Lucienne Robillard

[Infrastructure Program, May 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, in fact, the preliminary consultations with the provinces have begun in connection with the municipal infrastructure program.

I can say to the members in this House that all of the provinces and territories are interested in taking part in the program. They agree that priority should go to green infrastructures, that impact on the environment of our fellow citizens. They agree that the program should be based on the needs of the individual communities.

I have every reason to believe that we will keep to our schedule. Official negotiations will be underway shortly. We think we will be able to sign formal agreements by the end of the year, and sooner if possible.

[Pay Equity, May 12th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, during the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal hearings on the pay equity complaint, all parties, including the Human Rights Commission and the Public Service Alliance of Canada, agreed that the complaint did not apply to separate employers. The court order applies therefore strictly to employees for whom Treasury Board is the employer.

However, we have also received official requests from four separate employers, including the Office of the Auditor General of Canada, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the Public Service Staff Relations Board, to look at a similar request. The Treasury Board Secretariat is reviewing the situation with them.

[Treasury Board, April 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the government is committed to renewing its relationship with the voluntary sector.

We intend to follow up on the recommendations made in the report entitled “Working Together”. One of the report's recommendations was to establish a reference group of ministers. The Prime Minister has just set up that group of reference ministers. We had a meeting last night with the leaders of the sectors to decide our priorities. The government intends to answer in a national accord in the year 2001 with the voluntary sector laying a new foundation for an active partnership.

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, April 7th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the report stage and the third reading stage of Bill C-23, an act to modernize the Statutes of Canada in relation to benefits and obligations.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stages.

[Human Resources Development, April 6th, 2000]

I may have to give the member for Repentigny a lesson in public administration in order to make it clear to him that Treasury Board approval is not required for the grants and contributions in all these files, that they are the responsibility of the designated minister and that therefore he should be addressing his question to the Minister of Human Resources Development.

[Human Resources Development, April 6th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I may have to give the member for Repentigny a lesson in public administration.

[Human Resources Development, April 6th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Repentigny knows very well that Treasury Board issues policies and directives with respect to grant and contribution transfer payments.

He is also very well aware that we worked closely with Human Resources Development Canada to establish a plan of action, that we are there to help and support them, and that we are fully confident that corrective action will be taken.

However, the daily business of this department is the responsibility of my colleague, the Minister of Human Resources Development.

[Human Resources Development, April 5th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I would point out to begin with, if I may, that the hon. member's introductory remarks are incorrect.

Treasury Board has available to it a series of tools for controlling this government's expenditures, including providing opinions and advice to departments and providing them with experts. It can even go so far as to withdraw delegation of authority.

Before selecting the appropriate tool, however, we assess not only the scope and origin of the problem but also, and above all, the department's ability to deal with it. The Department of Human Resources Development was fully capable of dealing with the present problem.

[Supply, April 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it seems fairly obvious to me that the hon. member does not understand the difference in public administration between the responsibility of the departments and that of the Secretariat of the Treasury Board.

Responsibility for making an internal audit public rests with the department itself and not with the Secretariat of the Treasury Board. Each department is responsible for its own management and must follow the policies of Treasury Board. Each department must therefore make public an internal audit report at the request of an individual. This is how the system works and it is Treasury Board policy. We will actively monitor this policy.

[Supply, April 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am referring to a completed internal audit report, not a draft report. We make the distinction here.

As soon as this report is completed, it is in the public domain. It must therefore be made accessible to all members of the public, and all parliamentarians, on request, without having to use the Access to Information Act. This is a far more open approach than to require people to take the access to information route.

That is why I say that today's motion is pointless, in that these documents are already in the public domain and can be requested by any parliamentary committee.