HUMA Committee Report

"Certainly this is the most serious situation that I've seen during all those years."

Jane Stewart, February 10, 2000.

"In 1998-99 discretionary programs accounted for an expenditure of approximately $17 billion across government and 17% of that by HRDC. I cannot help but express frustration with the way the government manages grants and contributions in general."

Auditor General, March 23, 2000.

"The question of record-keeping shortcomings throughout the government is not a new problem. In my own way, I have sounded the bell last year. But my predecessor, in his previous annual reports, had raised this question time and time again."

Information Commissioner of Canada, March 28, 2000.

"The current HRDC six-point plan is meant to put everything back together again and to improve the administration of the program. This effectively leaves us with the status quo."

Canada Employment and Immigration Union, April 6, 2000.

The opposition parties cannot support the interim report by the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development. As it stands, rather than condemning the disastrous situation that has come to light with management at Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC), the interim report simply endorses the partisan interpretation by the government majority of the numerous deficiencies in HRDC’s administration. The Committee has failed to make an in-depth diagnosis and has merely proposed vague solutions that do not correspond to the seriousness of the problem. The report totally obscures the partisan nature of the political intervention that occurred in the Department and treats it solely as an administrative issue. The government’s attitude is deplorable, consisting as it does in denying the gravity of the problems identified by using questionable tactics such as throwing up smokescreens, withholding information and falsifying documents. These inexcusable actions can only deepen Canadians’ cynicism about the federal government and parliamentary institutions.

Solutions?

Of course, the report emphasizes the solutions put forward by the Department of Human Resources Development to bring down the curtain on this situation, but the dissenting members are of the view that equal attention should have been paid to re-establishing sound administrative practices in order to clean up what looks more and more like an enormous shambles.

However, any solutions are doomed to failure if they are not backed up by a lucid account of the extent of the Department’s problems. The situation requires more than half-baked solutions that do not have the support of the workers who would have to implement them. No large-scale administrative reform can be successful unless the employees are in favour of it.

An in-depth diagnosis

It is becoming pathetically clear that, in numerous cases, decisions about awarding grants were made along partisan political lines. Denying this jeopardizes any hope of finding a solution that could lead to significant, long-term remedies. The dissenting members on the Committee doubt that satisfactory solutions can come from the government if it persists in denying the gravity of the problem and refuses to shed light on practices that discredit it. From this perspective, the dissenting members of the Committee have reached the conclusion that only an independent public inquiry would be able to find answers to the legitimate questions being asked in the House and by the Canadian public about HRDC’s dubious practices.

Denying the problem

In addition to the projects that are currently under police investigation and the instances that have been brought into the public arena, such as the Placeteco plan and the case of lobbyist René Fugère, there are in all probability other similar situations that will only be brought to light through a public, in-depth, independent investigation. Under the circumstances, it is vital that the government majority on the Committee, as well as the government, admit this reality and draw the necessary conclusions.

When they appeared before the Committee, representatives of the HRDC employees’ union gave a number of reasons for the problems faced by the Department. They emphasized the far-reaching staff cuts, their distrust of the Minister’s plan, the fear that sanctions might be taken against front-line employees, and political pressures. It is telling that none of the points criticized by the union representatives appear in the Committee’s interim report.

Deficient management

Inadequate management of public money and the partisan approach to awarding funds for job creation programs undermine public confidence in such programs. The dissenting members are of the view that the attitude of the government and of the government majority on the Committee is exacerbating the situation.

A recurring problem

The state of affairs at HRDC is not new. Even though the Auditor General criticized similar types of problems in previous internal audit reports on a number of occasions, it is clear to the dissenting members of the Committee that nothing has been done and that if it had not been for the repeated offensives by the opposition parties, chances are good that the situation at HRDC would only have deteriorated further. The dissenting members are of the view that only an independent public inquiry will restore confidence in the government, in the Minister and in HRDC programs.

To minimize the likelihood of a similar situation occurring in the future, employees of the federal Public Service must be allowed to speak out regarding dubious practices in a climate of confidence. This means the government should introduce legislation to protect whistle-blowers in the Public Service.

Furthermore, it is vital to implement as soon as possible rules for awarding grants that are consistent, transparent and equitable, in order to avoid arbitrary decision-making.

Conclusion

The list of problems at HRDC is mind-boggling: misappropriation of funds; multiple criminal investigations; grants being approved after the payments were made; withholding of information; allegation of falsification of documents; absence of controls; influence peddling (the Corbeil affair); use of public money for partisan ends; patronage; and so on.

The majority report as presented to us does not recognize any of these problems. It amounts to a denial of the facts that can only worsen an already scandalous situation. The report demonstrates clearly that the government majority refuses to take the necessary steps to solve the serious problems at HRDC, and that an independent public inquiry is the only way to shed light on the practices there and within the current government generally.