HUMA Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT AND THE STATUS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DES RESSOURCES HUMAINES ET DE LA CONDITION DES PERSONNES HANDICAPÉES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, February 10, 2000

• 1120

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): The gavel has now gone down. I would ask the media to leave.

The meeting today is pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), a study on all matters relating to the mandate, management, and operation of the Department of Human Resources Development.

The principal witness is Jane Stewart, and I will introduce the other witnesses when the meeting is properly underway.

I'd ask the cameras to leave, please.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): Mr. Chairman....

[English]

The Chair: No, after the cameras have left.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Chairman, although the bell is ringing, I would like to move, given the importance of today's debate, that the members of the committee remain here and not go and vote so that we may continue our debate. Other committees have already agreed to this type of motion and therefore a precedent has been set. I officially move this motion that the debate continue despite the vote in the House.

[English]

The Chair: Colleagues, we begin with a motion. It's Bill C-20, which is the clarity bill. By the way, as a member of Parliament, it's a bill that I believe is very important for the country. We have a motion before us and the motion is that we do not in fact attend the vote.

(Motion negatived)

The Chair: Colleagues, if we could proceed to the meeting, there are a couple of things I would like to do before we actually begin. We have about 22 minutes. We will resume immediately following the vote.

The first thing I would like to do is something I feel I should do now, and it's something the committee can deal with more privately on another occasion. This happens to be the last meeting of one of our researchers, Sandy Harder. She has been working for this committee, particularly on children's issues, women's issues. She's been a great support for our subcommittee on children at risk. This is her last meeting after ten years of service, and I thought I should mention that. Sandy, we thank you very much.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

The Chair: Colleagues, the other thing I thought I should do, which is important.... I called this meeting at the request of members on all sides of the House as soon as I could. The minister very willingly agreed to appear. You should know that we bumped the auditor general. The auditor general was supposed to appear before us today. You should keep in your minds that he is waiting to be recalled.

When I approached the minister I asked whether she would continue with the meeting she was supposed to have with us with respect to disabilities and skills. That was the meeting that was postponed because of the filibuster. The minister agreed that she would, and this Tuesday, at the present time, the schedule is that the Honourable Jane Stewart will appear before us again but on the matter of skills and disabilities.

I hope you understand that, that the meeting was called promptly. It is on television. The minister appeared willingly. The meeting that's scheduled for Tuesday with the minister is on the matter of disabilities and skills.

Colleagues, as I mentioned, our principal witness is the Honourable Jane Stewart.

Minister, we welcome you here and we thank you for coming.

You can see from your agenda that we have other witnesses, and I would ask them now to come forward. From the Department of Human Resources Development we have David Good, Claire Morris, and Alan Winberg. Would you come forward now, please?

Colleagues, you have the agenda, and I would suggest that we proceed through the agenda as we have it before us.

I realize, Minister, that this is likely to be interrupted. As you know, it's going to be interrupted shortly, but my assumption is that you have a statement of some sort to make, that you will make that statement, and then we'll have questions from members on all sides of the House.

Minister, would you proceed, please?

• 1125

The Honourable Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Let me say that I'm glad to be here before the committee on this issue of strengthening grants and contributions management at the Department of Human Resources Development. I am looking forward to sharing with you the events of the last short while, to hearing your questions, and also to obtaining your advice on our action plan.

As you are aware, my department conducted an internal audit last year that looked at a random sampling of project files. It uncovered unacceptable administration and financial management practices that must be improved and brought into line with Treasury Board guidelines. My job is to make sure that the administration of our programs, the foundation of our work, is strong, and that is exactly what our six-point action plan will do.

Before I outline the comprehensive measures in our action plan, I think it would helpful to set out the scope of the internal audit itself. The audit covered about $1 billion of grants and contributions in seven program areas in my department. These areas include programs such as the Transitional Jobs Fund, which helps unemployed people prepare for, find, and keep good jobs. Canada's youth employment strategy gives young people the tools they need to build the future they want. Our programs help people with poor literacy skills to read and write so they can live more rewarding and productive lives. The programs help aboriginals work with their own people to find solutions to the chronic underemployment problems facing their communities. And these programs help Canadians with disabilities so that they can take their rightful place in our communities and in our economy.

The audit involved a random sample of 459 project files valued at about $235 million. These files came from the seven program areas. Thirty-seven projects were identified for further follow-up, amounting to $33 million.

I'd like to turn now to what the audit said. It's critical that Canadians fully understand what the audit said about the way we are managing these programs. The audit told us that there are serious administrative problems. The department didn't always keep proper track of its paperwork. The auditors discovered there was missing or incomplete documentation, that there was insufficient monitoring and financial management concerns.

Unfortunately, misleading statements by some have left the impression that money has been frittered away. But, Mr. Chair, this simply is not the case. And given the thousands of individual Canadians in hundreds of communities who count on grants and contributions, it is essential that we restore public confidence in these programs.

I'd like to take a few moments to discuss what the audit did not say. First let's correct the misconceptions. The audit did not say that money is missing. As I have said repeatedly, we know where every last cheque was sent. They were sent to community groups, to educational institutions, to employers, and individual Canadians, who use these funds to help Canadians who need a little extra support to fully participate in this country of ours.

The audit did not say there was political interference. HRDC grants and contributions are at work in ridings of each and every member of Parliament. In communities all across Canada, every region of the country benefits from these programs.

So we know what the audit was about and we know what it was not about. Let me now turn to our six-point action plan, which will fully address the shortcomings identified in this audit.

Mr. Chair, first we are ensuring that present and future payments meet financial requirements. That means there will be no payments until a project file meets five financial criteria: there must be a signed agreement; proper approvals must have been obtained; any advance payments must follow Treasury Board rules; claims must be properly documented; and all expenses must be allowable under the Treasury Board rules. These conditions must be met for all present and future payments. All active files will be reviewed by April 30 to certify that they are complete, with all the information outlined above.

• 1130

Second, we will check and correct all problem files. We are investigating the 37 project files identified for review, and a final report will be issued by February 18. If problems are detected, they will be investigated and resolved. Any cases of suspected fraud or other illegal activity will be referred to the police.

I'd like to give the committee an update on our progress with these 37 files. As of today, 10 of the 37 file reviews have been completed. The total value of the cleared files is $12,218,936. Overpayments have been established in the amount of $251.50, and this money will be recovered. No files have had to be referred to the RCMP. Work is ongoing, as I say, for the remaining 27 files, and this will be completed by February 18. But in addition, all other active files are being reviewed, and that study will be completed by April 30.

I don't want to leave the impression that we're only looking at active files. We are developing a cost-effective way of reviewing files now closed. If in the course of our review of active or closed files similar problems are detected, the files will be investigated and resolved, and we will take whatever action is required. I want to caution again, however, that to date no files have been referred to the police.

Third, and this is important, we will and we must equip and support our staff. This means we will provide the tools, training, and additional resources we need. Since becoming Minister of Human Resources Development I have been impressed by the dedication and the commitment of the staff at Human Resources Development Canada. But in a world of rapidly changing technologies and new ways of operating, upgrading the skills and knowledge base of our employees is essential.

We will complete the first round of training to confirm the understanding of the financial criteria for all managers and program officers by the end of February, and we will examine and deal with workload and staff capacity issues as they arise.

Fourth, we will ensure accountability to judge our results. We will ensure that the implementation of the action plan is an essential responsibility for all managers involved in grants and contributions. We've set up a full-time team to ensure results, and we will not be waiting several years for another internal audit. Rather, we have created a new performance tracking group to do spot checks on the files continually.

I'm going to receive quarterly reports on the progress of my department starting April 2000, and we will have independent external reviews of our progress in June of this year and in January 2001. The Auditor General is doing an audit of our grants and contributions programs, and we expect the Auditor General will report to Parliament on the implementation of our plan in October.

Fifth, we have sought and will continue to seek the best advice available. We presented our plan to Treasury Board Secretariat officials, to their standards advisory board of private sector advisers, and to experts at Deloitte Touche. We have included their advice in our plan.

Finally, and this is important to me, we have presented our plan to the Auditor General, and he agrees with it. He writes:

In our opinion, the proposed approach represents a thorough plan for corrective action to address immediate control problems. (...) Some longer-term actions are also included that further strengthen the approach.

Copies of this letter are available to anyone who requests them. I would note that we will continue to seek expert advice as we implement our plan.

Finally, colleagues, we will report on progress publicly and regularly. We will report publicly on our follow-up of the 37 cases. This week officials from my department briefed the media, and today I have informed the committee about the status of the 37 files. I will make quarterly reports to the public, and I will continue to report to Parliament in our plans and priorities document, in our performance report, and as you know, I've been reporting almost every day to the questions that have been raised during question period.

In conclusion, I believe this is a solid plan of action. It's been reviewed by outside experts. Their advice and suggestions have all been included.

• 1135

What do we expect to be the outcome? Here's where I want to be very clear. By implementing this plan, we are installing a quality administrative system that will track every working tax dollar and will allow Canadians to hold us accountable.

Mr. Chair, that ends my formal comments, but I want to say to the committee that I have taken this issue extremely seriously. I have made it a priority for my department, and I have a team working here and indeed across the country to ensure this plan of action is implemented.

For me, it was important to make this report public, to share it with the Canadian people so that they know we have issues, but we're prepared to deal with them. To me, that's part of doing government properly—recognizing that we can continuously improve and that we must continuously improve. For me, this has become an important aspect of our undertakings. We have to strengthen our foundations so that these important grants and contributions can be sustained and themselves continuously improved.

Thank you very much.

The Chair: Minister, thank you very much for that presentation, and thank you for being so brief. We do appreciate it.

Colleagues, we have about eight minutes. I have four people on my list. The first is Diane Ablonczy.

Diane, if you wish, we could go for four or five minutes, or would you prefer to postpone it until afterwards?

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): I'd prefer to have this in a package rather than chopped up.

The Chair: Paul Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: I would like to ask a few brief questions in the next few minutes and I would like to be able to then ask a more detailed question.

Do you feel that the internal audit conducted by the department is reliable? The Auditor General has told us that, with a good sample, it was possible to make extrapolations with respect to the sampling findings. Is the internal audit reliable, yes or no?

[English]

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Well, Mr. Crête, I am taking this audit very seriously. From my point of view, the information that is provided is information I have to take action on, and I've presented to you my plan of action to respond to it.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: You have, therefore, confirmed that the audit is reliable. If this is so, and considering that the auditor general has told us that a good sampling is reliable and can be extrapolated, can we confirm that the deplorable situation described in the internal audit prevails throughout the department and that we must, therefore, conduct a public inquiry into the entire situation, and not limit ourselves to the 37 cases, which comprise only a portion of the sampling? If we were to extrapolate these 37 cases to the entire department, we could state that there would be 2,000, 2,400 or 2,500 similar cases throughout the department. Do you agree with this interpretation?

[English]

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Mr. Crête, again, what the audit tells us is that we have administrative deficiencies in our management of grants and contributions. As you look at the action plan, you can see we take this extraordinarily seriously. Not only will we be reviewing the 37 files that as a result of the random sample we wanted to take more time with, but as I've mentioned, and quite clearly, as part of the full action plan, we will be reviewing all active files and developing a cost-effective system to go through all our closed files.

So yes, we take this seriously, and we will be looking at our grants and contributions in a very large mass so that we can deal with this problem generally.

[Translation]

The Chair: Paul, I would like to remind you that the chair is still here.

[English]

And Minister, the chair is here.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Chairman, I would like to know whether or not the Minister believes that that absolutely contradicts the position taken by the Prime Minister, who told us that there were only 37 cases, who stated two days later that there were even fewer and who announced, yesterday, that it was simply a matter of having to account for a few dollars.

As the Minister responsible for this department—and I ask this question through the chair—do you not think that the Prime Minister is being irresponsible in stating that the problem is limited to the 37 cases identified in the sampling.

• 1140

[English]

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Mr. Chair, there is no contradiction at all with the Prime Minister. If we look at what we're dealing with here, in the context of looking at amounts of money and in the context of the misrepresentations that $1 billion has gone missing, the Prime Minister is simply indicating that we will go through these files and look and see that the accountability of the moneys that have been issued to educational institutions, to communities, to individuals, and to small businesses are rectified, and that our records account for the contracts that have been let with those organizations.

In the context of the administrative deficiencies, however, the Prime Minister too has recognized that we have challenges. He has said quite publicly that he expects me, as the minister, to fix these challenges, and it's my view that the action plan we've presented here today will do that.

The Chair: We will continue afterwards. I have to conclude. But colleagues, I want to remind you, this is the largest committee on the Hill. There are eighteen of us. If we each take ten minutes, including the minister's replies, it will take us three hours.

Mr. Crête has some time when we return, and then we'll proceed to Diane Ablonczy and the other people on the list.

The meeting is suspended until after the vote.

• 1141

• 1208

The Chair: Order.

I've been having discussion with members of various parties here, and I simply would remind you that this is an 18-person committee, not the regular 16-person committee. As a result, we have to keep the thing moving, if I am to be fair. And I intend to do that.

At the moment Paul Crête has the floor for two or at an absolute maximum three more minutes. Then we go to Diane Ablonczy and then we go to Bryon Wilfert. I'll keep it moving, and I'll keep the rotation going in a reasonable fashion.

Paul, if you would.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Before the committee took a break in order to go and vote, the Minister had confirmed that the internal audit was reliable. If the sampling is reliable and these 34 cases were flagged out of a sampling of 459 files, that means that, if we were to extrapolate these results to the rest of the department, we would find some 2,400 similar files out of the 30,000 files and we would observe that some $1 to $2 billion had not been properly accounted for. Can the Minister confirm the seriousness of the situation?

[English]

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Mr. Chair, I will speak through you, as you've directed.

There are two things I would like to say. First, I want to reiterate that we are taking the results of this audit seriously in the context of administrative deficiencies. That's why in the action plan we not only will be looking at the 37 files we identified in the random sample, but we'll also be looking at the active files and developing a methodology to highlight and review any closed files.

I believe the point the honourable member is making, Mr. Chair, about the $1 billion to $2 billion.... We're talking about an audit universe here of $1 billion from which projects have been selected, so I'm not sure that his numbers add up.

• 1210

I would, Mr. Chair, like Mr. Winberg, who is responsible for the audit process, to make some comments about the audit itself.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Chairman, I would like to finish my intervention before these last two minutes are up.

The Chair: Yes, fine.

[English]

Paul, be very quick.

And by the way, Mr. Winberg, you would have to be very quick as well, because the time is the total.

Paul Crête, briefly.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: The Minister has just told us that the review will be broadened and will cover a greater number of files. Will the government be looking at the $1.5 million grant given, in 1996- 97, for a project in the riding of Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies and the $4.4 million grant given in 1997-98 to the Bas Iris company? Will the government be examining the fact that these two grants were not approved until February 4, 1999, despite their being chargeable to the financial years of 1996-97 and 1997-98? Do you not feel that these two cases are concrete examples of the situation that was already identified during the internal audit?

[English]

The Chair: Minister or Mr. Winberg, very briefly please.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: I just want to repeat, so that the table understands, that this undertaking is going to apply to the grants and contributions of the Department of Human Resources Development Canada. So we're talking here about using the results from the audit that have directed us to look at the administrative deficiencies and improve our whole system. That's what this is all about. That's what we are undertaking to do.

Mr. Winberg, if you'd like to make some comments about the audit itself, please do.

Mr. Alan Winberg (Assistant Deputy Minister, Financial and Administrative Services, Department of Human Resources Development Canada): I'll be very brief.

It's unfair to make the extrapolation the honourable member is attempting to make, Mr. Chairman. The audit was about studying the administrative practices of the department, and not any specific sponsors. So the proper generalization is to the administrative practices, which we have an action plan to improve, and not to these 37 cases.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I have Diane Ablonczy.... Point of order?

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: On a point of order. I move that the committee agree to my tabling of an excerpt from the Value for Money Audit Manual from the Office of the Auditor General, which clearly stipulates the conditions whereby a sampling is deemed to be acceptable.

[English]

The Chair: It's been tabled.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: The manual states that, with a good sampling, it is possible to make an extrapolation to include all of the results obtained from the sampling.

[English]

The Chair: Paul, it's not a point of order. Your motion is to table the document.

I have no objection to him tabling the document. Does anyone have any objection?

Some hon. members: No.

The Chair: Then let's proceed.

Diane Ablonczy, then Bryon Wilfert, and then Jean Dubé. Diane.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I must say to the minister that I'm a little disappointed at the information she's brought forward. It's nothing we haven't been hearing for two weeks. We are here today to get to the bottom of this very troubling situation involving at least a billion dollars of spending in her department.

I have something less than ten minutes, and I would have to be dealing with about $100 million per minute just to get to the bottom of it if I were the only one. So we do have a difficult situation here.

I'm hoping we can get some real answers about first of all where the money went. Now, the minister has said, Mr. Chairman, several times that she knows where every penny went. I think that the public, whose money it is, would be very interested in having that information.

I have just a few questions, and I would like the minister to answer those questions with figures that are as specific as possible so that we can get to the bottom of whether the money was spent or misspent.

First, how much of this $1 billion of spending represented by the audit in grants and contributions was not supported by proper evidence?

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Mr. Chairman, do you want me to respond to that—

The Chair: Diane, do you want to proceed with your questions—

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: No.

The Chair: —or do you want a response now?

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Yes, please.

The Chair: Minister, please.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: As we're looking through this random sample we are looking for administrative deficiencies. What the audit has showed us—

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: No, I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, please, we really do need answers to the questions. The random sample represents a billion dollars in program spending. The question is not difficult. The question is how much of those grants and contributions represented by the one billion dollars of programs were not supported by proper evidence?

The Chair: Minister.

• 1215

Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): I am not clear what evidence the member is seeking.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: I'm sorry, but with all respect, I was not asking you.

The Chair: Rey, it is clear to me.

Minister.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: From the samples, as we identified in the report, the 459 projects represented $235 million worth of contracts with educational institutions, with small businesses, individuals, those who receive grants and contributions. From that report we looked at the audits and the findings, and those are clear in terms of the kinds of administrative deficiencies we found. The auditors identified that from those 459 projects, there were 37 they thought we should take a closer look at—

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Chairman, I'm asking the minister how much—

Mrs. Jane Stewart: —and they were of a value of $33 million.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: I'm asking the minister how much. If I could just have an answer, we don't have much time. How much of the $1 billion of spending represented by the audited programs was not supported by proper evidence? How much as a number?

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Again, what I can speak to are the results from the sample. That's the information I have. That's the information upon which we're basing this.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: How much?

Mrs. Jane Stewart: What I need the committee to appreciate is that the contracts we have with community sponsors are just that—

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Chairman, I'm asking how much. I only have eight minutes. Please.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: What we've identified, as I say again, as a result of this audit is that we're reviewing $33 million in the 37 files that have been identified for further review. To date, from those undertakings we've identified overpayments of $250.50.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: But that's wasn't my question, with all respect. I think it's clear from the minister's non-answer that she doesn't know the answer. She's told us that she knows where every penny has gone. I'm asking a very simple question: How much was not supported by proper evidence?

Mrs. Jane Stewart: From the report that we have, $33 million is being reviewed. We will identify through the course of a review of those projects where there may have been overpayments.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Let me try something else, then. How much of the $1 billion was paid out in overpayments and advances?

Mrs. Jane Stewart: From the report that we have, we have identified that our administrative practices have to be improved.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: That's not a “how much”.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: That's what the audit was about.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: That's not a “how much”, Mr. Chairman.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: That's what the audit was about, Mr. Chair. What we've identified from that is that we're looking at another $33 million to identify and get the paper work, the receipts that need to be complete in the files. We will do that process for all our active files, Mr. Chair, and then develop a process to look at closed files in the same regard.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: But you do not have any figures for us, is that correct?

Mrs. Jane Stewart: One very important point to make is that when we talk about these cheques, Mr. Chair, they have gone to community organizations—

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: But that's not the point I'm getting at, Mr. Chairman.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: It would be inappropriate—

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: I would simply ask to get the information I'm asking for.

The Chair: Colleagues, I'm trying to listen as well as I can. One at a time. Minister briefly and then Diane Ablonczy again.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: It would be inappropriate to suggest, because of our improper record-keeping, that these organizations have not spent the money wisely. What we don't have in our files are in some cases the appropriate documentation of the receipts from the sponsors for the cheques that have been issued to them. That's what we have to clarify.

Please, I don't want to leave the impression—nor do I think the honourable member wants to leave the impression—that those with whom we have contracted, the community sponsors and individuals, have not used the money appropriately.

The Chair: Diane Ablonczy.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Let me try one more time, Mr. Chairman.

How much of the $1 billion that was distributed by these programs that were audited was paid for ineligible expenses?

Mrs. Jane Stewart: As a result of our work, we have identified $251. So those are the overpayments we've identified to date.

What I need to make clear here is that when we talk about knowing where the money is, it is in your communities with organizations you know. So to suggest that they have taken $1 billion and misspent it is incorrect.

• 1220

What we're talking about here is the fact that in our files we do not have all the appropriate invoices or paperwork that substantiate the details behind those cheques. Again, to chastise those who have received the money and are doing good work in the community—

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

Diane Ablonczy.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: The only person who is supposed to give straight answers here is the minister, and we're not getting any answers from this minister. It's very clear to me that the minister has no idea at all of the size of this problem, in spite of the fact that she keeps telling members of Parliament, the House of Commons, and thereby the public, that she knows where every penny went. She clearly does not know.

Mr. Chairman, this is a committee charged with the oversight of a department that spends more of the public's money than any other department of government. We have a minister sitting here who cannot answer simple questions, after weeks of having an audit, about which money is being spent in what way. How are we supposed to give an opinion as to how this department is operating if we can't get simple, straight answers from this minister?

I ask the minister again. We need to know where the money has gone, so let's try one more time. How much of the $1 billion in the programs that were audited was not supported by proper evidence?

The Chair: This will be the last question. You and your party will get an opportunity later on.

Minister.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: For the programs that were audited, which is what the honourable member is asking about, I am saying to her that we have to date identified $251 that was in overpayment. We will identify and provide to this committee by February 18 the results of the rest of the investigation of those projects.

The Chair: Minister, the committee would be glad to receive that information.

I have Bryon Wilfert next, then Jean Dubé, Larry McCormick, and Libby Davies.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a couple of questions, one dealing with timing and one dealing with administration.

Just so I am clear, there have been reports in the media, Minister, that you released the audit on January 19 in response to the opposition suggesting that they were going through the access to information process in order to obtain the details of the audit. I just want to clarify as to whether that in fact.... Do you know if that is true?

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Mr. Chair, as I have said time and again, for me it was very important to make this document public, so we did that in January when the full audit was complete.

With regard to the particulars of the access to information, perhaps Mr. Winberg, who is in charge of that part of the department, could—

The Chair: Mr. Winberg.

Mr. Alan Winberg: Mr. Chairman, I can confirm that the access request in question was received in our department on January 21, two days after we made it public.

The Chair: Bryon Wilfert.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Two days after...? Thank you.

Minister, in the past there have been other internal audits that have been done in your department. Those recommendations, I understand, have been given to your management team in the past. I would respectfully request that those recommendations, going back to 1990, be provided to the committee.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: We can do that, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: This is my last question, Mr. Chairman, keeping note of the time.

Minister, you have outlined an action plan, one which, in my view, has a number of very important controls. The fact that your staff are going back to review active files, etc., is very important.

I am appalled and shocked at the fact that we have arrived at this situation. Therefore, I want to have confidence, and I really question this. I say this to you, Minister, and to your deputy minister: what evidence is there or what can you tell me that would suggest I should have any confidence in the management team to implement an action plan, which I think is a good one, which has been supported and approved by the Auditor General by the comments that you had indicated with Deloitte and Touche—

The Chair: Bryon, a little bit faster.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: I just want to know why we would have confidence, given what we have seen so far.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Well, Mr. Chair, I would hope for a number of reasons, first and foremost because I have indicated that I am taking this seriously. I received the information and made it public. I have insisted that the department make it a priority.

Secondly, and probably most importantly, as you look at the action plan, there is a very significant piece of it that ensures that the information we have, both as we follow through on our review of existing files and into the future as we do spot audits right across the country on a regular basis, will be provided quarterly to the Canadian public.

• 1225

As well, thirdly, we have a number of external occasions for others from the outside to come in and look at what we're doing and present the results of that.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

If we can move on, I have Jean Dubé, then Larry McCormick, Libby Davies, and John Godfrey.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My questions will be brief and I hope that the answers will be brief as well so that I can get both my questions in.

I would like the Minister to indicate the precise day when she was informed of the department's problems with respect to contributions.

[English]

Mrs. Jane Stewart: November 17, 1999.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean Dubé: Mr. Good, do you agree with the Minister?

[English]

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Mr. Chair—

The Chair: I'm sorry; I was consulting with the clerk.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: —the question is to my official, and I would—

Mr. Jean Dubé: I've asked her official if he agreed with the answer of the minister.

The Chair: Listen, hang on a minute.

I may well return to the minister to see, but I urge you, colleagues, that.... You do realize that senior public servants take an oath of confidentiality to their minister. They do this. One of the things, if you read the various rules of procedure, is that committees should be very, very careful not to put them in conflict with that. This is not a matter of secrecy in departments; it's a matter of how the public service operates. Public servants have to operate with the confidence of their ministers.

Jean, would you repeat what you said again, please?

Mr. Jean Dubé: Just let me rephrase the question, then, if it's difficult for the committee. The question goes to Mr. Good.

Are you aware that the minister was made aware of problems with the programs in August?

Mr. David Good (Assistant Deputy Minister, Human Resources Investment Branch, Department of Human Resources Development): The minister was briefed on the audit on November 17.

The Chair: Jean Dubé.

Mr. Jean Dubé: During a transition period, Mr. Chair, the department briefs the new minister on the department and possible problems with the department. There is usually a briefing book, with briefing notes. Are you aware of this briefing book?

Mrs. Jane Stewart: I received a briefing book with a number of things in it. In fact, as part of the briefing book, there was reference to the department of audits, but there was no specific information provided as to the audits that were being undertaken.

The Chair: Jean, if I may, again, I want to explain the position. I am not taking away from your time here, but the actual position is that, unlike ministers, public servants are not directly accountable to Parliament for their actions nor for their policies and programs of their government. I think your present line of questioning is fine, but that is the point I was trying to make.

Mr. Jean Dubé: Mr. Chair, if there were no mention of any problems with these programs, would the minister table this briefing book to this committee?

The Chair: Again, Jean, if I may, if a similar thing were asked in question period, when there clearly is a limit to things that can be tabled.... I mean, if we're talking about all the notes and documents that ministers and other people have, it becomes impossible. I can't cite them now, but I'm sure I could cite you precedents where chairs and speakers have ruled that out of order.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean Dubé: Mr. Chairman, we have many questions and there is a great deal of confusion. On January 19, the Minister was in the entrance hall of the House, where she revealed the results of the report. When I received, in my office, a copy of the report that I had requested, I noticed it was dated October 5. The copies that everybody else received were not dated.

• 1230

Mr. Chairman, I read in an article that Taras Zalusky, the Minister's chief of staff, has stated that the Minister had been informed, back in August, of the problems with the transition fund. There is, therefore, a great deal of confusion. The Minister has told us that she was not informed of the issue until January 19. I would like some clarification.

[English]

The Chair: Again, Jean, if I may say so, I find this line of questioning perfectly appropriate. I was ruling on the tabling of briefing books, which strikes me as clearly impossible.

Minister.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: I'm very anxious to clear this up. In the comments the honourable member is making reference to, Mr. Chair, those made by my executive assistant, he's talking about the Transitional Jobs Fund. Indeed, as the colleagues around the table will know, there has been no shortage of questions about individual projects with the Transitional Jobs Fund in the House of Commons asked of me or even of my predecessor.

Of course I spent considerable time with the department talking about that particular program, the Transitional Jobs Fund. I can tell you that I was all over the files that have been questioned in the House. I had to know the details behind them because I had to respond to your questions and the questions of other opposition party members. But that's one piece. That's one of the seven programs that are part of this internal audit.

What I need the committee to understand is that, yes, I was seized by Transitional Jobs Fund and the transition to the Canada Jobs Fund, but this audit is far more than the Transitional Jobs Fund. As I showed in my presentation, it is about seven large programs. The audit is about those.

Now, specifically with regard to the honourable member's questions about the report he received, Mr. Chair, I'm going to ask Mr. Winberg to make some comments. I have a copy of it as well. It was an earlier draft, and I would note that, yes, indeed, it references October 5, that being the date when the auditors presented their findings, the data, signed it off and presented to management. The other date at top includes management responses received January 6. That's when the management team completed their response. Then it was tabled finally in January 2000.

The final audit was presented with a different cover page, with only the January 2000 date on it. As I understand it, this was the decision of the department. The decision was made to present the audit as the Auditor General does, not with the individual dates of certain aspects.

The Chair: Minister, that is clear to me. I don't know whether it's clear to Mr. Dubé.

Jean, do you want to proceed? It's your time.

Mr. Jean Dubé: Absolutely.

The Chair: And I think we'll leave the official out of it.

Go ahead, please.

Mr. Jean Dubé: The department has lists of TJF recipients with the department, but it has been brought to my attention through different demands that these lists have changed and that the old lists have the other contributors, other sources. If I take a certain riding, you have the TJF approved and you also have other sources. You have jobs created and you have the approval date. On the new ones, you don't have the other funds and you don't have the approval date. What is the reason for that?

Mrs. Jane Stewart: The lists of Transitional Jobs Fund projects is a list that has been made available in a number of cases. Through access to information, it's out there in many forms. What I would like to point out is that it does change over time, and I accept that as true for a number of reasons. First, even the project recipients may change, because unfortunately some of them may not have completed the contract. Some of them may have unfortunately moved to bankruptcy, so their names come off the list. I would point out, however, that 95% of the over 1,000 projects are still viable and continuing to provide jobs.

• 1235

Indeed, there's no contradiction here. The list does change over time. If the honourable member would like additional information, that can be made available through the access to information process or through other means.

The Chair: I would like to move on. You've already been the longest by a considerable amount.

We now go to Larry McCormick, and then Libby Davies, John Godfrey, and Maurice Vellacott.

Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to welcome the minister to our Standing Committee on HRD. Since this committee serves the Minister of HRD and the Minister of Labour, I believe she's the seventh minister to appear here in the last six years. Certainly this is the most serious situation that I've seen during all those years. The allegations are shocking, and Canadians do have most serious concerns. They do in my riding and throughout the country, and they're not willing to accept the abuse that's in this system.

From a previous life, I would recall that probably there are bad apples in every barrel, but I want to take a little different direction here. I've found that the employees of HRD in our local offices, in the majority of cases, do go the extra mile. They're very valuable and I hate to see them tainted. That's why I'm very glad we're conducting this.

Minister, on behalf of several members in our government's rural caucus, I've been asked to ask you this question. They are truly and sincerely concerned that this situation will delay any programs that are in the barrel, in the works. I don't want to throw out.... The programs have been most successful in most cases, but that does not mean we should cover up anything here.

I'm glad you are here, and I hope we have the Auditor General here, and so on. But in areas of this country where there are real needs for good programs, people are concerned about whether we're going to see undue delay or not.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Indeed, as a result of this, we are going to review all of our active files. That may make for some delay in some of the programs. What we have to do is have our files complete. That's part of the process here. I have to be able to feel confident that I can say to the Canadian taxpayers that we know our files are complete and that we can be able to confirm for them our decisions.

However, we are taking this very seriously. We're working very expeditiously to get the reviews done. I know how important these grants and contributions are in communities. I don't want to unduly delay the transfers of moneys, but I have to ensure that the system is sound.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Minister, you know this audit that your department or whoever asked for shows there's a great need for that type of thing. I'm wondering how often HRD has conducted internal audits in the last seven years. What were the results? Were they thorough? Why have we reached this situation?

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Again, as part of the ongoing management in the department, internal audits are happening all the time. We've probably had—what was it that you said, David?—91 in draft form, so they're going on all the time. It was this particular one that the department brought to my attention because of the results of the audit. That's why I have looked at it and don't feel comfortable with the results, and why I've taken such significant action.

But internal audits are going on on an ongoing basis. They are part of the checks and balances in the system.

The Chair: Larry, thank you very much. We're going to move on to Libby Davies.

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Thank you, Chairperson.

I'd like to thank the minister for coming today.

As you have said, this is a massive department. It's the largest federal department, involving billions and billions of dollars of expenditures and public funds. I think one of the real issues that is of grave concern to Canadians is the loss of public trust around the expenditures in this department.

We heard today a report that some lists that are out there have been altered. I guess there is a question that I want to get at and that I hope you will answer. Even in question period it has been very difficult for individual members of Parliament who legitimately are seeking information about not just the Transitional Jobs Fund, but the other programs that have been covered by the audit or even other program areas.

• 1240

I guess I'd like to ask you why the government is covering up information. It has been very clear that the government House leader has had his binder and has been feeding information to the Prime Minister. Is there a master list that exists? It seems that every time we ask a question, we're told, “Well, there's another list, and you might get that through the access to information process or you can go visit your local HRDC office.”

Does the government have a master list, and why are you not prepared to fully disclose that list so that every member of Parliament and every member of the public can see what projects were approved, when, and under what criteria?

Mrs. Jane Stewart: This is indeed an important series of questions, as well.

The honourable member talks about lists being altered. Something I again need to convey is that we receive requests for information through the access to information process and other means all the time. The lists that we then compile are done so as to respond to the specific request of the person asking for the information. The lists can therefore be different, depending on what's being looked for.

In particular, with regard to HRDC grants and contributions in the ridings of members of Parliament, from my own point of view as a member of Parliament, I must confess that one of the things I take very seriously is knowing where tax dollars are spent in my riding. One of the things that I also feel is very important, as the senior federal representative in a riding, is to know what programs and services can be made available to my riding. One of the first things I did was get to know my public service in the riding in order to understand what is going on and then build from there. I think many members do that.

There is no difficulty in individual members going to their local HRDC office and asking for that information and being apprised of it on an ongoing basis. That is totally legitimate. I would also note that in the public accounts, all spending over $100,000 is there, is public. If members want more detailed information, it can be obtained through the local HRDC office, through tabling a question on the Order Paper, or through the access to information process. We'd be glad to help facilitate our local centres to provide that information to members.

Ms. Libby Davies: Well, Chairperson, I'm sure individual members of Parliament have tried to get access to information locally or through freedom of access. It's not easy to do, and what you get is not necessarily the full picture.

My question to you, which I don't feel has been answered, is whether or not there is a master list. The information I'm interested in is not only about what happens in my own riding, but what happens in my riding in comparison to other areas of Canada, for example. These are some of the questions you've avoided in the House.

We have a situation in which the Prime Minister says yes, he has a list. We have the communications assistant to the House leader saying no, there isn't a list. So I'm asking you, as the minister, if there is a master list. I can't believe there isn't one. There must be a list that exists, because you're referring to it all the time in terms of various programs and projects, riding by riding. Why is that not being made available? Why is the government covering up this information? It's public information that we and the public have a right to see.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Mr. Chair, we are not. As I've mentioned, as part of the public accounts, the records are there for all of us for expenditures of over $100,000. That's a decision made by the Commons.

We don't keep master lists, because the information and the requests are always varied. But if the honourable member would like to have information about things going on in her riding, that can be requested and can be made available. The indications are that the information can be made public, but we need to know how it's wanted. We then sort it and provide it in that context. But in the context of many other things, such as the letters the honourable members write supporting projects, those are available. They're your letters. They're information that you can get from your own files.

Indeed, on the idea that there is one single list for the Transitional Jobs Fund or lists by riding, those things change as projects change. We don't keep lists available. We have the information, and if members want to make requests, we respond through the access to information process, through questions on the Order Paper, or through direct requests through HRDC offices. If there's a problem there, we can assist with that through headquarters.

Ms. Libby Davies: Do I have more time? Yes?

Well, Chairperson, I have to say I'm frankly quite appalled and shocked that there isn't a master list—I can't think of another word to use. The minister has told us that this audit has uncovered some serious administrative problems. I think more and more people are now realizing that it's not just the audit, it's all of the programs and possibly other projects that are involved that we don't yet know about.

• 1245

It seems to me that with the action plan you've described today, surely a fundamental component of that is having information that does detail riding by riding. I'm not just interested in my riding; I want to know what happened in Vancouver East relative to other ridings. I'm really stunned that you're not prepared to disclose that information. Instead, 301 members of Parliament are going to go and set up 301 separate meetings in their local offices when clearly the government has this information but you're not prepared to share it.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: I've never said we're not prepared to share it.

Ms. Libby Davies: In total.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: What I'm saying is we do share it through the public administration, public accounts. If the honourable member is suggesting we should bring that listing down under $100,000, I think that's a fair recommendation to make and we can do that.

What we have to understand here is that we're talking about 27 different project types under the programs. The information changes all the time, so we don't keep hard copies of that information. The information is in our system and we're absolutely prepared to present it as requested. At this point in time, if the honourable member is suggesting we should have a master list, she can certainly request that.

Ms. Libby Davies: I am requesting that today. I think the committee needs to have that information. The public needs to have that information on every project by riding for all these programs so that it is very clear and there is full and total disclosure. Do we have your commitment to do that?

The Chair: Thank you very much. We can certainly take that under advisement, Minister.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Yes, recognizing that the programs change riding by riding almost on a daily basis.

The Chair: Colleagues, I've already been receiving notes and comments from members. I do my very best here. I want to balance your individual interests, I have to balance the party interests, I have to balance the order of the parties and that kind of thing.

I'm going to read the list as I have it now. It's John Godfrey, followed by Maurice Vellacott. By the way, that is the second Reform questioner. Judi Longfield is next, then Christiane Gagnon, then Judy Sgro, then Raymonde Folco and Dale Johnston. I'm sorry, I've missed Mr. Pagtakhan, and I'll find out where he is. But it gives you an idea. Colleagues, you don't want me just to put you down in the order I'm asked. We'd end up with all one party.

Yes, Judy Sgro.

Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): This is my first meeting and I have a point of order. Are we all getting ten minutes or five minutes or what? I see some people get ten minutes and some—

The Chair: Judy, among other things, I'm trying to balance out the time each party is going to get. At the moment the Liberal Party has received less time than the individual speakers on the other side, just so you know. I'm sorry about that.

John Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): Mr. Chair, I have a question for the minister that really concerns the future work of this committee. I think it's fair to say that when we're done today, we're not done. There is a desire on the part of all members for further examination of this in detail.

The thing I have found confusing about the past couple of weeks has been that in some ways we focus on the Transitional Jobs Fund, but in fact there are seven different program areas and the Transitional Jobs Fund is only part of one of those areas. If we are to do future work relating to the problems we've uncovered, I guess the bad news is the problems do not limit themselves to the Transitional Jobs Fund. These are problems that have been discovered throughout the whole area of grants and contributions.

What percentage of the 37 problem cases that have been discovered are actual Transitional Jobs Fund problems? That would be my question.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: I have a number of things here.

First, as the honourable member mentions, we're not done today and we won't be done today. I don't view that I'm going to be done today either. This is an ongoing undertaking and it is partly about continuing to improve the working of the department.

• 1250

Specifically, with reference to your question, there are five cases, but two of them have been closed. As I said at the outset of my comments, I would certainly welcome the continuing work of the committee in assisting us, not only in looking at the strategy for improving our administration, but generally, if the committee is interested in other work on grants and contributions. We always welcome the candour and the recommendations from this table.

Mr. John Godfrey: I'll stop there.

The Chair: Maurice Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): Being that it's a billion dollars of mismanagement, I think full disclosure is pretty critical in this whole thing.

I'm going to narrow my comments in respect to the TJF or the Transitional Jobs Fund, particularly in the matter of the information provided and it seeming to be a lesser amount over the course of time.

In March 1999 the information provided to people as requested was in about eight different categories, eight different columns. My understanding would be that the audit was completed some time in May. Since that time there have been inconsistent and incomplete lists of information provided in terms of the categories.

I can see a list growing vertically over time. At least that would my premise. But from what you say, maybe the offset is that these companies have gone bankrupt, so maybe it doesn't even grow vertically. I cannot understand how a list would shrink horizontally, how it would go from eight columns to say four columns or to no more release of eight-column kinds of information. To me that's somewhat mysterious.

Your bureaucrats are now saying it's not tracked by riding. Before some kind of turning off of the taps, you were tracking it by riding, in fact not only by riding but by members of Parliament. Members of Parliament's names are listed there as well. I know that.

Since the end of the first week of December, there seems to have been a kind of winnowing down of crucial information and a little less is provided. It's really making the point, I guess, as you say, that now you have to ask for it, you have to go after this other stuff. I suggest to you that maybe you're not aware of it. I give you the benefit of doubt. There doesn't seem to be the same forthrightness as maybe there was previously.

In December 1999 one of your top officials denied three times emphatically that the TJF funds were tracked by riding. Now we know that in fact they were tracked by riding and they were at an earlier point tracked by the name of the member of Parliament.

Mr. Winberg, I happen to know you have in your briefcase the fuller seven-column list. My telepathic powers and telescopic vision indicate that to me. I would want to know through the minister whether you can provide that TJF seven-column list to me today. If not, why not? That's my first question.

The Chair: Maurice, if that's going to be your first question, it took two and a half minutes.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Again, the question of lists is an interesting one. We receive requests for information from many different sources for particular pieces of information. That's what we respond to. I would recognize that the Reform Party has identified our department as being one of the best in terms of responding to access to information.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: If I might just interject, my question was simple. May I have today that seven-column list that is in Mr. Winberg's briefcase? As a member of Parliament attempting to do my duty, can I have that list today?

Mrs. Jane Stewart: I'm not as clairvoyant as the member, Mr. Chair. I don't know that he has it in his briefcase.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: He has it in his briefcase. It's been spied in his briefcase.

The Chair: Rey Pagtakhan has a point of order.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: When a member posing a question admits a premise based on speculation and concludes something about the speculation, it would be considered false.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Let's ask Mr. Winberg. Do you have a seven-column list?

The Chair: I understand. Maurice, could you change your line of questioning?

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Mr. Chair, what I would like to say is we are very able to respond to the individual requests of members. We can do it through the access to information process. But we need to understand. I need to know specifically what they would like and the information that's being requested. We have processes to provide that information. I would just ask the honourable member to use the processes that are available to him.

The Chair: Maurice, this is your party's second turn.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I'm making a very specific request. I want that list in his briefcase, that list by riding.

The Chair: No.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I'm asking a question, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: No. I ruled on that kind of thing before, Maurice.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Okay, let's ignore his briefcase for a moment if we want to do the dodge on that.

The Chair: Colleagues, there is a procedure for this under production of documents in the House of Commons.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: But this is a committee, Mr. Chair.

• 1255

The Chair: Diane, I understand that it is a committee, but I made the point before. In the committee or in the House, it is not possible to table everything, but under production of documents in the House, you can ask and then have the Speaker rule on it.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: I am not asking for everything.

Mr. Jean Dubé: Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

The Chair: As long as it is a point of order.

Mr. Jean Dubé: It's on this.

On a point of order, we could probably clear that up right now if you would table this document.

The Chair: Colleagues, I think it is not appropriate. Obviously the witnesses can do whatever they like, but seriously, I ask you all, if we keep asking for things, all sorts of things to be tabled, it is not appropriate.

Maurice, I am not being obstructionist. This is your party's second term. Carry on.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I was responding in good faith to her comment to me. She said if I make a specific request along certain categories, then I can be provided that information.

The Chair: Minister and officials, if you care to respond to that point....

Mrs. Jane Stewart: I will respond.

I am absolutely happy to ensure that my department will respond to this specific request of the honourable member using the processes that are available to him. Questions on the Order Paper, access to information...these are things that are available to us in terms of managing information. Absolutely, if the honourable member makes the request and we know in detail what he is looking for, I would suggest that the response would be—

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

Maurice, this is your last question.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I suggest to you, Madam Minister, that you could defuse this whole thing and the “smell of a cover-up” by simply providing that.

I will go further to say that I would suggest or ask you, because we are talking transparency, and you have indicated that in the House and in committee.... This is getting back to the regional offices that you have previously in testimony—not sworn, but I take it it's as good as your word—said that you would want us to be able to get that information, certain information, from our local HRD offices. I would ask you if you could provide us, as members of Parliament, every member here, a letter from you, a directive to the local HRD offices to give us access to information based on eight categories.

The Chair: Minister, would you care to respond?

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Indeed, I would be glad to write a letter to the HRDC officials and have them sit with their members of Parliament and explain what's going on in the ridings. There is no problem with that. I am surprised you haven't done it already.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

Despite what I said before, it is true that I have missed Rey Pagtakhan, so it's Rey Pagtakhan, Christiane Gagnon, Judi Longfield, Judy Sgro, Dale Johnston, Raymonde Folco, and then Stéphan Tremblay.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: On a point of order, again for the sake of the committee, am I to understand that I am going to receive a letter, a directive to the HRD local offices, permitting me to go in and access under the eight categories?

The Chair: Minister, would you care to clarify that particular point? Is this something coming to the committee, or is it coming to individual members?

Mrs. Jane Stewart: What I would like to say is that members of Parliament can go into their HRDCs and sit down and find everything—

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: They can't. That's the problem. Members have tried that in recent days, Madam Minister.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: The information should be available to members of Parliament on investments in their ridings, and I'll ensure that is done.

The Chair: As chair, the minister says we can proceed to our HRDC office. You've heard it here. Maurice, you can take that information to your HRDC office.

Minister, is that correct?

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Yes.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I don't need a memo, or—

The Chair: You've heard it here. The minister said it in public.

Rey Pagtakhan, and then Christiane Gagnon.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Allow me to make a couple of observations.

I think it is one thing to request information; it is quite another to fish for information. There is a cost to any request for information, and I think we should be careful about the cost-effectiveness of our request.

The opposition is laughing. They are laughing about public expenditure.

Secondly, there is an orderly process that exists. Let us follow that unless we claim and admit that we are ignorant of those existing procedural processes in the House of Commons passed by every member of Parliament.

Having said that, let me ask for the sake of the Canadian public a very fundamental question of Mr. Winberg. What is random sampling? Very honestly, in all modesty, I know that, having trained in the discipline of science. But for greater clarity, what is random sampling and how is it chosen? How do you determine that the size of the sampling is adequate to give us the valid results we would anticipate getting from such a statistical analysis?

The Chair: Minister, are you comfortable with...?

Alan Winberg.

Mr. Alan Winberg: A random sample is a sample that is selected from a broader set of cases—we call it the audit universe—in which every case in the universe has an equal chance of being selected. So it is a random sample.

• 1300

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Yes, and what about the size of the sample?

Mr. Alan Winberg: The size of the sample is selected using statistical tables that allow you to generalize to the attributes of the universe from different sizes of sample. The larger the sample, the higher the reliability that what you're generalizing about is an accurate measure.

In this case, we pulled 459 files, about 20 from each of the 27 different projects and sub-projects. This allows us to make valid generalizations about the administrative practices of our department in general, but not with regard to any specific program or region.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: You stated earlier that you only focus your audit specifically to assess the state of administrative excellence in the department. I hear it, then, that you did not audit for the financial aspect of the grants.

Mr. Alan Winberg: The audit criteria are clearly set out in the report we made public at the beginning of January. The audit looked at each of the cases against a set of very clear criteria based on the excellence of the administrative practice and some of the financial practices.

The Chair: Rey, quite briefly.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: The document I have from the Library of Parliament indicates that 80% of all the audited projects showed no evidence of financial monitoring. Does it mean then that you audited for the financial aspects of this project?

Mr. Alan Winberg: That means there were no documents in the file that showed there had been an HRDC officer who had done what we call financial monitoring of the project in place.

The absence of the document in the file does not mean financial monitoring did not take place. It only means there was no document in the file that the auditors looked at that indicated this financial monitoring.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: In other words, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Mr. Alan Winberg: It's more a comment about the filing practices of our department, in some cases, than about the absence of financial monitoring.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you, Rey.

So it's now Christiane Gagnon, Judi Longfield, Judy Sgro, and then Dale Johnston.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Chairman, the answers provided by the Minister and the officials are inadequate and do not shed any light on the issue of funds allocation. They appear to be minimizing the extrapolation based on this sampling. In conducting an internal audit, the government is both judge and jury, and when you are both judge and jury, it is very difficult to shed light on the entire issue, this funds allocation problem that appears to have existed for several years. The Jobs Transition Fund is the tip of the iceberg.

We are also experiencing difficulties in obtaining information about the budget for other programs in various ridings, including the student summer job program. There appears to have been a channel, a network somewhere. Some organizations, and I don't know why, were entitled to a discretionary budget.

We would like to see complete clarification of what goes on within Human Resources Development Canada and we would like an independent investigation. I've been listening to you and I'm very dissatisfied with your answers. The people are concerned. People have suffered as a result of the budget cutbacks that have been imposed on them by the government. They're concerned that the money that was earmarked for these programs was not directed to the proper people.

The people feel that the situation is serious, serious enough to warrant an investigation on what goes on in the Department of Human Resources Development Canada. You cannot be both judge and jury. The Minister has dipped into this fund more often than she should, and we know this because figures have been published that worry us.

I'm asking that the Minister order an independent investigation of the entire administration. Too many things have been said here, this morning, in the committee, for which we will never get further clarification because we cannot request that certain documents be tabled. I'm not very satisfied at all.

It is because we know that billions of dollars are missing in other sectors, in order to fight against poverty, that my party and I are demanding an independent public investigation.

• 1305

[English]

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Again, Mr. Chair, it's clarifying what all these different pieces of the puzzle are about. This audit was the focus of a review of our administrative practices, and the results are useful in the area of dealing with our administrative practices. That's what the six-point action plan deals with.

In the context of having external reviews and independent assessments, I've made it absolutely clear that we are working with the Auditor General, that the Auditor General, himself a vehicle of Parliament but an independent body, will be analysing this work on an ongoing basis along with us and making reports public to Parliament. He'll be working with us in June, I expect. He'll make his own report in October, and then we'll have an external review in January again.

The honourable member makes reference, though, to funds allocations, and that's something quite different from what this audit was all about. I would remind the table that we make our performance reports public, as part of the estimates process, every single year. I'm happy to come to the committee to talk about that when you review estimates, and that's another part of the openness approach of our work.

The honourable member who suggested that the committee might want to look at grants and contributions in a larger way...certainly you have that capacity, and I would welcome the advice from the committee. But what I need to confirm here again is that the audit we're speaking about talks about administrative practices, and we are dealing with that audit in the context of what it told us truly. There are other aspects out there that are satisfied through performance reports, through continuing work of this committee, and through work of the Auditor General and external reviews.

The Chair: Minister, I think we should wind up.

Christiane, if it could be quite brief, I'd be grateful, because it is the second time for your party and there are many members waiting.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Madam Minister, when you extrapolate, you're no longer talking about 37 out of 459 cases. We are asking for a much more in-depth investigation. When you're both judge and jury and dealing with an issue, I don't think that you're able to obtain the right answers in order to shed some light on the shortcomings in management which prevail at the Department of Human Resources Development Canada. Even you, Madam Minister, are unable to tell us whether the extrapolation we are asking for is justified.

I'm asking for an independent investigation, and not an internal audit, because I know that you would be able to get around it.

[English]

The Chair: Minister, please.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Mr. Chair, there is no extrapolation possible in the context of moneys. The work of the audit provides us with evidence to deal with the administrative practices—and that I repeat again and again and again. So the suggestion from the honourable member that we can extract from this audit extrapolations in terms of amounts of moneys in overpayment is not appropriate.

The Chair: Okay. It's now Judi Longfield, then Judy Sgro, then Dale Johnston, Raymonde Folco, and Stéphan Tremblay.

Judi Longfield.

Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Minister, for coming.

I have literally hundreds of questions, but I'm going to pick up from the last question. It has to do with administrative practices. There are seven program areas and some of those program areas are subdivided, labour market programs, for example, having several subsections.

I'm very concerned about the approval process and who has authority. I know that in some of the programs it's actually given to provinces and that they administer. So I have sort of a multifaceted.... In the audit, do we audit any of the programs that are administered directly by the provinces? Were any of those in the 37?

On some specific ones, and of the 37, the Vidéotron—and I think that's under the TJF—who has authority? Who would give the authority to spend an extra $500,000? What's the process there?

Under the social development program there was one that had to do with the expense of jewellery as an office expense. Has that been looked at? That I would suggest is a criminal offence, and if that's proven, will there be criminal charges laid?

• 1310

Another one I'm concerned about is learning and literacy, and that was the McGill one, again, an overcontribution to McGill. I guess I want to know, is it the same approval process in each of those? I've just taken three. Are any of those three among the 12 or 13 you've already looked at?

The Chair: There's a good deal of material there, I know, but I'd be grateful if you could keep it moving.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Yes, these programs, as I set out, really look at programs for which we have authority. The approval levels are different. In the Transitional Jobs Fund, for example, we have to have concurrence of the provinces—they're very much involved—and of the members of Parliament as well. So that's different.

The three projects the honourable member is referring to, Mr. Chair, are part of the 37. The information you have and the documents that have been presented are the information we have to date and the information we are going to the individual sponsors with to check and determine if our information is correct, if there's more information that's available that we need to confirm issues. I will be glad to make the results of that review public when it's completed. These three have not yet been completed.

The Chair: Judi, very, very briefly.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Yes, just as a follow-up, again, Minister, could you provide sort of an overview on the seven departments, what the approval levels are and who signs off? I know that for some, regional offices are given a specific sum of money and the regional office signs off on them; it doesn't go to the minister and it doesn't necessarily go to the member of Parliament.

I need some understanding about the approval levels. Again, just to let you know, I sit down with my local HRD. I don't try to micro-manage, but I certainly know what's going on. So I'm aware of the things that are happening in mine, but I need to know the approval level.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: I would be glad to table the approval levels with the committee.

The Chair: Thank you, Judi.

We'll go to Judy Sgro now, and then it's Dale Johnston and Raymonde Folco.

Ms. Judy Sgro: Minister Stewart, I'll try to make my questions short and quick, if you can give me the same kinds of answers back. As a new member and someone who has dealt with the administration and allocation of grants, I think it would be interesting to see all of our municipalities do some audits to see if they would come out as interesting as this one did.

Why didn't you wait until you had completed the 37 that had been added that wanted more information? Why didn't you wait until you had completed those 37 files before announcing the audit and the results?

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Well, that's a suggested approach. From my point of view, I wanted to make the audit public when it was complete. It was complete with the management response on January 6, and we presented it to the public as soon thereafter as we could.

Ms. Judy Sgro: And that audit was requested by your department?

Mrs. Jane Stewart: That's right.

Ms. Judy Sgro: How much money is given out in the whole area we are discussing currently?

Mrs. Jane Stewart: In this context we are in a universe of $1 billion.

Ms. Judy Sgro: Out of the 37 you have looked at, that flagged for additional information, were they all administrative issues related to that, or was there money missing from any of those grants?

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Those are things we're looking at. There were different issues with different files. As I said already, to date we've closed 10 of the files and identified just over $250 in overpayment that we will recover.

Ms. Judy Sgro: So out of 10 of the 37, all you've seen so far is a $251 overpayment regarding the GST or something.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: That's right.

Ms. Judy Sgro: That's where we're going so far.

Who is responsible? You would give the grants to whom? Provinces, major universities? Who gets the grants from...?

Mrs. Jane Stewart: It depends on what the program is. If we're talking about the Transitional Jobs Fund, those tend to be partnerships with community partners and the private sector. If we're talking about youth services, they may be moneys that go to individuals or to programs that support youth at risk, that sort of thing—so community organizations that are engaged in supporting youth at risk. If we're talking about Canadians with disabilities, it can be to disability agencies and organizations or to community groups that are helping to improve literacy in their communities.

So it's educational institutions—colleges, universities—it's not-for-profit organizations, community by community, it's private sector small and medium-sized businesses in some regards, and it's to individuals.

The Chair: Judy, thank you. And if I might, on behalf of my colleagues, I welcome you as a new full-time member of this committee. We're very pleased to have you here.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

Ms. Judy Sgro: Thank you.

The Chair: Dale Johnston, then Raymonde Folco, Stéphan Tremblay, and Libby Davies.

• 1315

Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to ask the minister, how does it come about that one of her top officials in the department denied, at least three times in early December, that these projects were not tracked by riding?

Mrs. Jane Stewart: May I ask who the top official was?

Mr. Dale Johnston: Well, does that matter?

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Yes, it does, actually.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mrs. Jane Stewart: I'll tell you why. We get requests through the access to information process, and that's managed through Mr. Winberg. We get requests from the media people through the communications people, and they would have a different set of data. So it depends on who's asked.

What I would say is it's possible for information to be provided to requesters through the access to information process, for example, that the communications people have no idea about.

Mr. Dale Johnston: So are you saying then they are not tracked by riding?

Mrs. Jane Stewart: I'm saying we respond to requests based on the details the requester asked for.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Are they or are they not, Madam Minister? Are they or are they not tracked by riding?

Mrs. Jane Stewart: They can be, if someone would like that information.

Mr. Dale Johnston: But are they normally?

Mrs. Jane Stewart: If someone asks us to provide that information—

Mr. Dale Johnston: In normal circumstances, are they tracked by riding? Are they kept track of by riding?

Mrs. Jane Stewart: That is not something I look at.

Perhaps you want to comment, David, in terms of information management.

Mr. David Good: Under normal circumstances, we track projects by region, by area, by size of project, and by program. We do have the capacity to track projects by riding.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Okay.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to move, under section 108(1)(a), that we do produce the papers on the Transitional Jobs Fund, the eight-column list of projects, as referred to by my colleague, Mr. Vellacott, earlier in the testimony.

The Chair: Could we have that in writing again?

Mr. Dale Johnston: I don't have it in writing.

The Chair: Would you repeat it fairly slowly, Dale, so that we can get it in writing?

Mr. Dale Johnston: Certainly. I would like to move, pursuant to Standing Order 108(1)(a), that the papers that were asked for earlier in the testimony by my colleague from Wanuskewin, the eight-column list of projects under the Transitional Jobs Fund, be produced.

The Chair: It's eight?

Mr. Dale Johnston: The eight-column list would include the names of the members of Parliament.

The Chair: That includes the names of the members of Parliament?

Mr. Dale Johnston: Yes.

The Clerk of the Committee: Produce the eight-column list...?

Mr. Dale Johnston: Of the Transitional Jobs Fund.

The Chair: Again, Dale, I ruled before on the general tabling of documents, so can I read that, please? It's not papers requested earlier; it's to produce the eight-column list under the transitional jobs project.

Yes?

Mr. Larry McCormick: Mr. Chair, I think we want to be fair to all members, but I would ask the member to table his motion. I think we can do that the usual way.

The Chair: I have to rule that this is a part of the ongoing nature of this meeting. It's not a new agenda item that's being raised. I don't think it requires 48 hours' notice. But I would accept debate on that.

Mr. Larry McCormick: You are the chair.

The Chair: I'll hear from Bonnie Brown, Bryon Wilfert, and if necessary John Godfrey, but I would remind you all, and I would remind you, Dale, that this is simply taking time away from this inquiry.

Bonnie Brown.

Mr. Dale Johnston: I would suggest this is part of ongoing business and—

The Chair: I am arguing your case.

Mr. Dale Johnston: I understand.

The Chair: Bonnie Brown.

Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, any kind of list of moneys allocated would have to have a timeframe. Does he mean money that is actively out there today, or does he mean all the moneys given in the last fiscal year? That would be 1998-99, because we're not finished 1999-2000 yet. For which period does he—

Mr. Dale Johnston: [Inaudible—Editor].

The Chair: Just a moment.

Go on.

Ms. Bonnie Brown: In other words, this portion has to be very, very precise. That's why it would be nice to have it in writing.

The Chair: Okay.

Dale, please proceed.

Mr. Dale Johnston: I would suggest from its inception in 1996 until April 1, 1999.

Ms. Bonnie Brown: My God! What a huge—

The Chair: Okay. I have Bryon Wilfert, John Godfrey, Jean Dubé, and then Rey Pagtakhan.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Mr. Chairman, my colleague asked the question. I want it to be very clear, because the minister had indicated she was prepared to release a number of documents. I want to know the timeframe, number one, and I want to know which of the program areas is being referred to.

• 1320

In principle, certainly I don't have a problem with what you're asking for, but I do think, in fairness, we need to have it clearly written down so that we know exactly what it is you're asking for, the timeframes, and the program area, so that we can then respond.

The Chair: Dale, to speed this up, I would be glad to go to the other questions, if you want to take notes and answer them all at once.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Okay.

The Chair: I'm concerned about—

Mr. Dale Johnston: Very briefly, I would have gladly prepared this in advance; however, we made a request, and I thought it would just be a matter of producing—

The Chair: These are public hearings. It does seem a shame to me.

I have John Godfrey, then Jean Dubé, and then Rey Pagtakhan.

Mr. John Godfrey: I also have no problem with asking for this. I do think it's important, though, before we formally vote on something, that there be clarity on two things: what exactly we're asking for and the feasibility of meeting the demand. I don't know whether it is procedurally possible to agree in principle to Mr. Johnston's request, with some ability to negotiate, only in the sense of what's doable within a reasonable period of time. It's not hostile; it's just trying to make sure we can get it done.

The Chair: One possibility is that the committee take it under advisement. When I've seen the final, precise motion, I'll rule finally as to whether it's acceptable. As I've mentioned in the way I described, I do view it that we don't require 48 hours' notice.

Jean Dubé.

Mr. Jean Dubé: Mr. Chairman, I have no problem with that motion at all, because there's a lot of confusion here. We're trying to get all the information we can to clear this thing up, and the department's gone into bunker mode. We cannot get any information. All requests at the regional level are referred to here.

The Chair: We're discussing the argument before us here now. Let's proceed.

Rey Pagtakhan.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I raised earlier the question of costs. We have to be very careful when we spend public money for requests for information. Where the information will serve a useful purpose, I will agree with it 1,000%, but when the purpose is not clearly stated, how can we say the purpose will be good or bad? We cannot do that, as fiscal managers for the public taxpayers' money.

Therefore, on this motion, I would like a clearly stated purpose. It alluded to an eight-column table. I have not seen that eight-column table myself, Mr. Chair. How can I vote in honesty on whether I like it or not if I do not know what I am voting on? Therefore the motion is very defective.

A timeline has not been stated. It is a fundamental principle of management that if we would like accountability or a response to a request, we give a timeline so that we can say whether we have complied or not.

Finally, I would just like to caution members that.... The Reform Party is laughing about money, Mr. Speaker.

A voice: Yes.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I regret that. I really regret that, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I will caution members that, as we have heard this morning, they state a preamble based on speculation, and at the end they would like to make a conclusion out of those speculations. This is fundamentally opposed to sound logic and common sense, Mr. Chair. I request numbers.

So on the motion, I am not prepared to give my support, because it is a defective motion.

The Chair: I'm not going to call a vote until I have a written motion, and I will do so in a moment. But I repeat, I regret this waste of time.

Bryon Wilfert.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: If in fact we get it in writing, we can see what it is and in principle say at the next meeting, once we have the information before us so that we know exactly what it is we're being asked to look at, we're going to be open and transparent.

I want to know, though, because quite honestly, Mr. Chairman, to my colleague, Mr. Johnston, without that, basically it's a pig in a poke. I want to know what it is, and then fine. But let's get it down on the table.

Mr. Dale Johnston: I'm willing to defer.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Thank you, Mr. Johnston.

The Chair: Thank you. I hear that the motion is deferred. And by the way, by “deferred” I mean deferred. This committee will consider it at a later point in time.

Colleagues, can we proceed?

Dale, have you completed your questioning?

Mr. Dale Johnston: Actually, Mr. Chairman, I have, as you know, given you notice of a motion I would like to move, and I would like to know when is the best time to move that motion.

The Chair: This is a motion about the continuation of these hearings, and I would suggest we consider that at the end of today's hearings, Dale, if that's okay with you.

Raymonde Folco, then Stéphan Tremblay, and then Libby Davies.

• 1325

[Translation]

Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Chairman and Madam Minister, we too, on this side of the table, are very concerned about the allegations made by the opposition. In any company, the performance evaluation and employee competence assessment ensures that employees are responsible. This is especially important in government, where the Minister herself is responsible for her department, not only before the House of Commons, but also before all Canadians. This is why I would like to ask you this question.

In reviewing these cases, it seems to me that the absence of any central management within your department is a critical factor in the administration of grants and contributions. My question is as follows: Is there also a lack of centralized management in other sectors of your department? Regardless of how you may answer, do you intend to correct this deficiency in order to improve management in your department, thereby ensuring that the current situation in the department does not repeat itself in either the near or long term future?

[English]

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Mr. Chair, there are a number of things. First and foremost, I want to recognize that there have been changes in the department. In the context of grants and contributions, the administration has been devolved—quite rightly, I believe—to the local level so that we can get the moneys, which are so important to communities and individuals, in their hands in an effective way.

So we've built a client service model. In doing that, it's my view that we have not sustained or built an appropriate model that allows us at the same time to be accountable to the Canadian taxpayer and to say that for the decisions we are taking on their behalf and the investments we are making, we haven't got the paperwork available to confirm those decisions. That is not in any way to say that they are bad decisions, because you all know that the investments in your communities are making a difference.

For me, the challenge here is to build that system in an effective way so that we don't suck the accountability all back to headquarters, but that we use modern technologies and modern comptrollership approaches and build a model of accountability and administrative management that allows us to continue to develop and encourage a client service strategy but at the same time have an accountability structure in place at the local level, spot-checked at the national level, so that we can be accountable to taxpayers. This is one aspect of the whole management system that we are now attending to as a result of this internal audit.

The Chair: Next is Stéphan Tremblay.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Although I am more interested in the future, I would like to ask the Minister a question about the second point, where she talks about resolving past problems. The Minister was not appointed to this position until last August, and we know that the scandal that has just broken occurred well before her arrival.

Despite the usual parliamentary practices and traditions, does she not think it would be more logical and more appropriate for this committee to invite the former Minister of Human Resources Development to appear, especially since I don't think there would be any opposition to such action and both the Chairman and Mr. Wilfert have hinted at this possibility? I would like to hear the Minister's opinion on this matter. By having the former minister appear, we would be able to have a clear picture of what happened in the past and understand what occurred before the current Minister was appointed to this department.

[English]

The Chair: Minister, you are quite welcome to comment if you wish, but as the chair, I would point out that under our normal parliamentary rules it is not possible to call a former minister to discuss matters relating to his or her former department. But, Minister, if you....

Mrs. Jane Stewart: It's not up to me to decide who the committee calls.

The Chair: Thank you.

Stéphan, do you want to continue?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Tremblay: In some respects, I sympathize with the Minister. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Next is Libby Davies and then Jean Dubé.

Ms. Libby Davies: Thank you, Chairperson. I have a couple of questions.

The first question I'd like to address to the minister has to do with the Transitional Jobs Fund. On the one list I do have that lists by riding, there's one column that refers to “other sources”. It says who the sponsor is and what was approved and when. But the column relating to other sources is just completely blank for the whole document. So I'd like to ask whether or not you have that information—I presume you did, you talked about partnerships with the province or the private sector—and whether or not that information can be disclosed.

• 1330

How long do I have?

The Chair: You have about a minute and a half.

Ms. Libby Davies: Secondly, I represent a riding that is one of the poorest in the country. It's really confusing to me that the riding I represent, which has unemployment about twice as high as your riding, has received no transitional job funds since the last election. It did have one project that was approved on May 12, just prior to the last federal election, through the previous member, who was a Liberal, a government member. Vancouver East has not received any transitional job funds. Your riding has. I don't understand how that criterion is applied and why it is that organizations in your community have received those funds, maybe under these subcategories, I don't know, but in an area like Vancouver East there haven't been any funds since the last election.

The Chair: Minister.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Perhaps I could answer the first question with regard to the columns, Mr. Chair.

I'm not sure. I don't have the document to see what she's referring to, but it's possible that it's absent because of privacy concerns. But we can confirm that with the honourable member afterwards.

Secondly, with regard to the transitional job funds, they are not applied by riding. They are applied by regional economic employment areas. In Vancouver the unemployment rate—and these are details the officials can build on or confirm—would not have made it eligible for a transitional job fund.

In the case of my riding—it's not only my riding, but also the riding south of me, so Mr. Speller is also eligible—the indications of high unemployment were taken, and they certainly satisfied requirements under the TJF proposal.

Ms. Libby Davies: But if that's the case, Madam Minister, and it's done by region and based on unemployment, then how did one project get approved in Vancouver East just prior to the election? On what basis or criteria was that done?

Mrs. Jane Stewart: I would be glad to look into that particular proposal and let you know.

The Chair: If we can proceed, next is Jean Dubé.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean Dubé: Mr. Chairman, I have here the infamous seven and six-column lists that the department does not appear to want to give us. In the name of transparency, I would like to share these lists with the members and table them with the committee.

[English]

The Chair: I have Dale Johnston still on my list, and that is all.

I know of this motion. It seems to me we have a number of motions we're going to be dealing with now. As you know, on our agenda we have eight or nine such motions. I would like to suggest that at this point we conclude this part of the hearing and proceed to deal with those matters. In which case, given the time, which is 1:30, and with question period at two o'clock, we could proceed to that.

Paul Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Chairman, am I to understand that you feel that the Minister's appearance is over, although we have barely begun to ask her questions? I would like to ask her many other questions. According to the notice we received, a second meeting is scheduled for next Tuesday.

[English]

The Chair: Okay.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: I would like you to confirm that we are merely adjourning the meeting which was scheduled today, from eleven o'clock to one o'clock, and that the Minister will come back to testify next week.

[English]

The Chair: Paul, I'm in the hands of the committee, of course, but what I was trying to say is that as far as my list is concerned, the speakers—and Jean was the first—have to do with presenting things, tabling things, things of that sort, rather than questioning the minister.

Now, we also have on our agenda eight motions we are supposed to consider. So it was simply my suggestion, given the hour, that we proceed to that part of our agenda.

Paul, let me finish. The Bloc has had three questions. The Reform has had three questions. The NDP have had two. For Jean this is his second time. By the way, the Liberal members between them have had roughly 16 or 18 minutes, which is two speakers from this side.

I'm just saying to you that it might be useful now to move on to the other part of our meeting. If that's not the will of the meeting, I don't mind. I can simply treat Jean's intervention as an intervention, and I'll deal with it right now. Meanwhile the minister will sit here, that's all.

• 1335

Mr. Jean Dubé: I think a lot of people want a copy of this list. I think it's good information. We should deal with the—

The Chair: My suggestion was that we release the minister, knowing that question period is in a few minutes' time.

Mr. Jean Dubé: I know, and I have to get ready for it.

The Chair: Colleagues, I look around to you now: should we or should we not? Can we release the minister?

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Chairman...

[English]

The Chair: Yes, I see that from two parties here.

Paul Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Chairman, as the notice that we received indicates, will the Minister be attending next Tuesday's meeting in order to continue her testimony?

[English]

The Chair: Let me say first of all, with respect to Tuesday, the minister.... As you know, because of the filibuster, her meeting with us on disabilities and skills was delayed. She agreed to meet with us next Tuesday on that matter. That is on the schedule already.

I happen to know that one of the motions we are about to consider is a motion that we extend this meeting, if you like, or that we have further meetings with the minister. That is one of the things we're going to consider now.

My only question is, should the minister leave?

Paul Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: We received two notices of meeting for two sessions dealing, if I recall correctly, on the same two topics. It was very clear to me that the purpose of these two meetings was to give us an opportunity to reexamine these issues. If we agree that the Minister is to leave now, do you feel that her testimony is over? I'd like to know your interpretation.

[English]

The Chair: Paul, let me say first of all that the answer to your very last question is that it is up to the committee, but the notices of the meetings clearly stated that the minister, when we invited her to appear today, which she willingly did.... I then asked if she wanted to appear for the postponed meeting on skills and disabilities. She said yes. Our notice for Tuesday clearly says that is the subject matter. That is the meeting that was postponed by the filibuster that occurred before Christmas. That's one.

Two, it is my clear understanding, if you look at the motions before us, that we're going to plan the sorts of hearings the committee might have on this matter. It is also my understanding that one of the motions I'm going to consider in a moment is a motion that at some point—I don't know the exact phrasing yet—we invite the minister again.

On this matter, Libby Davies.

Ms. Libby Davies: Chairperson, obviously the members of the committee want to ensure that the minister is going to come back to continue this debate, although we recognize that—

The Chair: I am not debating that—

Ms. Libby Davies: Right, so what I would like to ask is whether or not that motion can come forward before the minister leaves, because that's what we want: an assurance that the minister is going to come back. It's pretty straightforward. Let's deal with that motion, and then we can get on to the other one.

The Chair: Colleagues, I see some nods.

Rey Pagtakhan, very briefly.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Very briefly, Mr. Chair, releasing the minister at this time has nothing to do with—

The Chair: That was a point I was trying to make, but I understand this other one. So as a compromise, if the members of the opposition agree, we will move directly to that particular motion. No...?

Judi Longfield.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I don't want to speak for the minister, but I saw the minister nod to say that she would come back. I think that then we can decide when it is that she's coming back and what—

The Chair: Okay. Who's moving that motion?

Mrs. Judi Longfield: I just think that it would be appropriate now. We're wasting a lot of time—

The Chair: I do agree.

Dale, it is your motion. Can we in fact ask the minister if she's willing? I don't know the phrasing of your motion.

Mr. Dale Johnston: I have actually circulated it, Mr. Chairman.

Some hon. members: No.

The Chair: Do they have it?

Mr. Dale Johnston: I gave it to the clerk. I gave 20 copies—

The Chair: I will read the motion:

Pursuant to Standing Order 108, the Committee re-invite the Minister of Human Resources Development Canada, the Honourable Jane Stewart, to appear before the committee before the 18th of February so that the committee can examine and inquire into all such matters relating to grants and contributions from Human Resources Development Canada.

If you've received them, if you could read them, colleagues, I'd be grateful.

I will read it again:

Pursuant to Standing Order 108, the Committee re-invite the Minister of Human Resources Development Canada, the Honourable Jane Stewart, to appear before the committee before the 18th of February so that the committee can examine and inquire into all such matters relating to grants and contributions from Human Resources Development Canada.

As someone said, I saw the minister nod in response to that.

Bonnie Brown, then Rey Pagtakhan.

• 1340

Ms. Bonnie Brown: When I read this motion, it raises the question in my mind: does this mean the committee wanted to have the minister today, wanted to have the minister on Tuesday on disabilities, and then wants to have her on Thursday on this topic again? In other words, they want the minister three times within three meetings. Is that what they mean?

Mr. Dale Johnston: That's right.

Ms. Bonnie Brown: Mr. Chairman, I would have to speak against that. Certainly I think the minister has been very forthright. As a matter of fact, she came here today voluntarily, not because ten members of this committee phoned you. It is a reality that the first thing that should happen is that the minister should meet with, essentially, her advisory committee on the Hill, at the very first opportunity. I think she has done this and has presented us with a certain number of facts.

The problem I have with this is first of all this committee has not decided on its work plan. We don't even know if having her back a week from today on this subject is a subject to be agreed upon by this committee, because we have not passed a motion to that effect. Now we're talking about having visitors to a committee that hasn't even decided on its work plan yet. I feel we're making decisions in a vacuum.

Secondly, if some of the questions I heard today are indicative of the questions I might hear next Thursday, I feel it could very well waste the minister's time, because many of the questions have been very general. It's my opinion that if the committee indeed decides to work on this topic, they need a lot more in-depth briefing by officials, by people like the Auditor General, etc., before it would be worth their time to have the minister back. In other words, if the questions are coming out of ignorance, it's a waste of everybody's time.

So I would be against the minister coming three times within three meetings until we build up a base of knowledge—and, Mr. Chair, providing the committee actually decides to focus on this area.

The Chair: I have Rey Pagtakhan, then Judy Sgro, and then Judi Longfield.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, we have an agenda that has other business. There is a motion there that I think is a good one, which we need to discuss, and it's Mrs. Ablonczy's. I think that encapsulates a lot of what's happening. Procedurally, I think we have to deal with that motion first.

The Chair: I disagree. This is raised in the present context of the discussion we're having about terminating this meeting.

Rey Pagtakhan, then Judy Sgro.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I was going to raise the same question. Therefore, Mr. Chair, I move that this motion be tabled if it is an allowable motion.

The Chair: There's no such thing as tabling.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: The fair consideration of this motion...?

The Chair: In the House of Commons system there's no such thing as tabling, Rey. I know it exists in other jurisdictions.

I have Judy Sgro next, and then Dale Johnston.

Ms. Judy Sgro: Mr. Chair, just on an issue of trying to clarify the procedures, the minister came here today voluntarily. I want an opportunity, as do others, to continue the questioning.

Does the minister not come back when we are ready with all of the information that's been mentioned today about all these other reports that we all want to see—all of us—and have our questions formulated? Does she not automatically come back when the committee says next week that we want her to come back? Is that not the process? Do we invite her two weeks from now if that's when we're ready?

The Chair: Dale Johnston, Bryon Wilfert, and then Paul Crête.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to speak in favour of the motion, obviously, because this is a huge department, the largest department of the federal government, and there's a huge discrepancy about how much money is in question here. Certainly we've heard in the House and in the press that there could be $1 billion. The minister has disputed that fact. Even the Prime Minister has said no, no, it's like $4.50 or something like that. Somewhere in between there, Mr. Chairman, is the accurate amount. I think that making a reasonable request to invite the minister back to a subsequent meeting would benefit all parties, because I think we could get to the root of the problem.

The Chair: Dale, the discussion is about when, not whether.

No, Rey, let's move on.

Bryon Wilfert.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Mr. Chairman—

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: On a point of order, it is to give notice of motion, it is not to debate the motion. Why are we debating the motion?

An hon. member: Notice of motion—that's it.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: It opens with “I would like to give notice of the following motion”.

The Chair: I had not noticed.

• 1345

Mr. Dale Johnston: Let's be technical then....

The Chair: No, no. By the way, listen, he's right. We're not going to deal with this thing on purely technical matters, okay? The discussion I hear is not about whether the minister should come back, it's when, and we're hearing discussion about that. I even heard Dale say in his summary that he was going to have the minister back.

Now let me go back to my list. We've been very reasonable. We have Brian Wilfert, Paul Crête, and Larry McCormick.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Mr. Chairman, in the spirit of being reasonable, the minister has indicated very clearly that she's prepared to come back. I would like to have a context.

Now, we do have Ms. Ablonczy's motion, which is not on the floor yet. That would, I believe, put forward some framework, some context, some work plan. Once we have that in place, presumably then if we have the minister back, we'll have what we want in terms of how to deal with that work plan.

We have no work plan. I appeal to my colleagues on the other side. We clearly would like the minister back. The minister will come back when we need her back, absolutely. But let's be clear, ladies and gentlemen, without a work plan, without knowing exactly the context.... We have it to a degree, I think, from Ms. Ablonczy. Then I think we can move forward.

With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, to my friend Mr. Johnston, putting a time limit on it for the 18th makes it very restrictive until we deal with this. And again, there's no question the minister's prepared to come back and maybe come back two or three times.

The Chair: Paul Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: I had understood that this file was the Minister's priority. It therefore makes sense to me that the Minister would like to make herself available and she gave me the impression that she wanted to be available to testify. I think that it is quite pertinent to want to see the Minister again before February 18.

Up until now, we have held only one two-hour meeting to discuss a $1 billion file concerning seven different programs. There are six programs that we have scarcely even talked about. Up until now, we have been focussing on one of the projects and it is absolutely essential that we be able to talk to the Minister about the six other programs, as quickly as possible, because the people of Canada must be reassured that their elected officials are responsible. This is the most important issue on the agenda. We have the impression that the federal government no longer has control over the way it spends money on assistance programs for those in the greatest need. It is very important that we vote on this motion to ensure that the Minister attends on February 18. This vote could only be avoided if the Minister were to confirm that she will appear again before February 18.

[English]

The Chair: Larry McCormick, briefly.

I'm going to call a vote.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Yes, Mr. Chair, I think we should put this to rest, and I'm sure Mr. Johnston might consider having the minister reappear.

Mr. Chair, I do want to hear from the Auditor General and others, I hope. I would like to have the minister reappear, but I wonder if we could just remove “before the 18th of February”. I think Mr. Johnston might consider that—

The Chair: That's a request for one change in the motion. Now it's up to the committee to decide on that. I'm going to call a vote, though. Do you want to vote?

An hon. member: On the amendment?

The Chair: We'll first of all call the vote.

Colleagues, you have the motion; I've read it twice. You've heard Larry McCormick's amendment, which is that we simply delete “before the 18th of February”.

(Amendment agreed to)

The Chair: Okay, you have the motion before you. I'm calling the vote on this. The clerk will call out your names.

The Clerk of the Committee: On the written motion as amended.

The Chair: Excuse me, the written motion as amended. Didn't I say that?

An hon. member: No, you didn't. You said the motion written in front of you.

The Clerk: So, the motion as amended.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: It's a meaningless motion.

• 1350

(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 9; nays 7)

The Chair: So the motion is carried as amended.

Can we proceed to Jean Dubé's motion to table? I have no objection to this document being tabled. Do I have consent to table this document? This document is tabled.

Minister, I want to thank you and your officials for appearing here today and for being so willing to do so. We look forward to you helping us with the continuing work of our committee on disabilities and skills at our meeting on Tuesday. Thank you very much.

The meeting is adjourned at the call of the chair.