Jane Stewart

[Human Resources Development, June 5th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, let us review the process again. Indeed, the department was doing preliminary work on an internal audit that was not complete until late in the fall. Indeed, the department made sure that the audit was finished and the management response which they wanted to provide me was complete before they brought it to me. That is the appropriate process.

When I received their work I said that I wanted a stronger management report. That was prepared and when that was done we made the whole thing public. Subsequent to that we have made significant progress in improving the administration of grants and contributions.

[Human Resources Development, June 5th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I think what Canadians appreciate is the fact that I and my department made clear to them that there were improvements we could make in managing our paper. We made that public. I think what Canadians appreciate is that we have a plan of action that is supported by the auditor general to ameliorate the difficulties.

I think what Canadians also know when they look at the report that I made to the standing committee is that this is not about $1 billion missing, as the opposition continues to suggest. Rather, it is about a department that is fully prepared to improve its administrative practices in support of the grants and contributions that make such a difference in the lives of—

[Human Resources Development, June 5th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the questions being raised today are old news. They are a matter of public record. We have been through this on a number of occasions.

I was briefed on November 17. At that time I indicated that I wanted a stronger response from the department. When that was complete we made the internal audit public. Since that time considerable work has been undertaken in the department, not only to share with the House where grants and contributions are—and I repeat that they are in every riding of members of the House—but also we have reviewed 17,000 files and found that there is $6,500 outstanding.

[Human Resources Development, June 5th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, let me repeat what I have said on a number of occasions and what is clear from the report in the National Post today. I was briefed on November 17.

[Human Resources Development, June 5th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, preliminary work was undertaken in the department before the internal audit was complete. That is as it should be. The department came to me when the audit was complete and a management response had been added to it. That is as it should be. The process that was undertaken was as it should be.

[Human Resources Development, June 5th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the party opposite continues to come to the House and take things out of context.

They talk about draft reports. They talk about e-mails. They talk about all kinds of information from the past that is now part of the public record.

What they refuse to talk about is the fact that my department made 10,000 pages of information public which indicated that grants and contributions are invested in ridings right across this country, not just government ridings.

What they refuse to talk about is the fact that my department has reviewed 17,000 files and found that $1 billion is not missing.

When will they come clean and tell the Canadian public—

[Human Resources Development, June 5th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, because that is true.

[Human Resources Development, June 5th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, surprise, surprise, the Canadian Alliance members and their favourite national tabloid have discovered that meetings do take place in my department, that people do come in from out of town to attend those meetings and that e-mails are exchanged. They even report information that has been a matter of public knowledge for months, that I was briefed on November 17.

Clearly there was work being done in my department on the internal audit before the audit was completed and before I was briefed. That is as it should be.

[Human Resources Development, May 31st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians would benefit from the way in which the privacy commissioner described our approach yesterday in the Senate when he said:

It contains the ingredients for the proper management of data...so that people know what is going on. It has put in place a proper process for conducting research projects by which, first, you define the project and identify the information necessary for its completion, and then you go out and get the information. Second, it subjects all those research projects to a proper process of review by qualified experts, and it involves the Office of the Privacy Commissioner—

He thinks it will work. Why doesn't the hon. member?

[Human Resources Development, May 31st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Justice has pointed out, these are the decisions of justices.

Again let us look at the record of that party over there. I am just reminded of the 1997 dissenting report to the report on privacy issues wherein that party said that the government side was being narrow and heavy-handed by suggesting expanding the role and responsibilities of the privacy commissioner. Which way do they want it?