Mr. Speaker, the official opposition's motion calls for an independent commission of inquiry into grants and contributions in the Department of Human Resources Development Canada. Even before a rebuttal opportunity had been given to the government side, the same official opposition amended its own motion to add “that the commission be required to lay before the House of Commons a final report no later than December 11, 2000”.
Why would the official opposition, the Canadian Alliance, amend its own main motion as though its own two members of parliament did not communicate with each other before the main motion was tabled? Was there gimmickry behind it? I leave the answer to Canadians listening to this debate.
One other opposition member in the New Democratic Party claims that all opposition parties are united behind the amended motion on the basis that “outside authorities should investigate HRDC mismanagement”, as stated in a written dissenting opinion to the final report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, entitled “Seeking a Balance”, which was issued this past June 1.
The HRDC committee, over the last four months, did precisely that. It investigated this issue in full. Is the opposition party trying to discount the months of hard work, time and money that was put into the committee? Are we now hearing that the committee's work, in which all opposition parties participated fully, was an exercise in futility simply because the allegations and assumptions were not for the most part substantiated by the witnesses who appeared before the committee?
Most of the witnesses were recommended by the opposition parties. To my recollection not one witness, whether individually or as a group, called for an additional public inquiry. Only the opposition did. Witness after witness testified before the committee that we on that committee should ensure a balance when addressing the administrative and management problems identified.
In his caution against overreacting to the 1999 internal audit, the Auditor General of Canada told the committee, “It would not make sense for necessary changes to lead to excessive tightening of the system and unnecessary red tape. HRDC has a varied set of programs to deliver. A balance will need to be established to meet the demands of recipients, ensure adequate controls, assess risk, and deliver results for taxpayers”.
Yet the opposition seems bent not only on not heeding this advice from an independent officer of parliament, but also on detracting from or paralyzing the work of the department for purely partisan purposes.
The diagnosis of mismanagement was arrived at by the internal audit, ordered and released on its own by the department itself. The department promptly acknowledged the audit's findings of fact. These are serious administrative issues but not money lost. Thereafter it issued the overall management response. The auditors themselves acknowledged that the management response “comprehensively addresses these issues”. The opposition believed the report of the internal audit but would not believe it later on.
Let me add that the minister of HRDC, in her appearance just before the committee concluded its work, once again acknowledged the management problems that were identified in the audit and presented the up to date response of the department based on a six point action plan.
I could not recall any difficulty on the part of the opposition as to the adequacy of the department's response to date.
What we have seen today is a department which has admitted its mistakes of whatever size as compared to the total benefits of the grants and contributions and the total value of the program to Canadians. It has taken the necessary steps to correct the mistakes and prevent their recurrence in the future. This is boldness. This is humility.
On the contrary, members of the opposition have not acknowledged they have made a mistake in their grandiose assumption of the gravity of the problem. Worse, they have offered no specific constructive approach. If this is allowed to continue, it is a sad commentary on our parliamentary system.
While the opposition members would only imagine a seemingly grievous malady, they fail to consider the whole patient. Have we heard them speak of the value and importance of the HRDC grants and contributions? Have they said they are about supporting Canadians in their aspirations for economic prosperity and social equality? Have they said that there is a definite role for the Government of Canada in the lives of the citizens of our nation by helping people train and retrain, giving equal opportunities to those with disabilities and those burdened with the absence of literary skills, and creating job experience for youth?
This is the very purpose of HRDC. The very essence of its being is to advance the dignity of every individual citizen so that collectively they can make our nation stronger an enduring.
The purpose of any inquiry or investigation is to identify the problem and to suggest solutions. The problems have already been identified. The extent is 16,971 grants and contributions files with a total value of $1.581 billion examined and $6,500 in outstanding debt to be reclaimed by the department. That is less than a mini-fraction of the total and not $1 billion as alleged by the opposition.
The six point plan of action has been implemented and a progress report satisfactory to the committee has been presented by the minister. I quote from the final report of the standing committee, “The committee commends HRDC for developing and commencing the implementation of its six point plan of action”. Time will not allow me to detail the six point plan.
Are these six steps not good enough for members of the opposition? From the lips of the Auditor General of Canada, the committee heard, “This action plan is a very thorough plan for corrective action to address the immediate control problems that were identified. Some longer term actions are also included that further strengthen the approach”. The auditor general continued, “As we conduct our own audit in HRDC, we intend to assess the department's progress in implementing the plan”.
Not only will the auditor general audit the department's progress with respect to its action plan, but his audit will include a value for money component. I remind the House, in particular the so-called united opposition, that the Auditor General of Canada is an independent officer of parliament who conducts an external, unbiased, non-partisan audit and reports directly to parliament. May I remind all opposition parties, who may have already forgotten the testimony of the auditor general before the standing committee on March 23, barely 10 weeks ago, that his office intends to report on the results of his audit this coming October.
For faith in his work, the Government of Canada has annually budgeted for the auditor general's office as called for in our law. Are the opposition parties united as well in wanting to duplicate the work of the auditor general and thereby spend additional taxpayers' money? Are they united as well in undermining his forthcoming report and in professing lack of faith in his office?
There is no need for the motion before us nor for the amendment to the motion. What is needed is vision, not blindness on the part of the opposition, and we can anticipate a stronger and greater Canada. What is needed is a dose of humility, not arrogance, and we can anticipate progress and greatness. There is strength in humility on the part of the government. There is only weakness in arrogance on the part of the opposition.
I therefore urge the House and appeal to the conscience of this institution for the sake of our citizens and country to defeat the amended motion before us. Then we shall have done our duty to Canadians as their loyal servants.
