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]

Tuesday, November 16, 1999

• 1110

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Colleagues, if we could begin, I will just go over two or three things.

This is the meeting that was scheduled and we agreed to. It includes the meeting on the steering committee and then an open committee. Today's topic is a review of the HRDC performance report.

On Thursday, which is November 18, we will proceed to our reconsideration of the committee's report on social insurance numbers. We'll come back to that and we will have members of the department here to discuss that with us.

The government response to the SIN report was tabled this morning. I'm sure there will be discussion of the timeliness of these government responses, but when they come, if they do come, wait. You have to realize that our research staff have difficulty producing notes and so on. In this case, by Thursday we have high hopes of having the notes, but you should know that the report was only tabled this morning and they've only had since this morning to have a look at the response. But we hope they'll get the responses.

In future, when I get to the other items, the same warning applies.

On November 23, we proceed to the report of our subcommittee on children and youth at risk.

On November 25, there's the post-secondary education report, for which we already have a substantial response and we've had it for a considerable time.

On November 30, there's the report on older workers.

On December 2, there is the report from the subcommittee on persons with disabilities.

That was the plan we agreed to. The idea is that we are revisiting and carrying forward the work the committee has done so far.

So today in fact we're dealing with the HRDC performance report.

John Godfrey, and then Diane Ablonczy and Paul Crête.

Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): I would like to, at some point, perhaps earlier than later, Mr. Chair, reintroduce the motion that was presented to the main committee last Thursday concerning the creation of a subcommittee on children and youth at risk. I'm sorry I wasn't here, and I know a number of other members of the committee were not here. I understand the concern expressed at the time was that we lacked a work plan. Members will have received a document prepared by the researchers, which is not intended to usurp decisions made by any such subcommittee, but at least to indicate, drawing from our interim report, which you'll be looking at next Tuesday, possible directions given the looming federal budget, which may have something to do with children.

My point would be, Chair, that whatever we may decide next Tuesday, when we look at the interim report I think it's going to be very important that we have a subcommittee, which has been working hard on children's issues, to get at it right away, if we're to have any meaningful input into the budget process.

As well, next week is the 10th anniversary of the all-party resolution on child poverty, and it would be my great ambition, if we could agree to create the subcommittee today and I can get cooperation from all parties to put forward names from whips to the clerk, that our first session would be held a week tomorrow to mark the 10th anniversary of the all-party resolution on working towards the elimination of child poverty.

• 1115

I hate to interrupt the flow of what you're doing, but I hope this will be useful.

The Chair: I understand what you're saying.

Colleagues, John Godfrey is referring to the note on possible study directions for the proposed subcommittee on children and youth at risk, which is dated November 10.

I'm quite willing to consider that motion. Diane and Paul, were you dealing with something else? Is it something quite brief or should I deal with this first?

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): My comments really tie in with what John just said. We talked about getting some information from the minister as to what the government priorities were going to be on the children's agenda so that we could better decide how we could contribute, whether we needed to contribute as a main committee, or whether we wanted to consider another committee, a subcommittee.

I must say I'm disappointed that there's nothing in your agenda that would give us an opportunity to hear from the minister as to what her and the government's priorities are. Is that not going to happen at all?

The Chair: Perhaps when we get to the witnesses we can ask them why they're here. We did in fact invite the minister, or the deputy minister. I personally regret that neither of them is here. Perhaps that's something we could ask them later. I don't know the answer to that.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: I'm sure they don't know the minister's mind in the matter. Is she not going to appear at all?

The Chair: It is my sincere hope that the minister is going to appear, yes.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: It's not on the agenda at this point.

The Chair: I regret the minister's not here today.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: It's very difficult for us to deal in a meaningful way with Mr. Godfrey's proposal, and it's very difficult for Mr. Godfrey to know how we can best contribute leading up to the budget and to this children's agenda, when we don't know what it is yet. Surely we have to have that information, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Paul Crête and Libby Davies.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): My comment also pertains to the Minister's visit. Nevertheless, I would like to add that by introducing a motion this morning in order to strike a subcommittee on children, we are, to some extent, going against the procedural rules adopted either at the last or second-last meeting.

We had said that when an item was on the agenda, we would, first of all, examine it and deal with any possible procedural or timeframe problems after meeting with the witnesses. If we were to discuss whether or not to strike a subcommittee right now, we may very well use up all of the time that we had allotted this morning to meet with the experts.

At the last meeting, we had clearly said that this committee wanted to get an idea of what the government's response would be, determine whether or not this response was more or less satisfactory and then decide whether or not to strike a subcommittee. If we want to discuss the matter this morning, I feel that we should do so after we receive the assessment report or, at least, after hearing the officials who are already here.

Obviously, it would have been preferable, much preferable to meet the Minister. I may not have caught what you said earlier, but I would like, if it's possible, to know exactly what we can do to ensure that we set a date for receiving the Minister. We can, of course, leave it up to him to choose the date, but we do have to make sure that we have a set date that is indicated on our calendar. We can't adjourn without setting a precise date.

[English]

The Chair: With respect to the minister, I hope we'll get an explanation of that shortly—I hope it will be shortly.

With respect to the motion, Paul, I understood it was a reintroduction of a motion that has already been before us, that it's something we have seen before and that we'd asked for additional information on. We've received some additional information, and that's what we're discussing.

The motion that has been circulated I think also contains some directions for the subcommittee, which we were seeking before. Nevertheless we're engaged in a discussion.

Libby Davies.

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Chairperson, we don't have to take home...wanting to do this. I think we can pass these motions and establish a children's subcommittee in a few minutes. Clearly there's a lot of interest to do that. It's continuing work. It's not a new item of business. It's basically coming back from our first discussion when we reconvened.

My concern is that we can hold this up and wait for the minister to appear, or do whatever. Getting some update from the minister is important and useful, but I don't think it's mutually exclusive to the committee getting back on track, getting its own business together and moving forward. Hopefully the committee itself, along with this committee, is going to be sort of a constructive process to actually encourage the minister to keep on with what she has to do.

• 1120

I would prefer that we not hold any of this up, that we just get on and do it and name the members, particularly given that the anniversary is coming up. If we can't sort out the wrangles here, but just get the business underway and start doing something productive, I don't think it looks very good. So I would encourage that we vote on this and then hear the presentation, and hopefully we'll hear the minister at some point.

The Chair: John Godfrey, and then Judi Longfield.

Mr. John Godfrey: I would simply say that we need not wait for the minister to know what the intentions of the government are. They are contained in the Speech from the Throne. If you look at the work plan, that refers explicitly to commitments made in the Speech from the Throne, which binds the whole government and not simply the minister, to establishing a national action plan by December of next year. It is in the context of that and the forthcoming budget that I think we can move ahead without having to wait for the minister.

The Chair: Judi Longfield, and then Paul Crête.

Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): I'd like to hear what the minister is saying on both sides. The section that gives me comfort is that the mandate of the committee will be re-evaluated on February 17. Our committee schedule is full for the rest of the session. Irrespective of what direction the minister may be going and whether this becomes the work of the full committee, this committee won't have an option to deal with it until at least the 17th.

I don't have a problem with getting this up and running, particularly in light of the anniversary that's coming up and in light of input to the throne speech, Mr. Chair. I think this is probably appropriate given the timeframe. Between now and February 17, we'll have the opportunity to discuss with the three ministers this committee reports to on where they see the direction going. I would therefore support the motion.

The Chair: Paul Crête, and then Diane Ablonczy.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: I would like to clarify something. I did not, in any way, shape, or form associate the fact that we had decided to strike a subcommittee on children with the fact that we would be receiving the Minister. I did not want to link these two issues together. I would only remind you that, during the last meeting, we had said that we would not discuss such issues when we had witnesses waiting, witnesses who had made themselves available in order to discuss the issue being reviewed.

By setting this precedent, any committee member would be able to do this on another topic at the first opportunity. Not everybody will necessarily appreciate this. This is why I think it is appropriate to first of all have a discussion with our witnesses, debate the matter with them, as scheduled, and manage our time so that, at the end of the meeting, we can resolve the issue pertaining to the subcommittee.

If we do this right now, we will revert back to the same arguments raised at the last meeting. For instance, we can question why we should discuss whether or not to strike a subcommittee without knowing what the government's response will be. Personally, I'm wondering how relevant it is to discuss striking a subcommittee without knowing what the government is going to tell us.

I don't feel like holding this debate right now. If your side would like to do so, go ahead. However, we may very well use up all the time that we had set aside to meet with the officials, and then we will have to schedule another committee meeting. That's all that I wanted to say.

[English]

The Chair: If this goes on too long, I agree with you. In other words, out of courtesy to our guests, we should cut it off if it goes on too long.

Diane Ablonczy.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Again, my concern is setting up the subcommittee just to have a subcommittee. Look at the three things this subcommittee would focus its efforts on. One is a national action plan, but about what? In what direction? Based on what priorities? Based on what kind of an agenda? If we craft an action plan with a subcommittee but it's very divergent from what the minister's and the government's intentions are, I would submit that the member we place on it and all other members would be tilting at windmills to some extent. It doesn't make sense not to have it more closely defined.

It talks about spending priorities. Again, until you know what the action priorities are, how can you have an examination of spending priorities?

You then talk about long-term priorities as the national action takes place. Again, you're doing this in a vacuum. With all respect, the measures or the words in the throne speech were extremely general, to say the least. It just seems to me to put the members on and have them working in this vacuum is not a sensible way to go.

• 1125

I agree with Libby. We should go forward, but we should go forward with some kind of a road map in front of us. We really don't have one at this point.

The Chair: Following on what Paul Crête said, I'm doing my best to keep this as short as possible.

Bryon Wilfert, and then Rey Pagtakhan.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, in the time we've taken, we could have had it done by now.

Basically, this isn't new business. This is a continuation still within the 48 hours' notification. The fact is that we are simply reconstituting a committee that has not finished its work. We have a deadline of February 17, and I would suggest that we put it to a vote, Mr. Chairman. I'd call the question.

The Chair: Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: I would like to speak again; I'm not prepared to vote.

[English]

The Chair: Rey Pagtakhan, and then Paul Crête.

Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): Mr. Chair, I agree, but I did ask for some clarification of the terms of reference. They are now here, and let me remind members that developing an action plan on the part of a parliamentary subcommittee is ideal. In other words, we do not have to be beholden to the agenda of government; we can define our action plan as a committee of Parliament. That is excellent, because then we can get the contribution of all political parties into the action plan.

So contrary to the argument that there is a vacuum, there is in fact no vacuum because we will be creating something. So I suggest that we proceed with the creation of the subcommittee.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Paul Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Chairman, I need some clarification. Are we debating the motion to strike a subcommittee? Is that what we are doing right now? Because if we are, I'm going to move an amendment to point 4, which deals with the terms of reference of the subcommittee, and which will read as follows: "The committee assess the reasons for the government's failure to fulfil the commitment made by the House of Commons, on November 24, 1989, to eliminate child poverty."

[English]

The Chair: Yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: I would like to move that this amendment...

[English]

The Chair: We have an amendment proposed, and we'll have what I hope is a brief discussion on it.

John Godfrey, and then Rey Pagtakhan.

[Translation]

Mr. John Godfrey: We will have to say “governments”, because this commitment was made 10 years ago, and since then several governments have been in power. I am quite prepared to agree to this amendment, which seems to be rather inoffensive. This is specifically about children and youth at risk, and poverty is a risk factor. I have no objection to that.

[English]

The Chair: I'll confirm that.

Paul Crête, does the amendment say “governments”?

The Clerk of the Committee: “Governments”.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Yes, I can reread it: “The committee assess the reasons for the failure of successive governments to fulfil the commitment made by the House of Commons, on November 24, 1989, to eliminate child poverty within 10 years.”

[English]

The Chair: Rey Pagtakhan, on the amendment.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have difficulty with the amendment. Firstly, it has made a conclusion that there have been failures on the part of subsequent governments, of consecutive governments, since the motion was introduced. To go into such an analysis within a short period of time would be unrealistic, I think. At the same time, when we define the action plan today and what it will do—in fact, create the right environment for children—that is not a positive approach. So I object to the amendment, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Okay. I propose to call a vote on the amendment.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Pagtakhan's argument is, in my opinion, a bit superficial. We all know that the population of poor children in Canada has gone from 1 million to 1.5 million in the 10 years I refer to in my motion. We all know that there has been a very significant rise in poverty in certain levels of society. Assessing this point is, in my mind, very relevant. I acknowledged that this is not about judging one government but rather all of the governments since 1989.

• 1130

The failure referred to in this resolution leads us to question the very effectiveness of Parliament as a democratic institution representing the people. Today, any Canadian citizen may ask himself this question when he sees what was adopted 10 years ago and observes that the opposite result was achieved. Refusing to examine the situation of children who have been the most affected by poverty in society is tantamount to burying our heads in the sand, just like an ostrich.

[English]

The Chair: I'll call the amendment.

Diane Ablonczy.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Surely rushing these through with these poor gentlemen waiting is not really a very good way to do this. Couldn't we deal with this at the end of the committee? I'd like to consider this amendment, because it's a pretty big one. Let's get the business over with, and then we can talk about what we're going to do later.

The Chair: I'm not convinced there's a great deal more discussion. We discussed the amendment and we discussed the motion.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: What is the amendment again?

The Chair: Would you read the amendment?

[Translation]

The Clerk: Point 4 would read as follows: “assess the causes of the failure of successive governments to fulfil the commitment made by the House of Commons, on November 24, 1989, to eliminate child poverty.”

[English]

The Chair: Okay, does everyone understand the amendment?

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Chairman, I am very sensitive to the argument raised by Ms. Ablonczy. I think that it would be, indeed, good to have time to think about the issue and come back to it after the meeting and once we have assessed the department's performance. I am very conscious of the fact that this is a major commitment.

This morning, I didn't know that this type of motion would be made before our meeting with the witnesses. Had I known this, I would have sent my amendment to all of the committee members so that we would have had an opportunity to discuss it. I am in complete agreement with Ms. Ablonczy about this matter.

Accordingly, I would invite the Chairman to receive... I don't know if, technically speaking, I can do this myself, but I am moving that the amendment and the motion be tabled so that we can discuss them after we have heard from the witnesses.

[English]

The Chair: I'm asking, by the way, whether or not it's a motion tabled. If it is—and the clerk advises me that we don't have such a thing—we would normally deal with it now.

Mr. John Godfrey: Who's tabling?

The Chair: I was listening to the French channel, and I didn't know déposer means “to table”. I'm asking the question here now, and I'll ask it aloud.

The Clerk: In committee, you don't normally table in advance, but you could give notice or whatever, like the 48-hour notice. What you're saying is that you want to give notice of your amendment, as if it were a main motion, just like what we have already.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: I need more clarification. Tabling the 48-hour notice—

The Clerk: He has already done that.

Mr. Paul Crête: So the motion is deemed to have been tabled with 48 hours' notice. And yet—

The Clerk: Mr. Godfrey had already—

Mr. Paul Crête: —in the notice of meeting we received, there is no mention of any motion to strike a subcommittee, and I do not believe that it is indicated on this morning's agenda either. If a 48-hour notice had been given to allow discussion of this matter today, the motion should have appeared on the agenda, which it hasn't.

Does that mean that if, in the future, I were to submit a motion 48 hours in advance and it wasn't indicated on the agenda, it could be debated because I had sent it in time?

[English]

The Chair: My beginning thought was that it was a reintroduction. Some of it had been discussed. I heard it as a motion that I recognized, for which 48 hours' notice had been given two weeks ago.

• 1135

So my instinct is to proceed like this. We will vote first of all on the amendment. You've all heard Paul Crête's amendment.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Chairman, we had no notice that we were going to have to deal with this today. Surely just because a motion was brought forward and not dealt with at one point, it can't be brought up willy-nilly at any point, without us even knowing it was going to come forward. I haven't had an opportunity to look at this document. I just got it. I haven't had an opportunity to consider the amendment. I just think it's a very poor way to do business.

The Chair: My understanding is members received the document yesterday.

I do think, by the way, there was considerable discussion last time. I know to a certain extent it was left in the air, because some principles of this motion were not present, but it was my strong sense it was going to be reintroduced. It has been reintroduced this morning.

So I will call Paul Crête's amendment. Everyone has heard it.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Chairman, it's important for the work of the committee in future that we not create a precedent that would put us in a difficult situation for a long time.

[English]

The Chair: I understand your concern, and I apologize to these particular witnesses. It is not my intention to introduce surprise motions. My view is this is reintroduction of a motion that was well understood before and that has been given some direction since the last meeting. So I don't believe, Paul, it is a precedent.

I'm calling the amendment as read out by the clerk.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Are you asking who's in favour?

The Chair: That's right.

[English]

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: I call the motion, which you have before you, proposed by John Godfrey.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. Between the vote on the amendment and the vote on the recommendation, we need time... There could easily be another amendment to propose, or I might want notice. Could the motion not be tabled at 12:30, say after hearing from the expert witnesses? That would appear to me to be a reasonable, liveable, acceptable, etc., minimum delay which would ensure that the vote or at least that the debate would take place today. In other words, it would be setting a precedent.

I would like the committee to follow the proper rules of play. However if things continue in the direction they seem to be going, and we vote before hearing from the witnesses, the next time that we have motions to table, we may just play by the same rules. Today we are lucky, in that the witnesses are public servants from the department. They could have been from the outside and have found themselves in the same situation. I would hope to avoid such occurrences in the future. This is why I propose that we vote on the terms of reference of the subcommittee after meeting with the experts.

[English]

The Chair: It is my sense, Paul, as I explained, that it's not creating a precedent. I apologize for this thirty minutes' delay for these particular witnesses. I had thought it would go more quickly than this.

My sense is we can deal with this thing now. I'm calling the motion of John Godfrey. It's the one you have before you. It is the same motion we had two weeks ago, with the extra material the committee asked for. Those in favour of the motion before us?

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: On forming the subcommittee? On the main motion?

The Chair: Yes, that's right.

Mr. Paul Crête: So, my amendment is not considered, Mr. Chairman. I had asked for it to be tabled—

The Chair: The amendment was—

Mr. Paul Crête: Yes, but after the amendment was rejected, I asked that we not vote on the motion until after we had heard the witnesses. On that...

[English]

The Chair: I have misunderstood.

That's a new motion. Surely we deal with the first motion before we deal with the second motion.

The Clerk: Yes, but he's introducing a motion that is relevant to this.

The Chair: Judi Longfield.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: He's making a motion to table. A motion to table is not debatable. If you want to put that motion, it should be done without—

The Chair: We don't have a motion to table.

The Clerk: Well, we don't table in committee normally, but it's a motion to delay.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: You've already called. You have a vote on one side. Mr. Chair, I think, with all respect, you have to proceed with it.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. The member says that we had started to vote, but prior to that I had proposed that the vote take place after hearing the witnesses. You should then consider this recommendation before putting the main recommendation to a vote.

• 1140

[English]

The Chair: I'll accept that. It's not a motion to table; it's a motion to delay, he says. So I will call that motion now, to delay this decision until 12:30.

(Motion negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: I call the main motion.

Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.

The Chair: Ken Epp.

[English]

Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Chairman, as you know, I'm substituting on this committee, but I understand that this committee, like others, has a rule of 48 hours' notice. I don't really think you have the option of just saying, “Well, okay, we're just not going to live by it.” I think there has to be 48 hours' notice for this motion.

The Chair: Ken, I ruled on that at the very beginning or else I would not have introduced it. My ruling was that this was reintroduction of a motion. You weren't here at the previous meeting. That was discussed in our previous meeting.

I call the motion before us, proposed by John Godfrey, for the creation of the subcommittee.

(Motion agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: Again, witnesses, I do apologize.

We have Guy Tremblay and Alan Winberg here from the department.

We do appreciate your being here, even though we went through that debate. I hope it was a revelation to you of the way we work.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Godfrey and I have to go to Heritage.

The Chair: We understand that.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Thank you.

The Chair: Gentlemen, first of all—and this is no disrespect to you—as I indicated earlier, I'm disappointed that neither of you is the minister and that neither of you is the deputy. If you have any information on that, I'd be grateful if you would build it into your presentation.

You're here to present on the department's performance report. I'd be grateful if you'd proceed, Mr. Winberg or Mr. Tremblay, as you wish.

Mr. Alan Winberg (Assistant Deputy Minister, Financial and Administrative Services, Department of Human Resources Development): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll start off by giving the information members have requested regarding our minister. I know, based on discussions with her office, that the minister intends and hopes to come before the committee before Christmas. I understand the clerk will be working with her office to find a date that would be acceptable to the committee.

The Chair: Do you have any comments on the whereabouts of the deputy?

Mr. Alan Winberg: The deputy unfortunately was unable to attend because of the short notice for the meeting. The deputy today is at a meeting outside Ottawa.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Winberg. Proceed.

Mr. Alan Winberg: But I am very pleased to be here to talk with you—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: And we're very pleased to have you here.

Mr. Alan Winberg: —about the departmental performance report. There are extra copies if anyone would like to have a copy. These were distributed to all members of Parliament back in October.

I'll keep my remarks brief in order to permit a full discussion afterwards.

I'd like to start off by introducing Guy Tremblay, who's here with me. Mr. Tremblay is director general of our financial services group. We're pleased to be here to respond to your questions about the departmental performance report.

Since arriving in the department in July, I've been very impressed with the professionalism of the department's people and the importance of our programs in the lives of Canadians. Today I hope you'll gain a sense of the breadth of those programs and how they touch people. Our departmental performance report points out a wide range of accomplishments of HRDC programs.

I have three points to make today. First I'd like to speak about our department's programs and our commitment to the best possible delivery of these programs to Canadians. Second, I'd like to point out our commitment to effective reporting about performance. And third, I would like to request your help as we work to improve our performance reporting.

[Translation]

Human Resources Development Canada is a department that is focussed on people. Our programs contribute to the welfare of all of the different communities of Canada. We are responsible for a large number of programs and services that impact Canadians in their daily lives. They are among the most visible programs and services.

• 1145

We deal with around nine million Canadians each year. We receive almost 30 million information requests on employment insurance alone, and we send over 100 million items of correspondence each year.

You will find on page 5 of the report, a list of the clients who use our programs. It's on the right hand corner of page 5. You can see that our department's programs serve all Canadians. We are determined to run these programs efficiently.

The diagrams on pages 7, 8 and 9 of our performance report outline the department's commitment with respect to the results that each of these programs must achieve.

The pie chart on page 12 outlines the breakdown of the department's budget for each of the programs. The consolidated total spending for the department is approximately $57.6 billion for 1998-99. The statutory transfer payments, specifically those for Old Age Security, the Canada Pension Plan and Employment Insurance, account for almost $53.9 billion of the department's expenses.

[English]

Two years ago leaders from across HRDC developed a mission statement and a vision for the department. These are set out at page 4 of the performance report.

Our mission is to enable Canadians to participate fully in the workplace and the community. That means supporting people and communities to anticipate change and deal with it effectively. It means attention to high-quality service, partnerships, policy and program leadership, and more.

In all our work, effective, high-quality service and achieving results through collaboration are key. Our departmental performance report discusses what we achieved in this regard in 1998-99.

[Translation]

Canadians expect the government to offer quality services. The department believes that it is critical to live up to these expectations. The performance report describes a number of initiatives undertaken last year to improve the delivery of these legislative programs. We have tried to consider this issue from the perspective of the client and we have attempted to determine how to improve the delivery of these programs.

As you already know, from your own experience, Canadians, take for example pensioners or employment insurance recipients, welcome any initiative that improves the quality of our services or the cost effectiveness of our programs.

[English]

So, for example, at pages 39 and 40 of the performance report, there's a description of how we implemented an important change to the guaranteed income supplement last year. We simplified and streamlined it from the citizen's perspective. Last year, for the first time, instead of having to complete an annual application and report income to us, 1,200,000 seniors automatically renewed their benefits simply by filing an income tax return and sending it to Revenue Canada, which is now called the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, before the April 30 deadline. We get the income data we need from the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, and we use that information and our existing files to process the renewal automatically. The result is a simpler, more efficient process that benefits seniors and taxpayers alike.

• 1150

Another important example of our attention to quality service is pointed out on page 27. We've created a service delivery representative position. We gave the staff the authority to make more decisions on employment insurance claims instead of passing the claims to other staff for decisions. As a result of this, clients get information and decisions more quickly.

Our sense of what it means to be citizen-focused involves looking at our programs as they impact on individual Canadians at each stage in the life cycle. Our programs address the needs of children, youth, working-age people, and seniors.

Take the example of our focus on children. The government's policy view is clear. If kids get a good start in life, we all gain long-term benefits.

The focus of HRDC's children's work involves attention to strengthening the incomes of families, and especially income from work. We know that if people have the skills and opportunities to work and earn a good living, a lot of other positive factors are more likely to fall into place.

We also devote attention to supporting child development and readiness to learn, because the evidence shows how important an effective network of quality supports for early childhood development is.

[Translation]

Because of these priorities we have been involved in measures such as the National Child Benefit and the EI family income supplement, both of which provide financial means for low-income families. We support research and innovation with respect to child care services. These efforts allow us to obtain information which could be useful to policy makers and to the people who design and implement programs.

We have the same approach fulfilling our commitments towards youth, working-age adults and seniors. The performance report provides the results obtained by all of these programs.

[English]

After the citizen focus, our emphasis on collaboration to achieve results comes through clearly throughout the performance report. Let me offer a range of examples from the report that show the breadth of our network of partners.

The labour market development agreements mean partnering with provinces and territories. Cooperation on labour issues means partnering with business, labour, the provinces and territories, and collaborating with the International Labour Organisation. Our support for sector councils means partnering with business, labour, and often educators. The new aboriginal human resource development strategy means partnering with aboriginal organizations. Action on disability issues means partnering with the disability community and the voluntary sector.

There are many other examples of increased collaboration across all our programs, but that gives you a good sense of what's underway.

[Translation]

HRDC is working with its partners in order to respond to urgent needs and to encourage preventative measures. For example, we can allow employers and workers to target human resource priorities by supporting sectoral councils.

[English]

An important part of partnering is being clear on the results to be achieved and finding ways to measure performance and report on performance. This work is receiving much attention, and we're making steady progress in this regard.

Effective performance reporting by our department is important to our ministers and to members of Parliament. Over the past few years, HRDC has worked to make our departmental performance report and related documents more informative and useful to you.

Our current performance measures stress excellence in service delivery. Over the past few years, we have put into place a valuable system of service standards and performance measures around these standards. We are building on this strong foundation.

In future reports, we plan to advance further our reporting of the impacts of our programs and program outcomes, in addition to the excellence in service measures we have now. Parliamentarians are among one of the most direct and important users of this information. It's also produced to help other interested Canadians understand what results are achieved from our programs.

[Translation]

Given what I've said, I would invite you on behalf of the department to comment on any measures that we might be able to take to improve our performance accountability.

• 1155

[English]

We would very much like to hear your suggestions about how we can better report to you regarding our goals, priorities, actions, and results.

[Translation]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

The Chair: Thank you Mr. Winberg. Mr. Tremblay, do you have anything to add?

Mr. Guy Tremblay (Director General, Financial Services, Department of Human Resources Development Canada): Not now.

The Chair: Thank you.

[English]

Diane Ablonczy, and then Raymonde Folco.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, gentlemen, for being here.

We note, of course, that your department is the largest one in terms of spending of government. It has over 20,000 employees. It manages revenue of almost $58 billion, and that's more than half of everything government spends.

Of that $58 billion, I note that nearly $54 billion consists of statutory transfer payments; therefore it costs about $4 billion to run the department. I also note that almost $0.2 billion and $1.1 billion of those operating costs come out of the CPP and the EI count. In other words, over 25% of the operating costs of the department come out of those two funds, which of course impacts the amount of money Canadians have to count on for their retirement, and it also impacts the money available for cushioning in times of unemployment.

So my question to you is the following. Are over 25% of the 20,000 HRDC employees exclusively involved in administering the CPP and the EI programs? Of course, that's the amount that is paid out of those two programs.

The second part of that question is that claims payouts under EI have fallen by almost 15% from three years ago. One might have expected that the EI administrative costs would have fallen as well. In fact, that has not happened, and my question to you is why has that not happened?

The Chair: Mr. Winberg.

Mr. Alan Winberg: I'll start off with my answer, and then Guy has some points, especially on the second question.

On the first question, just so it's understood, the statutory payments that were referred to, about $54 billion, are payments that are made to another party. The $4 billion is the cost of making those payments, as well as some other payments that are made to third parties to undertake programs of the department.

So on the question, are 25% of HRDC employees exclusively working for the CPP or EI work, the answer is that the amount shown in our accounts is the amount of money on salaries and operating costs used to deliver CPP and EI work, but there may be employees who do a number of tasks. What we have done is analyze the workload for delivering the CPP program and the EI program and allocate the costs of our operations according to the amount of the budget, which is used to administer both CPP and EI.

Very important work is done to administer those programs properly so that the people know about these programs, the people who are entitled to those programs receive what they're entitled to, and questions that are received from Canadians across the country are responded to and responded to accurately. Meetings may be held to explain the programs and how they run, in order to prevent people not using the program properly, and so on.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: So are you saying that more than 25% of the efforts of your department are targeted toward all the corollary and direct work of those two programs?

Mr. Alan Winberg: Yes. The programs you're discussing are the largest programs of the department, and there is a great deal of operational work required to administer those programs properly and ensure their integrity.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: On the second question?

Mr. Alan Winberg: In the second question you asked about the workload for EI. You noted that the EI claims payouts had fallen and asked about our administrative costs related to administering that. I'll pass it to Guy Tremblay for that.

• 1200

Mr. Guy Tremblay: In fact, the claim load has been dropping over the last two or three years, which, from a resourcing perspective in terms of the administration, only relating to the claims processing, has in fact decreased over that period of time.

However, as a result of a number of other initiatives and impacts as a result of the drop in claim load, including the fact that the EI legislation was changed back in 1996-97, there are a number of things that happened that basically forced the department to reallocate the resources we had at the front line, doing claims processing, to respond actually to increased workload in other activities of the employment insurance program, such as the increased level of inquiries we received as a result of people applying for employment insurance.

We hadn't noticed in one of our key results measures over the last couple of years that our telephone service to the public was grossly inadequate, and we have put in place some reinvestments of those administrative dollars, which we were doing in terms of claims processing to reinvest in our telecentres, to increase the level of service in terms of responding to inquiries, both in person and through our telecentres through automated voice response.

There have been a couple of other areas in which we've reinvested in technology to provide a better service to our clients with regard to employment insurance processing.

So although in one activity in the employment insurance delivery the workload and corresponding resource requirement have gone down, there have been corresponding increases in activity in other activities associated with EI.

The Chair: Mrs. Ablonczy.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Do I still have time? Good.

This is a short period of time to explore the inner workings of a very large department, but I do have one more question relating to the EI account, on a section of it called the Transitional Jobs Fund, now called the Canada Jobs Fund. In the three years of the Transitional Jobs Fund operation, 30,000 sustainable jobs were created, according to the report, for $3 billion, which amounts to over $100,000 per job.

My question is, why is it so high, over $100,000, to create one job? It seems to me it would be easier just to give people half that salary and you could create twice as many jobs at a pretty good income.

Secondly, how many of those direct jobs that were created under the program are actually still existing? We have access to information facts that suggest that this program is not cost-effective, nor does it create long-term jobs. I would like to have you respond to the information we have.

The Chair: Mr. Winberg.

Mr. Alan Winberg: Mr. Chair, the Transitional Jobs Fund created over 30,000 new sustainable jobs. For every Transitional Jobs Fund dollar that was invested, there were contributions from others, because this was a partnering approach. The average contribution from other partners was $9, so for a $300-million investment in people and jobs, $2.7 billion in investment from other partners, in additional investment, was generated.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Yes, but my point is that each job still cost over $100,000. No matter where the money came from, clearly there's only one taxpayer. So whoever paid the money isn't the issue; the issue is, why would it cost so much to create one job?

Mr. Alan Winberg: Sometimes it's not other taxpayers we are partnering with, but rather other non-public money that is partnering. In terms of the public money that is going in, we have a one to ten ratio. Therefore, in terms of public money, we're looking at it as $10,000 on average per job created as the cost of that job.

The Chair: I have Raymonde Folco, then Paul Crête and Rey Pagtakhan.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Sorry, there was one more part to that question that wasn't answered. How many of these jobs still exist?

The Chair: Can you do it quite briefly? We're up to eight or nine minutes.

Mr. Alan Winberg: Program evaluation work is going on to attempt to identify the long-term nature of these jobs. Because the program is relatively young, our measures to date are for jobs created. More time would have to pass in order to make an accurate measure of the long-term jobs that would still be in place.

• 1205

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: How soon would that information be available to the department?

Mr. Alan Winberg: I know there are plans for evaluation in these areas. I'll get back to the committee with that information.

The Chair: Thank you.

Raymonde Folco.

[Translation]

Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): I'd like to welcome you. This is the first time that I've participated in this committee. Since I come from Quebec, the question that I'm going to ask you shouldn't come as a complete surprise. It's about the labour market development agreements between the federal government and the provinces. Obviously, the province that interests me the most is Quebec, but other provinces such as Manitoba, New Brunswick and Alberta have also reached agreements with respect to the labour market.

Could you please tell us in the case of the four provinces that I mentioned which powers were delegated to them? How does this work? Given the problems with respect to the transfer of these powers in Quebec, how are the provinces, specifically Quebec, obliged to account for the money that's transferred to them through their employment insurance account?

That is my first question, Mr. Chairman. If there's time I would have a second question.

The Chair: Very well.

Mr. Winberg.

Mr. Alan Winberg: On page 14 of the English version of our report, we outline the operating environment and challenges.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: It's a bit too concise in my opinion, and I'm asking you these questions because I'd like more details.

Mr. Alan Winberg: I know that there may be differences in the different agreements, depending on the conditions in each of the provinces, and that the terms and conditions may vary from one province to the next.

[English]

For five of these LMDAs, we transferred the delivery along with the money and approximately 25% of our staff related to labour market programs and services funded through the employment insurance account. We made these transfers from HRDC to provincial or territorial authorities. Accountability accords were established for each of those transfers.

In order to provide you with the details of each transfer—the amount of money that was sent—I would have to do additional research and provide that to you.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Could you talk about Quebec? That's obviously the one that most—

Mr. Alan Winberg: Guy, do you have information about the Quebec agreement?

[Translation]

Mr. Guy Tremblay: I would like to comment on some of the elements regarding the accountability agreements that were signed with the provinces, including Quebec. We agreed that the federal government would transfer sums to the provinces in order for them to assume the responsibilities as outlined in section 2 of the Employment Insurance Act. We entrusted the administration of these funds to Quebec, to New Brunswick, to Alberta and to other provinces to whom these powers have been devolved.

We established a common main accountability agreement with each of the provinces and laid out the mechanisms for reporting the results to us. The information that they have to provide us with to describe the results are the same as what is required by federal bureaucrats who administer this program in Ontario, for example.

On page 7 of our performance report we outline our Key Results Commitments. The agreements reached with the provinces are for a duration of three years, after which they are reexamined. The provinces must report their results within the timeframe established in the agreement that was reached with the federal government.

We ask them to describe the access to employment by Canadians by indicating the number of clients who have found a job or who have become self-employed as a result of their intervention.

• 1210

We also ask them to quantify the savings that were realized for the Employment Insurance Program due to benefits that were not paid, under section I of the law, to claimants who returned to the labour force before the end of their benefit period.

We expected that our provincial partners would achieve the same results that we would have achieved had we administered the programs ourselves.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Do I have time to ask one more question, Mr. Chairman?

The Chair: Yes, please go ahead.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Thank you. You just referred to the results that you would have expected if these programs had been administered by the federal government.

I asked you if the provincial governments were required, under the agreement, to inform you of the results and, if appropriate, what these results were. If you can't provide me with the results for the provinces as a whole, I would certainly appreciate the results for the province of Quebec.

Mr. Alan Winberg: In the appendices of our report, you will find supplementary information on the different accounts and programs administered by our department. For example, there is a statutory report on Canada's student loans from pages 60 to 65 of the English report, as well as tables where the figures are broken down per province. On the pages that follow, there is a statutory report on Old Age Security where once again we present the figures and the distribution per province. It will likely be possible to do a more detailed presentation in our next report in order to provide you with more specific information about these agreements with the provinces.

That is what I was referring to in my introductory remarks, when I invited you to comment on the measures that we might be able to take in order to improve our performance accountability so that it might be more useful to you. It might be possible in future reports to include supplementary information which would correspond to what you would like to know about these very important agreements with the provinces.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: One last word, Mr. Chairman. I would like, and I think that a number of my colleagues feel the same way, that we be provided with the expectations that were set and the results that each of the four provinces obtained. If we had these figures, we could compare the four provinces that have these powers to those in which the service is still provided by the federal government.

As you said yourself, this evaluation should be done. I presume that there will be an evaluation at the end of the three-year period after the signing of the agreement. When the three years are up, will the department have the opportunity to review the agreements with the provinces and how will that happen?

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Winberg and Mr. Tremblay, could you be very brief in your reply, please?

[Translation]

Mr. Alan Winberg: Each of the agreements contains a clause which allows for such an evaluation. Unfortunately I can't provide you with a more in-depth explanation right now, but I'd like to assure you that next year's performance report will contain information with respect to this.

The Chair: Thank you.

Paul Crête, followed by Ray Pagtakhan and Judi Longfield.

Mr. Paul Crête: First of all I'd like to tell my colleague that these results have been compiled and made public by the Government of Quebec. There were three main criteria identified, in particular the number of unemployed people who went back to work. So there are certain statistics that we do have.

I'd be very interested in knowing whether there is a table for Canada as a whole setting out the sums the federal government has invested in the program, the responsibilities it has devolved and how efficient such devolution has proven to be in each case, because Quebec can certainly hold its own in a comparison with any other Canadian province on this aspect of devolution.

• 1215

Mr. Alan Winberg: On page 16...

[English]

The Chair: I'd like to remind people that the chair is here. If we're going to chat, why don't we chat through the chair.

Mr. Winberg.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: But I haven't asked my question yet.

The Chair: Please go ahead.

Mr. Alan Winberg: My comment was referring to Ms. Folco's last question.

Mr. Paul Crête: I see.

Mr. Alan Winberg: On page 16 of our report, you will find additional information with respect to the devolution of responsibilities as well as the transfer of $1.9 billion to the provinces. You can consult this report on the Internet site.

The Chair: I see. Thank you. Paul Crête.

Mr. Paul Crête: My first remark is not a criticism aimed at the witnesses who are present, but it strikes me as quite significant that the Minister of Human Resources Development has sent to the committee for the assessment of this report the Assistant Deputy Minister for Financial and Administrative Services and the Director General of Financial Services rather than a deputy minister who would have a more comprehensive view that takes into account the human aspect as well as the consequences of the department's policies.

I am not calling into question your competence but it does indicate to me today that the deputy minister of the department has found something more important to do than to come to speak to a parliamentary committee about the department's report. I find that rather troubling.

This report contains a great deal of material and we could spend days investigating it. It is a very huge department.

On page 27, you discuss employment insurance benefits. Would it be possible for you to give me, either today or very soon, a table showing the impacts of employment insurance reductions on individuals unemployed in each province? According to the general data I've obtained, for Quebec in particular, it would appear that since 1996 Quebec is contributing more to the Employment Insurance system than it is withdrawing in the form of benefits, contrary to the situation in previous years. This is even more true for Ontario as well as for several provinces. I talked about the global impact on a province but I'd be particularly interested in knowing the personal impact on the unemployed according to regions. Do you have data on this so that we can have some idea of the actual consequences of these cutbacks?

I maintain that in a period of economic growth, at a time when there are more jobs, seasonal workers are worse off. They may have a job for a longer period of time but since their benefits are lower and they receive them for a shorter period, the end result is that they are poorer. I'm afraid that the Department of Human Resources Development is actively contributing to the impoverishment of the people of Canada. Do you have any tables on this situation?

Mr. Alan Winberg: First of all, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that our deputy minister did intend to appear before your committee, but she was unable to do so because she agreed to travel to another province. Unfortunately, the invitation from your committee arrived too late. I can assure you that she would be very interested in coming to discuss the department's priorities with you.

Secondly, I report directly to the deputy minister. I am the Assistant Deputy Minister for Financial and Administrative Services and I am accompanied by Mr. Tremblay, the Director General of Financial Services. Our responsibilities extend to the entire department.

You asked me what the impacts of changes to the Employment Insurance system have been. Every year we publish a report describing the repercussions of such changes. On page 26 of our performance report you will find in black and white the address of the Internet site where such information is available. Furthermore, our report has been tabled in the House of Commons. We are now drafting the report for the present year where you will find an assessment of the repercussions of these changes on people.

• 1220

Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Winberg, I realize that you publish a report every year. I've been following this issue for five years. That wasn't my question. Will we be receiving any presentations that will allow us to see the impact of the employment insurance reform on each individual citizen? When only 40% of the unemployed are eligible, that means that 60% do not receive benefits. Can you tell us what the economic impact of this is on each of those concerned?

Mr. Alan Winberg: Mr. Chairman, I'll be discussing this matter with those in the department who are working on this issue and who are developing the assessment report.

Mr. Paul Crête: I'll now come to a more general question. A document prepared by the Parliamentary Research Branch, and not by the Bloc, notes:

None of the “key” results commitments for HRDC (Performance Report, page 7) deal with social issues.

This is linked to my opening remark, namely that the people who are representing the department today are people from the financial services. Does it strike you as normal and proper that there are no performance objectives assigned for social issues?

Mr. Alan Winberg: Mr. Chairman, my group is responsible for coordinating the production of the estimates presented to Parliament. The government's estimates were changed four years ago in order to better respond to the information requirements of members of Parliament. In the month of March we present our plans and priorities for the coming year as well as the appropriate budgets. Every autumn the president of Treasury Board tables in the House of Commons a report on performance. Thus the estimates are split into two sections. The departmental officials responsible for finances are the ones who produce this report. It is not a report from the Department of Finance. It is a report from all the departments and all the groups and programs of the department are reflected in it.

The tables on page 7, 8 and 9 set out the main social objectives and priorities of the department.

Our commitment is to provide Canadians with an effective and efficient labour market; temporary income support to eligible unemployed workers; safe, fair, stable and productive workplaces; secure income security programs for seniors, persons with disabilities, and their children, survivors and migrants. There are two others indicated on page 9.

We have developed a series of measures for each of our social objectives with economic links because the two are interrelated. Our measures are aimed at excellence in service delivery. As I explained, our department is committed to continuing its efforts to improve performance measurements for the social objectives set out on pages 7, 8 and 9.

We are not satisfied with the information that we provide you with at the present time in our report with respect to our main results. It is our desire to build on these measurements to provide you with the necessary information on the results of such programs.

[English]

The Chair: Paul, very briefly, if you would, please.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: In view of the fact that performance commitments in the field of education, persons with disabilities, seniors, youth and Aboriginals are not set out in your key results commitments, how does your department intend to go about doing something, particularly if it does not consider itself accountable for positive results in these sectors?

• 1225

This document does not contain any key objectives for persons with disabilities, children, seniors, youth and Aboriginals. How is it possible to make an assessment if there are no objectives?

[English]

The Chair: Could you be very brief? I think others will pick up on the same issue. If they don't, I will. Briefly now, because I have a long list.

Mr. Alan Winberg: We're committed to improving our reporting of outcomes. We want to build on the existing measures. We welcome your suggestions and advice as to how we could improve and on what types of measures you would like to see us establish and report against.

The Chair: Okay.

The next on the list is Rey Pagtakhan, but before we go to him, I would like to say I agree with Mr. Crête. I think the 12 days' notice is plenty. Given the circumstances of this particular period in Parliament, we only have a relatively few weeks—barely months—to deal with various matters. If the department expects more than 12 days' notice, there's a serious problem there. The committee's time is very tight. I know the department's is, but you're the department with 20,000 employees and we're the committee with a handful of people. I would urge you to convey that thought to the department.

Rey Pagtakhan.

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

Thank you for your presentation. Certainly I am delighted that Canada is now number one among the industrialized countries in terms of security for retirement. But what I would like to know and to be assured of is, notwithstanding that excellent figure in banking, how many of our seniors remain below the poverty line proportion-wise?

Mr. Alan Winberg: There is research done in our department about that issue. It's not presented in the performance report.

As I said, Mr. Chairman, we're looking to understand the committee's perspective on the types of measures and outcomes against which we could report. If this is one of them, we would be pleased to look at it and find ways to include it in next year's report.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Certainly, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that in fact in a performance report we have to identify the continuing challenge before us. Otherwise, we may lose sight of the actual challenge.

For example, if we do not know offhand the proportion of seniors who are still poor, below the poverty line, then I become worried about the direction of the department if that is the case.

Second, once upon a time we had a seniors' New Horizons program to allow seniors, over and above the income they received, some little grants from the government to enable them to fully participate. We do not expect seniors to participate in the workplace. Part of the mission of the department is full participation in the community, as you stated in your presentation.

Mr. Alan Winberg: Yes.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: What programs do you have to assure seniors that they have full participation over and above what they receive from OAS, CPP, and other retirement income?

Mr. Alan Winberg: Mr. Chairman, the government's objective on seniors, as has been stated, is to ensure that Canadian seniors participate as active members of society and the labour force as long as their health allows, and have access to health, personal, and income support.

For HRDC, that means we focus on ensuring that current seniors have at least a basic level of income as well as encouraging all Canadians to plan for their retirement income needs.

Our HRDC programs, services, and partnerships directed at assisting seniors and meeting those objectives are the old age security and the guaranteed income supplement, income for most seniors, and, through the Canada Pension Plan, income for seniors who contributed to the CPP while working. Also, there are special benefits under the CPP—

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Mr. Winberg, I realize that. My question is, are there any programs specifically akin to the New Horizons program? Or more directly, is there a merit to revisiting the program? You could perhaps call it by another name but keep it along the lines of the objective to completely fulfil a critical part—50%—of the mission of the department: full participation in the community over and above the workplace. Is there such a program? Is there merit to having such a program?

• 1230

Mr. Alan Winberg: Mr. Chairman, I'm not familiar with the program to which reference is being made. I do know the programs that we have available and are running are directed at achieving the objectives that we have been discussing. I know also that—

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I'd like a direct answer because of the time limitations, Mr. Chairman. If there are none, there are none, but if there are, then there are. And if there are none, I would request that a memo be sent to the committee so that we may be fully informed.

Mr. Alan Winberg: I will look into it, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: And my next question, Mr. Chairman, is—

The Chair: If I could, I have a list of five members, so I know there's a flow. Could you be very brief, or should we leave it and see how it goes?

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: It's my last question, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Please.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: My questions are always direct and to the point. Do we have any programs for children?

Mr. Alan Winberg: There are a number of programs for children, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Okay, then I would like a report on them, because when I look at the performance report—

The Chair: You don't see them mentioned.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Yes, and that's what I would like to know, in order to be assured.

The Chair: That's a good question. Thank you.

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

The Chair: Colleagues, I'm going to step up the pace a little bit, but Libby Davies certainly has her turn. It starts with Libby Davies, followed by Judi Longfield, Ken Epp, Karen Redman, and then the chair.

Ms. Libby Davies: Thank you, Chairperson. I wanted to thank the witnesses for coming as well.

I wanted to just raise a couple of questions around the Canada student loans program. According to your estimates in the report here, there are over 400,000 students receiving loans. I think it's interesting to note that 84% of those students are 29 years of age or under. About half of them are in university, and more than 70% are under $10,000. Of that, 40% are under $5,000.

This has come up in some of the other questions, but I have a lot of contact with student groups, individual students, and case work in my office. I really have a huge concern about the increasing difficulties that students are facing in terms of accessibility to post-secondary education. That's a major issue in terms of the level of assistance.

Another part that doesn't come out very much and is the responsibility of this department is really the question of students gaining access to information and assistance. I don't know whether you've ever tried to call any of the telephone numbers to get information. It's almost impossible. So I just have a real concern that there are increasing numbers of young people who find it really hard to get through the system, to get information. They end up being foisted on by collection agencies and being harassed. This is not really a great way to start your life when you're under 25.

The question I have is about what kind of evaluation or monitoring there is within the department to actually look at measures and criteria to ensure that we're providing the best kind of accessibility and information to students, even on an individual basis, because these are students who all operate individually. I just have the sense that they're out there and that the system is so complex and so frustrating. I can tell you stories about students suffering from depression and anxiety because they just can't cope with even dealing with their student loans and figuring out what needs to be done.

So I'd be interested in your response about what kinds of measures and evaluations the department has in order to make sure it's meeting the needs of students and that we're not falling further and further behind.

Mr. Alan Winberg: Mr. Chairman, the Canada student loans program and the new program for education savings grants that has been put in place are key programs for the department. We recognize the need to facilitate the development of skills and learning, so these are major priorities for the department.

Also, we have a priority in terms of getting the information out to people in the simplest, most effective way by using a multitude of available means, including the telephone, publications, and the Internet.

It has been hard to reach the department by telephone in the past. Several years ago we instituted a major initiative to improve our accessibility and ability to respond to people's questions by phone.

• 1235

Ms. Libby Davies: But how do you monitor that? Do you just start something and hope it's a good stab in the dark, or is there actually an evaluation or monitoring procedure? I can tell you that the information I have says it's more and more difficult for students to understand the system and to get through it. It becomes more and more complex, and their ability to access information is increasingly difficult. You may not be able to answer it today, but it keeps on coming up, and I just don't think we ever get any answers. It doesn't seem to be a high priority.

The Chair: Colleagues, I would remind you that the chair is still here. I'm not doing that out of any sort of overweening pride, but I think it's useful for the chair to be here, if I might say so.

Mr. Alan Winberg: Mr. Chairman, there's a statutory update about the entire program. It is made annually, and it's part of this report. As well, there are a number of evaluations of the Canada student loans program in ensuring that it's running in the most effective and efficient way possible. The last evaluation that would have covered the type of issue being discussed was done in 1997, and it's posted on the web site.

The Chair: Libby, is that okay?

Mr. Alan Winberg: You also find this at page 55 of the performance report.

Ms. Libby Davies: Yes, I've seen it, but it doesn't tell us much.

The Chair: Judi Longfield.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Mr. Chair, I have three areas. Perhaps it would be helpful if I just listed my concerns and then allowed the witnesses to respond.

Mr. Winberg, I had to look at my agenda to make sure I was at the right committee when I saw you here. Welcome.

I want to pick up on student loans. Some of the major problems that seem to surface in my constituency are excessive harassment by collection agencies on student loan recipients; the feeling that they're declared a default very quickly or that the banks are a little over-aggressive in doing that; the feeling that the collection agencies are going beyond what would normally be seen as reasonable; or that a lot of these things are sent to collection without the proper order—and I think there are some legal issues there.

I'd like to know which provinces are considering harmonization. I'm a little concerned when I see that, in Ontario, to access student loans you have to call a 1-900 number—yes, not even a 1-800 number, a 1-900 number. You pay just to make the phone call. So if we're looking at harmonization, let's make certain we're not using that example.

The second area in which I have concerns is the area of CPP disability. I'm looking at page 8, at the objectives. If I looked at that, I would think processing of disability claims was going very well, when we know most of the people who apply for disability are rejected the first time through. Some of them fall off the map because they just don't have the strength or the wherewithal to make second applications. Are there going to be some targets there to deal with that?

The third has to do with labour market agreements. I'd like to know the status of the agreements with Ontario. What's happening with B.C.? Are they renegotiating, and what are the major concerns they have? Tied into the labour market agreements and the student loans, if they harmonize, what's the accountability? If we go to co-management, I understand there's a little more. If it's devolution, though, what do we put in place to make certain the funds we're transferring over are used in a way that is consistent across Canada?

Can you answer in three minutes or less? I'm sorry.

Mr. Alan Winberg: I'll ask Guy Tremblay to take the first question regarding the student loans and the harmonization.

Mr. Guy Tremblay: We're very much aware—and we are further made aware in terms of complaints we receive from time to time—of the treatment of students who get aggressive collection tactics placed on them by collection agencies. We do monitor that very closely. We do have agreements with several private collection agencies that we contract out to, to do the collection on our behalf with regard to student loans. They work under very strict guidelines in terms of our direction, in order to ensure that they provide fairness and equity in the treatment of people and to ensure that all clients are treated with respect.

When we get a complaint about a collection agency, we bring that to the attention of the client. We have a points system with which we monitor performance with regard to the collection agencies, to the point where we might not renew their contract should there be continued abuse. So we are very sensitive to that and we monitor it very closely.

Mr. Alan Winberg: With regard to the question about CPP disability, this has been an issue that the department has been addressing for some time. The department was especially aware of a backlog in the appeal system, and we have taken very strong management action to rectify it. I'm pleased to report that delays in reconsidering these applications have been eliminated or greatly reduced. In terms of performance, we've reduced the average waiting time from 74 working days for the quarter ending January 1999 to 66 working days for the quarter ending July 1999.

• 1240

With regard to the LMA agreements, I know they're still under discussion in the two provinces you mentioned, Ontario and B.C. I don't have the details on the status of the points being negotiated.

The Chair: Could you provide us with a bit more information on that, Mr. Winberg?

Mr. Alan Winberg: I'll be pleased to include information on those two LMAs in the letter we send you, Mr. Chairman.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Mr. Chairman, if I might—

The Chair: Very briefly, Judi.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: With respect to CPP disability, I'll send you over some information that I found quite offensive in the review. This person had lost a leg, and one of the questions essentially asked if the leg was still gone. They don't grow back, but that was essentially the question. There have been a number of those kinds of things, and they're a little....

The Chair: Could you provide us with that example?

Mrs. Judi Longfield: I certainly will.

The Chair: It's Ken Epp and Karen Redman, and then the chair and Ray Pagtakhan.

Mr. Ken Epp: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a few questions, mostly of fact.

I notice you have a balance in your Canada Pension Plan of around $36 billion or $37 billion. I have no problem with the $30.8 billion in the investment fund. I'm surprised the investment board, which is newly created, has only $12 million. That's very small, so I have a question about that. I don't want to waste my time on that, but it would be good if you can answer it somehow.

The Chair: Ken, perhaps you could get through them and then you can get answers.

Mr. Ken Epp: Okay.

My next question has to do with the $6-billion operating balance. That does concern me, because I don't think you need that large an operating balance. According to your books, you're getting as much money in every month as you're paying out, so you don't need that kind of an operating fund. This is on pages 46 and 47; that's where I got this information from. At 6%, this $6 billion represents interest of around $1 million a day. It represents the amount of money you collect from about 20,000 taxpayers. That's how many have to pay all their taxes to get the same amount of income if it were invested at interest. I want to know where that $6 billion is that you have.

Then I have another question...I don't know, but should we be doing these one at a time, Mr. Chairman? We're going to have to go over them all again anyway.

The Chair: I think they're thinking yes, so why don't you do the third one?

Mr. Ken Epp: Okay. The third one is on CPP as well. We know there's an unfunded liability of around $540 billion. That's a number I heard not long ago from the actuary, but you don't have it anywhere there. I think it should be an item of large concern, and I'd like to see where that's recorded.

After I get quick answers to these, Mr. Chairman, I have three more.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Alan Winberg: Okay, I'll take the first one while Guy is looking for the information on the other two.

At the second paragraph under the table on page 47, we try to explain as clearly as possible how the CPP account made a transfer of the $11.9 billion to the board to be invested—the board's investments being distributed between Canadian and non-Canadian identities—and the estimated fair market value of the investments. We gave them $11.9 billion, and they have $12.1 million in investments. This is a new account that has just been set up.

Mr. Ken Epp: So what you're saying is that you're not turning over to the board the $30 billion you had before.

Mr. Alan Winberg: No, there's a formula that was put in place so that there would be a gradual movement of investment to the new board.

Mr. Ken Epp: It's going to take you about 500 years at this rate, but anyway, that's okay.

Mr. Alan Winberg: Well, the $30 billion is invested. Often it's invested in a long-term type of instrument, perhaps a bond.

An hon. member: Provincial bonds.

Mr. Alan Winberg: As those come due, there's a provision for them to turn over.

Mr. Ken Epp: So you're not giving the management over to the board right away. You're not just giving them the portfolio.

• 1245

Mr. Alan Winberg: No, it relates to as premiums come in above a level determined in the formula, that amount is turned over to the new board to be invested according to the terms and provisions of the legislation.

Mr. Ken Epp: Okay. We don't have time. I'd really like to know who's managing the $30 billion, if this board is managing $12 million, but that's another question.

The operating balance, the $6 billion, where is it?

Mr. Guy Tremblay: Very quickly, in terms of the operating balance, that's described briefly on page 53 of the report. Basically, in terms of the Canada Pension Plan, we're expected to keep an operating balance to meet anticipated benefit payments for at least the next three months. In other words, we must keep liquid for at least three months' payments.

The amount of the benefit payout for the whole year is about $18 billion—$18.5 billion for the last fiscal year—which is about $1.5 billion, $1.6 billion per month. So, roughly speaking, we would need to keep around $4.7 billion to $5 billion in terms of the benefit payout expected for the next three months. It's slightly higher than that at the end of the year.

Mr. Ken Epp: Is this just sitting in a non-interest-bearing chequing account somewhere? I would surely hope not.

Mr. Guy Tremblay: We do get interest.

Mr. Ken Epp: You do get interest on it.

The Chair: But your point is, it can't be tied up, right?

Mr. Ken Epp: It would have to be liquid, but.... Okay, that's good. I have a couple of questions on EI.

The Chair: No, CPP or unfunded liability.

Mr. Ken Epp: Okay, the liability, where is it recorded? Is that not part of the performance?

Mr. Alan Winberg: We'll get back to you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Ken Epp: Okay. Then on EI, we have an accumulated $21 billion. I know the answer to this, but I want you to say it too. Where is the money? It's in government revenue.

Mr. Alan Winberg: The money is consolidated with the accounts of Canada.

Mr. Ken Epp: There you go.

The Chair: Now the next one. You have two more.

Mr. Ken Epp: Incredible, yes. Then I have two other questions.

Every year there are a number of people who change employment, and the rules are that even though you've paid up to the max, CPP and EI, you start all over again with your new employer, every year. When you file your income tax, you get a rebate; the employers don't. I would like to know—I don't want the answer now, you can send this to me later—for the last five years, how much, on average every year, in overpayments have been refunded to employees in CPP and EI? I think that is a huge amount of money you're taking out of business. But that's not your problem; that's government's problem. I want to know the numbers.

Mr. Alan Winberg: We will be pleased to provide that information, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Ken Epp: Thank you.

The Chair: If you put it through the committee, the committee knows we're doing it. Is that okay?

Mr. Ken Epp: That's fine, yes.

The Chair: If we could go to Karen Redman, please, then the chair, then Rey Pagtakhan.

Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): I just want to echo one of the concerns Judi raised, and I'm wondering if you have the statistics around the collection agencies. I have two universities in my community and I am very cognizant.... We see 100% of the 20% the system doesn't work for. Do you have some sort of breakdown of the tracking and the collection agencies that we ought not to deal with because of the way they treat clients?

Mr. Alan Winberg: Mr. Chairman, we track each agency that is involved in this program with us, and we would be pleased to provide that information in the package I'll send you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Karen.

Mrs. Karen Redman: I'm very interested in the reforms we've had to EI and some of the unintended consequences in the monitoring and the studying. I don't see anywhere in here that specifically draws out pilot projects. Is there some kind of information we could get as to the pilot projects the government has looked at, where they are, and the tracking of the turnout of those?

Mr. Alan Winberg: Mr. Chairman, in my opening remarks we noted that we were looking for suggestions from the committee as to the type of information we could usefully provide in this report, so we will provide what we have available in this package I'm sending you, and we will look to ways to incorporate that kind of information in the performance report for next year.

The Chair: Okay.

Mrs. Karen Redman: I have another sort of footnote. Is there any process of evaluation for simplification of EI being looked at in any constructive way?

Mr. Alan Winberg: Mr. Chairman, I understand that the program underwent significant review and revision, and this was reflected in the amendments that were passed. I understand that as part of that legislation there is a review to occur at year five of the implementation, and at that time there will be an evaluation.

The Chair: Okay. Thank you.

If I could then, because Rey Pagtakhan has already had the one turn, I'm going to pick up on something Paul Crête and a number of my colleagues mentioned. You should know that I'm new to this committee, so I'm just getting my head around it.

• 1250

The committee, if you look at the work it's done, has focused on children and youth at risk, people with disabilities, social insurance numbers, older workers, and higher education, which you've heard mentioned today. If you read the reports, you will find that the committee regards itself as a focus for concerns in areas such as those. We're also the standing committee for human resources development and some other things. You're involved with this huge, very diverse department, and I know performance indicators can't do everything. I think this report and the indicators in here give some useful indicators of how programs and services are being delivered and things of that sort.

My preamble has to do with the fact that it seems to me that in the federal system, there has to be a home for social concerns. And it seems to me that HRDC is that place, whether in fact it feels like that or whether you get taken up with specific programs or not, just as this committee is. You read our reports, and they always, every single one of the reports I mentioned to you there, stress lateral management. Coordination is too strong a word, but at least communication across the government departments.

So if you take a child and look at where the child sits in the Government of Canada, the child sits in justice, in health, in environment let's say, as well as in HRDC. You were asking us for your comments on the report and the indicators. I would ask you, do you think this method of reporting reflects that function, this cross-departmental function for social issues that I think we all believe HRDC has?

Mr. Alan Winberg: Mr. Chairman, this is the departmental report for HRDC. The issue you've raised is a very important one, and one that was recognized when our departmental report was tabled in the broader overview that was provided by the President of Treasury Board at that time.

In the report tabled by Treasury Board, it speaks about the importance of these horizontal issues, many of which HRDC would have a lead role for, but which involve a multitude of partners and collaborators. On page 26 of the English version of the Treasury Board president's report, he talks about the need for collective results reporting. Treasury Board speaks about how it would be based on departmental results reporting and says there would be horizontal reports.

In an annex to their report, which you may want to look at, there's a discussion of a range of examples of interdepartmental work that could be undertaken. There are several listed, one that would be of interest to our department and to this committee, talking about results and performance information on children and results and performance information on persons with disabilities, for which our department has a lead role, but in which we participate with many others.

There is a recognition of the need to advance this aspect of performance reporting, and we are attempting to work through the Treasury Board secretariat and the other partners on moving that ahead.

The Chair: I know that exists, and we, as members of Parliament, know all that reporting exists, but I'm interested in why it is that these sorts of commitments are not at least mentioned in a report of this type, in departmental reports of this type.

That's one question. I have two other questions. I don't want to trouble you.

The other is, if you were the minister or the deputy minister, would you accept this cross-departmental role I just described?

So there are two things there. Why is that cross-departmental role, if it's an important part of the mandate, not at least mentioned in some way here, or a reference made to the annex and Treasury Board report you mentioned? By the way, generally speaking—I could ask you, as officials of the department—do you think the department accepts that role?

Mr. Alan Winberg: In answer to the first question, Mr. Chairman, we're very pleased to receive your suggestions. As we were writing our departmental report, Treasury Board was writing their report. Now that it's out, with this type of direction, I will commit to you to look at how we can make very explicit references in next year's report to the horizontal work that Treasury Board is reporting upon in the larger report.

• 1255

In terms of the second question, does HRDC accept the role, the answer is yes, for a variety of issues. Homelessness is an example of a multi-partner initiative for which HRDC is taking a lead, and one of our ministers has been assigned that role. Other examples are people with disabilities, or children, and we are playing a very important role on those files.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Rey Pagtakhan, and then Paul Crête.

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

Judy's question reminded me to pose the question on CPP disability only. By law, the appeal from the CPP tribunal goes to what final appeal panel?

Mr. Alan Winberg: I'd have to get that information.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: There is a higher panel anyway.

How many cases of those who filed are approved by the department? What percent?

Mr. Alan Winberg: I will undertake to provide that information.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Do you have no sense of how many cases were won by citizens at the CPP tribunal and how many of those won by citizens are again appealed by the government to a higher level?

Mr. Alan Winberg: We don't have the exact details on the number of cases and the number of cases decided or appealed, but we could provide that information.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Mr. Chairman, I will pose the questions very clearly so that the committee can be informed.

How many total applications were received for any given year, perhaps for the last two or three years? How many were denied on initial application? How many were then reconsidered positively on reconsideration by the department? Of those lost by citizens following reconsideration by the department, how many of them were filed by citizens to the CPP tribunal? How many of them won by citizens—which meant lost by the government—were then appealed by the government to a higher level? And how many of those cases appealed by the department were lost by the department at the highest level? What is the cost of these appeals by the government? I am interested in the cost-benefit analysis in addition to the real concerns of constituents.

The Chair: If I can say to the witnesses, I can see you're taking notes, but you'll be able to get that from the transcript of the meeting.

Paul Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: I've been a member for six years and every year we are told that if we “make some suggestions, they will be taken into account in next year's report.”

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are undertaking a study of the Human Resources Development Canada Performance Report. I move that this study not be considered as done until we have met the deputy minister of the department. We are thus at a preliminary stage with another stage left to complete. The committee's work cannot be considered as done until we have completed this stage.

I have another suggestion to make. I move that there be formal and individual consultation between the department and each of the committee members. We should be asked what we wish to see included in next year's report so that next year we won't be told that they were waiting for our suggestions for the next report.

[English]

Mr. Alan Winberg: We'd be pleased to undertake that.

The Chair: Thank you, sir.

Colleagues, if I could draw this to an end, there are a couple of short things to say afterwards.

I want to thank Mr. Tremblay and Mr. Winberg. We do appreciate your patience. I do apologize for the 30-minute delay, but I hope that gave you a glimpse that, by the way, we have diverse opinions here. For example, with respect to the mandate of that subcommittee, we are greatly interested in focusing the results of the federal government—for example, in that case, on children and youth at risk.

I do apologize for the delay. You've been very patient. I look forward to receiving the various pieces of information you've committed to give. I thank you on behalf of the committee for being here.

Colleagues, our next meeting is on Thursday at the same time, when we will be considering the report on social insurance numbers, the SIN number. The government response that was tabled this morning and has been circulated to members who are here. It will be circulated to members who are not here as quickly as is humanly possible.

Diane Ablonczy.

• 1300

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I appreciate the chair's remarks about our disappointment about the minister not being here, and I second those, if I might do that.

But my point of order is with respect to bringing back motions. I want to know, as a point of order, when motions previously considered may be brought back without notice, so that we do the same thing all the time. As you know, I was pretty unhappy with this suddenly appearing on our plate with no notice when we had delayed dealing with it and put it aside.

The Chair: Diane, I don't know how often we will have a delayed item of business, but my understanding is the 48-hour rule applies to new business, and given 48 hours' notice with new business, we can bump an agenda item. In this case, it was truly my thought that here was an issue on a motion that had been before us; there had been some range of discussion about it, and when it was introduced I saw it as a reintroduced item, not as a new item. We passed it. We had some discussion on it. I had my own concerns about the 48-hour rule—you remember a discussion of 24 hours, 48 hours, and so on. I intend to keep the 48-hour rule for new items of business.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Just so I understand, if an item has been considered by the committee but a decision has been deferred or delayed, it can be brought back at any time.

The Chair: Let me say in this case it was a motion. By the way, in the way you put it, if you put motion instead of item, I would say yes.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: I think it's important that—

The Chair: We raised some more items today, but we couldn't bump an agenda tomorrow because of new items we've raised. But a motion, I would interpret as yes, you could.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Okay.

The Chair: I don't know when it will arise again, but if it does, I'd be glad for you to remind me of it at that time.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: I may do that.

The Chair: You may; I know.

Colleagues, thank you very much. Witnesses, thank you very much once again, and to your people who were here so patiently, thank you very much.

The meeting is adjourned.