Debates of June 6th, 2000

Supply

[Rick Casson, Reform, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am glad I was able to be in the House to listen to the hon. member's earlier comments. She talked about cheap politics. Cheap politics is the fact that there was more money spent in the Prime Minister's riding through grants and contributions than was spent in the province of Alberta, Saskatchewan or Manitoba. To me, that is cheap politics. When they can build fountains in the Prime Minister's riding and then reach into a senior citizen's bank account to take money out of her account without her authority, that is cheap politics.

At the time when health care and education budgets were being cut, grants and contributions were going up. How can the hon. member stand in the House and justify that kind of action by the government?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would remind the hon. member that one of the roles of HRDC is to get people off unemployment and back into the workforce, as well as to ensure that opportunities are there for the disabled, the handicapped and many other Canadians who look forward to a positive future.

The unemployment rate was reduced from 11% to 7% as a result of the work done through HRDC. I think that is very important.

[Paul Forseth, Reform, New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like the hon. member to respond to what we know. We can go to any school of public administration at any university across the country and read the literature. We know that this type of expenditure probably hurts more than it helps the Canadian economy. Study after study it shows that.

Why would the government continue in the face of the academic literature? Is it because it knows there is a payoff politically? Even though it is not efficacious to the economy, it may be helpful in the voters' eyes, and it could misspend the money and get away with it because in the short term it could buy votes.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Madam Speaker, my opportunity to sit on the HRDC committee and hear from the various agencies the great things they did with the help of HRDC grants flies in the face of the comments of the hon. member.

We all know that the intention of our government, the Government of Canada, and Canadian taxpayers is for people to be helped in society. Cutting taxes is not supposed to be the primary goal for anybody; it is to provide good services to the people of the country. That is exactly what we were doing with the HRDC grants.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Madam Speaker, one of the things the member stated in her speech was that she thought we were just bringing up over and over again needless and unfounded accusations against the government, or something to that effect.

I would like to point out in the comments part of my statement that this was first raised by no less than the Auditor General of Canada. He raised serious questions about mismanagement in the department. All we are doing is following up on what he started and trying to get some accountability.

I would like the member to respond to a very simple question. Is she really convinced that there is nothing wrong in HRDC, or will she admit that there is and that it needs to be fixed?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would point out as a member of the committee that the committee held many, many meetings and heard lots of witnesses. We recognize that the recommendations in the report came from all of us; that we look at finding a way to make the department slightly smaller, modernizing the department and streamlining it. It is a very big department and it deals with huge amounts of money. All the recommendations in the report are there because we, the government, also wanted to see some change and some opportunities to stay on top of some of the issues. Those are the recommendations that came out of the HRDC committee.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased today to have a chance to speak to this important motion. To remind people of what the debate is about today, the opposition motion put forth by the Canadian Alliance reads in part:

That this House call for the establishment of an independent commission of inquiry into the mismanagement of grants and contributions in the Department of Human Resources Development—

Anyone who watched question period today would understand that the motion should definitely be accepted by all members of the House. What we saw today was the minister responsible for HRDC avoiding direct questions from members of the opposition. Then, after she could no longer avoid the questions, she avoided answering the questions.

An extremely important and direct question was put by several members. The question was: What is the authority that the minister used to allow her to take money out of a private citizen's bank account? It was a very direct and straightforward question. The minister never provided an answer to the question. The reason the minister did not provide an answer is because there is not a good answer.

We must establish a private, independent commission of inquiry to look into issues such as that.

There are three reasons we should establish a commission of inquiry. The first is to serve the public interest to ensure that what is best for the taxpaying public will be what happens in the future. That would be the result of an inquiry which would look at all that is wrong, so much that is wrong, with the Department of Human Resources Development.

The second reason is to restore public confidence, not only in parliament, but to restore public confidence in the Government of Canada generally. What has happened in this department and what has happened in other departments has led Canadians to become even more cynical than before when it comes to trusting the way the government spends their hard earned tax dollars.

The third reason is to provide the Canadian public with answers for all of the unanswered questions that have come up as a result of issues being raised by opposition parties into what has gone on in that department.

These are the reasons for which we clearly must establish an independent inquiry. It should be obvious. A government which really wants to be responsible to the people of this country, knowing the reality of what has gone on, should on its own volition, on its own initiative, call for such an inquiry to clear the air.

When a government is under siege, like the Liberal government is on this issue, what possible reason could there be for not wanting to establish a public inquiry to clear the air? I would argue that the only reason would be that it has even more that it wants to hide.

This is an extremely serious issue. It is not going to go away. It has added to the cynicism of the general Canadian public toward government. They feel they cannot trust government, and I understand why. For the sake of trying to help re-establish some of that trust in government and in politicians generally, we need this inquiry. That is not too much to ask. That is what the Canadian public ask.

I will read some of the things that my constituents have said on this issue, but I first want to say that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia.

I will quote a constituent from Vermilion who said:

I am, as many Canadians are, disgusted with the ongoing fiasco of our current government. Minister Jane Stewart and Prime Minister Chrétien insist there is no fire on their burning ship. No doubt they have cast their life boats out for themselves, but have no problem sending their bureaucrats off the plank to lighten the load.

I want say that it is wrong to blame the people working in the civil service for what has happened here. The fault lies with the government. The minister of that department and the government are responsible for how the departments are run. This constituent has expressed concern that the government is not respecting that responsibility.

My constituents are also pointing out that they are concerned that this minister and this government have tried to blame civil servants on several occasions for the problems in that department. That is just not right.

My constituent goes on to say:

Only a swift independent look at each “donation” that HRDC distributed and the roles played by the HMS Squander crew will put closure and accountability to this fiasco. It is sad though that we have to spend more taxpayer money to prove accountability. I paid a lot of taxes this year and my family looks to each pay cheque to keep afloat and to build a future. It's time the government admitted fault, fixed the problem and helped to start building Canadian's future rather than sinking its own ship and letting the taxpayer clean up the mess.

This is from one of my constituents who is responsible for supporting a family and who is fed up with the wasted spending and the lack of accountability.

My constituents are saying that they are accountable for their families and that it is very difficult to just stay afloat due to high tax levels. Wasted spending is a real concern to these individuals.

Another constituent from Lac La Biche sent me a copy of an e-mail he had sent to the Prime Minister. The e-mail reads:

Sir: You have to get rid of this albatross running the Human Resources Department of your government...One (or is it three?) billion dollars, is a staggering amount of money. She is obviously not up to the task of ensuring the taxpayers money is treated with the care and respect it deserves. Public officials...must remember, tax money doesn't grown on trees.

Elected people have a very important responsibility, no, a trust to guard against wasteful squandering of what should be considered a precious resource. I know there seems to be a shortage of common sense these days, but do we have to keep reminding you to maintain some restraint and accountability in your fiscal dealings?

This was sent to the Prime Minister from someone who is absolutely tired of the way tax money is being squandered.

Another one of my constituents from Ryley, Alberta says:

There appears to be between one to three billion dollars that was doled out to grant recipients without proper administration or following accepted accounting practices...The general public needs to have faith that the government agencies spend our tax dollars wisely and prudently. This controversy will only lower our perception of the federal government's ability.

This constituent is saying that proper accountability is critical to maintaining some sense of confidence in government, and that this problem is shattering what confidence is left.

A constituent from Vermilion wrote to me saying:

Dear Leon, I am very concerned about the billions of dollars that has gone missing while under Jane Stewart's keep. I just don't understand this system that seems to think—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I must interrupt the hon. member. The hon. member knows very well that we do not refer to members of parliament by their names. Even if you are citing a letter, you must editorialize.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, it just slipped my mind. Of course, I was talking about the Minister of Human Resources Development. I was reading from a letter I received from a constituent.

The constituent goes on to say:

I just don't understand this system that seems to think that it is okay to have a billion dollars that just goes missing...I am a mature woman who has been trying to get a degree...and I have had to borrow money under the guise of earning a university degree to have some income so that I can raise my 4 children. Maybe (the Minister of Human Resources Development) should try living on less than $12,000 a year. She would soon learn how to keep track of every penny.

This is a letter from a mother of four who is trying to raise her children on $12,000 a year while watching the Minister of Human Resources Development and the government squander money.

How do we expect people across the country to feel when their hard-earned tax dollars are being spent in such an irresponsible way?

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, listening always attentively to the comments and speeches opposite, I could not help but notice that as the member read the letter, the writer of the letter has come to believe that somehow a billion dollars has gone missing.

I was curious about whether or not the member himself believes that a billion dollars has gone missing, because I do not think that is factual. It may actually be the case of the adage, that if something that is not factual is repeated often enough, perhaps with the use of that rhetoric, people may be convinced that what is not factual may be the truth. It is regrettable when that type of rhetoric and exaggeration goes on but I suppose that is part of the political rhetoric of this place.

My question is for the member who just spoke and who just read that statement into the record as though it were factual. Maybe the hon. member is not prepared to answer the question, but does he believe that a billion dollars has gone missing or does he just want people to believe it because he says it might be so?

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I was of course reading from correspondence sent by my constituents. Some of them did point out that they felt there had been no proper accounting for the money.

Roughly $13 billion a year are given out in grants and contributions. Has a billion dollars gone missing? I cannot answer that because there has not been proper accounting. So many things have been done improperly that in fact we do not know what has really happened with the money.

Asking me to account for what certainly the member himself cannot account for, because there has been improper safekeeping of taxpayer money, is an odd thing to ask. I think the member ought to ask the Minister of Human Resources Development, the minister responsible for this department, and the ministers responsible for the other departments that make up this $13 billion in spending. Hopefully, they will eventually arrive at the truth.

This independent public inquiry, a commission, would certainly go a long way to at least answering the questions with regard to the human resources department. Those are the answers we are looking for and those are the types of questions to which Canadians want answers.

[Larry McCormick, Liberal, Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox And Addington, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is probably too much to ask my hon. colleague, but I do wish that members on all sides of the House would take the time to respond to their constituents and to put some of the facts out: the fact that there is not a billion dollar boondoggle; and, the fact that there is not $1 billion missing. However, they take all their facts from their national tabloid which is under some other name on the news stand.

That same party and those same members talk about political interference. My question is, how can my colleagues stand in their places and say that there is political interference when more than 50% of the funds from grants and contributions went to opposition ridings?

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member knows that the money was spent leading up to elections in constituencies where the Liberal Party felt it had a legitimate chance to win. Many of them it did not win, and as a result these ridings are represented by opposition members.

However, I would suggest that it is improper to use taxpayer money to fund that type of election campaigning before an election is officially called. Part of the problem is that too much of this money has been allocated for political reasons rather than for the purpose of benefiting the whole country.

I hear the members opposite getting really excited. They should be because this issue and their complete disregard for proper accountability could lead them to lose the next election. I hope it does.

They can help their own cause by supporting the motion for a public inquiry to look into the issue with regard to HRDC. Let us get some of the answers to the questions and then we will all know what is going on.

Right now it is factual that billions of dollars have been spent in a way for which there has been no proper accounting. I and the general public want those answers.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would again just like to briefly read the motion before the House that we are presently debating. It reads:

That this House call for the establishment of an independent commission of inquiry into the mismanagement of grants and contributions in the Department of Human Resources Development, and into any attempts to control the disclosure of this mismanagement to the public.

Madam Speaker, you may recall an unfortunate incident that I was a part of in the House, where I ended up using an unparliamentary word to describe the assertions of the minister. I commit that I will not use that unparliamentary word again. It does not change the fact that indeed the minister's statements were factually inaccurate and incorrect. It is what has driven me to request the time to be able to speak to the House about this issue.

Before I get into the specific situation with respect to my own constituency, I would like to say that in taking a look at this entire issue, it has been quite revealing. If we were to take a look back in time, we would discover that the starting point of this entire debacle, at least the debacle of the minister constantly doing cover-ups and constantly attempting to deflect responsibility for her culpability in this issue, all started when the Canadian Alliance asked for an access to information to her department with respect to an inquiry on an audit that had been conducted in her department.

Then, by some strange magic, the people of Canada were asked to believe that the day following our request for that audit information, the minister suddenly discovered that it was just about time that she revealed that information to Canadians.

Some of us found it rather un-credible that she would attempt to have Canadians believe that when we became aware of the audit and we asked for the audit, that the very next day, by some strange magical coincidence, that she was going to reveal the audit.

Right from the very beginning, right from that point forward, we have had the minister doing a constant deflection of responsibility.

I heard a Conservative member of the Chamber earlier today quoting the Prime Minister, who, at the time when he was the opposition leader in 1991, said that every one of his ministers would be accountable to the House, accountable to him and ultimately accountable to the people of Canada.

The Prime Minister's words that he gave Canadians in 1991 ring absolutely hollow. They are an absolute mockery of even the intent of the words he uttered in 1991. It is absolutely shameful that the Prime Minister would allow his government to have reached a point where the HRDC minister is constantly trying to deflect responsibility.

The whole parliamentary system of Canada is based upon the parliamentary system of Westminster. It is based upon accountability and responsibility of the ministers of the government and the minister is constantly trying to deflect responsibility.

Even today, as she was questioned about the fact that clearly there was an interim audit, going back to June the officials in her department at the time that she took over the department were fully aware of the implications of this audit, the implications that her department had fundamentally lost control of $1 billion in spending. She would have us believe in spite of the fact that when she was advised of all the so-called hot issues in August 1999, when her officials had in hand an interim audit, that those officials chose to keep her in the dark.

She can play with words until she is blue in the face. She can stand up and perhaps factually tell us that she was not officially informed until November 17. But those words do not mean anything because it is not feasible, it is not possible, it is not credible that her officials would have kept her in the dark from August through September into October and until November when she was finally told. As has been pointed out by my colleagues in questions in the House, during that period of time she had a chequebook out of which she wrote almost half a billion dollars of Canadians' money to various projects.

Any responsible, reasonable Canadian looking at the way in which the minister is constantly trying to duck, weave, dodge and get around the facts as they are presented would see that it is not credible. The minister is not accepting her responsibility and not accepting her authority over her department.

The reason I became as upset and exercised about this issue as I did, and the reason I went to the extent of having the Speaker remove me from the House for using unparliamentary language, was that when the minister stood up in the Chamber, she did so as part of her process of deflection, as part of her way of getting around the responsibility that is only hers to have.

She said that I personally had been constantly in touch with her office in a way that would promote these grants and funding to my constituents. In fact, I have a very competent staff who advised me and made me fully aware that indeed members of parliament should not be doing that, because if members of parliament do that, they give up the arm's length basis of being able to hold the government accountable for the funds that it is in the process of disbursing.

What basically happened was that we were approached by a business in my community which had put in for a grant. I believe it was in the neighbourhood of half a million dollars. It was for retooling an operation. When it got to a particular point in the process, no matter what those people did, they could not get any information back from the department.

Doing the job that any good MP should do, my office contacted HRDC on my behalf, and I take full responsibility for that, and said that this business was having this difficulty and would they please converse with these people and inform them of exactly what is going on. A second time it was the same thing. It lurched a little forward from that point. Again that business came to us saying it could not get any information out of the department and would we give it a hand. In this instance we just left a message on the voice mail saying, “Would you please contact these people and let them know what is going on. Are the forms filled out correctly and we understand that they have been approved. What is happening?”

The president of the treasury board came to my constituency. I recall saying to her when she was in Cranbrook, “Madam Minister, the frustration for this company is that we keep on hearing that indeed leases have been approved. There are other capital expenditures that will be happening. I am not advocating that they be approved or not, but we are told that they are approved. Please simply inform this company what in the world is going on”.

That is the position I took. That is the reason when the minister said I had been advocating, pushing, shoving or doing whatever it was that she said I was doing, I was so incensed because I had stayed within what I considered to be a very important boundary. Indeed the auditor general substantiates the position that I and my office have taken. I quote from an article:

Mr. Desautels said he feels MPs should not be involved in approving job creation grants to companies and groups in their own ridings, as they currently do under the transitional jobs fund and Canada jobs fund programs, because their participation blurs the lines of public accountability.

“If members of parliament are involved in the decision making process for [job creation grants], that blurs the line and makes it hard for them to play their oversight role of government”.

As the official opposition, we are holding the minister accountable. We are trying to get the facts from the minister, not the facts as constructed in the precise wording she is giving the House, but the facts as to her responsibility and the fact that she is not taking responsibility. That is clearly why every member of the House must vote in favour of our motion this evening, that the House call for the establishment of an independent commission of inquiry.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, I have a simple question for the hon. member. If members on the government side make an inquiry on behalf of a constituent in exactly the same manner that the hon. member suggested, because those members throw around language about approvals and so on quite freely, the fact is that no member on this side approves these programs. We are asked our opinion or we make inquiries just like the hon. member suggests that he made.

However I can make such an inquiry and the member should be aware of that. Were that particular organization successful in whatever application it may be, and God forbid, were that organization to make a donation to my campaign, completely unrelated to this, as happens all the time, that would be a subject of considerable angst for hon. members opposite. I have heard it in the House all the time. It is unfair to the companies and so on. If the hon. member made an inquiry on behalf of a company in his constituency and it happened that the company made a donation to his campaign, would there be anything wrong with that?

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is very clear that I was making an inquiry as to process. I was inquiring as to where it was in the process. I requested that they report back to my constituent because my constituency did not understand and could not get the information. That is the job of a member of parliament.

What the member is talking about by contrast is a totally different issue. He is making an inquiry as an advocate for that business. That is the difference. The surprising coincidence of the level of contributions that occurred after those grants and funds were given by the government to the firm in the constituency of one of the members who happens to be in the House today is what raises eyebrows.

It is a very simple difference. I do not understand why the member and the minister do not understand. There is a total difference between inquiring as to process and inquiring as an advocate for the company.

[Derrek Konrad, Reform, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague said that every member must vote for this motion. I note that the Liberal member for Broadview—Greenwood is concerned that the power of the Prime Minister's office has turned members into voting machines. In the ridings they are nothing but patronage machines. The member for Waterloo—Wellington said that MPs should roll up their sleeves and go to work and do whatever they can to effect change.

I would like my colleague to comment on what he thinks the chances are of those people living up to those kinds of commitments. Is it just all talk, talk, talk?

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Madam Speaker, the whole issue of discipline on the part of the government is fairly chafing for many of the members on the back bench. The vote tonight will be yet another indication of just how much restraint and chafing there is. This is a worthy motion that clearly should have the approval of the House considering the gross mismanagement and the dodging and weaving the minister has done over this issue.

The minister must be held accountable. If the Prime Minister will not hold the minister accountable, then maybe the House could. However, as my colleague has pointed out, the Prime Minister has such restraints on the Liberal members in the House that realistically, I do not see any way that the motion will go forward.

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Fredericton.

I feel compelled to speak to this very misguided motion. It talks about attempts to control the disclosure of the mismanagement to the public. I want to make clear to the House and certainly to the Canadian people that my approach in this whole affair has been to be fully transparent and open and to disclose to the Canadian public the issues that are within and about my department.

I would like to remind the House that it was on November 17 when I was briefed on the results of an internal audit which looked at all the programs and our grants and contributions and found that there was significant improvement needed in the management of our grants and contributions. I received the initial results; I received the results of the internal audit and the initial management response.

Upon receiving that, I identified that I took this very seriously. I told the department that I wanted a stronger management response and I also indicated to them that we would be making the results of this internal audit public.

For me it is extraordinarily important that the government respect the people of Canada and that we let them know when we have problems. Certainly we let them know when times are good but we also let them know when we have problems. At the same time we would indicate to the Canadian public how we would fix the problem and when we would do that.

In January the work of the department was completed. The management response was fully reviewed and that is when we presented it. We made it public. The government made it public. This is very difficult for members of the Canadian Alliance to appreciate and to accept. From their point of view government should be managed behind closed doors. They think we should sweep things under the carpet. Clearly that is what they have been indicating over the course of questioning in these last months. From our point of view, that is not the appropriate way. That is why for me it was terribly important to make this information public.

That is not all we have done to disclose the information associated with this. To me, one of the best places to be questioned by parliamentarians, those who are here elected on behalf of Canadians, is at the standing committee.

Since Christmas I have been to the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development three times. Once was to talk about issues of disabilities and our support for Canadians who are disabled. I recognize my colleague who will speak after me for the work he has done in that regard. The work of the government builds on his study and his recommendations.

I went two other times to talk specifically and only about grants and contributions. Members from all parties, including members from the government side, had the freedom to ask me anything they wanted about grants and contributions. I gave them two complete opportunities to do that. To my way of thinking, that is about being transparent, about being open and about disclosing information.

If we look at some of the things that the standing committee members asked for, we see another example of how open and forthcoming we have been on this side with regard to this issue. Members talked about grants and contributions specifically. Certain members, not on this side but on that side of the House, talked about grants and contributions being found only in Liberal ridings. That is so false that nothing could be further from the truth.

The committee asked to see where the grants and contributions had been made. Out of respect for the committee, out of respect for Canadians and out of respect for disclosure, transparency and openness, my department prepared over 10,000 pages of information that itemized line by line by line where the grants and contributions were made. We invest those moneys in support of Canadians with disabilities, Canadians who are learning to read and want to improve their literacy skills, and young Canadians who have not been able to find employment and want to find their way so they can contribute to this great country. If hon. members took the time to look at that paper they would see that grants and contributions are found not only in Liberal ridings but in ridings held by members of every political stripe.

Members of the opposition, those who present the motion today, continue to talk in the House about grants and contributions as something to be found only in Liberal ridings. The 10,000 pages of information we provided prove categorically that they are wrong. Have they stood and apologized? Have they disclosed their true motive, which was not to improve the system of grants and contributions but to undermine it? No, they have not. Instead they present misguided motions like the one we have in the House today.

Let us look at other ways that I have insisted on being open to the Canadian public. We worked with the auditor general on our six point plan. He gave advice on its efficacy and will make a report to the House in the fall on our grants and contributions. I note that there will be a review by an independent third party, an officer of the House. We already have that piece of the motion covered. In that six point plan we agreed that we would present to the Canadian people on a quarterly basis the results of our work.

I was fortunate enough to make a presentation on the first quarterly report to the standing committee. What was in that report? It was an explanation of the work of the department over the last few months focused totally on improving the administration of grants and contributions. It included a fulsome review of 17,000 active files across the country. What did that review find? It found that we had to improve our paperwork in those files. That is being done because they are active files.

It did not find, as that party opposite continues to indicate, that money was missing. It confirmed what we had said from the very beginning. This is not about money being lost. We know where the money is. It is in those grants and contributions itemized in the 10,000 pages we presented to the House of Commons. It is out in communities working to ensure that Canadians have the opportunity to participate in our increasingly fast and effective economy.

In my report to the standing committee I made it clear that we had reviewed these files and that we were on a go-forward basis in implementing our six point plan to ensure that the administration is strong. What I clearly indicated again, because I have done it so many times before, was that $1 billion were not missing. In fact out of 17,000 active files we identified $6,500 that have not been paid and that we will continue to try to obtain.

It seems very strange to me that the members of that party opposite asked questions in the House month after month. Let us not forget that. My heavens, I am in the House virtually every day answering their questions, talking about the information that they want. Yet, no matter how often they question, the facts remain the facts. It was this side of the House that undertook the internal audit. It was this side of the House that made it public, disclosed the results of that audit to the Canadian public. It was this side of the House that implemented an action plan to ameliorate the difficulties in the department because on this side of the House we believe absolutely that the grants and contributions in which we invest are vital to the people of Canada.

What becomes clear in the questions from the opposite side is that this is not about improving the system. It is about getting rid of all grants and contributions. Members on that side of the House are not interested. Nor do they believe that the Government of Canada has a role to play in helping Canadians. If there is anything I want to make clear in this speech today, it is that they are wrong to suggest we are not forthcoming in disclosing the information Canadians want to have. They are wrong to suggest that grants and contributions are a waste of money, because they touch the lives of individuals.

I will stand here and defend against the simple minded, mob-like, nasty mentality of the members of that party opposite who are doing nothing but trying to undermine the institutions of Canada and undervalue the Canadian values of generosity, sharing, tolerance and diversity.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, first I would like to ask for unanimous consent of the House to extend the time for the minister to answer questions on this important issue.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Is there agreement in the House to extend the time?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, it somehow does not surprise me that the Liberals want to limit the minister's exposure here. The minister has just talked at some length about the fact that she has made all this disclosure. Just in the short time I had, and I could not make a comprehensive list, there are five things the minister has not disclosed. I might think of more as I am speaking.

The 10,000 pages simply said that x number of dollars went to x company in x riding. It does not disclose what the dollars were intended to fund. It does not disclose whether the intended results for the expenditure of that money were obtained.

The minister hid the Deloitte & Touche criticism of her six point plan. Scores of access requests have been unlawfully delayed by her department, a department by the way that has over 20,000 employees but somehow cannot find the bodies to deliver the documents that are requested by law within 30 days to the opposition and other members of the public. In fact, the information commissioner told the committee that delay was actually deliberate.

There was no disclosure of the audit itself until the opposition put in an access request for it. There was no disclosure of the progress report of the six point plan to the committee until after the committee proceedings started. Then the minister said we had lots of time to ask her questions. We had not laid eyes on the report, but we were supposed to ask her searching questions about it. She had time to give it to the media.

She has not disclosed the investigation into the Conili grant that she said cleared the member for Ahuntsic and the department of any wrongdoing in this grant that did not create jobs, but she will not give us that report. She censored six pages of an Arthur Andersen audit of a grant that criticized her department.

The minister has a whole history of non-disclosure of important information, and these are only samples of what I am able to bring out in a short period of time. How can the minister have the nerve to stand in the House and pretend to Canadians that she is being honest and open when her record indicates otherwise?

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Oh my goodness, Madam Speaker, where do I want to start? Let us go back to the myth that it was the Reform Party which forced our hand through access to information. Categorically that is wrong. I say again: I made this internal audit public.

The member talks about the 10,000 pages and about the itemization of grants and contributions. I wonder if the hon. member has taken the time to go to her local office and ask them about those individual projects, or maybe even to visit them and see the impact and the difference they make in the lives of Canadians. Somehow I doubt it when I read her comments in the press. She just ignores that as if this money is not about people at all. That is one of the most insulting things about the approach from that side.

They are basically telling Canadians who have been the beneficiaries of these grants and contributions that they are a waste. There is nothing that could be further from the truth. On this side of the House we believe in ensuring that every Canadian counts and that every Canadian has the opportunity to participate in this great country through grants and contributions.

Let me look at some of the other things the member talked about. She talked about access to information. Let me quote from the special report to parliament of the Information Commissioner of Canada tabled last month. Here is what he said about the Department of Human Resources Development Canada:

During the review period every access request received by HRDC was answered within 30 days—no extensions were claimed. This show of respect for the rights of Canadians to timely responses represents an outstanding feat of good leadership, good management and hard work. Kudos to HRDC are well deserved and unreservedly given by this Commissioner.

Let me point out that we have been inundated by access requests, given the grants and contributions question. We remain firmly committed and are working with the information commissioner to ensure that those requests are met because, as I pointed out, we are in this to ensure that we are disclosing information and that we are being transparent and open with the Canadian people.