With respect to the HRDC investigation process: ( a ) why is regional discretion in regard to the department's caution statement permitted to be exercised by HRDC officials; ( b ) has the department carried out an internal investigation concerning the practice of using the HRDC official consent form to obtain statements from claimants; ( c ) what is the procedure used by the department to ensure the reliability and credibility of all third party reports used to initiate investigations; ( d ) are interrogations conducted with the use of audio or video equipment in order to determine the accuracy and validity of testimony provided and techniques used during interrogation by departmental officials; ( e ) has HRDC considered providing duty counsel to avoid, minimize or eliminate any charter of rights challenges; ( f ) has the minister been counselled by the department regarding section 2.20 of the HRDC document investigation and control manual and, if so, what measures and directives have been taken to correct the apparent contradictions between this document and subsection 41(5) of the Employment Insurance Act; ( g ) why does the claimant not receive a copy of the signed statement of declaration; ( h ) why does the investigation and control manual not emphasize the legal responsibility of providing the claimant with a copy of the signed statement of declaration; ( i ) what process does the department use to evaluate the investigation control officer's performance; and ( j ) what specific action has the minister initiated to address the issue of incompetence and inexperience, as noted in the department's prosecution program review report and the auditor general's report regarding the investigation control officer?
In the House of Commons on May 10th, 2001. See this statement in context.