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, May 18, 2000

• 1104

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Colleagues, we'll begin. We're here today, as you know, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), to study HRDC grants and contributions. In fact this is the last of our public hearings, of which almost all have been televised and which we've conducted since January.

• 1105

Before I introduce our witnesses, I would like to draw your attention to the agenda. This is the agenda that we agreed to and that we've mentioned in at least two previous meetings. We're going to hear our witnesses, particularly the Honourable Jane Stewart. We then are going to proceed and consider a point-form basis for our draft report.

We agreed to do this simply because of time. The House of Commons breaks tomorrow for a week. If we are to meet our deadline of tabling our report by June 1, the only way we can get there is to give our researchers direction today, so that by the end of next week—that's by the end of the break—they can provide us with an official draft of our report, so when we come back we can thoroughly work over that draft and table our report by the required time.

I mention this to all of you. We've now been through many of these hearings, and it's my job to be the referee, but I sincerely hope we can finish today in good time. I think for our own sake, and for the sake of our researchers, we must do that.

I'm going to do my very best to keep the discussion going. I'm trying to be fair to everybody, but I would say to members on all sides that the questions should be brief, and I would say to the witnesses that wherever it's possible the responses should be brief. As usual, the time of the responses is taken out of the time of the member posing the questions. You should all remember that. If you ask a question that elicits a very long answer, you don't get to ask a second question. So I would urge you, colleagues—and we've done very well so far—to be as brief as you can.

I would now like to introduce the Honourable Jane Stewart, Minister of HRDC. Welcome back to our committee

Minister, this is the third time you've appeared before our committee this year, and we are most appreciative of your being here. We also welcome the deputy for HRDC, Claire Morris. Claire, you've also been here. Thank you for coming. Also here is Alan Winberg, ADM financial and administrative services. Alan, you've also been here, and welcome. Also here is Hy Braiter, senior assistant deputy minister, service delivery. Hy, we welcome you here. To my recollection you've not been here before this year, so welcome. We hope you enjoy yourself.

We'll proceed as usual, if we could, with the statement. Minister, I believe you have a short statement. If we could proceed with that, then we'll go to the questions and responses.

Jane Stewart.

Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me say that I am pleased to be back with you. I recognize that this is the day you're completing your hearings into this very important review of grants and contributions.

I must say, Mr. Chair, and to all committee members, I read your interim report with great interest. Clearly the observations you made in that report are important in assessing the scope and direction of our response to the findings of the audit. I can assure the committee that its guidance is critical in ensuring that the steps we are taking reflect the appropriate balance that must be struck between the needs of grants recipients on one hand and the need for proper accountability and financial controls on the other. I am looking forward to receiving your final report and your recommendations.

On February 10 I presented in detail to this committee the six-point action plan strengthening the administration of grants and contributions. One of the key commitments in that plan was to report quarterly to the Canadian public on our progress in implementing it. Today I am pleased, Mr. Chair, to put before you the first progress report on the action plan, and I believe you've all been given copies.

To begin, let me take a step back. On January 19 of this year I released an internal audit of grants and contributions files. In essence, the audit said that our paperwork was unacceptable. It said file management, record keeping, and monitoring were inadequate. But since that time, HRDC officials in communities all across the country have gone through not only the audited files but also through every single one of our 17,000 currently active files. Where information was missing, it was obtained. Where approvals were not recorded or were carried out incorrectly, they were corrected. Where further monitoring work was called for, it was done. Many hundreds of HRDC officials have been working long hours on this file-by-file cleanup. This work is crucial because it's the paperwork that allows us to document and demonstrate accountability to taxpayers for investment of public funds.

• 1110

[Translation]

Many hundreds of HRDC officials have been working long hours on this file-by-file clean-up. This work is crucial because it is this paperwork that allows us to document and demonstrate accountability to taxpayers for our investment of public funds.

[English]

Once again, the audit said that paper was missing—very important paper. In response, we went through one file at a time and cleaned up the problem. The audit did not say money was missing. This is something some critics grossly misunderstood and misrepresented. I draw your attention to the tables on pages 10 and 13 of the report. These are the hard facts and the specific figures that summarize both the work of the audited files and the file-by-file review of 17,000 grants and contributions projects across Canada.

The total contract value of all these files is $1,581,000,000. Out of that amount, the outstanding debt to the government is $6,500—not $1 billion but $6,500. If anyone finds that a surprise, they shouldn't, at least not if they actually read the audit. Our cleanup confirmed what the audit found: documentation was clearly inadequate. I'm not minimizing that. As I said, the paperwork is central to accountability for public funds, and that's why we've worked so hard to bring it up to the standard that Canadians expect.

The progress report provides much more detail on this active file review, as well as the review of the 461 projects from the original audit. The report explains the process, including the exhaustive checklist used to examine each file and the criteria for certifying a file as complete. The document reports not only on the overpayments, but also on adjustments against future payments that would have taken place as part of routine file management in keeping with approved procedures common across government.

Therefore, this data, in effect, compresses the ongoing management of many projects into one picture. These file reviews have been the largest area of work under the action plan so far. They correspond to the first two points of the six-point plan where we committed to ensuring that all payments meet all financial and program requirements and to check and correct problem files.

Members will recall that the other four commitments were to equip and support our staff, ensure accountability of results, get the best advice available, and report progress to the public.

In meeting these commitments, Human Resources Development Canada has trained more than 3,000 program and financial staff on the action plan directives. We have reaffirmed and clarified the accountability of all staff involved with grants and contributions. We've made use of expert advice from the Auditor General, from the Treasury Board's Comptrollership Standards Advisory Board, and from Deloitte & Touche. As for reporting to the public, we have today's report, but as well we have an unprecedented volume of project information on our website.

Mr. Chair, the cleanup is well underway, but our efforts have to go beyond that. We are already acting to make our organization more accountable. The Human Resources investment branch has administered our grants and contributions programs, both those delivered locally and those delivered by national headquarters. This large branch of the department has always had the tough challenges of balancing national standards with local flexibility and of achieving clear accountability of both the regions and the headquarters.

To address these challenges more effectively, the department recently split the Human Resources investment branch into two. One new branch is responsible for nationally delivered programs and the second branch is responsible for our regionally delivered programs. I am confident that this is a useful and immediate step in the right direction.

• 1115

Looking beyond the immediate, the department has retained outside advice to help look further at accountability and decision-making in a large decentralized department. A special challenge will be to address, as several of your witnesses raised, the impact of partnerships on departmental accountability.

In all our efforts we will be striving for the best balance between response of service to clients and clear accountability to taxpayers. Obviously we had administrative weaknesses. We identified them. We outlined our plan for correcting them, and we set to work to make that program a reality. Still, in our determination to tighten our procedures we must not forget the people we are serving. We must not return to a highly bureaucratic centralized system that is bound up in red tape.

I know this committee heard testimony from a number of witnesses on this point. Arthur Kroeger and Gilles Paquet said last week that there has to be a balance that works in the more complex world of partnerships in the forms of service delivery we find ourselves in today.

I'm convinced that it is possible to get the balance right, and I'm determined that this department can take advantage of the most advanced practices in modern comptrollership to achieve the best possible service to Canadians and communities, together with the highest level of accountability for appropriate use of public funds.

[Translation]

I am convinced that it is possible to get the balance right. And I am determined that this department can take advantage of the most advanced practices in modern comptrollership to achieve the best possible service to Canadians and communities, together with the highest level of accountability for appropriate use of public funds.

I would like to conclude by paying tribute to the men and women who work in my department.

[English]

The atmosphere since we released the audit has been intense. Many employees have sacrificed time with their families to get this work done. They believe in what they're doing. They believe in helping those who need support, whether it's young Canadians in need of their first job experience, people with disabilities who need assistance integrating into the workforce, people lacking literacy skills, or people living in communities with high unemployment.

Our programs are run by real people for real people, so they're not perfect. But they do make a real difference. They do contribute to the quality of life in this country. I'm grateful to all those who are working so hard on them in cities and towns across every region of Canada.

That work is going to continue—the work of serving Canadians and the work of providing sound public administration. Our government believes in both. We believe there's a role for government in helping those in need, and we know we must work ever harder to play that role effectively, prudently, and responsibly.

Mr. Chair, I look forward to this committee's deliberations and to your advice on these challenges.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

Your colleagues have nothing to add at the moment? Thank you very much.

My list is long, as usual: Diane Ablonczy, Judy Sgro, Paul Crête, Bryon Wilfert, Libby Davies, Larry McCormick, Jean Dubé.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I must say, Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the committee that I am concerned about what amounts to the minister's contempt for this committee in bringing forward a report to us at the last minute, expecting us to examine her on a report we've never laid eyes on before, never mind had a chance to analyse. I think this is a disrespect for the representatives of the people of this country, expecting us to have only one opportunity to examine her on her progress and yet giving us a report even as we sit down in our seats.

Mr. Chairman, I must say that clearly this was not necessary, because we read in at least one of the papers that reporters saw this report before we did. The minister didn't see fit to let parliamentarians have a look at this report before reporters did.

I can only assume that this was by design, and that the minister does not want to have a full and fair examination of her progress by this committee. I object to that in the very strongest terms, Mr. Chairman.

I have a few questions in the time I have available to me.

Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): Point of order, Mr. Chairman. The member said “on behalf of this committee”. I would like to disassociate myself from those remarks.

• 1120

The Chair: That is not a point of order. Diane Ablonczy.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Chairman, in the time I have available, which is not much, I refer the minister to page 22 of the action plan she put before this committee on February 10. It has specifically to do with the systems security. As you know, Mr. Chairman, there have been concerns raised by the Privacy Commissioner, very public and very strong concerns about the security of the information the minister's department is amassing on behalf of Canadians.

The Chair: Diane, I would like to say if we can keep to the subject at hand, if you are referring to the general issue that has arisen this week—

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Chairman, I am referring to the minister's action plan.

The Chair: Very good.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: I would ask the minister whether there is confirmation in her progress report that the user codes not assigned to specific HRDC employees were in fact been deactivated by February 29, 2000; that the number of power code users have been reduced, as per the action plan; that all instances of more than one active user code were in fact eliminated by February 29, as per the action plan; and that security policy changes that are to be implemented by the end of this month are in fact on track. Does the progress report confirm that those measures in fact have been taken, Mr. Chairman?

The Chair: Minister.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Two things, Mr. Speaker.

It was never my intention to offend the committee. On the contrary, I felt it was absolutely appropriate that the first progress report be presented to this committee for their consideration. So I felt it was wise to do it at this time.

Secondly, with respect to the specific question of the honourable member, and particularly with regard to the aspects of security with regard to systems, the report does make reference to that. We have responded to the commitments in the action plan in this regard.

The Chair: Diane.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: In other words, Mr. Chairman, there is no confirmation that those steps in fact have been taken.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Quite the opposite: there is.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Where is it in the progress report then?

Mrs. Jane Stewart: On page 7 of the first annex.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Again I point out, Mr. Chairman, how helpful it might have been if we'd been able to study the report beforehand so as not to waste time.

I can't take time to confirm that. I'll have to check it later. But we won't be able to get back to the minister on that.

Also, Mr. Chairman, the action plan promised that there would be national results monthly, starting in February of 2000, and regional results quarterly starting in April. I see that the plan before us is dated May. I wonder how far off track the minister's timeline is that was set out in the action plan.

The Chair: Minister.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Indeed, I felt as we were looking and going through our action plan that the appropriate time to make the first report was after the full review of all active files. That by and large was completed at the end of the month of April, as we had anticipated. I felt then that it was appropriate to prepare the report and present it to the committee, as I've done today.

The Chair: Diane, briefly.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Finally, Mr. Chairman, the minister keeps raising this straw man that someone's alleging that money was lost. In fact, Mr. Chairman, the problem was that money was uncontrolled and unsupervised. Of course the audit showed that in 80% of the cases there was no supervision of the way hundreds of thousands of billions of dollars were spent. There was no financial monitoring in 87% of the cases. There clearly has been a lack of controls and a lack of safeguards placed on the spending of public money.

There is also a concern about value for dollar. I would like to ask the minister, Mr. Chairman, whether there are any plans on the part of her department to go beyond simply the administrative procedures she's working on now and whether there is any intention to actually do value-for-dollar audits so that Canadians can know that their public money is actually getting real results and that can be confirmed objectively.

The Chair: Minister, briefly, if you could please.

• 1125

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Mr. Chair, first I'd remind the honourable member of her own comments in the House. She made it clear on many occasions with her words that she believed that $1 billion was missing.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: I never said that, Mr. Chairman.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: So I just want to remind her of that and make it clear that is not the case.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: I have never said that.

The Chair: Minister.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Secondly, Mr. Chair, I would say that her comments about controls in the department are correct. Indeed, in this report, and as I've said on a number of occasions, that's what this is all about.

The audit pointed out that paper was missing, very important paper. Mr. Chair, we've taken significant steps to clean up the existing circumstances in the department and prepare the way for a better administration in my department.

Finally, with respect to the direct question about value-for-money audits on our programs, I would remind the members here, as we've done on a number of occasions, that we do undertake audits and evaluations of all our programs. In many cases we contract outside firms to come in and review those programs and advise us on their results. I would also make note that the Auditor General does this in an ongoing way. Mr. Chair, the results of those performance evaluations are part of the public record in our reports to the Treasury Board.

The Chair: Judy Sgro, Paul Crête, and then Bryon Wilfert.

Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): Thank you very much.

Minister, I'm very happy to see that we have you back with us again today. Thank you for taking the time with your staff to appear the several times that you have.

It's interesting that this billion-dollar boondoggle supposedly happened exactly as I arrived. I and other colleagues were very concerned, especially when you throw around, throughout our country, this billion-dollar boondoggle. Now, according to your report, after your staff have examined almost 17,000 projects, we're talking about $2,426—not $2 million, but $2,426. How do we repair some of the damage that's been done to the organizations and the overall community's perception out there of what's happened?

The Chair: Minister.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Again, I want to build on the comments of the honourable member and say that the audit really was about paper. It was about administration. It was about important paper missing. We have undertaken a full cleanup of our active files, and will continue to work on this.

With regard to the relationship with our sponsors and those men and women across the country who are working so hard who are our grant recipients, I continue to work with them on a daily basis. I go out to the communities and I see the projects they are engaged in. I can confirm the difference they're making in the lives of young people.

I remember a trip to Calgary, in fact, where I visited a project called Servants Anonymous. A very active community group, with the support of Human Resources Development Canada and the private sector, are getting young women, prostitutes on the street, off the street and giving them a roof over their heads and the opportunity to engage in education and self-help programming and also to get job-shadowing opportunities. The program is working.

When you get out and see these programs, you know that they make a difference in the lives of Canadians. I think we just have to keep bringing attention to where the grants and contributions are going—to the work of men and women across this country, not only in the department, but to our recipients who are committed to helping Canadians.

We also have to make sure that as we make progress on this, we don't move out of balance of providing good service to Canadians while at the same time being accountable to the taxpayer.

The Chair: Judy Sgro.

Ms. Judy Sgro: There's always been a problem, going back as far as 1977, when it comes to attempting to administer funds that are going to help people help our communities out there, certainly in partnership with the other municipalities. How are we going to ensure that we're going to be able to hold accountable all of the people, including the municipalities in the province, as we attempt to continue to assist the communities with as little red tape as possible, but just enough to give it accountability?

Mrs. Jane Stewart: This is essentially the challenge that was presented to the table by Arthur Kroeger and Gilles Paquet, and it's a very real one.

I can tell you, even the employees of the department, in working with me on this, say “Minister, does this mean everything has to be sucked back up to a central control system?” It can't happen that way. We cannot find a solution that will take us back to the days of inappropriate levels of red tape.

We have contracted, as I've said, with an outside firm. It's Coopers & Lybrand, I believe. I'm not sure. PricewaterhouseCoopers—I should get their name correct. We have contracted with them to help us look at appropriate accountability regimes in a large decentralized organization: a structure that will allow us to continue with the good service delivery model that we've developed and overlay that with an effective modern accountability regime for taxpayers. It also helps us understand the relationship in the context of the fact that our partnerships are outside government.

• 1130

So this is all about new ways of working as a government. Getting outside advice where there is appropriate advice is the right thing to do, but it's also about putting it in the context of a new way of working together: we are exploring new territory but making sure we continue to make advances in the context of the balance of service and accountability.

The Chair: Judy, a very short comment or an exchange.

Ms. Judy Sgro: For the six-point action plan that you had presented and had comments on from Deloitte & Touche and other external experts, what kinds of changes did you make to the action plan to ensure the ongoing monitoring of the system and the accountability issue?

The Chair: Again, Minister, this will be quite a brief response, please.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Well, I can be brief, and I'll just table the documents that show the differences between the original draft and the presentation I made here on February 10.

The Chair: We'd be glad.

Judy, I'll see that we receive them and I will circulate them.

It will be Paul Crête, Bryon Wilfert, Libby Davies, and Larry McCormick.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): Big Brother's shadow is hanging over the committee room today, but there is a limit to how much people can be mocked. You gave us the figure of $6,500, Minister. I would like to know, through the chairman, if you have recovered the money from the Rosemont riding that went to the Saint-Maurice riding. Have you recovered the $1.2 million spent on Placeteco, which the bank benefited from? Have you recovered the $700,000 that the Bloc Québécois let you know about in the Conili case? How can you claim that the error was on the order of $6,500?

[English]

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Mr. Chair, the connection that the honourable member is trying to make is a false one, and let me explain how.

We, as you know, contract with thousands of grant recipients across the country in the course of providing services through these projects. The vast, vast majority of these programs are undertaken in the context of the terms and conditions of our agreements. Organizations and deliverers are doing their jobs, as is appropriate.

In isolated cases, because we find information either internally or through external sources, if there is information that there may possibly be misuse of funds, we take action. We transfer those files to the appropriate authorities—which may include the RCMP—for their consideration and possible investigation, as they so choose. Whenever we see or hear of this information, we take action quickly and effectively, because if someone is trying to defraud the government, that's wrong; it's inappropriate and we have to deal with it.

But in the context of this study, the audit was talking about the administration of our programs. It was talking about the lack of paper, important paper.

The results of the six-point plan, the review of the 17,000 active files, were focused on that. If we found there was paper missing, we identified it, we found it, and, according to the directives, noted it and completed the files. It is in the context of that review that the dollar figures presented in the report are made.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Chairman, that means that the Minister is closing her eyes to real cases that have been pointed out. She did not name any of these companies when she gave me her answer.

I will repeat my questions. Have you recovered or are you going to recover the money provided to Placeteco, the money which ended up in Saint-Maurice but which was supposed to be provided to a company in Rosemont, and the $700,000 given to Conili and made public by the Bloc Québécois? Will you finally show us, if they exist, the Placeteco invoices that you have been telling us about for so long?

[English]

Mrs. Jane Stewart: One of the things I need to make clear is that when we're talking about the 17,000 files, they are active files; they're the files we're engaged in right now. I wanted to make sure that we cleaned those up so that on a go-forward basis we have the program implemented against a full review of those active files. The files the honourable member is making reference to are dormant files. I would point out again that in isolated cases there have been referrals to other authorities for their consideration and investigation, and those questions are best directed there.

In the context of the particular file that he has raised here again and in the House on a number of occasions, with regard to invoices, we've talked about that and agreed that the responsible way to get that information is through the access to information process.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Did the Minister just tell us when illegal action is taken, the file is considered to be dormant and is withdrawn from the list of files? In other words, you can only defend the files that you are putting on the table.

• 1135

I will repeat my questions. What will happen with the $700,000 which you provided to Conili, which was supposed to create jobs and which was used solely to move the company's operations?

What will happen in the case of Placeteco? A Liberal crony received a 1-million-dollar loan and $200,000, and it seems that the government will get none of that money back. What are you going to do? I am not asking you to tell me about all the other cases, but about these important cases.

Your report mentions $6,500, but I have just told you about some $2 million. Those two figures are a long way apart. You referred to the Prime Minister's remarks, and he was talking about $100 at the beginning. Is there soon going to be an end to this type of bafflegab, Mr. Chairman?

[English]

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Mr. Chair, there's no stonewalling here. When we're looking at our files.... As I say, we've looked at the active files, and the results of that analysis are here. The honourable member is making reference to particular files. Some of them are closed. Some of them have been referred to the police, for investigation or not—it's up to the police to decide. If action has to be taken on those, action will be taken.

In the reference to the particular file that the honourable member is interested in—and has been interested in, in the House—again, we talk about the invoices, and I know he has made public that he has asked for the information through the access to information procedure, and I agree that it's the responsible way to go.

The Chair: Paul Crête, a brief question.

With a brief answer, please.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: This is not a very good example of transparency, Mr. Chairman. In the Minister's opinion, are the files that I've mentioned active files and on the list that she made public today? Or does she consider them active files, but outside the audit, which would be totally ridiculous? I would like to have an answer to each of those questions.

[English]

The Chair: Minister, briefly, please.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: The 17,000 active files were part of the 10,000 pages of information that were provided to this committee and ultimately to all the members of the House, so it's public.

The Chair: Okay.

Bryon Wilfert, Libby Davies, Larry McCormick, and Jean Dubé.

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

Thank you, Minister.

Although I, too, haven't gone through all of the report, obviously, I do commend you for providing what you had said from the very beginning, which was clearly that this was an administrative issue, not a financial one, and that administratively there were major problems, which the six-point plan, as you outlined clearly, was going to deal with.

I have a number of questions. I don't know, Mr. Chairman: would you like me to put them all on the table and then get responses?

The Chair: It's up to you. I'll simply cut you off, Bryon, when the time comes.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: And I know you like to do that, so I'll move quickly.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: First question, through you, Mr. Chairman: how many performance reports does your department intend to produce? In terms of the performance tracking directorate, how much is that going to cost? Maybe you could elaborate. In your report, you talk about the review analysis, drawing random samples, and how that might work, and about conducting financial monitoring visits to assess and verify supporting financial documentation.

Because, through you, Mr. Chairman, one of the problems we have had highlighted at the committee is on the issue of grants and contributions to third parties, and the problem is what mechanisms we clearly don't have, it seems, to prevent third-party sponsors from receiving funds...and then there's a problem. How do we deal with that in terms of having the right mechanisms in place?

Finally, Mr. Chairman, although I may come back, Madam Minister, in terms of reviewing the files, do you think it's helpful to review them prior to 1998-99, and if so, what do you see as the benefits? Again, could you attach...or might your officials be able to provide us either now or shortly, hopefully, with some costs with that analysis?

The Chair: Minister.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: With regard to the first question in terms of performance reports, we said we'd report quarterly, so there would be four each year.

With regard to the performance tracking structure, it's a very important aspect, which allows us, I think, to maintain the flexibility at the local level but have the information we need at the national level. This tracking body will go in on an ongoing basis and just pull files from different regions, from different programs, and make sure the six-point plan, the administration, is firm. I understand—and Alan can correct me—that the cost last year was $700,000 for this review and that on an ongoing basis it would probably be in the area of $2 million.

• 1140

But again, it's that structure that allows us to do what we want to do, which is to keep the balance of local management and local control but central knowledge and administration, and confirmation that the plan is being implemented well.

With regard to past files, part of the six-point plan included a recognition that we might want to go backwards and look at some of the dormant files. Indeed, with an outside firm we've completed the first phase of an analysis that's helping us build a risk profile on the kinds of files we would want to identify and take a look at first. The profile includes such things as the size of the project, the relationship we have with the outside sponsor, and that type of thing.

We'll be undertaking that review, and I anticipate that we will be able to report on that in the subsequent quarter.

The Chair: Bryon, a very brief comment or exchange?

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Madam Minister, will your department, or is it currently, testing the Auditor General's performance managing framework for delivering grants and contributions? If it is, how will that complement the measures outlined in the six-point plan? If it's not, can you explain why not?

Mrs. Jane Stewart: If I understand the question correctly, the honourable member is making reference to the Auditor General's work and his approach to looking at grants and contributions.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: That is correct.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Indeed, he will be reviewing our grants and contributions and reporting in October, as the honourable member knows. The strategy, the approach he's taking, is one we're working on with his office and with him.

Perhaps I can ask Alan to comment directly on the relationship we have with the Auditor General, looking at the kinds of things he views to be important in an undertaking such as this and how we're going to implement it.

The Chair: Alan, it would have to be very short.

Mr. Alan Winberg (Assistant Deputy Minister, Financial and Administrative Services, Department of Human Resources Development): Well, very short, we are working with the Auditor General. They have provided us with their framework. We used that as part of the external advice in developing the action plan and in other actions we're taking to improve our management of grants and contributions.

We will get further advice or recommendations from them in their report in October.

The Chair: Thank you, Alan, and thank you, Bryon.

Libby Davies, Larry McCormick, Jean Dubé, Garry Breitkreuz, and Rey Pagtakhan.

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

I'd like to thank the minister and her staff for coming today. Obviously, not having had a chance to read the report, we are interested to see what's in there.

After months of this committee hearing from witnesses and receiving various pieces of information, I really can't say that I know we're any closer to understanding how this department really operates in terms of grants and contributions. Clearly, I think you've been focusing, and it seems your progress report today is focusing, on the paper trail. Your staff has spent an enormous amount of time on that. Just from talking to people locally, I know there's been a huge effort put into following that paper trail.

That's good, but I don't think that's really getting at the issue. I think the issue that's confronting this department and this committee is also the management question of how decisions are made. I think the Auditor General touched on this when he came before the committee, as did other witnesses.

One of my concerns has been how the rules and criteria for awarding grants and contributions have been applied across the country and whether or not.... Well, I think there is evidence to show that it's been inconsistent, that it's been politicized.

My first question to you is whether in your action plan and in your follow-up work that has been addressed at all. Are there changes in the decision-making process in terms of grants and contributions?

The Chair: Minister.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: In fact, as the honourable member mentioned, the audit was about paper. It was about getting our files in order. It was about, in this context, cleaning up and moving forward with an approach and a process that is going to make sense. I can confirm that this is now underway.

I'm glad the honourable member has seen that happening in her own region. I can confirm that it's happening right across the country.

With regard to the issue of building a system of modern comptrollership, that is absolutely a priority for us. That is the next generation, the immediate and the longer-term work we're undertaking now.

I mentioned that we've contracted with PricewaterhouseCoopers to help us look at how you build effective accountability regimes in a decentralized department, to look at what the relationships have to be, what the accountability levels have to be. That's a huge priority for us.

You have to understand this in the context of the fact that we aren't dealing just within government; we're also dealing with community organizations and associations. What does that mean in terms of assisting them to appreciate and to be capable of meeting our requirements for appropriate accountability?

• 1145

When we look at the modern comptrollership design—and we're also working with Treasury Board in that regard, as you know, having had the president here, who advised you about the work she was doing on behalf of the whole government—there are really four broad criteria we start to look at, if I can recall them: a citizen focus; values; results; and responsible values and ethics.

A comprehensive model is now being developed and applied right across the government, really—and this is the whole nub, I think, of the member's question—recognizing that we are moving in different times, that as we have built a strategy that allows for more flexibility at the local level so that decisions can be made that actually make a difference in the lives of people in your community and in others, we have to have new strategies. You can't not continue to be accountable to the taxpayer.

Ms. Libby Davies: To follow up on that, if the goal is to bring decision-making closer to the local community—in fact, in your opening remarks you talk about the investment branch being split in two so that there's national approval for national programs and regional approval for local programs—I guess one of the concerns is that you say you're trying to find the right balance, but we now seem to have shifted into almost a rigor mortis. I know of instances where programs that have been approved locally and regionally are now waiting to come back to Ottawa. They're being told that they can wait up to six to seven weeks for approval. That seems to contradict what you're saying now in terms of the splitting of the investment branch.

Ancillary to that is the question of the staffing level. It's actually an issue that's gotten very little attention. You certainly expressed your gratitude for the work people have done, overtime, to get all the files in order, but in the context of massive cutbacks in this department of 5,000 people—and we heard this on a number of occasions from witnesses, from people who worked within the department—I don't see this anywhere in your comments.

I would like to ask you about, one, the length of time it's taking for approval, if it is truly at the local level, and two, does the department have any plans to actually deal with the workload issue and recognize the impact of those cutbacks on, as you say, real people who are delivering real programs?

The Chair: Minister, this would have to be quite short, I'm afraid.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: First of all, in the context of the cleanup, that was the first priority. We wanted to get the files cleaned up, and we've done that. That's what this report is all about.

In so doing, the attention of the department was focused on that, and there has been a slowing up of program approvals. However, now that we've made the split in the department, the structural change in the department, I'm convinced it's the right thing to do. It will help us streamline on an ongoing basis the project approval strategy, although we continue to work on getting the accountability structure right. So there's more to be done.

With regard to staffing levels, we've already begun that. Part of the six-point plan is making sure we have the staffing that allows us to do the job we need to do. We've been across the country to individual offices to look at the complement of men and women we have available to work on projects. In fact, recommendations are being prepared now about the kinds of changes we may have to make for us to be able to continue with this balanced strategy of providing service and also being accountable to the taxpayer.

The Chair: Larry McCormick, followed by Jean Dubé.

Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Minister and officials, for being here.

Mr. Chair, it's certainly good to see that the opposition has finally listened and recognized that very little money is missing.

I applaud you, Minister, for visiting and meeting with people from all across Canada.

Perhaps, Mr. Chair, the opposition will take the opportunity this summer to visit in their own communities.

Now, all five political parties are on record as recognizing the good work of HRDC in helping Canadians help themselves, but I have many groups in my riding, Minister, and I've heard from many across the country in small-town and rural Canada, from our rural caucus, who are volunteers within their communities; they've done a lot of great work and now their programs have been shut down.

These people are asking me to ask you when we can assure them that more of the programs will be made available for their active participation.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Well, I want to say that the programs have not been shut down, but as we undertook this massive cleanup it indeed took the attention of the department. Quite frankly, in the course of the last five months there's been a tremendous amount of energy expended in this regard.

• 1150

At the same time, we tried our best to keep program work moving ahead. I anticipate now that the cleanup is complete, that the employees have been trained on the new administration and are implementing the new administration, that we've made the division in the department to reconcile the differences between national programs and regional programs, and that we will begin to get the pathways quickened again.

There's no question; there is real value in these contributions and grants. They make a difference community by community. But we had to have the system appropriately strengthened so that the sustainability of the contributions was ensured.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Thank you, Minister.

Mr. Chair, I want to take this opportunity to share my time with my colleagues.

The Chair: I do appreciate that, Larry, very much.

Minister, if I could follow up on Larry's point, because of the slowdown, which you've just explained, the Canadian Association for Community Living, which you know well and which has groups in your riding and most of our ridings, said to us that they might well be bankrupt soon if the system didn't start moving again. I thought I'd draw that to your attention.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: All the more reason for us to have done the cleanup and to be reporting on it so that we can make progress and hopefully have the confidence of Canadians in that regard.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Jean Dubé, Garry Breitkreuz, Rey Pagtakhan.

Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would start on a positive note. I would also like to pay tribute to the staff in my riding, who have been working very hard. But I have to tell you that's about as far as my positive comments are going to go today after the comments I've just heard.

I thought we were going to be able to move ahead with this. It's pretty obvious that with the members on the government side and the department dilly-dallying and dancing together, we're not going to get anywhere with this.

Mr. Chair, the minister talked about $6,500. The prime minister said $100 in the House of Commons. I happen to know that there is more than that missing, and taxpayers' money is missing. This is what we're talking about. We're not talking about paper. Well, yes, we're talking about paper, and it's money. This country is asking for money for health care, money for education, money for tax cuts. There are people on the streets with no food, and here we are minimizing the problem. It's not right.

In Placeteco, $1.3 million is missing. It's not there. Where is it? You have Atlantic Furniture in my own riding. Where is that money? Taxpayers paid out $300,000.

[Translation]

The Chair: The chair is still here.

[English]

Mr. Jean Dubé: It's always through you.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you very much.

[English]

Mr. Jean Dubé: I'll keep reminding myself.

It was $300,000. You come here today, through the chair, and talk about $6,500. She talks about us maximizing, but I've never seen such minimizing of a serious problem. It doesn't concern just me; it concerns the members of the government side and their constituents as well.

They have a lot of guts coming here today and talking like that because they're going to have to go knocking on doors pretty soon. Canadians are concerned.

[Translation]

There is also the Conili case: $700,000. Mr. Chairman, that brings me to over $2.5 million and not $6,500. I can continue if you like.

You are the government. You are the Department of Human Resources Development. I am a member of the fifth party, in opposition, and I have that information.

Why not be straight with people? Why not be straight with Canadians and tell them that there is a genuine problem and that the will exists to find ways to correct it? I think that that is what we want to do together. We want to correct the problem that arose in the Department of Human Resources Development.

Personally, I believe in these programs, since my riding will benefit from them and there are people who are in great need of them. The programs work very well, but the department's interference is less useful and that is what bothers me. So why are you coming here today and playing down what happened in the Department of Human Resources Development?

[English]

The Chair: Minister.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Well, Chair, I have to strenuously disagree with the points of the honourable member.

• 1155

First of all, the audit was about paperwork, important paperwork. From my point of view, it is fundamental that we have a system in place that allows us to confirm to Canadians, taxpayers, how indeed we take their money and invest it. Getting that paperwork correct is a priority. To minimize it is wrong. That's why I did not minimize it. The aspect associated with the administration of these grants and contributions is fundamental to our capacity to ensure that the programs continue to exist.

We're talking about taxpayers here, not shareholders. It's their money. I have to be able to answer them when they ask “Why did you invest here?” or “Where's the paper that says who the partners are and what the results are?” And that's what we are doing. We're cleaning up the fact that we didn't have that information and building a system so that we can ensure into the future that we do. So I am not minimizing it; it is important.

With regard to the particular programs he's making reference to, many of them indeed have been referred to other authorities for investigation. If action has to be taken, we will take it. Again, I am not minimizing the fact that in isolated cases, when information comes to us about possible misuse of money, we take action, aggressive action. If further action has to be taken as a result of work, we will do so, because again we're talking about taxpayers' dollars.

Fundamentally, I bring you back to what the audit was all about. It was about paperwork, building an administration. It was not about lost money. I think that as we've completed this review of 17,000 files, that has become clear. If people read the audit, which I know the honourable member did, and understood it.... The importance here is about building administration that's going to work and that will sustain these important grants and contributions, which the honourable member knows and has said are so important to his community and others. That's the priority I've put on this undertaking.

[Translation]

The Chair: Jean, you may ask one question or make a very brief comment.

[English]

Mr. Jean Dubé: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

A lot of water has gone underneath the bridge since your first appearance with us. Merdon Hosking, the president of the Association of Public Service Financial Administrators, was here about three weeks ago and said that one of the major problems was that—

[Translation]

The Chair: Be brief, please.

[English]

Mr. Jean Dubé: Oh, let me try to go quickly. I'll put it on speed.

The problem is with the staff in the front line needing more resources, more qualified staff. You talked about having trained more people. Through the chair, is it new people that you've trained or the existing people? What I hear from the front-line people is that they need more resources. What are we going to do to answer this call?

The Chair: Minister, briefly, please.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Yes. I began to answer that when I was responding to Ms. Davies.

In fact, we have been out in the field. As I go out and talk to employees, I see that they too feel the pressure of trying to deliver good programs in an effective way. We've done the first round of reviews right across the country. We've actually looked at the appropriate responsibilities and roles of program officers. We're starting to look at what kinds of levels of support we need in terms of job descriptions and responsibilities, as well as numbers of staff. That's part of the overall review. It's part of the six-point plan.

As necessary, as we've said, if we have to have new resources, which I believe we do, we'll make recommendations and requests to Treasury Board for that support.

The Chair: Garry Breitkreuz.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I want to point out to those people who are watching here that we received information 35 minutes after this meeting began. After we as the official opposition, the Canadian Alliance, asked our questions, we received a whole raft of information. It appears to me that the minister is still on cruise control, even when the red lights are flashing all around her.

We have $1.5 billion in grants and handouts. The minister comes before us and tells us that $6,500 is still owing. By the way, the verbal report that was given contradicts the written information I received, which I've quickly gone through since I got it.

Let me state the obvious. The scandal is becoming even bigger in light of the information that has just been provided.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Get serious.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: My question is this. How much did the review cost? Did the original audit indicate that this was the extent of the problem? If the procedures were tightened up and resulted in savings of $6,500 out of $1.5 billion, one has to wonder how much was really tightened up.

• 1200

The problems, as the original audit indicated, were huge, big enough to trigger a complete revamping of the procedures and the putting into place of a six-point action plan. And those resulting savings to the taxpayer were five ten-thousandths of 1% of the $1.5 billion. So all the improper supervision, the improper financial monitoring, the lack of safeguards, the inadequate value for dollars has resulted in a saving to the taxpayers of $6,500. As I say, we really have to wonder how much the six-point action plan has really accomplished.

In essence, Madam Minister, you're telling us that by the procedures you have implemented, they were effective because they saved $6,500 out of $1.5 billion. That's an improvement of five ten-thousandths of 1%. So my question to you is, how much did the action plan and this review cost that resulted in a savings of $6,500?

Mrs. Jane Stewart: I made reference in my opening comments to people misunderstanding what this was all about and in some cases, indeed, misrepresenting what this was all about.

This is about the process of administering grants and contributions. As I have said time and time again, it's not about money. We know where it is. It's in your community, sir. It's in the communities across this country, making a difference in the lives of Canadians. Had we found significant amounts of money, I would have been very surprised. That's not what it was about.

It's about building a system of administration in the public service, which is critically important, for us to be accountable back to the taxpayer. It is about administration. It is about paper, very important paper.

If the honourable member wants to dismiss that system as being unimportant, he may do so. I will not. I can tell him that we have invested about $500,000 in the administration and application of the six-point plan. That has included a number of things, including bringing in outside advisers and help. It has included significant amounts of overtime. But again, from my point of view, it's essential for the confidence of Canadians and our grants and contributions program to have an administration that works.

We have cleaned up the approach. We now have a system in place that will allow us to ensure that when Canadians ask how we made these investments, where we made them, why we made them, we can answer them.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I want to clarify this: $500,000 resulting in a savings of $6,500.

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Is that what you're telling me the review cost on the six-point action plan?

Mrs. Jane Stewart: The $500,000 resulted in the clean-up of 17,000 files, of the training of 3,000 employees, of the continuing work with outside advisers on how to improve the accountability in our department.

Mr. Chair, that money is wisely spent, because it has allowed us to build a system of administration that is vitally important, to underscore, to provide the infrastructure to the grants and contributions that we know to be so important to Canadians who need literacy assistance, to Canadians who need assistance finding that very important first job, to citizens who may be disabled and need to find appropriate connections into the economy. So this is about building an administration, and it's the right thing to do.

The Chair: Very briefly, Garry.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I rest my case. This is about building bureaucracy.

The Chair: Rey Pagtakhan, but before Rey has his turn can I confirm that all members have received the material the minister circulated? These are the additions to the action plan. Does everybody have copies? Yes.

Rey Pagtakhan.

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

I would like to begin by making some comments, Mr. Chair. Certainly, Ms. Ablonczy of the Reform Alliance began her remarks by saying “on behalf of this committee” and then expressed a displeasure—

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Point of order.

The Chair: Point of order, Ms. Ablonczy.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: —that the progress report on the action plan—

The Chair: Rey, I have a point of order.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: I'm sure the member, Mr. Chair, would want to follow the direction of the Speaker of the House and address our party by its correct name: Canadian Alliance.

The Chair: Thank you. It is a point of order. Would you refer to the Canadian Alliance, please?

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I apologize...of the Canadian Alliance, who expressed her displeasure that the progress report on the action plan of the HRDC department was released just now as part of the minister's presentation. That's why, Mr. Chair, I, too, rose on a point of order earlier. I should have said on a point of privilege, because for the member to have included me with her remarks when she did not even have, nor does have, the authority to do so, and doesn't have any administrative capacity to do that on behalf of the committee, Mr. Chair, nor was she given tacit approval of all of us, Mr. Chair....

• 1205

I also noted that subsequent speakers from the other opposition parties did not evince the same remarks. That kind of statement really borders on arrogance, and I would say, Mr. Chair, that in humility there is strength; in arrogance there is weakness.

Mr. Jean Dubé: I rise on a point of order.

The Chair: Point of order, Jean Dubé.

Mr. Jean Dubé: Mr. Chair, I would like to remind the committee that we're talking about grants and contributions.

The Chair: It's not a point of order.

Rey, this is coming out of your time. I'm listening.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I am fully aware of that, Mr. Chair, and I am fully aware as well that this is about grants and contributions. But when a correction of sentiment has to be made, it has to be made at the appropriate time or the question of privilege is lost forever.

An hon. member: Bravo.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Mr. Dubé indicated that I know money is missing. He posed questions without proof.

Mr. Jean Dubé: Point of order.

The Chair: Point of order, Jean Dubé.

Mr. Jean Dubé: The member said I said no money was missing. I said money was missing.

The Chair: That's not a point of order; that's argumentative.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Mr. Chair, I quote what he said: “I know money is missing”. Where is the proof, I ask.

The Chair: Please carry on.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: In fact, I think we have to say that the minister—and I have listened very intently to her presentation—has acknowledged the problem unearthed by the audit as a very serious problem. The minister has emphatically said in her opening remarks, and as well during answers to questions put to her later on, three times, and I quote to remind members who may not have heard it clearly:

Many hundreds of HRDC officials have been working long hours on this file-by-file cleanup. ...we went through one file at a time and cleaned up the problem. The cleanup is well underway.... ...we had administrative weaknesses.

Mr. Chair, to me it reflects the courage of the minister to acknowledge the problem with great humility. In the courage to do that, there is strength. But even more importantly is that the minister in her concluding remarks—I have my time, Mr. Crête, don't be so edgy there—told us of her continuing concern for the well-being of Canadians, of the people with disabilities, of our youth, of people lacking literacy skills.

When the opposition members hear about the good things the department and the government and the minister are doing, of course it hurts them, but it is a sad commentary on our political system. I have been in opposition, too. Check my record. I have never been negative. I debate upon the issues.

Mr. Jean Dubé: Send your resumé to the department.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Mr. Chair, let me conclude by saying I have no question to ask, but it is our privilege to make comments in this committee and so I say, Madam Stewart, continue the excellent work. I thank you for your progress report.

An hon. member: Bravo.

The Chair: Colleagues, it is my intention to draw these hearings to a conclusion. Several members have explained that they have to prepare for Question Period and so on.

I have two requests for a second round. I will recognize those second rounds only if they're very, very short.

Paul Crête, very briefly.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Chairman, this meeting will at least have proved one thing: the reason that this crisis is continuing is because of the Minister's incompetence.

Is she still telling us that her responsibility is limited to ensuring that the proper documentation is in the files? Do people not want to know that you are running the programs in such a way that they are effective and managed transparently, and so that a program such as the Transitional Job Fund is never again used for partisan purposes? Is that not your responsibility as the Minister rather than acting as an office clerk?

[English]

The Chair: Minister, briefly.

• 1210

Mrs. Jane Stewart: My job is to make sure we have a system that works, and that's what we're undertaking here. My job is also to make sure we have programs that are available across this country, and, Mr. Chair, as you know from the 10,000 pages that were provided—riding by riding, and all the grants and contributions—that's what happening.

The Chair: Libby Davies, very briefly.

Ms. Libby Davies: I just wanted to come back to your continual reiteration that this audit is about paperwork. I really disagree with that, because I think it's about much more than that. Even on the level of paperwork and the sloppiness that was evidenced, I think that relates directly back to the fact that there were simply not enough staff to carry out the job, and I still haven't really heard a recognition of that and whether or not it will be addressed. There are rumours going around now that if there are new staff hired, they will all be auditors.

So I guess the question is this: is there a recognition that from your point of view of “it's about the paperwork”, it was also because there weren't adequate staff, that the staffing resources just weren't there to do the jobs?

The Chair: Very briefly.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Yes, and that has always been part of the six-point plan.

The Chair: Colleagues, I'm going to draw this to a close. I'll thank our witnesses in a moment, but before we actually move in camera, I would like to explain so that the people following the hearings understand what we're doing.

First of all, we're going to now proceed, for as long as we can, to consider a point-form basis for our draft report. It is our intention to produce that draft report in both official languages by the end of next week. It will be delivered to all members on the Monday we return, the Monday following the break.

The committee will meet at its usual time, in camera, on the Tuesday following the break, at eleven o'clock. We will meet for as long as is necessary that day. If it is necessary, and it likely will be, we will have an additional meeting on Wednesday, the following day.

So the report will be ready by the end of the break. It will be delivered early on the Monday morning of the day we come back. Our first meeting will be on the Tuesday, and we will continue that meeting as long as we can. If it is not long enough, we will meet again on the Wednesday.

The report has to be tabled on the first of June.

Jean Dubé, on a point of order, and then Paul Crête, briefly.

Mr. Jean Dubé: Mr. Chairman, I'm looking at the clock here and I'm looking at the agenda as well. On the agenda, it says we're going in camera at one o'clock. It is now not even a quarter after twelve.

The Chair: Let me say, Jean, first of all, that I consider we've had a fair hearing. That's one. Two, several members have said to me that they need to prepare for Question Period today.

My concern as your chair is to get us started on the draft report. If we don't do that today, Jean, we're not going to get anywhere.

Paul Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: My question was more about the upcoming report. I feel that that is important. It will probably be the committee's final report on this crisis, and I feel that we need some specifics as early as possible so that we will know whether there will be a minority report or not. With the dates that you have given, the opposition parties will not be able to start work on that until the Monday following the break week. It is a lot like what happened this morning with the documents.

[English]

Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.): Point of order, Mr. Chair.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: You can't interrupt someone just like that.

The Chair: Point of order.

Ms. Bonnie Brown: I think you'll want me to, Diane, in the sense that I don't think anybody on the committee would want to be rude to the minister and in the sense that we don't want to expose the whole world to our internal wrangling about what we're going to do next.

I'm wondering if we couldn't close this portion of the meeting and then get back to the other thing.

An hon. member: Point of order—

The Chair: One of my concerns now is to first get started on that, so, Paul, we can discuss those matters.

I know, better than you, I think, how we focus the time, and we've done as many hearings as we could in order that we can produce the report on time.

I understand your point. We'll discuss it as soon—

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: I would just like to finish, Mr. Chairman.

The Bloc Québécois had suggested that we hear a number of other witnesses. They were not invited because these were all cases of potentially partisan use of funds. Their appearances before the committee were systematically postponed.

I think that we are missing an important element. If the Liberal majority were to buy the abbreviated report given by the Minister today, you could be sure that it would not take long to come up with a report together.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

I would point out that the vast majority of witnesses we've received were recommended by the opposition.

Jean Dubé, and then Libby Davies.

Mr. Jean Dubé: Mr. Chairman—

An hon. member: [Inaudible—Editor].

The Chair: It is. It is. They're points of order.

Mr. Jean Dubé: —I would like to come back to the comments on the clock. You said just now that—

• 1215

The Chair: I've explained that point of order.

Libby Davies.

Ms. Libby Davies: On the same point, could you tell us when the decision was made to go in camera at 12:15 p.m. instead of 1 p.m. and by whom? Our understanding was that it—

The Chair: Libby, it was made by me in response to members and out of concern for the sort of point that Paul Crête has made.

Ms. Libby Davies: It was never raised, Chairperson.

The Chair: Colleagues, I would like to thank our witness, the Honourable Jane Stewart. We do appreciate this.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: The meeting is not ended. The meeting is suspended. We will resume in five minutes. The meeting is suspended.