Deborah Grey

[Human Resources Development, June 7th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the minister surely stood in her place here and said that it was only $6,500 that was unaccounted for, nothing to worry about. She said there was really nothing for anybody to sweat about. She says it is about paper.

We found that the audit deliberately left off 29 files. I am sure they were just full of paper. Funny they did not make it into the audit. I would like to ask her again: How bad were those 29 files that she left off so that they could make this billion dollar bungle look good?

[Human Resources Development, June 7th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, doing a better job does not mean that you can just simply exclude 29 files. Obviously the worst news of all was just simply excluded from that audit.

It seems to me that 29 files were removed from the audit report because they would “skew the global results”. That comes right out of the document. Is it not something that the taxpayer is always the one to get skewed? Surely the minister would not have us believe that these were good news stories that she had left off.

[Human Resources Development, June 7th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it just takes your breath away, does it not? The HRD minister continually claims that she is being really open about the disaster that she is responsible for. The facts do not lie. The executive summary of the billion dollar bungle audit, dated last August 9, funnily enough states: “An additional 29 transitional jobs fund files were reviewed bringing the total TJF files to 49” but “only 20 were included in order not to skew the global results”.

I would like to know just how bad were those files that removing them from the billion dollar bungle would look good.

[Human Resources Development, June 6th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to credit the HRD people and officials with doing great work. It is a pity there is such political interference from the top that they are not allowed to do their jobs.

While the Philippines were collapsing, Imelda just kept on buying shoes. Poor Imelda, she was the last to know about any disaster happening in her country.

It seems to me that the film idea Yes, Minister was a great take-off on this, except that it was fiction in Britain. It was supposed to be a spoof that was funny. It is reality here now in Canada.

In spite of the government's billion dollar bungle, the minister carried on and flushed another $500 million out in programs. Was the taste of that first bungle just—

[Human Resources Development, June 6th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, what I would like to make clear is that her top bureaucrats, officials and personal staff spent much of last fall in a frenzy trying to prepare for the fallout that was going to be coming forward because of this now famous audit.

Damage control plans were in full swing last August to prepare for the fallout but that did not phase the minister. Between August and December she shovelled another $500 million out in programs, the very programs that bungled the first billion dollars.

If everyone else around the minister knew the results and the damage, why did they let her keep that chequebook in her hand?

[Human Resources Development, June 6th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I just thought of a great comedy series. The main character would be a political figure, say a minister, who was in charge of a huge department. She would be responsible for billions but she would have no idea what was going on because those bureaucrats would keep her in the dark. Sinister officials would funnel millions into fountains, hotels and canoe museums, the crazier the better. The minister could just sort of doodle happy faces on those boring old internal audits.

Does the minister think this is a plot she might star in or should we just turn it over to Leslie Nielsen?

[Human Resources Development, June 5th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, that may be, but we would like to know what they discussed.

For the upcoming briefing of Monday, August 9 the first items of business were the TJF, CJF and grants and contributions.

The minister says now that she got a briefing on it, but we have been hearing her say for months that basically the first she knew of it was November 17.

The government has bungled $1 billion. That is a hot issue. How hot does it have to be before the minister will stand and admit that she burned Canadians badly?

[Human Resources Development, June 5th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, before she was briefed. In fact, the access to information response that we have said that she asked to be briefed on “hot issues” only.

On August 9 she received that briefing on the transitional jobs fund, the Canada jobs fund, as well as grants and contributions. That was a week after 40 senior officials met for two days to discuss that crisis. They knew what was hot. On August 9 the minister was briefed.

Why does the minister keep pretending that she only knew about it in November?

[Human Resources Development, June 5th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, on February 9 the HRD minister was asked when she was first advised about the now famous internal HRD audit. She said “I received a briefing on the full internal audit on November 17”. I bet she did. Now we know that her office was told at least a month before that.

I will give the minister an opportunity to clarify it now. Does the minister really expect us to believe that all senior ranks in her department, as well as her own personal staff, knew about that audit but she did not?

[Human Resources Development, May 31st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the minister's views on privacy are interesting because, as a member of parliament, HRDC officials will not lift a finger for any of my constituents until I have them sign a letter of consent that I will be assisting them. Yet, if they happen to enter the appeal process, some of the most personal details of their lives are made available from Toronto to Timbuktu.

How much confidentiality do Canadians have a right to when they enter into the EI appeal process?