Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in these hallowed halls to take part in this debate over an issue that has preoccupied this place for many months.
It comes about as a result of what came to light months ago. An internal audit that began in March revealed that there were serious issues of mismanagement of taxpayers' money as they pertained to grants and job creation schemes that were put forward by the government. The minister has made a concerted effort to distract, deflect and focus Canadians' attention elsewhere in her responses in the House and through the media.
The issue is very much about public trust and responsible behaviour by government. No one is suggesting that at the end of the day in this billion dollar boondoggle that the money is gone, that it has evaporated into thin blue air. The suggestion is that the money has been mismanaged, that there has not been a sufficient follow-up as to how the money was being spent. There certainly has not been a degree of accountability or forthrightness on the part of the government to take its responsibility for the administration of this department, whether that fell upon the previous minister, who has basically escaped responsibility unscathed, or upon the high level bureaucrats who were rewarded for their incompetence and placed in higher positions up the government ladder in the wake of what has perhaps been the biggest and most disturbing mismanagement of taxpayer money in recent history.
That certainly contributes to a growing trend of cynicism and, even worse, a growing trend, I would suggest, of apathy toward the functions and the legitimate efforts of parliament. What reflects on government reflects on parliament as a whole.
This motion that has been brought forward is timely. It allows us to perhaps delve into the matter in greater detail, to disclose and, as my friend from Kings—Hants put it, to shed greater light on what has taken place as to why there has been to a large extent a complete and utter focus on this issue when I think most Canadians would prefer that we were focusing our attention elsewhere, such as on the growing crisis in health care, on the high taxes that Canadians are currently labouring under, or on our low productivity that stems from some of these oppressive and extremely weighty tax schemes that currently exist.
I heard a revelation today that came from the United States congress. Congress is raising the envelope of immigrants, which will apply to Canada, to attract more Canadians, our best, our brightest, our most educated and our most motivated, to go to the United States and contribute to its economy by taking part in the growing IT industry where productivity is rewarded.
In Canada we are suffering under a very repressive and regressive government that does not recognize some of these fundamental issues. Unfortunately, because of the revelation that came about as a result of this audit, we in the opposition have been trying to bring about some degree of accountability and refocus the priorities of the government.
Turning back to the motion, what came about, as is often the case when these issues come to light, was bad enough that we were made aware of what had taken place and the degree of mismanagement. The audit indicated that there was insufficient follow-up. It indicated that there was poor decision making at the front end, but equally that there was poor follow-up. When evidence came to light suggesting that poor decisions may have been made as to where the money was spent, nothing was done. There was no investigation and no legitimate attempt made by the government or the human resources department to recover that money. To suggest otherwise is complete folly.
In the wake of this revelation, when it came to light that this was taking place, what was the government's response? That is something that I would like to focus our attention and Canadians' attention on for a moment. What was the government's initial response?
Sadly, we have become accustomed to it. The government's immediate and almost knee-jerk response was to deny that the problem was there. When it could no longer do that, it tried to deflect and blame the opposition. It tried to make the opposition somehow complicit in what was taking place. It tried to point a finger and say to the member opposite “Well, thank you for that penetrating question but you got money in your riding too”, and somehow that makes it all right.
In very basic terms, the reality is that the hon. member who may have asked the question did not have final decision making authority over where those contributions and grant programs were going to be set up. That is what adds to undermining and further bringing down into the subterranean levels public confidence in government, in government programs and in parliament as a whole.
This is very unfortunate because we are at a pivotal time in our country's history. We are at a point in time where we are starting to lag behind other countries, relative to other countries in the G-8 in their economic performance and relative to other countries in steps that they are making toward transparency, openness and direct accountability to the people who elect them.
On that score, I want to refer to something that has been referred to before in the House in the context of this debate. I want to quote from Hansard , House of Commons Debates , June 12, 1991, wherein the hon. member for Saint-Maurice, the current Prime Minister when he was leader of the opposition, stated in the context of an issue of the day:
—I would like to tell the people of Canada that when we form the government, every minister in cabinet that I will be presiding over will have to take full responsibility for what is going on in his department. If there is any bungling in the department, nobody will be singled out. The minister will have to take responsibility.
Those are just words that seem to evaporate into thin blue air. They have no significance and no relevance to the current Prime Minister's view of what has taken place on his watch. He is not holding his ministers responsible. It seems that he is prepared to let the ministers twist in the breeze and take the daily volley and barrage of criticism not only from members of the opposition but from the public at large.
This is a very disturbing trend. It reflects an attitude of arrogance and disconnect from the Canadian people. The Prime Minister has given us ample reasons to believe that he does not care what the public thinks. However he will care when he goes to the polls the next time because Canadians will have the final say.
This incident, this long drawn out debacle over the mismanagement of money, is a sad indication of the government's arrogance and its attitude toward the public right now.
The context of the debate itself and the chronicling of what has taken place throughout this affair is well documented and has been referred to throughout. Just like those comments that the Prime Minister made, we saw the government crow and preen itself over its red book promise to be transparent and open and that it would put in place an ethics counsellor. Just like the red book, the faces of the Liberal government members are certainly red when faced with questions as to how they can let this type of thing happen and then not own up to the problem.
The minister in her wisdom should have come before the House shortly after being made aware of the problem, although I do not think we will ever know when she was made aware of the problem as she refuses to answer the direct question. She says that it was November 17. However, there is every reason to believe that in the course of being briefed after taking over the new ministry she would have been told, certainly orally, that there was a huge problem coming and that this audit was going to disclose it. She denies that and has married herself to the date of November 17, a date which I suggest is completely unbelievable.
I know we cannot use the word hypocrisy in this place. We are never allowed to use the word hypocrisy.
