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, March 30, 2000

• 1119

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Colleagues, we're here pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), a study of HRDC grants and contributions. Before I introduce our witnesses, I would remind you that our principal witness at our next meeting, which is Tuesday at 11 o'clock, is the Honourable Lucienne Robillard, President of the Treasury Board. That was something I announced previously.

Secondly, you will notice on your agenda today the suggestion that we move very briefly into camera at the end of this meeting to consider the outline of a preliminary report, which you have all received. I want to have some sense that this is agreeable. My thought is that it's a first look at it in camera. This might take 10 minutes or something like that. Of course one never knows with these things, and I would suggest that if it took much longer than that we would simply have to arrange for another in camera meeting.

• 1120

My suggestion is that we have 10 minutes in camera at the end of this meeting for a first look at the outline of our report. By the way, the purpose is to give direction to our staff so that they can proceed with this.

Libby Davies, then Maurice Vellacott.

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): I don't have a concern with that. I just would like to get an idea of what time you're planning to do that, because I have to leave at one o'clock.

The Chair: My intention would be to have it before one.

Maurice Vellacott, then Bonnie Brown.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance): My suggestion is that we take a little more time for that, maybe in the order of 20 minutes, especially if someone has a point about getting away and—

The Chair: And also before one...?

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Before one.

The Chair: Bonnie Brown.

Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.): I have a problem with that plan, although I'm sorry I just found out that about three or four of our members have commitments for which they have to leave early. They were hoping to leave at a quarter to one today. I'm wondering if 15 or 20 minutes is sufficient anyway.

The Chair: My suggestion is that 15 or 20 minutes is sufficient. The purpose is not to consider the plan; it is simply to give some direction to the staff. But I'm concerned—

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Could we start at 12:30?

The Chair: I have a suggestion from Reform.

Libby Davies.

Ms. Libby Davies: Or alternatively—and I don't know if this is too late for the staff—could we meet on Tuesday at 10:30 so we could do it for half an hour first? Or is that too late? Then we're not cutting into the witnesses we're questioning here.

The Chair: The concern we have is that the report has to be done by the middle of next week to meet the deadline we have and so that it can be translated. We really are leaving it very late for them, and it's late now, as you know. This is no fault of the committee itself. Because of conditions in the House of Commons, several times our meetings had to be cancelled or were interrupted.

I would suggest 12:30. We will aim for 12:30, if that's okay, colleagues. I do apologize. I know members have commitments and so on, but I think it's important that we move this thing along, and goodness knows we have tried, as a committee, to move this matter along.

If I could now, then, introduce our principal witnesses, we welcome once again Claire Morris, deputy minister of HRDC.

Claire, we welcome you here.

We also have with us Danielle Vincent, assistant deputy minister of HRDC of the Quebec region.

[Translation]

Danielle, welcome.

[English]

We also have with us Suzette Perreault, director general, Centre-ville, Montreal.

[Translation]

Suzette, you are also welcome.

[English]

There's a statement from Claire Morris.

Claire, you understand the procedures here very well. Please proceed.

[Translation]

Ms. Claire Morris (Deputy Minister, Human Resources Development Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have only a few words to say as we begin this meeting. I am pleased to have the opportunity today to appear once again before this committee. We are here at your request to respond to questions about HRDC grants and contributions, especially in the Quebec region.

You have introduced Ms. Vincent, the Assistant Deputy Minister for the Quebec region, and Ms. Suzette Perreault, Director of the Human Resource Centre of Canada in Montreal.

[English]

Since our last appearance before this committee on March 2, I know you've met with a number of witnesses on the grants and contributions program at HRDC, including the Clerk of the Privy Council and the Auditor General of Canada. I believe their testimony has added to several of the points we last raised with you.

There is the issue of the magnitude of change affecting these programs. The Clerk of the Privy Council talked of the impact of downsizing the transfer to the provinces, of labour market development, and of major policy initiatives related to employment insurance and the national child benefit.

The Auditor General pointed to the challenges across government as a whole since 1977. Mel Cappe also spoke of HRDC's commitment to service and to continuous improvement, including finding more efficient ways to serve clients. Above all, the Clerk of the Privy Council set out a fundamental challenge for departments such as HRDC. Specifically he spoke to the need to get the right balance between working with clients and partners to achieve results while ensuring proper administrative controls and transparency. These are all issues that I think are critical to understanding the challenges faced by HRDC on grants and contributions.

• 1125

[Translation]

Let me now turn to decision-making in the Department of Human Resources Development Canada and in the regions, such as Quebec.

HRDC has a responsibility structure that reflects Canada's diverse geography. We have 10 regions, corresponding to the provinces and the territories. Each region has an executive head, like Danielle Vincent, who reports to me on regional and local operations.

We have set up our decision-making process within HRDC to encourage flexibility so that our activities can be linked directly to regional and local needs. This is seen as key to the delivery of service-oriented programming that responds to its clients. Our regional and local offices have the budgets and the flexibility to work with clients and partners. These partners, to name just a few, include other governments, and economic and social development organizations.

[English]

While we pursue our program and policy objectives through grants and contributions in many different ways, there are a number of common elements in terms of what we do. At HRDC we all have a common goal. Every policy, program, and partnership in the department is designed to help achieve our mission, and that is to enable Canadians to participate fully in the workplace and the community.

We also use a number of tools to assess program performance and to ensure that results are similar for all Canadians. We use our audits, evaluations, and reviews to help us improve what we do and how we do it.

I really want to stress to the committee again that internal audits are management tools, and at HRDC we use them regularly as part of our planning processes. They build on management's commitment to self-scrutiny and to continuous improvement. They are an integral part of sound management practices, consistent with modern comptrollership.

I also want to clarify that there is always a consistent legislative and regulatory framework, which we respect. This framework includes the Financial Administration Act and the Treasury Board guidelines for grants and contributions. HRDC is dedicated to respecting proper procedures and accountability while at the same time seeking innovative ways to serve its clients. That's the very challenge that the Clerk of the Privy Council identified when he talked about getting the balance right.

I'd like to make just a few concluding points about our action plan. I share our minister's deep commitment to addressing the problems of grants and contributions. I believe we have a thorough, balanced, and effective plan. As the Auditor General said to you, the plan is going in the right direction, and we are taking these matters seriously.

[Translation]

Our action plan has six elements, including initiatives to control payments, to correct past problems, to equip and support staff, to ensure accountability, to get the best outside advice available and finally, to report regularly on our progress in implementing the plan.

In pursuing this plan, I cannot emphasize enough the importance of the people in the department. We are committed to making sure that they have the necessary training and the resources to handle the everyday workload. A main element to the plan gives priority to tools and training that will enable managers to better identify risks and make effective choices.

I want to echo the suggestion of the Auditor General that this committee can offer us helpful advice on the work of assessing risks. The management of risks is key to instilling modern management practices in a department such as HRDC. I am confident that the end result of our action plan will be a stronger and more modern department.

With your approval, Mr. Chairman, I would ask that Ms. Vincent take a few minutes to comment about her work in the Quebec Region and the challenges that she faces.

The Chairman: Certainly.

Ms. Danielle Vincent.

Ms. Danielle Vincent (Assistant Deputy Minister, Quebec Region, Department of Human Resources Development Canada): If I may, I would like to begin by painting a picture of the HRDC Quebec Region and give you an overview of the context in which we manage the grants and contributions programs.

• 1130

The Quebec Region, like the rest of the department moreover, has gone through some major transformations over the past few years. The departmental reorganization, which resulted in the creation of HRDC in 1993, required a great deal of time and effort on the part of managers in order to get it off the ground. In 1995, more than 1,000 of the most experienced employees left us as a result of Program Review. In 1997, the Labour Market Agreement was negotiated with Quebec and employment programs were transferred to the province, along with 1,064 employees. We lost just about all of our expertise in employment programs when these employees left us.

While managing these major changes, the managers were also called upon to implement, with the remaining employees, important reforms pertaining to social security and unemployment insurance, which then became employment insurance.

[English]

At the same time, HRDC managers, like all managers in either the private or public sector, began steps to modernize the organization. We introduced new ways of doing business based on empowerment of employees and the streamlining of administrative processes. Emphasis was put on client service. This is what Canadians expected from its public service. We encouraged employees to take initiatives to better serve the clients.

This was happening in our region and this was happening elsewhere, in all departments in Canada, in terms of modern public administration.

I mention these changes not to excuse ourselves for what happened but for you to understand the context in which we were managing.

[Translation]

HRDC, Quebec Region, currently has, for the fiscal year 1999-2000, 3,476 full-time employees—or person years as we used to call them—in order to administer all of the department's programs, including income security and employment insurance programs or the manpower program. Since these programs are administered at the local level in the 25 HRCCs, the local human resource centres, and the three regional operational centres that serve clients from 78 service points in Quebec, we cover the territory that lies between the Pontiac to the Magdalen Islands, stretching from Abitibi to Eastern Townships, including the North Shore and the Lower St. Lawrence.

Our human resources centres are very involved in the community and work in co-operation with the various local groups, be they community organizations, business people, the government of Quebec and the municipalities, in order to serve the citizens of Quebec well and to improve the social and economic outlook of the communities.

In all, 253 employees, slightly less than 7% of our staff, look after the grants and contributions programs in Quebec. We were given a budget of $177 million for the human resource investment programs for the fiscal year that will end tomorrow.

The internal audit report show that there were shortcomings in the way we manage the grants and contributions programs. Most of these comments apply to Quebec as well. Although many factors, as I indicated to you, explain why this is the case, the fact remains that this situation is not acceptable. The office of the internal auditor made us aware of the fact that, despite the good results we achieved in the community, we had neglected an important aspect of our work. I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that all of the employees and managers in the Quebec Region truly wish to rectify the situation.

Mr. Chairman, I joined the department on July 12, 1999. Two weeks after I was hired, I embarked on a visit to meet the managers and the 3,500 or so employees in the region. Although I have not yet completed this visit, to date, I have gone to 21 of the 25 human resources centres as well as the three regional operational centres. I can tell you that everywhere I went I met dedicated employees who believe in the department's mission and who are proud of the results that they have achieved.

• 1135

It is partly because of these employees and their dedication that today, in Quebec, companies were able to create jobs, young people had rewarding work experiences and both disabled and Aboriginal people were able to benefit from initiatives funded through the grants and contributions programs that we administer.

The employees and managers of the region participated in the drafting of the six-point national plan designed to improve our activities. In the Quebec Region, we also drafted our own plan, and its implementation is already well underway.

We are convinced, as is the Auditor General of Canada, that the implementation of this plan will enhance the management of our programs and enable us to regain your confidence as well as that of all Canadians.

The Chairman: Thank you, Danielle. Suzette, did you wish to add anything? No.

[English]

Colleagues, I have a very long list, as usual. As we are going to be concluding at 12:30 p.m., I would ask members on all sides to be brief. I'm going to shorten the time but I will do my best to encourage useful exchanges.

I have you in this order: Maurice Vellacott, Larry McCormick, Bernard Bigras, Raymonde Folco, Libby Davies, Bryon Wilfert, and Jean Dubé.

Maurice Vellacott of the Canadian Alliance.

I apologize, Maurice, for referring to your party wrongly at the beginning.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I'll forgive you, Peter.

I am pleased to have our guests with us today.

I'm going back to the 1998-99 period, when some instructions were given out with respect to advance payments. I'm wondering if you could describe the instructions you gave to managers on advance payments back in that era. I understand in certain areas there was contravention of Treasury Board guidelines with respect to advance payments being given out.

Did you give specific instructions or do you recall any instructions you would have given to staff back in 1998-99? It's Danielle Vincent I'm directing the question to, if I may.

The Chair: Claire Morris.

Ms. Claire Morris: The guidelines in 1998-99, as they are today, would have been the guidelines given to all staff across the country. They would have been uniform guidelines as per the Treasury Board guidelines, which outline that advance payments are acceptable a month to three months...depending on the need and depending on the magnitude of the project.

So those would have been the standard Treasury Board guidelines issued at the time.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Okay.

I need to understand something before I proceed with my questions, Mr. Chairman. Am I permitted to direct a question to either one?

The Chair: I think it's up to the witnesses to decide who responds. You're quite entitled to direct it if you wish, but we have three witnesses, and I think it's up to them to decide who has the necessary expertise, if that's the right word.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Right. I'm trying to get into specific areas, and if the deputy is answering, then I do get a sense of what's happening in various parts of the country. That's my thought.

The Chair: I simply have to repeat what I said. My concern as chair is that I don't know where the expertise lies. It's very difficult for me to say someone should answer it when, in this case, she might not have the answer. But you can try.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Okay.

Quickly, then, I would simply ask you again, Ms. Vincent, if I could, what's your understanding of what edicts have come down from above, if you will? What happens to a manager or front-line worker who contravenes Treasury Board guidelines or the Financial Administration Act? Do you have some clear understanding of the censures, or that type of approach?

The Chair: Danielle Vincent.

[Translation]

Ms. Danielle Vincent: As is the case in all departments, we first of all take a look at the particular circumstances. The manager must first of all determine whether or not someone was acting in good faith, establish whether or not the situation is serious and determine if there have been any damages. We generally begin an inquiry at that time. If we establish that the individual acted in good faith and that there has not been any substantial damage, we send a notice to the manager.

• 1140

[English]

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Would you, in your own department in your area of Quebec, find instances of the other, where it would appear to be more blatant violation or deliberate crossing the line in terms of contravening Treasury Board guidelines? Do you have instances of that?

I'm not asking for details, but does that ever happen, where you find it's not just “Oops!” but rather the other sort?

[Translation]

Ms. Danielle Vincent: Listen, I have been at the department for only a short while. I can tell you that we reminded the managers to pay close attention to the rules pertaining to healthy financial management. I currently have no indication whatsoever that managers are not abiding by the regulations and the policies of Treasury Board and the department.

[English]

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Okay.

Next question. As you know and understand, I'm intrigued, having come from Saskatchewan in the west, by the jobs created and particularly the sustainability of jobs in terms of your situation there in Quebec. In the Ekos report there are what I would call educated guesstimations, at best. Some 42% did not even respond to calls when they were trying to get out the actual numbers of jobs created and so on.

In the situation in Quebec, do you have a way of actually, other than taking their word for it...? You phone an employer, say, and he states, well, I think I can create this many. They ask that in the Ekos report. They phone and ask, okay, 18 months down the road, do you think those jobs will still be around? Optimistically—you know, the cheque is being written by the department—they say, yes, I think so. I'm hopeful. I'm optimistic.

But I'm a show-me kind of guy. Do you ever get into the field? Have you ever, in your capacity, actually checked out jobs being created? Do you have a way of doing that, or is it just best guesses, as in the Ekos report, some extrapolation using some complicated computer model?

[Translation]

Ms. Danielle Vincent: If I understood your question properly, I will answer by saying that we do follow up on the files. There are several ways to do this. We provide follow up through visits to the sponsor, the number of visits varying in accordance with the scope of the project. We regularly ask, and once again this depends on the scope of the project, the sponsors to provide us with supporting documents when they submit requests for reimbursement.

Once the project has been completed, we visit the premises to verify exactly how many jobs have been created.

[English]

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: As to longer-term sustainability, 18 months after the fact, do you have a way of tracking that or of knowing with respect to that?

[Translation]

Ms. Danielle Vincent: We are currently reviewing the files of projects that took place last year. We visit the premises approximately six months after the files have been closed.

[English]

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Okay.

The Chair: Larry McCormick.

Maurice, I'll put you back on the list.

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

I thank each of the witnesses for being here.

My first question needs probably a one-word answer, unless you wish to go further. We hear a lot about partnerships across the country. It's more than just a buzzword, because it often leverages a lot of money to help a lot of people.

After listening to a lot of questions in the House, I want to ask you, did the Quebec government support all the TJF and CJF programs?

[Translation]

Ms. Danielle Vincent: Without exception, yes.

[English]

Mr. Larry McCormick: I'd be happy to have answers about Quebec and perhaps from across the country, but about these famous or infamous pockets we hear about, first of all, what did HRDC tell Quebec members about pockets? Were they informed or not, or...?

[Translation]

Ms. Danielle Vincent: There was only one pocket in Quebec, and it was part of Montreal Island. At that time, the managers informed most of the elected officials. Ms. Perreault works in the downtown Montreal office. Suzette, do you care to add a word to explain, to the Chair, what you did as the director?

Ms. Suzette Perreault (Director General, Human Resources Development Centre, Downtown Montreal, Quebec Region, The Department of Human Resources Development): When we found out that Montreal Island was eligible for the CJF contributions programs, we met with the local members of Parliament to inform them about this possibility and to give them the documentation specifying that their territory was eligible.

• 1145

That's what I did as the director. Nevertheless, I cannot tell you that every member of Parliament for all of Montreal Island was informed. You must understand that my duties do not extend to all of Montreal Island, but to only a portion of this territory.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Thank you.

[English]

Often I hear people talking about all the jobs that have been created, and that's great. My background for many years was small business, and that's my passion yet today. Are the TJF programs designed for big business? Too often we hear about big business only. That's very important, and that's the core of our ridings. But I'm wondering how much information is available to small and medium-sized businesses, and even to individuals and the entrepreneurs we finally recognize in this country, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Claire Morris: Mr. Chairman, the focus on small and medium business was there in the TJF, and it has been further strengthened in the CJF. As a result of some of the findings of the Ekos survey—and I know you've discussed this with them—we pulled together a guide for employers as part of the CJF promotional materials so that employers would know what was available to them.

The Chair: We'll now turn to Bernard Bigras, Larry, if that's okay.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): My questions will deal with company 3392062 Canada Inc. As far as this file is concerned, I feel that I was used and that my fellow citizens were taken to the cleaners.

Mr. Chairman, the company was supposed to set up shop in Rosemont; it opened its doors in Saint-Maurice, although 10,000 square feet had been set aside for the initial project. A grant of $165,984 was given for 42 jobs, when in fact only five were created. The contract given to this company was extended.

My question is as follows: is it policy and common practice, in your department, to award a grant of $165,984 to allegedly create 42 jobs which wind up being only five? Was an exception made for this numbered company?

The Chairman: Claire Morris.

[English]

Ms. Claire Morris: Mr. Chairman, as you know, the particular project that is being referred to is under investigation, and we are not at liberty to discuss any of the details.

The Chair: Bernard, if that is the case, that is the case. Bernard Bigras.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Mr. Chairman, I gather that this must not be current policy. Accordingly, an exception was made for this company. This company was given some type of preferential treatment, special treatment, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to know why this numbered company was given preferential treatment. Did you award this grant because this company made a commitment to set up shop in the company called Les Confections St-Élie Inc., a company in Saint-Élie-de-Caxton that is well known to your department and well known to the Prime Minister's Office?

Ms. Claire Morris: Mr. Chairman, I was just going to say the same thing, namely, that we are not in any position to discuss this particular project.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Mr. Chairman...

The Chairman: Bernard Bigras.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Perhaps...

[English]

The Chair: Bernard, if I might, first of all, it is a legal fact that if it's under investigation, the officials cannot respond. If you could rephrase your question in some way so that they could respond, I would be delighted. But the fact is that if it's under investigation, they cannot answer. So it's not worth badgering them about it. Can you rephrase your question?

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Mr. Chairman, I will reformulate my question. On February 25 of this year, the Department of Human Resources Development mandated a Toronto firm to investigate this company. The Department is still refusing to make this report, which taxpayers are entitled to consult, available to the public. My question is as follows: can the deputy minister table, before this committee today, this investigative report that taxpayers are entitled to consult, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Claire Morris.

Ms. Claire Morris: Mr. Chairman, I would simply add, once again, that it is because of this investigation that the matter was referred to the RCMP. The project is currently under investigation; we cannot provide this document.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Mr. Chairman,...

The Chairman: Bernard Bigras.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: ... a Toronto firm was commissioned to prepare a report. The taxpayers want to know today whether or not this report contained any indication as to how this money was channelled to the company in question, this company which never opened its doors in the riding of Rosemont but which instead went to Saint-Maurice, the Prime Minister's riding. Is that clear? Quebec and Canadian taxpayers are entitled to know, today, the content of this report which was paid for by them, Mr. Chairman.

• 1150

[English]

Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): I have a point of order. From my vantage point, if a matter is under investigation, we do not know the aspects that investigators may want to use. I therefore can see the predicament a witness may face in answering a question when the witness may not be able to predict the subject matter or documents the investigators may want to look into. Therefore, revelation of that document would be ill-advised.

The Chair: I do appreciate the advice. That's not a point of order.

Claire Morris, is it your position that the report is a part of the investigation?

An hon. member: No.

The Chair: Colleagues, order.

Claire Morris.

Ms. Claire Morris: Yes, Mr. Chairman, that report is the subject matter of the investigation.

The Chair: Okay.

Bernard Bigras.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Mr. Chairman, we will start from the beginning again. When the company made a commitment to create jobs in the riding of Rosemont, it had a meeting with you. This is what you indicated in your letter dated February 25, Madam Deputy Minister. The company met with you and indicated that it could no longer set up shop in Rosemont...

[English]

The Chair: We're talking here about a legal matter, not a matter of procedure in the committee. To me it's quite clear that the witnesses believe these matters are part of the investigation, and therefore they cannot respond. I don't know the intricacies of this particular case, but I tend to that point of view. Either you deal with this in some broad, contextual way that does not require the witnesses to refer to details of this particular case or you move on to some other topic.

An hon. member: His time should be up.

The Chair: Your time is almost up. I've interrupted a lot. You do have a little more time. Can you do it in some other way?

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Mr. Chairman, I want to know whether or not the deputy minister can confirm to us that the two grants awarded to the company Les Confections St-Élie in the riding of...

[English]

The Chair: Go ahead quickly. But my answer to that would be no, she cannot. Go ahead.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Mr. Chairman, I will refer to another case. Can the deputy minister confirm to us that two grants were awarded to the company known as Les Confections St-Élie de Saint- Élie-de-Claxton, which housed the company in question in its facilities?

The Chairman: Danielle Vincent.

Ms. Danielle Vincent: If you are asking me whether or not Les Confections St-Élie received contributions under the Transitional Jobs Fund, the answer is yes.

The Chairman: Ms. Folco.

Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I have a question for the deputy minister. I would like to know whether or not the real starting point for the fiscal year can be found in the planning contained in the Estimates for your department. Does it really represent a fundamental aspect of the work to be accomplished?

When the Estimates for the department were approved for this year along with special budgets set aside for internal use, was any money earmarked specifically for a monitoring tool pertaining to the department's administrative practices as well as the administration of grants and contributions? Was a specific budget set aside for that purpose? If the answer is yes, what was the amount?

The Chairman: Ms. Morris.

Ms. Claire Morris: Mr. Chairman, I will obtain the precise figure. As far as our job creation program is concerned, namely the Transitional Jobs Fund, a new program which started in April, we contacted Treasury Board to inform them specifically of our administrative resources requirements to do follow up on the program and the required work. If I recall correctly, it was $10 million. I will obtain the exact figure.

• 1155

Ms. Raymonde Folco: If I have understood your answer correctly, you have allocated an amount, but you feel that this amount is inadequate and that you require additional money with respect to the total budget of your department.

Ms. Claire Morris: As you know Mr. Chair, the Transitional Jobs Fund is only part of a whole set of grants and contributions programs. It is true that we acknowledge that there is a need for additional resources at the administrative level in order to ensure the proper follow-up. Incidentally, we have already taken the necessary steps to allow the regions to undertake this monitoring by reallocating their internal resources in order to meet these needs.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Thank you.

Do I have any time left, Mr. Chair? I would like to ask another question, something completely unrelated. I know that in the action plan—you already mentioned it at a previous meeting—your department examines more closely problems from the human perspective, from the perspective of the well-being of the workers, specifically when it comes to training and the workload allocated to each of the department's employees.

My question is the following: what can your department do to deliver the grants and contributions programs in a more efficient manner, taking into consideration the employees' training and heavy workload?

The Chairman: A brief answer, please.

Ms. Claire Morris: Yes, Mr. Chairman. We are trying to put in place as many tools as possible to lighten the employees' administrative responsibilities. Ultimately, the goal is to provide client services as efficiently as possible. These tools include training sessions and the development of specific tools which will enable the workers to do the monitoring locally.

[English]

The Chair: Next is Libby Davies, followed by Bryon Wilfert, Jean Dubé, Judi Longfield, and Christiane Gagnon.

Ms. Libby Davies: Thank you, chairperson.

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

I'd like to direct my question to Ms. Morris. Ms. Morris, when the Auditor General came before the committee, he made it quite clear that through the work of his office he had flagged and drawn attention to the serious problems within the HRDC department. When Mr. Mel Cappe, the former deputy minister, came to the committee, he also told us that he had an inkling there were problems in the department. You're now the deputy minister. Given that both you and Mr. Cappe had access to the findings of the first report, the Consulting and Audit Canada report, and the Ekos evaluation, I'd like you to tell the committee how much information you are aware of in terms of the problems that were identified in those reports or even prior to that.

Further to that, is it not part of your job as deputy minister and also as chair of the audit committee to alert the minister to the findings of these various reports, the Consulting and Audit Canada report and the evaluation report? Is it not your job to bring that immediately to the attention of the minister, even as it's in progress if significant problems are identified, which I think we now know is the case?

The Chair: Claire Morris.

Ms. Claire Morris: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll try to treat that as a three-part question. The Ekos report, as you know, was an evaluation of the TJF program. A number of very positive features about the program were cited and also some areas that they felt needed to be improved. We in fact took all of those comments from the Ekos evaluation and factored that into strengthening the CJF program as we developed the criteria for that.

With regard to the CAC review, it was not an audit, as you know. It took a sampling of projects in three provinces, I believe, and it again identified some shortcomings, which the department took into consideration as it moved forward with CJF. In both cases these were, one, an evaluation and, two, a review of the TJF program alone, not the broader issue of grants and contributions.

• 1200

Just a point of clarification—I know from the transcripts it has come up before, and I believe Mr. Cappe clarified it—traditionally, the chair of the audit committee in the department is the associate deputy minister. As associate, I served as chair of the committee for two meetings, and then the associate carried on.

Yes, you're right. If the committee and in turn the deputy became aware of very serious shortcomings that surfaced in an audit, it would of course be our responsibility to advise the minister.

Ms. Libby Davies: But could you tell me if you did that? My understanding is that an associate deputy minister would have the same status as a deputy minister, and therefore your job is to alert your minister as to what you're aware of in terms of those findings. You certainly had access to that. So I'd like to ask you, did you draw that to the attention of the minister, and when did that take place?

Ms. Claire Morris: Again, Mr. Chairman, if we want to talk specifically about your first two items, the CAC review and the Ekos evaluation, we spent a great amount of time with the minister in her early months in the department talking about the TJF program and the kinds of adjustments and improvements that were being put in place for the CJF program.

With regard to the larger audit of grants and contributions, as I indicated to the committee in my last appearance, I believe, the full results of that audit were only available in October of last year—yes, I'll speed up, Mr. Chairman—and went through the normal process of being brought forward to the audit committee. In turn we briefed the minister on November 17. When we had the full results of the audit, we brought them forward.

The Chair: One short exchange, Libby.

Ms. Libby Davies: I'd like to continue on that, but I just want to move on to another question. One of the issues the committee has been very concerned about is the possibility that executives who were involved in the management or the mismanagement of these grants and contributions received performance pay. I think we have also to understand that not only is there performance pay, but also there are promotions, which is another way of rewarding people. In fact, Mr. Cappe received a promotion; Mr. Green, who was very involved in this department, received a promotion; and you've had a promotion. I understand that recently a number of changes have taken place within the investment branch, which is the branch that deals with grants and contributions. So I'd like to ask you whether or not any of those changes have involved promotions of executives or senior staff.

Ms. Claire Morris: I'm not sure I can be specific about the changes in question within the branch.

But to go back to the issue of performance appraisal, I know it was raised with Mr. Cappe, and I think he explained fairly clearly that we're in the middle of installing a brand-new system of performance appraisal. In fact, we're just in the first year of that right now. It has been set up in such a way that all executives are measured against a series of ongoing commitments.

Ms. Libby Davies: To be specific then, because our time is limited—

The Chair: I'm sorry, Libby, your time has expired.

Next is Judi Longfield, followed by Jean Dubé, Christiane Gagnon, Rey Pagtakhan, and Maurice Vellacott.

Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Madam Vincent, you indicate in your presentation that in 1997, as a result of labour market agreements with Quebec, you lost a good number of your employees, who actually went to the province and, I suspect, took on the job they had formerly been doing in your department. Those employees took with them a great deal of their expertise and their knowledge. What were they doing before they left your department?

• 1205

[Translation]

Ms. Danielle Vincent: These people were managing general programs which were downloaded to the province, Mr. Chairman, and which included of course, managing the Transitional Jobs Fund as well as other human resources investment programs. They took with them a part of their workload.

[English]

Mrs. Judi Longfield: You also indicate that 253 employees were looking after grants and contributions, and you indicate that was about 7% of all of your employees. What percentage of the total work body would have been under grants and contributions?

[Translation]

Ms. Danielle Vincent: That's correct: 253 employees look after every aspect of the grants and contributions in the region.

[English]

Mrs. Judi Longfield: I appreciate that, but what percentage of the total workload of the department, HRDC, in Quebec is actually grants and contributions—15%, 5%, what?

[Translation]

Ms. Danielle Vincent: It's somewhat difficult for me to answer that question because the figures that I have on hand refer to the numbers of employees and the amounts allocated to the programs. Unfortunately I can't give you anything more precise. However I would no doubt be able to provide you with this information later.

[English]

The Chair: Danielle, we would be grateful if you could provide the committee with that information.

Judi Longfield.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: This one is directed to Madam Morris.

You talk about the action plan. You say it means you're going to look at people issues, training, and workload. What do you think needs to be done at HRDC to deliver grants and contributions effectively, meeting the requirements of not only the clients you serve but the Auditor General and the fiscal responsibility?

Ms. Claire Morris: The key for us—and the Auditor General and the Clerk both spoke about this—is ensuring we have the right balance between service to the client and the appropriate accountability and ensuring that all of the requirements of financial monitoring and proper documentation are met, so ensuring that all employees are clearly aware of their responsibilities and ensuring they're properly trained in terms of what's expected of them. That's well under way across the country.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: How are you managing this in light of all of the man hours being devoted to access to information?

Ms. Claire Morris: The person hours going to access to information are considerable. We're at a total, I believe, of 526 now, 541 since the middle of January, and it is taking a huge amount of time, a lot of it in headquarters. But we're very committed to ensuring the training is happening across the country.

The Chair: Jean Dubé, Rey Pagtakhan, then Christiane Gagnon.

Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to also thank the witnesses, especially the front-line worker. It's not often we get a chance to get a front-line worker here at the committee, and I certainly want to thank you for your presence here at committee.

I have one question for Ms. Morris and also one for Danielle Vincent.

My question for Ms. Morris has to do with the Ekos evaluation, the CAC review, and the audit, which all say the same thing: there is a problem. This week and last week, the Auditor General and the Information Commissioner were both here, and we were advised that there was a committee in place for the audit. You just said yourself you had chaired two of those meetings as assistant deputy minister.

Were these reviews and evaluations brought to this committee? Were you ever informed? This was submitted to Human Resources Development Canada. Were these brought to this committee?

Ms. Claire Morris: As I indicated, the CAC review was not an audit. I will verify that, but to the best of my knowledge, it did not go to the audit committee. It went to the branch responsible for the delivery of the program.

• 1210

The Ekos evaluation, because it was an evaluation as part of the evaluation branch, would have come to the audit committee, but again I'd like to verify that date for you. I was certainly aware of the evaluation, because of the impact it had on making the modifications to the CJF program. A number of their recommendations were taken and adapted, as I say, to strengthen the CJF program.

Mr. Jean Dubé: If this information was brought to you at that committee, this is where I have a hard time understanding. How come the minister didn't know what was going on with the department and TJF?

We've received many witnesses here, and the Auditor General has a great reputation here on Parliament Hill, as does the Information Commissioner. We were told the role of the deputy minister is to inform the minister of things that are going on, right and wrong, in the department. I really have a hard time with this when we hear the minister come before the House of Commons, in front of all Canadians, and say she didn't know there were problems with TJF. She didn't know there were problems with the department under grants and contributions.

All the information we have before us and the past witnesses certainly state there were problems at the department. How can you explain that the minister was not aware things were going very wrong with taxpayers' money in her own department?

The Chair: I would remind colleagues and witnesses the chair is here.

Mr. Jean Dubé: Through the chair.

The Chair: Thank you.

Claire Morris.

Ms. Claire Morris: Mr. Chairman, I've stated on several occasions, and the minister has as well, that the department did have concerns about TJF, that there were administrative deficiencies we were seeking to correct. I think if you were to verify the transcripts over the fall months, you'd see that.

With respect to the larger issue of grants and contributions, again, I believe the Auditor General referred to ongoing concerns he's had, not just in our department but in other departments, for a long time. What departments do is systemically try to move to correct those. We did not have the full information with respect to the broader audit until October of this past year.

Mr. Jean Dubé: Thank you.

[Translation]

I would like to ask a slightly different question to Ms. Vincent. I am the member for the beautiful riding of Madawaska—Restigouche, in New Brunswick. Imagine, if you will, that I was a member of Parliament from Quebec, and that I showed up at the Montreal office and presented a Transitional Jobs Fund grant application to create jobs for the construction of a fountain in Outremont. Keep in mind that I have already supervised a number of similar projects before entering politics. If I had showed up at an HRDC office and submitted an application for a similar project, I know full well, as you all do, what the answer would have been.

How then, was the construction of such a fountain in the riding of Saint-Maurice justified, when this program was established to created long-term and permanent employment? How can such a project in the riding of the Prime Minister be justified?

Ms. Danielle Vincent: Mr. Chairman...

[English]

The Chair: Could we have a very short reply, Danielle?

[Translation]

Ms. Danielle Vincent: Since this is not a project funded by the contributions from the Transitional Jobs Fund or from any other departmental program, I would not know how to answer.

[English]

The Chair: Rey Pagtakhan, then Christiane Gagnon, then Andy Scott.

Christiane, it alternates, so it's Rey Pagtakhan, then you.

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

Let me pursue the issue that was raised earlier about the flow of information from the deputy minister to the minister. When you identify a problem or good news, I suppose you use discretion as to when you tell the minister. Is that right?

• 1215

There is no specific timeline to which you are bound, by regulation or authority, within which to report that information to the minister. You use your own discretion. Is that right? I would like it to be recorded, not by a nod of the head.

Ms. Claire Morris: Yes, that is right, and it's important to make a distinction between those management responsibilities that deputies carry on a regular basis.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Yes.

With respect to the access to information, the load has increased. The Auditor General in his testimony before the committee did indicate that some of the documents are already deemed public. My question is this. Where documents are already deemed public to begin with, could there be a management approach that those documents deemed public already, before we even start requesting them, ought to be deposited, say, in the repository of the Library of Parliament? Is that a potentially good management approach?

Ms. Claire Morris: Yes. In fact that's very much the Treasury Board guideline with respect to dealing with audits—that departmental audits on a regular basis ought to be made available without a request for information—and that is the scheme everybody is working towards.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: How soon after the completion of such a report is it deposited in that particular place—the Library of Parliament, for example?

Ms. Claire Morris: As with the Auditor General, the typical process for completing an audit is that you have the auditors sign off on the report, and it's then provided to the management branch responsible for whatever program is being audited, which then has several weeks, or months in the Auditor General's case, to respond to those audit findings and to prepare the management response. It's only after that is complete and the entire thing is translated that it's made available. So it would depend on the magnitude of the audit and it would depend on the timeframe needed for the management response.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Have there been any instances in the recent past of requests for information where the documents in fact have already been deposited somewhere in the public domain?

The Chair: This will be the last reply.

Ms. Claire Morris: Yes, I believe we have in our significant list of ATIP requests a number of requests for documents that have already been released. Typically they can go out very quickly.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Is it then your approach that you will advise the requester—

Ms. Claire Morris: —that they're public, yes.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: To share the load of answering requests?

Ms. Claire Morris: Yes.

The Chair: Thank you, Rey.

Christiane Gagnon, then Andy Scott, and then Maurice Vellacott.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Chairman, before asking my question about Placeteco Inc., I would like to express my concern about the pockets of high unemployment. We were told that these pockets were listed in an internal directive, however we have yet to be provided this document which we requested. We were also told that greater Montreal was targeted and that there was a meeting with members. I would like to know which members were at this meeting and which ridings they represent, because from what we are hearing, the members haven't heard of this directive. Rest assured that I will be undertaking my own internal investigation on this, because it worries me.

Now I would like to ask you a question about Placeteco Inc., which received a grant while being at once a trustee, a solicitor and a creditor. The company that had the mandate to receive contributions received money with one hand and took it back with the other hand. Are you not uncomfortable with this way of proceeding? Does it not lead you to believe that there is a conflict of interest?

Ms. Danielle Vincent: Mr. Chairman, when studying a project, we generally deal with company representatives and we do not look into what is going on among various interveners. What counts for us, is that the company meets program requirements. This company had submitted its documents, and this was what counted for us.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: We do not know where the money went and we are afraid that it might have been used in trying to save the company. You say that this company met its obligations. Have obligations been met when no jobs were created and when that money was not used for the purpose of the Transitional Jobs Fund?

• 1220

Could you deposit the invoices that we have so urgently asked for, so that we might know what happened and how the money was spent, and could you deposit the supporting documents? You say that the company met its obligations. One might think that it did not meet them.

Ms. Danielle Vincent: Mr. Chairman, I will answer the first part of the question. Regarding obligations, the promoter should provide supporting documents for capitalization costs, overhead and wages, and he did provide them. Now, regarding supporting documents...

Ms. Claire Morris: Mr. Chairman, to answer Ms. Gagnon's question, let me say that after the documents came out on Tuesday and after the comments by Mr. Phillips, I am still seeking his opinion regarding the supporting documents issue. There is a great deal of documentation dealing with company business. Thus, I want to have the commissioner's opinion, because I read the comments that he made on Tuesday.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: This would mean that we could expect that the invoice be deposited as required, to inform the people who feel cheated, because this is taxpayers' money. If we determine that the company did not meet its obligations and spent this money in the wrong way, will you say that the money must be refunded? In that case, it seems that there is no investigation, but everything leads us to believe that there is a problem and that this money may not have created any jobs and may not have been used to help this company create jobs.

[English]

The Chair: This has to be a brief reply, please.

[Translation]

Ms. Danielle Vincent: The promoter should provide supporting documents to confirm that he made those investments, and he did so. This was verified by the people in the Quebec Region, as well as by the internal auditor, who said he was satisfied with the supporting documents provided by the promoter. There is no question of a refund in this case because the program did not require anything more than that.

[English]

The Chair: Bonnie Brown, Maurice Vellacott, Rey Pagtakhan, Paul Crête, and Libby Davies.

Colleagues, I remind you that we have less than 10 minutes.

Bonnie Brown, briefly.

Ms. Bonnie Brown: I have one question for Ms. Morris. I believe you said in response to an earlier question that you had as many access to information requests in the first three months of this year as you had in the twelve months of last year. Did I hear you correctly when you said that?

Ms. Claire Morris: Yes, you did.

Ms. Bonnie Brown: What kind of an impact does this have on your staff? It means you're getting them at four times the rate. Have you quadrupled the number of workers assigned to finding the information? Or are they all working overtime? What impact does this have on costs?

Ms. Claire Morris: I can't give you a cost figure, Mr. Chairman. I can tell you that we have tried to assign some additional resources. It's not easy to do, because this is a highly specialized area that requires some skilled people, so you can't just pick people from anywhere in the department and assign them this responsibility. It is inordinately time consuming in terms of having to search files and pull out material. As I mentioned, I believe our total today is 541 since the middle of January. For the entire year 1998-99, we were at 531.

The Chair: Bonnie Brown, very briefly.

Ms. Bonnie Brown: My experience at the municipal level suggests to me that sometimes—sort of—enemies are doing fishing trips, and actually their requests for information have been described by some as mischievous and vexatious. In other words, they're trolling to find information without any real specific idea in mind.

• 1225

In your review of the access to information requests, would you say that any of them have been a fishing expedition or that groups of them could be combined to form a fishing trip?

The Chair: Claire Morris.

Ms. Claire Morris: That's not an easy question to answer, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Bonnie Brown: No.

Ms. Claire Morris: We do believe strongly in the rationale for access to information and that the work of government should be transparent and open. I believe our track record shows that we have done very well in terms of responding to requests.

The Chair: Thank you, Claire.

Maurice Vellacott, Rey Pagtakhan, Paul Crête, and Libby Davis.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: This is probably directed to Ms. Morrison and maybe to Ms. Vincent as well. In regard to the TJF program, again, going back to the Ekos report, it talks about how “The extent to which the program will create sustainable jobs is not well monitored”; “sustainability results must be treated with caution”; “the estimates” of sustainability “are still based on mere expectations, not real experiences” and “are largely speculative”, and comments to that effect.

That being the case.... I guess I'll also point to the fact that in terms of the 18,500 actual, full-time jobs supposedly created—and I'm not even sure if that's a solid number—in terms of actual jobs created, it disturbs me some, especially when we read that only 53% said their projects would not have gone ahead, meaning a very significant number would have gone ahead anyhow.

Ms. Morrison, in your department, do you have discussions from time to time, with managers below you, I guess, as you look at projects, and do you say, the impact on the industry...? If we give money of a million-plus to Iris Hosiery, for example, what kind of an impact does that have in terms of the net job picture in the country in that particular industry? I think it's a valid question. If we in fact don't look at that kind of thing, we could be merely robbing Paul to pay Pierre, so to speak, and having that kind of situation. Do you look at the industry impact or do you just simply look at it in isolation?

The Chair: These have to be much shorter. We're trying to get colleagues in before we finish.

Ms. Claire Morris: That's an excellent question, Mr. Chairman. We have, in fact, through CJF, put in place formal memorandums of understanding between departments so that in fact we do exactly that kind of an assessment before project money is provided.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: When did that start? Did that just begin more recently or...?

Ms. Claire Morris: It was informal under TJF. It has now been formalized under memorandums of understanding with CJF, which was in April 1999.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Rey Pagtakhan and colleagues, we're going to have to keep these very short.

Rey Pagtakhan, one question, perhaps, and one answer.

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

Last night most of us were privileged to hear an excellent message from an erudite person when we were in the presence of Nobel laureate Shimon Peres. I thought I should bring it to the record of the committee that he spoke of the history of the past—that not infrequently, perhaps, it's about mistakes. But even more important is the history of the future, which is of good promise.

Now, as for the six-point action plan, to see the test of time, to see that this is really an excellent six-point action plan, as the Auditor General believes it will be, how long a period of time or trial should it be in place in order to see the application of this on grants and contributions so that we will be able to say that this is indeed an excellent action plan, as predicted?

The Chair: Claire Morris.

Ms. Claire Morris: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We have several measures in place that are designed to take a look at our progress in June. The Auditor General will report in October. We will look again in January. I'm confident that in all of our appearances before this committee you'll be looking for progress and evidence that we have made all of those changes. I'm confident that we have enough external checkpoints in place that we'll do just that.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Thank you.

The Chair: Paul Crête, Libby Davies, and then Bernard Bigras, with one question each. Then I'm going to suspend the meeting.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata— Les Basques, BQ): Ms. Vincent, you said that you paid invoices in the Placeteco case, and that the company was to create jobs in return. How many jobs were really created by Placeteco after the 1.2 million dollar grant made on June 17, 1998?

Ms. Danielle Vincent: Mr. Chairman, I must say that currently, 170 persons are working at Placeteco or at Techni-Paint. Without this grant, those people would not have jobs today.

Mr. Paul Crête: Madam, Techni-Paint is a different company. I want to know how many jobs were created by Placeteco. Techni-Paint got a part of the grant, but I am talking about the 1.2 million dollar grant granted to Placeteco. How many jobs were created by Placeteco?

Ms. Danielle Vincent: Currently, 78 persons have jobs at Placeteco and they would not have any had we not...

Mr. Paul Crête: The 78 persons...

The Chairman: The chairman is still here.

• 1230

Mr. Paul Crête: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Seventy-eight persons have jobs at Placeteco. There was the same number of jobs before the grant. Do you assert that there was no substantial job creation by Placeteco since they received the grant on June 17, 1998?

Ms. Danielle Vincent: I must say, Mr. Chairman, that at different stages of the project...

Mr. Paul Crête: Answer my question, Madam.

Ms. Danielle Vincent: Up to 135 people have had jobs at Placeteco.

Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Chairman, I am asking the witness to answer my question. On June 17, 1998, when they received the grant, there was about the same number of employees as today. In her mind, were jobs created by Placeteco, independently of Techni-Paint, since they received the grant?

[English]

The Chair: Danielle, briefly, then Libby Davies.

[Translation]

Ms. Danielle Vincent: While the project lasted, people lost jobs and got jobs. Currently, there are 78 people working for this company, who would not have jobs had we not intervened.

[English]

The Chair: Libby Davies and then Bernard Bigras.

Ms. Libby Davies: I'd like to ask the department, can you provide the committee with a list of all of the executives who received promotions after the first report was...[Technical Difficulty—Editor]?

Ms. Claire Morris: Yes.

Ms. Libby Davies: Okay. And do you believe the same rules are in effect for approving the Transitional Jobs Fund and the Canada Jobs Fund now across the country? Do the same rules apply across the country? And are those decisions made by the national, the regional, or the local office?

Ms. Claire Morris: Mr. Chairman, as we've stated on several occasions, the guidelines are across the country, but a great deal of flexibility is given so that in fact each region can deal with the specifics of its own situation.

Ms. Libby Davies: But for individual projects, are those guidelines applied by the regional office, or is the decision made by the local office?

Ms. Claire Morris: No, the guidelines flow from headquarters to the region to the local offices.

Ms. Libby Davies: Who makes the decision then? Is it the local office for the Canada Jobs Fund or, previously, the Transitional Jobs Fund?

Ms. Claire Morris: In most cases it would be the local office, but I might ask Danielle to comment in terms of the Quebec region, as an example.

[Translation]

Ms. Danielle Vincent: Of course, recommendations made by the local office come to the regional office and, ultimately, the projects are approved here, by central management.

[English]

The Chair: Bernard Bigras gets the last question, and then I'm going to suspend the meeting, as we agreed, but as you know, the meeting will not be ended.

Bernard.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Regarding the way the department functions, Mr. Chairman, the numbered company cannot move to Rosemont but rather to Saint-Maurice because, it seems that there is no more available room in Rosemont, where the company was supposed to move. Did you check whether there was no room left at 5800 Saint-Denis St., before authorizing—Mr. Chairman, I am talking about the way the company functions, and not the investigation—the transferring of this project to Saint-Maurice? Did your department do its work?

Ms. Claire Morris: Mr. Chairman, we are really limited in what we can say in our answers regarding the project...

Mr. Bernard Bigras: No, no.

[English]

The Chair: Let the witness reply.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: I am not asking where the money went. I am asking what was done in that case. Did your department check to see whether there was no room left at 5800 Saint-Denis St. before allowing the company to move to Saint-Maurice? That is my question. Had there been an investigation, the contrary conclusion would have been reached, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Rey Pagtakhan has a point of order.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I think the committee has to be very careful as to what questions we pose. I do this in all friendship, Mr. Chair—

The Chair: Rey, I—

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: —because you do not like the witness to be treated—

The Chair: Rey, I appreciate the advice. That is not a point of order.

Claire Morris, do you wish to reply?

Ms. Claire Morris: I'm not in a position to reply, and I don't know whether Danielle is in a position to reply, with respect to what actually happened at that time and what kind of verification would have been done.

The Chair: Okay.

Bernard, do you have one last comment?

• 1235

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Mr. Chairman, I will repeat my question. Did the department verify that there was no more room left?

[English]

The Chair: No, no, no.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Mr. Chairman, the director of human resources in my riding is studying...

[English]

The Chair: Bernard, we've tried.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: [Editor's note: Inaudible]... and I am waiting for an answer.

[English]

The Chair: Bernard, the Bloc has had more time in this meeting than any other party. You've had a turn.

Although I disagreed that it was a point of order, I agreed with the comment that it is up to us to respect the witnesses. In this case we've dealt with it before. You've made your point. You've made your point.

Witnesses, on behalf of the committee, I want to thank you.

I want to thank Claire Morris, the deputy minister.

Danielle Vincent, we appreciate your coming here.

Suzette Perreault, we also appreciate your coming here from Montreal. Suzette, I wish all witnesses were as clear and precise as you.

Thank you very much.

Colleagues, I suspend this meeting. We will move in camera to give direction to our staff for our preliminary report, so I urge the members of the committee not to leave.

The meeting is suspended.

[Proceedings continue in camera]