Jane Stewart

[Child Care, June 7th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, let me point again to the investments that we are making through the national children's benefit and through the expanded parental leave program.

I would ask the hon. member to make sure that all the provincial social services ministers come to Toronto ready to join with us to focus on early childhood development, because we have already said we want to help them.

[Child Care, June 7th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the member that it was the government not only in the Speech from the Throne but also in the budget that outlined a very fulsome and comprehensive strategy to support Canadian children. I am very much looking forward to working with the provinces as we together build a solid platform of support services for Canadian children.

[Human Resources Development, June 7th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, again I must remind the hon. member that I do not determine what goes out under access to information. That is arm's length from the minister. I have no involvement in the information that is brought forward.

What can be provided is provided. Certainly the hon. member knows that there is also an appeals process. If she does not like what she got and thinks there should be more, there is a process that she can follow.

[Human Resources Development, June 7th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I categorically reject what the hon. member is saying in the context of getting information from this minister.

I would remind this House, as I did yesterday, that it was through my department that 10,000 pages, 10,000 pages, listing all the grants and contributions from my department into ridings across the country, were made public. That was an unprecedented amount of paperwork, an unprecedented amount of information. We will continue to work in an open and transparent manner.

[Human Resources Development, June 7th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, indeed we were looking at all the grants and contribution programs in the department. What we were reviewing was the administration of those programs. Indeed we did find some shortcomings, some significant shortcomings.

What this is all about is a government that is prepared to make its problems public, to deal with them in an open and effective way, and to make sure that these very important programs, those programs that side of the House would like to destroy, can continue to make a difference in the lives of Canadians.

[Human Resources Development, June 7th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, surely the hon. member will understand that we reviewed 17,000 of all the active files in the department and still indeed found that there were $6,500 in overpayments.

It really was not about money. It was about administration and the internal audit gave us the right direction. It said it was about paper, very important paper that was missing, and we have implemented a program that will deal just with that problem.

[Human Resources Development, June 7th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I guess we are going to have to review some details here. Indeed, if the hon. member would take the time to understand what the internal audit was all about, it was not just about one program. It was about seven different programs.

What we found was that in all of those we had administrative failings. What we were looking at was the work of all the grants and contributions in the department. What we found was that we had to do a better job. We made it public and we are improving the system.

[Supply, June 6th, 2000]

Oh my goodness, Madam Speaker, where do I want to start? Let us go back to the myth that it was the Reform Party which forced our hand through access to information. Categorically that is wrong. I say again: I made this internal audit public.

The member talks about the 10,000 pages and about the itemization of grants and contributions. I wonder if the hon. member has taken the time to go to her local office and ask them about those individual projects, or maybe even to visit them and see the impact and the difference they make in the lives of Canadians. Somehow I doubt it when I read her comments in the press. She just ignores that as if this money is not about people at all. That is one of the most insulting things about the approach from that side.

They are basically telling Canadians who have been the beneficiaries of these grants and contributions that they are a waste. There is nothing that could be further from the truth. On this side of the House we believe in ensuring that every Canadian counts and that every Canadian has the opportunity to participate in this great country through grants and contributions.

Let me look at some of the other things the member talked about. She talked about access to information. Let me quote from the special report to parliament of the Information Commissioner of Canada tabled last month. Here is what he said about the Department of Human Resources Development Canada:

During the review period every access request received by HRDC was answered within 30 days—no extensions were claimed. This show of respect for the rights of Canadians to timely responses represents an outstanding feat of good leadership, good management and hard work. Kudos to HRDC are well deserved and unreservedly given by this Commissioner.

Let me point out that we have been inundated by access requests, given the grants and contributions question. We remain firmly committed and are working with the information commissioner to ensure that those requests are met because, as I pointed out, we are in this to ensure that we are disclosing information and that we are being transparent and open with the Canadian people.

[Supply, June 6th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Fredericton.

I feel compelled to speak to this very misguided motion. It talks about attempts to control the disclosure of the mismanagement to the public. I want to make clear to the House and certainly to the Canadian people that my approach in this whole affair has been to be fully transparent and open and to disclose to the Canadian public the issues that are within and about my department.

I would like to remind the House that it was on November 17 when I was briefed on the results of an internal audit which looked at all the programs and our grants and contributions and found that there was significant improvement needed in the management of our grants and contributions. I received the initial results; I received the results of the internal audit and the initial management response.

Upon receiving that, I identified that I took this very seriously. I told the department that I wanted a stronger management response and I also indicated to them that we would be making the results of this internal audit public.

For me it is extraordinarily important that the government respect the people of Canada and that we let them know when we have problems. Certainly we let them know when times are good but we also let them know when we have problems. At the same time we would indicate to the Canadian public how we would fix the problem and when we would do that.

In January the work of the department was completed. The management response was fully reviewed and that is when we presented it. We made it public. The government made it public. This is very difficult for members of the Canadian Alliance to appreciate and to accept. From their point of view government should be managed behind closed doors. They think we should sweep things under the carpet. Clearly that is what they have been indicating over the course of questioning in these last months. From our point of view, that is not the appropriate way. That is why for me it was terribly important to make this information public.

That is not all we have done to disclose the information associated with this. To me, one of the best places to be questioned by parliamentarians, those who are here elected on behalf of Canadians, is at the standing committee.

Since Christmas I have been to the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development three times. Once was to talk about issues of disabilities and our support for Canadians who are disabled. I recognize my colleague who will speak after me for the work he has done in that regard. The work of the government builds on his study and his recommendations.

I went two other times to talk specifically and only about grants and contributions. Members from all parties, including members from the government side, had the freedom to ask me anything they wanted about grants and contributions. I gave them two complete opportunities to do that. To my way of thinking, that is about being transparent, about being open and about disclosing information.

If we look at some of the things that the standing committee members asked for, we see another example of how open and forthcoming we have been on this side with regard to this issue. Members talked about grants and contributions specifically. Certain members, not on this side but on that side of the House, talked about grants and contributions being found only in Liberal ridings. That is so false that nothing could be further from the truth.

The committee asked to see where the grants and contributions had been made. Out of respect for the committee, out of respect for Canadians and out of respect for disclosure, transparency and openness, my department prepared over 10,000 pages of information that itemized line by line by line where the grants and contributions were made. We invest those moneys in support of Canadians with disabilities, Canadians who are learning to read and want to improve their literacy skills, and young Canadians who have not been able to find employment and want to find their way so they can contribute to this great country. If hon. members took the time to look at that paper they would see that grants and contributions are found not only in Liberal ridings but in ridings held by members of every political stripe.

Members of the opposition, those who present the motion today, continue to talk in the House about grants and contributions as something to be found only in Liberal ridings. The 10,000 pages of information we provided prove categorically that they are wrong. Have they stood and apologized? Have they disclosed their true motive, which was not to improve the system of grants and contributions but to undermine it? No, they have not. Instead they present misguided motions like the one we have in the House today.

Let us look at other ways that I have insisted on being open to the Canadian public. We worked with the auditor general on our six point plan. He gave advice on its efficacy and will make a report to the House in the fall on our grants and contributions. I note that there will be a review by an independent third party, an officer of the House. We already have that piece of the motion covered. In that six point plan we agreed that we would present to the Canadian people on a quarterly basis the results of our work.

I was fortunate enough to make a presentation on the first quarterly report to the standing committee. What was in that report? It was an explanation of the work of the department over the last few months focused totally on improving the administration of grants and contributions. It included a fulsome review of 17,000 active files across the country. What did that review find? It found that we had to improve our paperwork in those files. That is being done because they are active files.

It did not find, as that party opposite continues to indicate, that money was missing. It confirmed what we had said from the very beginning. This is not about money being lost. We know where the money is. It is in those grants and contributions itemized in the 10,000 pages we presented to the House of Commons. It is out in communities working to ensure that Canadians have the opportunity to participate in our increasingly fast and effective economy.

In my report to the standing committee I made it clear that we had reviewed these files and that we were on a go-forward basis in implementing our six point plan to ensure that the administration is strong. What I clearly indicated again, because I have done it so many times before, was that $1 billion were not missing. In fact out of 17,000 active files we identified $6,500 that have not been paid and that we will continue to try to obtain.

It seems very strange to me that the members of that party opposite asked questions in the House month after month. Let us not forget that. My heavens, I am in the House virtually every day answering their questions, talking about the information that they want. Yet, no matter how often they question, the facts remain the facts. It was this side of the House that undertook the internal audit. It was this side of the House that made it public, disclosed the results of that audit to the Canadian public. It was this side of the House that implemented an action plan to ameliorate the difficulties in the department because on this side of the House we believe absolutely that the grants and contributions in which we invest are vital to the people of Canada.

What becomes clear in the questions from the opposite side is that this is not about improving the system. It is about getting rid of all grants and contributions. Members on that side of the House are not interested. Nor do they believe that the Government of Canada has a role to play in helping Canadians. If there is anything I want to make clear in this speech today, it is that they are wrong to suggest we are not forthcoming in disclosing the information Canadians want to have. They are wrong to suggest that grants and contributions are a waste of money, because they touch the lives of individuals.

I will stand here and defend against the simple minded, mob-like, nasty mentality of the members of that party opposite who are doing nothing but trying to undermine the institutions of Canada and undervalue the Canadian values of generosity, sharing, tolerance and diversity.

[Human Resources Development, June 6th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, again, the hon. member will know that the government has a responsibility to collect on overpayments. Indeed over the course of the issue of grants and contributions they have been demanding that.

In this particular case, however, an administrative error was made. Certainly we should have gone to the family first. I have said on a number of occasions already that we have talked to the family and it has accepted the apology. I am working hard to ensure that this does not happen again.