House of Commons Hansard #108 of the 36th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was hrdc.
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)
No, the Chair ruled that the interventions were in order and that there was no problem. If it was in order for the member for Calgary—Nose Hill, certainly it would equally be in order for the member for Peterborough.
Peter Adams Liberal Peterborough, ON
Mr. Speaker, I point out that my concern was with discussing the business of committee, not the recommendation of reports which have been tabled in the House of Commons.
I simply want to ask the member what he thinks of recommendation No. 30.
Jean-Guy Chrétien Bloc Frontenac—Mégantic, QC
Mr. Speaker, as you know I have memorized all the recommendations. However, I fear I may confuse recommendation No. 30 with recommendation No. 31.
So that I do not get too muddled, I would like to point out to the chair of the human resources development committee that the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs visited my riding a week and a half ago. I was very surprised to see, and I have to look into this more, that he was accompanied by the director general of Human Resources Development Canada in Thetford Mines.
Are Human Resources Development Canada personnel being politicized to the point of serving as political organizers or advance men or confidants of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs? This is called using the public service for partisan purposes.
You are bleeding the coffers of Human Resources Development Canada in order to get re-elected and now you are going to require the representatives of the department in each of Canada's regions to accompany Liberal candidates. This is a scandal. And we wonder—
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)
I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member.
Diane Ablonczy Reform Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to defer to the other questioners.
Antoine Dubé Bloc Lévis, QC
Mr. Speaker, I was hanging on every word uttered by the member for Frontenac—Mégantic. He was going to present three or four cases, but unfortunately he ran out of time.
I would like to give him an opportunity to finish his speech and to speak about the three or four cases to which he wished to draw the House's attention.
Jean-Guy Chrétien Bloc Frontenac—Mégantic, QC
Mr. Speaker, in the riding of Saint-Maurice, many of the jobs created involve the RCMP, but these are temporary jobs for people who do not live in the riding; i.e. RCMP officers.
So, Groupe Force in the riding of Saint-Maurice apparently obtained $1.5 million, and it is also under investigation. There is some extremely disgraceful misappropriation of money going on.
Modes Conili, $720,000; its owners and the use actually made of the grant are being investigated. Is this related to hidden patronage?
This case, as is very well known, involves a Liberal from Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, who received a contribution of $1.3 million for job creation, but things did not go very well. No real jobs were created.
In the Toronto area, the Community Alliance for Neighbourhood Development apparently obtained $100,000 fraudulently. The figure may even be as high as $1.15 million.
Elsewhere, in New Brunswick, Atlantic Furniture Manufacturing received $280,000 and not only did the plant not create any jobs, but it did not even open its doors. It is an unbelievable fiasco, a misappropriation of public money.
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)
I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time is up.
Before we go to the next intervention, I would like to compliment the translator. I know how difficult it is and the translation has been absolutely remarkable. I am talking about French to English. Thank you very much.
Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today on behalf of the New Democratic Party as its spokesperson and critic for HRDC, to speak in support of the motion by the official opposition.
It has been rather a perplexing and ironic debate. The member for Peterborough has challenged other members that they should not be discussing the business of the committee and yet he himself raised recommendations from the HRDC committee. I do not see how we can debate this issue and the motion without getting into the business of the committee and the recommendations that have come out of that committee. I hope we can get on with the debate and deal with some of the very important questions that are before us.
Today's motion is very important because the four opposition parties have been united in their focus on what has become the central question in the HRDC scandal. On June 1 the four opposition parties issued a joint statement which reads, “We have no confidence in the government's response to the scandal at HRDC. Therefore today we reiterate our grave concerns and call for an independent public inquiry to investigate and report on the alleged partisan interference and wrongdoing in the awarding of HRDC grants and contributions. It is crucial to restore public confidence and only an independent public inquiry can accomplish this”.
It is ironic that earlier today the chair of the committee, the hon. member for Peterborough, said that another public inquiry would be a waste of dollars. Another public inquiry implies that we have already had one. Certainly there have been committee hearings. Certainly we have heard some witnesses. But to characterize that as an independent public inquiry is doing a grave injustice to the whole idea of what an independent public inquiry is about and why we need to have one.
There have been weeks of hearings, committee meetings and questions in the House. Independent investigation work has been done by members in the opposition parties. The minister released 10,000 pages and volumes of information have come out. Despite all that, Canadians are still no closer to understanding what happened in the department, how decisions were made and how it is that today we have ended up with a dozen or more investigations that possibly could lead to criminal charges if there is found to be wrongdoing.
Canadians have not received answers to some very basic questions that have been put in the House of Commons as well as in the committee, as well as by the media day after day since we returned to the House in February.
That is why the opposition parties issued a joint statement. That is why the opposition parties, from day one, have called for an independent public inquiry. That is why today this motion is before us again. I believe it is actually the second opposition day motion on a public inquiry. Members from the Bloc also put forward a motion a couple of months ago.
It deserves some closer examination as to why the insistence or the pressure is still being kept up by those of us in opposition. Perhaps the government's line is that this is about playing politics. I beg to differ. This issue is about trying to restore confidence in public expenditures. It is about trying to restore confidence in public decision making. It is about trying to restore confidence in the way our parliament and the way our government work.
I should like to say at the outset that from the New Democratic Party's point of view we have always defended the purpose and intent of the kinds of programs now under investigation. In terms of the principle of what those programs stand for as far as job creation in areas of high unemployment and training people to sustain the local economy are concerned, those are things that we in the New Democratic Party have always supported. We do not take issue with them.
Historically we have been on record for many years since our inception as saying that there is a legitimate role for government to play in job creation, in youth training, in providing literacy programs and in all the things we have seen go on. However the issue is the way those programs have been managed and the fact that we have mounting evidence that funds have been used for political partisan purposes.
It is sad to note that the people who have taken the flack, the people who end up paying the cost of this mismanagement and of the political partisan use of these funds, are the very people these funds and programs are designed to help. That is the sad irony of what has taken place here.
From our point of view in the New Democratic Party we want a public inquiry to get at the truth, to restore a sense of balance and to say it is important that we look at each of those investigations and get answers. I was very interested to hear the exchange a few minutes earlier by my hon. colleague from the Bloc who was trying to put on record a few of the cases that have come up. There are so many it is impossible to detail them in a debate such as this one. We on the opposition side are all aware that we need a thorough examination of them.
Clearly the mandate and scope of the committee dominated by government members are completely inadequate and limited in ability to passively or even willingly take that job on. We in the NDP want a public inquiry precisely to get at the truth but also to restore confidence in these programs. I do not think that can be underestimated.
All members have commented on the point at one time or another that through the whole debate and the developments which have taken place the workers and staff people who actually deliver programs on the frontline in local HRDC offices have taken a beating. It is not just as a result of what has unfolded since February. They have taken a beating because they have suffered years and years of cutbacks in the public service, some 5,000 people alone in the Human Resources Development Department.
The issue of the undermining of the public sector workforce and the undermining of public services is a recipe that comes from the Liberal government. It is something that is contributing now to the very low morale and sense that this department is simply falling apart. It has lacked leadership. It has lacked accountability. It has lacked transparency. It has also suffered from very low morale.
Who would blame the people working in that department for feeling thoroughly cynical and depressed about all these goings on. They are still delivering the services yet have less and less resources to do so as a result of all the cutbacks.
We in the NDP see a very serious matter that needs to be addressed by the government. It must be taken up to restore confidence in this operation and the various things the department does. I am referring to increasing the staffing resources and recognizing that the people who deliver those programs do it with a sense of public interest, a sense of public mission.
Somehow we have to separate the function of government in carrying out operations and programs from a political culture that is so pervasive that we heard time and time again in committee from various witnesses that the political atmosphere dictated everything else.
Today I think it is very important that we continue with this debate and continue to press for an independent public inquiry because there are critical questions that still must be addressed. There are issues on which we do not yet have answers. For example, as recently as June 5, reports are surfacing suggesting that the minister knew, possibly in October 1999, about the internal audit that was done of the transitional jobs fund and that those programs being mismanaged.
There are serious issues about when information was known and whether or not we are getting the full goods and the full answer on when it was that the minister or her staff were involved and had disclosure about the ongoing problems.
We still have continuing evidence that the transitional jobs fund was used as a slush fund. A 1998 independent review conducted by Ekos Research Associates suggested that transitional jobs fund grants were approved for political reasons.
A 1997 audit done by Consulting and Audit Canada, which examined 25 transitional jobs fund grants in Quebec and Atlantic Canada, warned that the fund was “political”. In particular, in the awarding of a $6 million grant to a tree planting project in New Brunswick, the firm reported:
Pressures on staff to expedite the approval process have come from the political level and commitments have been made that HRDC staff must then follow.
I am pulling this information from public documents and from some reviews which were done in previous years. This is now a matter of public record but the problem is they were never followed up. The systemic problems within this department in terms of the politicization of the process and the political interference are questions that we have to get answers on and questions that have never been addressed.
In my office we received information about the way grants were disbursed in the Kenora office in northern Ontario. There were allegations of political interference on the part of the current minister of Indian affairs who was previously the parliamentary secretary to HRDC. People who worked in that office said that they were very concerned about the partisan nature of how these grants and contributions were awarded.
Then we have the situation of Scotia Rainbow. In February the member for Bras d'Or—Cape Breton blew the whistle on the Scotia Rainbow allocation funds. She questioned how a $750,000 grant approved to Scotia Rainbow, a company owned by a Liberal contributor, was increased in the same fiscal year to $2 million. More than that, as a local member of parliament she was never approached to give concurrence to the transitional jobs fund beyond the initial $750,000 in September 1998.
In fact the member for Bras d'Or—Cape Breton has now asked the auditor general to conduct a thorough review of Scotia Rainbow's applications and the grant from the transitional jobs fund. To add insult to injury, the organization went into receivership by defaulting on its obligations on a $10 million loan from the Bank of Montreal.
Our member from Bras d'Or has raised this issue continually in the House of Commons and has been absolutely stonewalled by various ministers in the government in trying to get some straightforward answers.
Other critical questions need to be addressed so I will continue with my list. Everybody has a list of questions they want to have answered. One of the questions we have that pertains to my own riding and the riding of the member for Winnipeg Centre is: Why is it that some of these funds were supposedly improved in areas of high unemployment when the unemployment rate was actually lower than the criteria? Why is it that for the minister's own riding funds were approved when its unemployment rate was lower than the criteria?
We suddenly heard about the existence of pockets. The government explained this practice with fuzzy, warm rules that pockets of unemployment—
Larry McCormick Liberal Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox And Addington, ON
A lot of money went into your riding.
Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC
No. One transitional jobs fund went into Vancouver East just before the election when it was held by a Liberal member.
Why were all members of the House not aware of this loophole? Where did this rule come from? How was it applied across the country? Why in some areas like Vancouver East did the riding qualify under the pocket rule just prior to an election but after the election apparently did not qualify any longer?
Why did 49 of Canada's most profitable companies receive grants and contributions from HRDC, including all five of the big banks, Canadian Pacific, Loblaws, Shell Canada, Investors Group, Fairfax Financial, Bombardier, Power Corporation, Onex Corporation and Southam. This is a who's who of corporate Canada.
It strikes me as ironic that major profitable corporations are receiving grants and contributions apparently without question and sometimes without adequate paperwork or follow-up. Why are we giving money to these hugely profitable corporations? Why are these public funds not being invested in local communities where real job development is taking place?
I remember a sock company, although I forget its name. The guy wanted to create a world monopoly in socks and put other sock companies out of business. Why did that company get a transitional jobs fund? I do not know. I can only guess.
Michelle Dockrill NDP Bras D'Or, NS
Maybe he made a donation to the Liberals.
Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC
My colleague says “Maybe he made a donation to the Liberals”. These are serious questions. In fact we in the NDP have called for a code of conduct. This is something we have included in our minority report. It is very important that there be transparency in the decision making process.
We do not object to members of parliament being involved in a process by signing off on a particular grant or contribution. A member of parliament should be involved. The question is: Are the rules being applied fairly, consistently and without an overriding political culture? That is where we have a problem.
We in the New Democratic Party have recommended to the government that the treasury board, in conjunction with the Auditor General of Canada, develop a code of conduct for all departments, not just HRDC, that award grants and contributions. We believe this code of conduct should incorporate transparency, disclosure, fairness and standard practices. That is something Canadians could agree with. Everyone in the House would agree that the same rules should apply for everybody. The government side should not be favoured because it is using the funds for partisan purposes to bolster its re-election efforts.
If we are genuine about wanting to invest in job creation, let us do it on an objective basis. Let us do it on a basis that we can all live by. Then Canadians could see where the funds are going, that they are being put to good use to create real jobs and not just a political slush fund.
Again I come back to the motion that is before us today and reiterate our support and our ongoing call for an independent inquiry, which we have called for from day one. We will continue to do that until there is accountability, until there are answers to the questions, some of which I gave today, many of which we have put in our report and many of which have been put at committee.
The last matter I want to speak to is the future of the department. The NDP, as well as Bloc members I think, agreed with the main report, with some reservations. Because there has been such a spotlight on the department, one of the things which came to light is that this massive department, which is the largest federal department, needs to have a further review in terms of its ongoing mandate and structure. I want to be very clear that we want to do that to restore the confidence in the programs that have been delivered and should be delivered. We do not want to use the people who work there as scapegoats, nor do we want to use them as a further reason for cutbacks or massive layoffs. For that reason we would support a further review.
We cannot escape what needs to be done in the House. There must be an independent public inquiry to really get to the bottom of what happened in the department. We will not rest until that happens.
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)
As several members wish to speak, I am going to ask members to limit themselves to one or two minutes for questions and comments.
Larry McCormick Liberal Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox And Addington, ON
Madam Speaker, I am grateful to have the opportunity to ask a question of the member for Vancouver East, who is a hard working member of our committee. However, first I wish to point out that my colleague must have sat at a different committee meeting than I. She mentioned that she heard people repeatedly talking about interference in the grants and contributions process. I would ask my colleague to table any evidence she has with respect to political interference, or interference of any kind.
This debate concerns having an independent public inquiry. I believe that my colleague is late on the issue. We had an inquiry and we heard witnesses from many walks of life.
Does my colleague not recognize the honest work and effort of the auditor general and his department? I do not believe we could get any person or department which would be more independent.
Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC
Madam Speaker, in reply to my hon. colleague's question, when I mentioned the examples or evidence of political interference I was going by what I heard at committee. I read to members of the House reports from outside consulting firms, which brought forward information from the people they interviewed during their reviews, and they said there was political interference and they were concerned about it. Those documents have already been tabled.
I strongly believe that there are lots of other instances that we do not yet know about. I have an inkling about them, but we do not yet have the full evidence of what took place.
If the member is saying let us table the documents and get that information, then that is another reason I would say yes, let us have an inquiry to do that.
In terms of the auditor general, he has played a very good role. In fact, I was hugely concerned by what I heard at committee from the auditor general. He made it quite clear to members that for years and years he has made recommendations about changing procedures on how these disbursements are made and following up on problems within the department. Those recommendations were basically ignored.
The NDP is recommending that there be rules that are enforceable. How many more reports does the government have to get from the auditor general? He said that he has made reports since 1974 on these kinds of issues. Yes, we want enforceable rules.
Antoine Dubé Bloc Lévis, QC
Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the NDP member. She supports the idea of a public inquiry, as we do.
I would like get her views on what criteria would ensure that such an inquiry is truly seen as an independent inquiry.
There have been so-called public inquiries in the past, but it was the government that appointed those in charge of these inquiries. How does the hon. member think that the members, the commissioners on the board of inquiry, should be appointed?
Also, I greatly appreciate the idea of not only shedding light on this issue but, to avoid such scandals—and this is truly an unprecedented scandal at HRDC and in some ridings, including the Prime Minister's riding—the member's suggestion that a code of ethics, or something similar, be drafted. I wonder if the hon. member could elaborate on that. It is fine to diagnose a problem, but solutions must also be found.
What, in her opinion, are the ethical solutions that should be proposed to correct the situation?
Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question.
In terms of what framework a public inquiry could take, there have been a couple of suggestions made already. One suggestion was made by the Canadian Alliance. The member for Calgary—Nose Hill suggested earlier that we could have an inquiry made up of equal numbers of members of parliament from each of the five parties, so there would not be any partisanship. That is something which could be agreed to by all parties in the House.
I would think that another framework could be to have something completely outside the involvement of members. That might involve someone from the judiciary, or a panel of civilians, or people who have a lot of credibility in the community, but again on the basis that there would be an all-party agreement. As we know, it is very easy to appoint friends to such places and say it is independent.
I have a brief response in terms of the code of conduct. What we have said in our report, and I would urge the member to look at the report, is that we believe a code of conduct should be developed by treasury board and should include a number of principles concerning the disbursement of grants and contributions: that disbursements should be made in a way that is transparent, that there should be full disclosure, that there should be fairness, and most important, that there be a standard practice. What we envisage is that this would be developed as a document which departments would be required to live by in terms of making decisions about awarding grants and contributions.
I do not think it is mutually exclusive to a member of parliament having some involvement in that. One of the things that has been suggested by witnesses is that there could be advisory committees in local areas.
We want the departments to live by this kind of code so that we do not have this kind of scandal in the future.
Peter Adams Liberal Peterborough, ON
Madam Speaker, like the member, I too look forward to the next report of the auditor general. It will be an important one. He is conducting an inquiry into this very matter now, which is one of the reasons I will not support today's resolution.
I ask the member for her comments on the recommendation in the majority report, to which she referred, concerning the breakup of the department. The suggestion is that the statutory transfers, the Canada pension plan, the old age supplement, the disability pension and so on, that huge financial side of the department, be handled separately, that employment and labour be handled separately, and that there be a minister of state, a special overview department—which I think would involve many of the employees she is concerned about in HRDC—to deal with grants and contributions in these important social areas; not only in HRDC, but in health, justice and the other government departments where they exist.
I wonder what the member thinks of that particular scenario and that recommendation in the majority report.
Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC
Madam Speaker, very briefly, I am a bit worried that the member has already in his own mind, perhaps in debate with other government members, gone down the road so far in terms of articulating how the restructuring of HRDC might take place. I think that is something that has to be done in a very public way, with a lot of public debate.
What we call for in our report is that there be an independent review of the restructuring of the department, which would include the public and private sectors, and which would include labour, because obviously the unions involved would be affected.
I believe very strongly that there have to be principles involved. This must not be used as a cover for any privatization of services or contracting out. This is about making a department more manageable and accountable.
I agree that there are some areas where a particular function of the department in terms of its statutory obligations could be in one area and then other areas dealing with social policy could be put under another department or secretary of state. However, it seems to me that the real issue is, if the government is going to take that up, then there has to be a commitment that there will not be privatization or contracting out, and that the debate will be held in public and not behind closed doors.
Michelle Dockrill NDP Bras D'Or, NS
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for her comments this morning. She spoke about one of the TJF projects in my riding, Scotia Rainbow, for which I have not been able to get any answers. God forbid me to say that maybe it could be because the owner of the business has a very close relative who is a sitting Liberal member of the Quebec legislature.
What is really important is this. We have heard the minister day after day saying “We found out there was a problem. We recognized there was a problem. We told Canadians there was a problem and now we have fixed it”. Unfortunately, just in the last two weeks in my riding, I have been asked to concur in projects when the money was already spent in November.
Does the hon. member believe, if the government agrees to look at the department and look at an inquiry, that these initiatives could truly help Canadians in the way they should?
Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC
Madam Speaker, I really appreciate the comments from my colleague because I know she has had the most difficult time in getting very basic information. It is pretty outrageous that projects have been approved without her concurrence.
Again, I would say that is why we in the NDP are calling for a code of conduct. We want to have enforceable rules through treasury board. We want there to be very clear rules about how these grants and contributions are made.
Scott Brison Progressive Conservative Kings—Hants, NS
Madam Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to support the motion that the 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.
I will be splitting my time with the hon. member from Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.
We in the PC Party are supportive of this motion. The PC Party filed a dissenting report to the HRDC committee report. The committee report did not ask for an independent public inquiry.
At this juncture, with all the controversy over the HRDC debacle, Canadians have lost confidence in the Department of Human Resources Development. It is time for an open and transparent process and inquiry to re-establish that trust between the department—in fact between the government and the Canadian public, who have clearly lost confidence in the ability of the department to manage this very important part of public policy in Canada.
As the information commissioner, John Reid, said “Governments have no money of their own. They are trustees for our money and trustees for the various programs and activities they undertake for us”. Clearly, the government has not acted as an effective trustee of the public money, in this case HRDC.
The whole disclosure of the crisis within HRDC did not come about as a result of the government seeking greater transparency, openness and accountability. It came about based on the minister being dragged, kicking and screaming, to disclosure by the House. In fact, the opposition has worked collectively and effectively to ensure that light was shone into the dark space of HRDC to ensure that Canadians were aware of the degree to which public trust between Canadians and their government, in terms of the management of public money, had been broken by the government.
The government has been working assiduously to minimize the impact and degree to which the HRDC department was out of control. Clearly it had not maintained an accountable system to manage these funds. Overall I see no reason why any member of the House, on the government side or on the opposition side, would have difficulty with a full and transparent public inquiry into the HRDC department's difficulties in managing public funds.
Clearly, on looking at the history of HRDC and what we know now versus what we knew even a few years ago relative to employment support programs, there is some recognition that many of the programs and the types of involvement which were thought to be appropriate by individuals involved in public policy to develop and grow employment are less effective. On looking at these programs in hindsight, we have seen that the record of actually creating long term sustainable employment for Canadians by HRDC and many other direct government employment creation agencies has been littered with the corpses of failed programs and initiatives and poor investments.
Even the Minister of Finance in a speech a few months ago said publicly that government should not pick winners or losers and should not make direct investments in business. Far too often when the government gets involved in direct investments in individual businesses, the reasons behind those investments have little to do with economics or job creation. In many cases they are more about rewarding political friends or trying to help a minister or an individual member maintain his or her status in the riding.
We have heard of significant investments that were made. I believe there was $500,000 to Wal-Mart. We have heard of HRDC money going to companies to effectively move them from one riding to another with no net gain in employment. The focus of HRDC investment should be on investing in job creation.
Quite frequently when the political processes get involved there is a tendency and temptation for the political elites on the other side, particularly on the front benches, to interfere and to push money toward one cause or another that would directly benefit themselves and their colleagues in the next election.
There is a consensus among people involved in public policy today that quite possibly the best way to develop and grow employment in Canada, particularly in terms of the new economy and the knowledge based industries, is not by pouring government money into specific businesses at the whim of the governing party. Instead it is to reduce the tax burden for all Canadians by focusing on areas of the new economy and looking at the taxes that impede progress and productivity most significantly in the new economy. They would be capital gains taxes and corporate taxes. Also Canada's middle class must be readjusted and redefined through significant personal income tax reform. Those are the types of efforts the government should be pursuing in developing policies to actually create jobs, employment and economic growth for Canada in the new economy.
The government needs a creativity boost in addressing some of these issues. Largely the government has coasted since 1993 on the policies of the previous government. It has not addressed some of the very important issues in the context of the new economy and where we are today.
It is time for the government to look at the old style solutions which have not worked that effectively in the past, clearly are not working in the present and most certainly will not be successful in the future. It should take some political risks, do the right thing and develop some vision. It should have a vision implant or something like that.
If the government were to look at these issues realistically, perhaps it would not be so defensive about protecting its slush funds. It could face the electorate with some interesting, innovative policies and defend them on their own merits and not base them on slush funds to buy people's votes outwardly with their own money.
We support the motion. We hope all members will speak in support of the motion.
There cannot be public policy change unless there first is enough transparency and openness to realize what we are indeed trying to fix. The inquiry process would identify more clearly than has been identified previously the real problem within HRDC. It would shine a greater level of public light on this significant negative issue which has faced Canadians and embarrassed them for several months.
Another issue the government needs to address in the context of providing greater levels of economic opportunity to economically depressed areas is a re-engineering of Canada's equalization system. Our current equalization system treats recipient provinces like single parents on social assistance who actually want to get a job and when they do get a job they end up making less money. That is the single parent analogy. When recipient provinces of equalization pursue economic development activities that are focused on realistic, long term sustainable industries, they end up taking in less money and ultimately hurt themselves by pursuing more active and innovative economic approaches.
The government should be studying very seriously the issue of equalization. It should work with the provinces to develop long term strategies where recipient provinces could use tax strategies and research and development strategies to become have provinces within a very short period of time. Maybe that would achieve more than what has been achieved by equalization or HRDC in its current sense.
John Bryden Liberal Wentworth—Burlington, ON
Mr. Speaker, one of the things that seems to be constantly overlooked in this debate about HRDC's problems is the fact that the minister did not have to release the 10,000 or so documents that revealed the management problems with HRDC. The reality is that the current Access to Information Act in section 21 gives broad powers to the government to withhold audits, to withhold the kind of information that the minister did release. In the one sense the minister deserves credit for having had the courage to release the documents that led to the kind of controversy that did ensue.
There is a whole other segment that is also exempt from the Access to Information Act that I would suggest to the member opposite contains even worse examples of mismanagement, nepotism and problems. That is the area of crown corporations. Currently, under the existing Access to Information Act, all crown corporations are exempt.
Does the member not agree that surely we should be looking to changes in the access act to bring crown corporations under the same scrutiny that is now available to HRDC?
Scott Brison Progressive Conservative Kings—Hants, NS
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his erudite and perspicacious interventions. He is alone over there battling it out in a caucus that is not interested in greater levels of access to information and more accountability for parliament.
I credit him for slogging it out in the trenches over there surrounded by people who really are not interested in change and in improving the accountability of government and parliament. He is a lone voice. Perhaps he would be better suited over here working with like-minded people who are truly interested in change.
His question about crown corporations and government agencies is an important one. One of the disturbing trends is that more essential services of government are being provided by arm's length agencies. In terms of accountability the arms are very long but in terms of direct political intervention when it is deemed necessary by the government, the arms are very short. There should be significant—