reilly demanded a provincial inquiry into how such a wealthy band could have such poverty and social ills, linking the Stoney government to a banana republic.

In September 1999, after investigating the suicide of a Stoney teenager, Judge Reilly produced a damning report that laid the blame for the boy's death squarely at the feet of the corrupt native leadership and the misguided federal bureaucrats.

Let us take a look at the Gitksan authority of B.C. which was caught in 1998 investing federal health care funds in the Alberta stock exchange. No charges were laid but the band lost over $50,000.

The examples go on and on but does the government listen? Does the government listen to the grassroots people? No, it listens to the people it wants to, the Phil Fontaines who get all the money and speak for the white people and not for the grassroots native people.

[John O'Reilly, Liberal, Victoria—Haliburton, ON]

Madam Speaker, Haliburton—Victoria—Brock is a riding in central Ontario that enjoys some prosperity and good relations with some aboriginal groups and some that are even better.

It is a pleasure to rise and speak to Bill C-222. I believe the hon. member's motion has been inspired by a sincere desire to improve living conditions in aboriginal communities and to promote greater accountability for the management of funds or to encourage the development of aboriginal self-government.

Regrettably, his rhetoric today and in the past, and his party's well-known and oft-stated position with respect to aboriginal issues, leads me to a different conclusion.

The party, formerly known as the Reform Party, opposes aboriginal self-government. It would prefer to return to the good old days when a paternalistic Ottawa managed the affairs of first nations. It does not believe that aboriginal people can be trusted to manage their own concerns, make their own decisions or determine their own destiny. When there are different reports about poverty on reserves or financial difficulties in some aboriginal communities, it seizes upon that as proof that aboriginal people cannot be trusted and should not be encouraged to manage their own affairs.

We take a different view. This government believes that first nations can be trusted, that they are responsible and that they deserve to run their own lives. Our preference is for partnerships not paternalism and for co-operation not control.

Let me remind the House how we came to where we are today, how the issue of financial management has evolved over the years and why it is so important to demonstrate our continuing confidence in first nations as they make their way through this period of transition to self-government.

Until the late 1950s, the federal government delivered most programs and services directly to first nations. By the late 1970s first nations were administering some programs in accordance with terms and conditions set out by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

In the 1980s the process of devolution began to pick up steam and new funding arrangements were developed. First nations were administering more programs, but still under the mandate of the Indian Act. Today 83% of our department's budget for programs is transferred directly to first nations and a further 11% to provinces for service delivery.

More importantly, in the 1990s, as we moved toward self-government, more and more first nations are assuming jurisdiction and greater responsibility for these programs. That means more and more they are planning and managing services based on the needs of their community. These new arrangements emphasize the relationship between chiefs, councils and their members.

This means that our primary role is no longer to deliver services to first nations but to design and manage financing arrangements that will allow first nations to deliver their own programs and be accountable for those programs for their memberships.

As we transfer more responsibility to the first nations, we are also working toward strengthening and building the skills and professional capacity within first nations that are needed to support these programs.

As funding arrangements have changed, so too has the issue of accountability. In the old days, when the federal government provided most of the programs and services directly, the lines of accountability were clear.

The departments involved, through their ministers, were responsible to parliament. Over time, as responsibilities devolved to first nations, efforts were made to promote local accountability; that is to say, first nations are becoming accountable to their constituents for the expenditures of funds and for the quality of programs and services they deliver.

In these times of limited resources, Canadians are insisting, quite rightly, that we manage tax dollars prudently. This is true of aboriginal and non-aboriginal governments alike. The same principles of accountability which apply to non-aboriginal governments also apply to first nations, principles like transparency, disclosure and redress. This means, for example, that first nations must disclose to their membership not only annual audits, but information such as the salaries of chiefs and councils, travel expenses and so on.

The federal government has worked with aboriginal governments to put in place financial standards that are comparable to other governments exercising similar responsibilities. The emphasis is now on making the information within first nations financial statements relevant and comprehensible to community members. Similarly, the accounting industry is starting to consider the needs of first nations when developing accounting standards.

Recently, as some first nations have assumed greater responsibilities and acquired significant assets, through land claims settlements for example, they have recognized the need for more sophisticated accounting systems. What we have seen is that first nations have gained the right to manage their affairs. They are moving to strengthen accountability and management practices.

Much of the progress in this area has not received the attention or publicity it deserves. Too often it is only the first nations communities that run into real financial problems that make it on to the news or into the papers. In fact, last year only 2% of first nations had their agreements placed under third party management. The simple fact is that most reserves are managing their finances properly. I believe this record reflects both the determination of first nations to manage their affairs responsibly and the creation of proper checks and balances.

When problems do arise, the department may intervene in a number of ways, depending on the problem. For example, we may simply make sure that the first nation is aware that there is a problem, encourage it to find solutions and offer advice. In other cases we will consult with the band more actively or hire a co-manager to address the difficulty. Only in a very few cases, the 2% I mentioned earlier, is it necessary to bring in a third party to stabilize the situation until a solution can be found. Some intervention does happen, but our favoured approach—and I am sure the House will agree it is a good one—is not intervention, but prevention.

The brief chronology I have sketched today shows the evolution of our relationship with first nations as a government. It highlights the increasing responsibility and accountability that has been assumed by first nations in recent years as they move toward exercising their inherent right to self-government. However, we must keep in mind that this is a story that is still being written. Yes, there have been growing pains along the way as we make the fundamental transitions in our relationship, but if we think that people are not exercising their judgment well, is the answer to take away their ability to choose or to inform their judgment?

The party formerly known as the Reform Party would have us take away the rights of first nations to choose, to grow and, yes, occasionally to make mistakes. Our government would rather work with first nations—

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member knows well that the purpose of this bill is to attempt to provide an ombudsman for aboriginal grassroots people. Would he stick to the topic, please?