HUMA Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Monday, October 20, 2003

¹

1525

The Chair (Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.))

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian (Associate Deputy Minister and Vice-Chairperson, Deputy Minister's Office, Department of Human Resources Development)

¹

1530

¹

1535

The Chair

Mr. Larry Spencer (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, Canadian Alliance)

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Mr. Larry Spencer

¹

1540

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

The Chair

¹

1545

Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Ottawa—Orléans, Lib.)

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

¹

1550

The Chair

Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, Canadian Alliance)

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Mr. Brian Pallister

¹

1555

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Mr. Brian Pallister

The Chair

Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, Lib.)

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

º

1600

Ms. Diane St-Jacques

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Ms. Diane St-Jacques

The Chair

Mr. Bill Cameron (Director General, National Secretariat on Homelessness)

Ms. Diane St-Jacques

Mr. Bill Cameron

Ms. Diane St-Jacques

Mr. Bill Cameron

Ms. Diane St-Jacques

The Chair

º

1605

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Mr. Brian Pallister

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Mr. Brian Pallister

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Mr. Brian Pallister

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Mr. Brian Pallister

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Mr. Brian Pallister

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Mr. Brian Pallister

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Mr. Brian Pallister

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Mr. Brian Pallister

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Mr. Brian Pallister

º

1610

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

The Chair

Mr. Brian Pallister

The Chair

Mr. Raymond Simard (Saint Boniface, Lib.)

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Mr. Raymond Simard

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

The Chair

Mr. Gary Pillitteri (Niagara Falls, Lib.)

º

1615

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

The Chair

Mr. Larry Spencer

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

º

1620

Mr. Brian Pallister

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Mr. Brian Pallister

The Chair

Mr. Brian Pallister

The Chair

Mr. Brian Pallister

The Chair

Mr. Brian Pallister

The Chair

Mr. Brian Pallister

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

The Chair

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

The Chair

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

The Chair

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

The Chair

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

The Chair

º

1625

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

The Chair

Mr. Brian Pallister

The Chair

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

º

1630

The Chair

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

The Chair

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mr. Larry Spencer

The Chair

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

The Chair

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

The Chair

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

The Chair

Mr. Bill Cameron

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mr. Bill Cameron

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mr. Bill Cameron

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

The Chair

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis, BQ)

º

1635

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Mrs. Francine Blouin Wilkinson (Acting Director, Policy and Legislation Development- Insurance Branch, Department of Human Resources Development)

º

1640

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay

The Chair

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay

The Chair

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay

The Chair

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay

The Chair

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay

The Chair

º

1645

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay

The Chair

Mr. Raymond Simard

The Chair

Mr. Raymond Simard

The Chair

Mr. Brian Pallister

The Chair

Mr. Brian Pallister

The Chair

Mr. Brian Pallister

Mr. Brian Pallister

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Mr. Brian Pallister

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Mr. Brian Pallister

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Mr. Brian Pallister

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Mr. Brian Pallister

º

1650

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Mr. Brian Pallister

The Chair

Mr. Larry Spencer

Ms. Janet Milne (Assistant Deputy Minister, Financial and Administrative Services, Department of Human Resources Development)

Mr. Larry Spencer

Ms. Janet Milne

Mr. Larry Spencer

The Chair

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

The Chair

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

The Chair

Ms. Janet Milne

The Chair

Ms. Janet Milne

º

1655

The Chair

Ms. Janet Milne

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

The Chair

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

The Chair

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

The Chair

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Ms. Janet Milne

»

1700

The Chair

Ms. Janet Milne

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

---

NUMBER 040

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Monday, October 20, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1525)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.)): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

    I call to order the 40th meeting of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

    Today, pursuant to Standing Order 81(5), we have Supplementary Estimates (A) for the years 2003 and 2004, with votes 1a and 5a under Human Resources Development, as referred to the committee on Tuesday, September 23, 2003.

    We have with us today three witnesses from the Department of Human Resources Development: Maryantonett Flumian is the associate deputy minister and vice-chair of the deputy minister's office, and she's no stranger to this committee; with her is Janet Milne, the assistant deputy minister, financial administrative services; and en route and stuck in traffic is Liliane Binette, the director general of insurance services.

    Welcome, Ms. Flumian. You know the procedure; you will have about 10 minutes to offer some opening remarks, and they will be followed by questions from the committee.

    So without further ado, welcome. It's good to have you here.

    Ms. Maryantonett Flumian (Associate Deputy Minister and Vice-Chairperson, Deputy Minister's Office, Department of Human Resources Development): Thank you, Madam Chair.

    It's a pleasure for us to be here today. I apologize in advance for Madame Binette, who is stuck in traffic and will be with us shortly.

[Translation]

    The committee has expressed an interest in knowing more about our Supplementary Estimates recently tabled in Parliament on behalf of our minister.

    I will briefly describe for you the program activities which gave rise to these estimates, and then, of course, we will be pleased to answer your questions.

[English]

    As members are aware, the supplementary estimates are a regular part of the process by which the President of Treasury Board updates and adjusts the government's main estimates expenditure plan. Since the main estimates are prepared well in advance of the beginning of the fiscal year in which they apply, the amounts calculated for various programs may prove insufficient, or unforeseen needs may arise. The supplementary estimates process permits these requirements to be met.

    This process allows us to update our budgetary requirements in order to respond to a changing public policy agenda and to deliver much needed programs and services to the people of Canada. For example, increased support for homelessness in the last budget is a case in point. Or an emergency could arise, such as the SARS outbreak, which calls for the government to respond without delay.

¹  (1530)  

[Translation]

    Supplementary Estimates are a vital and necessary part of the government budgetary planning cycle, allowing us to be accountable and responsive.

    That said, I will now turn to HRDC's Supplementary Estimates as recently tabled in Parliament by the president of the Treasury Board.

[English]

    In total, HRDC is requesting an additional $134.4 million in our supplementary estimates.

    There are four program items on our list of additional requests: the activities to alleviate and prevent homelessness; temporary assistance to individuals most affected by the closure of the cod and crab fisheries along the Atlantic coast; training and skills development to aboriginal peoples in Newfoundland and Labrador; and assistance to offset the economic impacts of severe acute respiratory syndrome, known as SARS.

[Translation]

    Let me briefly describe each of these challenges.

    First, I will talk about activities to alleviate and prevent homelessness. The 2003 budget made additional commitments to support the National Homelessness Initiative. We are following up this commitment with activities to alleviate homelessness. We especially focus on transitional and support housing with greater emphasis on self-sufficiency and sustainability.

[English]

    Of the $103.2 million requested for inclusion by HRDC in the supplementary estimates for homelessness, $16.4 million is for incremental operating resources; $86.3 million for contributions under the program; and $0.5 million for research.

    A recent evaluation found that the national homelessness initiative has been successful on many fronts, such as addressing the emergency needs of homeless and at-risk individuals and families; helping to mobilize communities; building partnerships; strengthening collaboration between local stakeholders; increasing awareness and knowledge; and leveraging additional resources from provincial, territorial, and municipal governments and the voluntary and private sectors.

[Translation]

    Second, there is the temporary assistance to individuals most affected by the closure of the cod and crab fisheries along the Atlantic coast. Temporary financial support of $23.1 million was requested under our Supplementary Estimates for fishers and fish plant workers affected by the closure of three Atlantic cod fisheries and one crab fishery.

[English]

    Our supplementary estimates include $6.6 million to provide training and skills development to aboriginal people in Labrador so they can prepare for emerging labour market opportunities associated with the Voisey's Bay mining project. Two hundred and twenty-nine aboriginal people have participated in training for jobs at the Voisey's Bay construction site. Twenty-four aboriginal participants are currently enrolled in on-site heavy equipment operator training. They are logging their hours to make their journeyperson exams at a later date. As of October 15, 2003, there are 223 aboriginal people employed at this construction site, of whom, I might add, 39 are women.

    The fourth area is assistance to offset the economic impact of severe acute respiratory syndrome, SARS. Incremental funding of $1.5 million in grants was requested by Treasury Board to provide benefits to workers, such as some health care workers and self-employed individuals who were impacted by the SARS crisis but who were ineligible for employment insurance. This was a one-time program for the fiscal year 2003-2004 only. As of October 10, HRDC has approved 148 work-sharing agreements with businesses affected by SARS, and this has averted an additional 1,336 layoffs.

[Translation]

    In addition to these items, HRDC will form a key part of the government's response to special needs arising because of the softwood lumber dispute with the United States. The government agreed to provide $71 million over two years to build on existing EI and other programs as well as $110 million for a national Softwood industry and Community Adjustment fund to support community economic development.

    HRDC's softwood lumber contribution was covered by reallocating other internal program resources, and we are not asking Parliament for additional funds.

¹  (1535)  

[English]

    To sum up, Madam Chair, there are four unanticipated requirements for program spending that were not included in our main estimates and that are included in our supplementary estimates. But this does not mean we're moving ahead without a measure of planning at HRDC. In fact, through our agenda for renewal, we are completely reassessing policies, programs, services, and delivery to reflect Canadians' priorities and the government's direction in delivering results for Canadians.

    Our detailed corporate business plan for 2003-2004 outlines specific priorities and business objectives we need to achieve in this fiscal year to advance us toward our goal.

[Translation]

    HRDC is one of the world's largest organizations with a mandate for social and labour market policy and programs. We take our mandate seriously—both in terms of our responsibilities to Parliament and to the millions of Canadians who depend on us.

[English]

    We look forward in the rest of this session to the committee's desires for us to continue to provide more and better information for you and for the quality of information provided to Parliament, to Canadians, for your deliberation.

    Our goal is to continue to work to enhance the quality of our reporting, particularly in respect of the accountability for results and responsible spending.

    Thank you, Madam Chair.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Mr. Spencer, you have the honour.

    Mr. Larry Spencer (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much. The last question that was in my mind goes back to our prelude. I'm wondering, for sure, who has the training wheels. I know you have a new deputy minister, and I presume you're greatly needed to assist in breaking in the new deputy minister.

    We'll back up to the beginning, since it looks as if I have some reinforcements now, which is good. Let me ask you some questions arising from what you have said to us. I appreciate your report and how you have educated us a bit as you introduced this report, but you mentioned there was increased support for homelessness in the last budget, as a case in point, while you needed to change. First, I'd like to ask you what brought about that increase in expenditure on homelessness. Why was that an unanticipated increase?

    Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: Thank you.

    As I said in my remarks, and I'll expand on them now, main estimates are prepared well in advance of the beginning of the fiscal year--normally in December of the preceding year; therefore, we can't always anticipate what total expenditures are going to be. In the most recent budget, phase two of the national homelessness initiative was announced; therefore, the usual process for acquiring funds through the main estimates couldn't be used because the budget announced measures that were to take effect after that fact.

    The funds we're requesting in the supplementary estimates are for phase two of the national homelessness initiative, which was announced as part of the 2003 federal budget. The Treasury Board submission was only approved in June of this year, and that's why we're here signalling this change in the supplementary estimates process.

    Mr. Larry Spencer: I have another question on the whole approach to or the emphasis the government places on homelessness. To what extent does any of this money actually address those people who are experiencing homelessness?

    I see words like “activities”. It's hard to live in an activity if you're homeless. I know much of this goes to transitional and support housing, as you put it here. It goes to activities to head off homelessness. I understand that and have no problem with our doing that. We need to address the causes of homelessness and see homelessness decrease in the future.

    But I also have a concern about those who are making it on the outside, and by the outside I mean outside of government programs. They're making it on some sort of an employment structure in their own families, yet they are unable to secure adequate low-cost housing for themselves. Is any of this money going for low-cost housing, or is it all directed to internal spending and activities?

¹  (1540)  

    Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: First of all, when the Government of Canada launched the national homelessness Initiative in 1999, it was to help communities address a crisis that was felt to be of national proportions. In the three years the program has been running, approximately 77% of community-directed investments have been focused on emergency needs. That's the most telling point.

    Addressing the emergency needs of homeless people and individuals at risk and their families was thought to be the primary area of initiative in the first round. We are now getting evaluations of the first round of that initiative, and they found that in order to address emergency needs it was important to get out there and help mobilize communities, because this was an issue that affected all levels of government and other stakeholders. We had to get out there and build those partnerships. We had to strengthen collaboration between all those local stakeholders where homeless people resided--or didn't reside. We had to build awareness and knowledge of the issues around homelessness.

    In the first three-year phase of the program, we looked at leveraging additional resources from provincial, territorial, and municipal governments and the voluntary and private sectors. The evaluation criteria that have come in, in the first three years of the operation of the program show positive findings on the incrementality of the program. The program was actually able to build upon, rather than substitute for, the existing levels of municipal and provincial investments that were going on out there.

    The evaluations also found that provinces and municipalities made considerable additional investments during the first three years of the program under the supporting community partnerships initiative.

    I referred to the second round, and we are now talking about this measure as phase two, and the additional money being asked for in the supplementary estimates. This is for transitional and supportive housing, with an emphasis on self-sufficiency and sustainability.

    In addition to those areas, we're also seeking funding to continue some research on homelessness. The funding is going to be used for contracts with academia and other not-for-profit organizations to support research activities. The research is intended to help communities better understand and more effectively address the root causes of homelessness and the issues surrounding it.

    We're also seeking some additional funding for communications activities, so we can have information sheets to keep MPs and others better informed as to what's going on and continue to support the partnership approach we're building amongst all the parties.

    Finally, on this front, we're also looking to assist by providing a database of homeless individuals and family information systems, so we can actually have a unique database for tracking developments in this area of homelessness.

    That is what the evaluations of the first three years of the operation of the program have found. The first three years were intended to address the emergency needs, and from then on we are moving to work on transitional and supportive services.

    The Chair: We're out of time, Mr. Spencer. We'll get you on the third round.

    Mr. Bellemare.

¹  (1545)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Ottawa—Orléans, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

[English]

    There's a risk that I may be repetitive, but the topic of homelessness is very important.

    In your report today, Madam Flumian, on page 2 you say:

A recent evaluation found that the NHI has been successful on many fronts such as addressing the emergency needs of homelessness and at-risk individuals and families, mobilizing communities....

    Can you give me some examples--and this is where it could be repetitive--of mobilizing communities?

    Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: Yes, indeed. As I was saying earlier, many of these initiatives under the supporting communities partnership initiative, which was part of the initial phase of the program in 1999, have been in areas where people have recognized that the process has made the greatest breakthroughs. The department will typically work with project proponents who provide confirmation of the kinds of resources they're prepared to put toward building and demonstrating longer-term viability of some of the areas we're engaged in.

    You have to have the participation of all the players in the communities to try to ensure success in not just creating emergency beds but sustaining a community's impact in trying to address the issue of homelessness. There are several initiatives under the part of the program called SCPI where we have gone out and built many of these relationships with community associations across the country. As a result, we have built, in the case of the construction and renovation of shelters and beds throughout this country, 8,627 beds through this process. In the construction and renovation of food depots--

    Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Excuse me. You talk about some 8,000 beds that were built or--

    Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: Yes. Those were built or renovated as a result of these community partnerships, where some of our federal money has levered activity through local, provincial, and municipal associations as well, where all the parties have come together through this initiative to help build or renovate beds, emergency beds, as I said, in the first phase of this process. Of course, this allows some of those associations that come together in these partnerships to also build in some of the other support mechanisms.

    For example, in addition to the beds that have been built or renovated, we have assisted in the construction or renovation of food depots and food banks, clothes and furniture depots, drop-in centres, and soup kitchens. In total, we've assisted in the construction or renovation of about 399 of these kinds of support systems to those who are homeless as well.

    Mr. Eugène Bellemare: In your research, did you find that homelessness was particular to specific regions or specific cities--for example, rural versus urban, Toronto versus Calgary? What is happening across the country, east-west?

    Secondly, I suspect that many of the homeless people, individuals, are often transients as opposed to sedentary people who really belong in the city. I also suspect that in some provinces where the government has decided that people in mental institutions should be released, they are released, but they have no place to go because families don't accept them, for a variety of reasons, good or bad, so they become transients.

    If you look at that, as opposed to a whole family being homeless because of being poor and maybe because of a fire, then where do we go from here? There are only so many shelters available to cities and only so much financing, so they're limited .

    Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: Once again, there are many root causes, and they're very complex, for homelessness to exist. In some cases, it's the many elements that have already been indicated. In other cases, it might be because the cost of housing is out of the reach of some folks. It takes on different dimensions in different parts of the country.

    If I were to provide you with a breakdown of how the money has been allocated, for example, in this fiscal year, that would be numbers that would look something like this, and I could provide them on a provincial breakdown basis.

    About $1.5 million in fiscal year 2003-2004 will be allocated to Newfoundland and Labrador. In Nova Scotia, we're allocating close to $3 million for this fiscal year. In New Brunswick, we're allocating about $1.8 million for this fiscal year. This is out of the phase two portion of the program I referred to. In P.E.I., we're allocating about $650,000 for the program. In Quebec, it's about $18 million. In Ontario, it's about $30 million. In Manitoba, it's just over $8 million. In Saskatchewan, it would be close to $5 million. In Alberta, the Northwest Territories, and Nunavut, it is about $18 million, and in B.C. and the Yukon, there's about $14 million being allocated.

    Those are allocations from the second phase of the initiative, program and operating funds that are reflected by the totals we're talking about under the supplementary estimates today.

    I don't have the program breakdown for past years, but we could--

¹  (1550)  

    The Chair: Mr. Bellemare, you've had six minutes and 43 seconds. We'll have to come back to you in the next round. Time goes so quickly when you're having fun.

    Mr. Pallister.

    Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, Canadian Alliance): Employers pay 1.4 times employee contributions in EI, and my questions will pertain just a bit more specifically to EI.

    The rational for that, I understand, was that employers control layoff decisions. However, layoff decisions pertain only to regular benefits, and it seems there's a higher percentage all the time of money included in your estimate requests here going to special benefits. Over the last number of years, the cost of those benefits has risen considerably relative to the basic benefits under EI.

    Given the recent growth in expenditures on the special benefits side, I'm wondering what consideration is being given to reducing the employer's share of the EI program costs.

    Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: Madam Chair, this is one of those areas where there is currently ongoing consultation, the whole area of how the rates are set for the EI process. But I must say, in terms of these special benefits, the Government of Canada is committed to responding effectively to find the proper balance between work and family life issues. Many of the issues that are raised are exactly in that area.

    As the theory goes, EI sickness benefits are provided to people whose employers don't provide these benefits already, and in the long run this saves employers money. Family-friendly policies such as maternity and parental benefits are important also in a competitive marketplace where business is trying to attract and retain the best-skilled workers, and this type of policy also reduces, in the long run, the cost to employers.

    For example, parents who are able to better balance the demand of work and family with less stress and lower absenteeism are also more productive workers and probably will want to stay with that employer. So this too is intended to reduce the cost of retaining those employees. Excess work absences that are due to work or life conflict are estimated to be at a loss of about 19.8 million work days, and in our estimate, this is a loss to Canadian organizations of at least $2.7 billion yearly.

    These are the balances we're trying to achieve all the time in the program, and these are the reasons special benefits are considered in a different fashion. But it's always a subject for lively debate, one on which we are constantly seeking advice.

    Mr. Brian Pallister: I'm sure there will be no shortage of advice from this group.

    What role is HRDC playing in the review of the premium rate-setting process, which I understand Finance is leading? Can you update us on the public consultations? Is further public discussion planned regarding the formulation of a new premium rate-setting process? I've received, as I'm sure all members have here, a lot of input--copies of presentations made by labour and business groups--but I'm just curious about where we're at on the consultation side of that process.

¹  (1555)  

    Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: Thank you.

    Once again, Madam Chair, the 2003 budget did announce the launching of a consultation process for this new permanent rate-setting regime for the year 2005 and beyond, so we're not quite at the point yet of having to lock in. In that process there were five principles that were enunciated for future rate setting in the budget. These were, just to refresh the committee's memory: the premium rate should be set transparently; the premium rate should be set on a basis of independent, expert advice, which is why in addition we're out seeking views; expected premium revenue should correspond to expected program costs; the premium rate setting should mitigate the impact on the business cycle; and premium rates should be relatively stable over time so there won't be sharp changes in any business cycle.

    We, along with the Department of Finance, have held several round table consultations with business and labour stakeholders, with economists and technical experts, and with EI commissioners for workers and employers. These consultations were held between April and August of this past year. Rather than read a lengthy list of who we consulted with, I'll table this with the committee and make it available to you.

    Some of the consultations were held by way, as I said, of these expert round tables and business and labour round tables, and some were held by way of soliciting views from interested parties on the Internet. I'll table both with the committee.

    We also have received a total of 28 written submissions in response to our request. When submitting comments via the Internet, individuals were asked to indicate whether their submissions could also be posted on the website so that people understood what advice we were getting, as the two departments. Those who have given a positive answer have already had their submissions posted on the Finance Canada website for further information. To date, seven of those submissions have been posted, at least according to my information.

    The consultation phase of the rate setting is now complete. The government is committed to producing a public document summarizing the views received during this consultation process. That's the stage we're at now. As soon as that document is finalized, it will be made available publicly to all of those who participated and also on the Internet.

    Mr. Brian Pallister: Thanks. I guess I just have a minute left.

    I would have to make the point, I think, at this juncture that you referenced the need for us to recognize the need to seek a work-life balance. It would seem pretty obvious to me, and I hope to other members of the committee, that when you have excessively high EI premiums, whether on the employee or the employer side--and our own Auditor General has commented on this, as has our chief actuary, on premiums 30% higher than they need to be and taking money out of the hands of working people, small business, and medium-sized enterprise--it makes it more difficult for all those affected to find that work-life balance, because they have to put additional time into work to come home with the same net take-home pay.

    So I'm curious as to what public input would be sought or what opportunity for public input there would be within the next few months in addition to that consultation process that has gone on thus far.

    The Chair: I'd ask you to respond very briefly, unless you want to wait until they get their third round and respond then.

    Madame St-Jacques.

[Translation]

    Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

    Welcome to the committee, Ms. Flumian and Ms. Milne. I missed the beginning of your presentation, but I see in your notes that you addressed the issue of temporary financial support for fishers. Has the department thought about long-term solutions? The fish will not come back anytime soon, and these regions will surely have to diversify their economy. I do not know what the government will do or what it intends to do to help these people.

[English]

    Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: Madam Chair, this is one of those cases where the supplementary estimates we're seeking for the department, the gross requirement of $26.7 million, will be used to make grant payments to provide temporary income support to targeted fishers and plant workers who were affected, as I said in my opening remarks, by cod and crab stock closures. These are intended to be grant payments to individuals who have expired their employment insurance benefits. The Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and Canada Economic Development for the Quebec region will be able to put in place short-term job creation projects, which will be funded by these two agencies.

    We expect the temporary program we have put in place for income support will cover approximately 2,500 affected workers in Quebec and Atlantic Canada, and it's intended to run from April 27 of this past year to September 6 of this year. The maximum duration of a grant for an individual will be 12 weeks during this 19-week period, with the hope that ACOA and CED will have their short-term job creation projects up and running.

º  (1600)  

    Ms. Diane St-Jacques: When you say September 6, was it this past September 6, or the next?

    Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: This past September.

    I don't have information for ACOA and CED here with me today, but I'm sure we can make it available to the committee, through them.

[Translation]

    Ms. Diane St-Jacques: Perfect. I have another brief question with regard to homelessness.

    I know that you answered some questions. In your document, you talk about a recent evaluation which allowed you to conclude that the National Homelessness Initiative is a success. How did you reach this conclusion? Do you have any figures as evidence that the program did, indeed, work?

    As regards this particular area, I know that in Quebec, for instance, negotiations involved the regional health boards, which determined which regions needed help. Since there is now additional money, will regions which have not yet received help get support, or will we still only help those regions which received support under the first agreement?

[English]

    The Chair: As you are seating yourself, just identify yourself so we have it recorded.

    Mr. Bill Cameron (Director General, National Secretariat on Homelessness): I am Bill Cameron. I'm the director general of the National Secretariat on Homelessness.

[Translation]

    I apologize, I missed the first part of your presentation because I was outside the room.

    Ms. Diane St-Jacques: I simply wanted to know how you conducted your evaluation. You said that the National Homelessness Initiative was a success. How did you reach this conclusion, and what were the results? Can we get a copy of the results?

    Second, since there is additional money, will the same regions be helped again, or will new regions be added to those which did not receive support under the first agreement?

    Mr. Bill Cameron: In answer to your first question, we had a working group and gave a contract to an independent group which conducted the evaluation. The evaluation was done throughout Canada, but in Quebec, we spoke with people who had already worked in the same field. This means that we spoke with community groups, with people who had a lot of experience in this field to find out what the results were. We also studied projects and the impact these projects had. The results of the study have been posted on our website, and I can send you a hard copy, if you wish.

    Second, with regard to the regional health boards, for us they were a success. We feel we reached an agreement and a partnership with the province. Negotiations with regard to the second agreement lasted about three months, whereas negotiations with regard to the first lasted nearly 18 months. Therefore, the results were very positive for the homeless. We work with the regional boards because we feel they are our partners. We always target the same areas. In the course of negotiations, we work with the province to determine which regions need the most help, and they are the same ones which received help under the first agreement.

    Ms. Diane St-Jacques: Is there a plan B in case the Quebec Government should decide to eliminate the regional health boards? We know that it is actually thinking about it.

    Mr. Bill Cameron: That has already been discussed. It is a very delicate subject for the regional boards. For now, we do not have a plan B because, whether we want to or not, we need help from local people to deliver programs in the province of Quebec. You raise a good point. We do not have a plan B yet, but maybe we should start thinking about it.

    Ms. Diane St-Jacques: Thank you.

    Thank you, Madam Chair.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you.

    We'll return to Mr. Pallister. I think Ms. Flumian was about to respond to Mr. Pallister's last question.

º  (1605)  

    Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: Madam Chair, the consultation process, as we know it, has been described in the budget and has been concluded. As I said, we're now in the throes of reporting back what was heard in that consultation process.

    Nevertheless, the questions that were raised are live questions, and we're constantly getting advice from all sorts of folks. Whether that ends up in a more formalized process or not is the next phase, but there's no plan at this point in time.

    Mr. Brian Pallister: I guess I want to delve into that a little bit, because it's Finance that leads this thing.

    You can help me a little bit here. Does HRDC itself provide input to Finance as part of this, or do we just let other people provide input, like business groups and the Canadian Labour Congress and so on? Does HRDC take a position on any of this?

    Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: We have been doing the consultations jointly.

    Mr. Brian Pallister: Okay. So you operate the consultations.

    Now I'm curious, because I was just reading this report by an OECD working group, talking about our unemployment insurance program, the way it's run, and this notional surplus it has built up--which some would say is a slush fund--in excess of what's needed to look after all the benefits is creating structural unemployment in our country, like a fire creates its own wind.

    You're counting on submissions to address that, I guess. Or you don't take any position as a department on the fact that these rates have been kept artificially high. The department itself has no position on that. Is that left to be a political decision, in other words, the rate-setting mechanism itself?

    Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: Madam Chair, the rate-setting mechanism, as members are aware, is set by the Governor in Council. The purpose of going out and seeking consultation on the future state beyond 2005 is to address some of those very issues that have been raised.

    Beyond that, I think the government's position is clear. We know it's a live issue.

    Mr. Brian Pallister: Okay, so issues like the refund.... I understand the Canadian Labour Congress has a case in court right now, demanding that this overcharge of $30 billion, as some say, be given back to the people who paid it in, the small business people and working people across Canada. So it would be left to the submissions to raise that point, and the department would have no opinion on it at all.

    What do we do then? We just sit and wait for the department to come up with its recommendations on this new arm's-length trustworthy way of setting premiums, which we departed from some years ago. When do we get this report? Is there a timeframe? Is there some kind of date that we can count on when we're going to know what this proposal is?

    Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: This first report will cover what was heard in the consultation phase. The subjects, the issues, are live subjects for discussion. The advice has to be discussed internally by many folks, including the experts in this field and the two departments at issue.

    Beyond what has so far been committed in the process, I wouldn't have any other comment to make. There is a case before the courts currently, so....

    Mr. Brian Pallister: But we don't have a timeframe as to.... You're saying there's a summary of what you heard. When is that coming out?

    Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: I couldn't state with clarity exactly when, except soon. I will get back to the committee with a more specific date.

    Mr. Brian Pallister: When does part two, which is not just the summary but recommendations from these expert people who are going to make these recommendations...? When is the deadline for that to happen?

    Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: Once again, I'll get back to the committee with more specific dates, so that I don't give you erroneous information.

    Mr. Brian Pallister: I thought you mentioned earlier—

    Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: Well, it's internal to our deliberations because we offer the Governor in Council that advice.

    Mr. Brian Pallister: Right. So you're going to listen to the input and then offer advice based on the input. Is that right? So you do have an opinion on this, as a department, but it's arrived at after you've listened to the input from these various groups. Is that how this process works?

    Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: In the sense that both ministers are responsible for the administration of this area, yes.

    Mr. Brian Pallister: You mentioned earlier, though, that there had to be a date by which this had to be established. If there isn't, then we keep the rate-setting mechanism the way it is.

    Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: Yes. The changes would go into effect in 2005, that's correct.

    Mr. Brian Pallister: So we're going to know sometime in 2004, but maybe not with enough advance notice that there could be a full reaction and any modifications could be made. That wouldn't necessarily be the case. In other words, the timeframe is such that there could be a fait accompli here in which the government could simply come up with a recommendation that would have to be implemented, due to the time constraints. Is that so?

º  (1610)  

    Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: Madam Chair, I think I'd have to go back to the basis on which the council's consultations were conducted. The first basis on which they were conducted was the requirement that premium rates would be set transparently, so I would have to proceed from there to the other tenets of the consultation process. I think our understanding of that is the first basis on which we're holding these consultations, that we would try to be as transparent as possible throughout the entire process.

    The Chair: I think it's a legislative change, and because it's a legislative change it would have to be decided by Parliament. Before this can happen, legislation will have to be produced and be voted on in the House. So there will be consultation.

    Mr. Brian Pallister: That's good, but it's the transparency I'm alluding to. You've talked about the need for transparency. We all agree with that word. It's a lovely word, but we haven't had transparency. There's no definition of what a business cycle is. There's no real understanding of terms like “stable”, what “relatively stable” means. There's no transparency because there are fuzzy words in here, and there have been fuzzy words for a long time.

    I guess what I'm trying to address is, yes, it's fine to have a so-called transparent rate-setting mechanism, but if you don't have transparent words, a clear understanding of what the words mean in the context of this program, transparency is relatively useless. The debate will always be around...as philosophers say, you have to define the terms. We haven't defined the terms in this program.

    The Chair: Your time has expired and you're off. You'll get another round.

    Mr. Simard.

    Mr. Raymond Simard (Saint Boniface, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

    I have one quick question. Again, I'm sorry I missed the presentation; I was unceremoniously pulled out of the committee.

    It may have been asked, actually, but my question is on the $103 million that was requested for homelessness. You've indicated that $16.4 million is for incremental operating resources, and that's approximately 15%. I'd like to know if that's a norm for this type of program in terms of administration costs.

    Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: Madam Chair, I don't know how to describe this type of program in terms of norms. I would say that this is a new type of program initiative in terms of the kinds of programs that one has generally proposed to deal with issues in the expectation or the life of our department. It's one that is extremely labour intensive in working with community groups and in working to build those community coalitions with community groups and with various levels of government.

    It's not high in terms of operating resources, but it is a program area in which we had to build expertise over the course of the last three years. Indeed, if you look at our funding profiles, it took us some time at the initial stages to get the start-up going so we would build these community partnerships that are now so very successful. So it's a very labour-intensive program where we spend a lot of time working with those community groups, working with the provinces, the municipalities, and the not-for-profit sector, and $16.4 million is a reflection of our operating costs.

    Mr. Raymond Simard: So if we compare it to the previous costs of administering the program over the last three years, it would be comparable?

    Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: Yes, for the same reasons.

    The Chair: Mr. Pillitteri.

    Mr. Gary Pillitteri (Niagara Falls, Lib.): Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

    I'm sorry I missed the presentation; nevertheless, I did get some figures.

    Being a small businessman, I'm glad we departed from the past, because when we took office in 1993, we were paying $3.30 per $100 on EI. We're down to $2.25 now, so I'm glad of that.

    But also, I do know that as a society and as a government we have a responsibility to the people and the homeless too. I know that even though I live in an excellent riding in the Niagara peninsula...I've participated in my own riding with some groups of homeless. It was money spent in the area, money well spent, I might say, through HRDC, through Project S.H.A.R.E., through Nova House, through children--actually I could call them children; they are young girls who at the age of 14 had babies and needed counselling and housing. So I'm glad I participated in that.

    But what I am more interested in is how you spend this money, and I think the question should have been asked, do provincial governments take their full responsibility? For instance, the Province of Quebec spent $18 million, with a population of 25%. Approximately $8 million was spent in the Atlantic provinces, by your figures, with 8.5% of the population. In Ontario, with a population at almost 38%, you've spent $30 million. Did I also hear the number $30 million spent in the province of Alberta, with a population of about 10%?

    Is it because the provincial governments, through a lack of responsibility, have created more homelessness; therefore, the federal government has to come in and help out those individuals who do not take their own responsibility?

    Would you care to answer some of those questions?

º  (1615)  

    Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: Madam Chair, I'll try a few.

    The easiest one to answer is...in the case of Alberta, the Northwest Territories, and Nunavut, which in our area operate as one administrative region, the number is not $30 million but about $18 million for that part of the world.

    I might also say that the evaluation we spoke of earlier talked about the program itself and the very labour-intensive nature of the relationships we build under this program. That evaluation actually found that provinces and municipalities are making considerably more additional investments in this area than what anybody would have thought before this program was launched.

    So federal leadership in this area, the working with the various levels of government and the various not-for-profit groups, has actually led to increased spending by all levels of government in trying to address the problems of homelessness.

    The Chair: Mr. Spencer or Mr. Pallister, you can decide yourselves who is going to be next.

    Mr. Larry Spencer: I have a question.

    We're concerned about this EI surplus because it relates to the rate we're charging. I did some calculations one day, and I'm not sure you can deny or support them, but according to my quick calculations on my little calculator, had there never been any rate increases from 1992 to 1993, there would still be a surplus of over $20 billion.

    There are several questions. Why does it take so long to get them into line? Yes, it was indicated from the member across that perhaps the rate has been lowered from what it was, but we're still not seeing that surplus slowing down. It's still growing at nearly $50 billion at this point, in some estimates, including the $15 billion that it might take for one of these nebulous business cycles.

    Are you saying the government has no plans for any type of refund to the workers and to the employers of this overcharge of funds? Will the government make some plan to catch up and allow that surplus to be put back to the credit of the workers and the businessmen of this country or not?

    Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: Madam Chair, the 2003 budget lowered the premium rate to $1.98 for 2004. That's the 10th consecutive year EI premiums have been reduced. They started out at $3.07 in 1994, and they've now dropped to $1.98 for the year 2004. This reduction will result in savings for 2004 of as much as $425 for workers and up to $595 for employers when compared with the 1994 rate. As I mentioned earlier, the Department of Finance and our department are reviewing the rate-setting process, and we will be developing a new permanent rate-setting regime for the year 2005 and beyond. At this stage I think that's about all I can comment on. I'm not sure what calculations will be arrived at, so I won't venture into that world. It's a complex world where actuaries are the appropriate people to tread.

º  (1620)  

    Mr. Brian Pallister: They are, and the chief actuary has said this surplus is in excess of.... I won't call it a surplus any more because that's not right. That's not what it is. It's an overcharge. It's an overcharge for working people and small business. They've been overcharged by over $30 billion, according to the chief actuary. So you're quite right that the chief actuary is the guy to listen to.

    But the Auditor General has also commented and said the government is dangerously close to violating its own act. Provincial governments are concerned that the money coming off provincial workers' paycheques is coming out of the provinces and going to the federal government under false pretences. I think a lot of people across the country are very concerned about this and feel that this overcharge has to stop.

    It's one thing to say there's going to be a new process and it's going to address this. We all hope that's the case.

    I think my colleague is quite justified in asking the question, what about the $35 billion that has already been taken from working Canadians and small and medium-sized enterprises across the country under the pretence that it would be used for employment insurance benefits when it has not been used for employment insurance benefits? Are you saying there is absolutely no consideration being given right now to refunding that money to the people from whom it was taken?

    Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: Madam Chair, the EI account has been consolidated with the books of the Government of Canada since 1986 on the advice of the then Auditor General. I've gone through the history of the reduction of premium rates from 1994 to 2004, that 10-year timeframe. I've also spent some time talking about the process we're now engaged in, which is the rate-setting process, and the five principles that underlie it, which are that premium rates should be set transparently, that they should be set on the basis of independent expert advice--

    Mr. Brian Pallister: That's not the question I asked. I didn't ask you to repeat the five points you previously made.

    The Chair: Mr. Pallister, I think the question you're asking is not something the department can answer. It's a political question. You're going to have to ask the minister directly--

    Mr. Brian Pallister: Madam Chair, if I may, I disagree. It's not a political question. I'm asking a very straightforward question. I simply asked the witnesses whether they are considering refunding the overcharged premiums that came out of working people's pockets. That's a pretty straightforward question.

    The Chair: But it is a policy decision. It's not a decision they can make unilaterally. It's something that will have to be decided upon by government and not by the bureaucrats--

    Mr. Brian Pallister: It's in the rate-setting discussion, is it not?

    The Chair: What you're talking about is a policy decision, and you're going to have to take it up with the minister and the government. These officials administer policy that has been given to them. They don't set policy.

    Mr. Brian Pallister: But I'm trying to learn about the process we're talking about today, which is the consultation process.

    The Chair: I think we've certainly heard about the consultation process. But you're asking the witnesses to step beyond the consultation process and say “what if”, or “are you going to”, and that's a policy decision they don't make.

    Mr. Brian Pallister: I think there's a misunderstanding, Madam Chair, because that's not what I'm asking. The consultations are on a certain topic. You're consulting on a range of topics. You've set out your parameters in the five points. I'm simply asking you whether in the consultation process you're considering refunding the premiums. Are you asking for input on that issue? Do you want to hear from Canadians on this? If so, I'd be interested in knowing what you've heard as well.

    Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: The government's position is probably a departure point from the question that's being asked, because the EI account is consolidated with the books of the Government of Canada and has been since 1986. The subject that is being raised is also one that's before the courts, and argumentation has been heard there. We are waiting to see what will be determined in that arena.

    The Chair: Are the people restricted to any recommendations, or can they make whatever recommendations they see fit?

    Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: As with most consultations, people make whatever recommendations they see fit.

    The Chair: And can anybody make recommendations? Is it just by invitation, or could any member of the public, any organization, any group, any individual make recommendations?

    Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: Any individual or group or organization can make recommendations. The consultation was also conducted on the Internet.

    The Chair: So in terms of who has been making consultations, it is completely up to whoever wishes to make consultations?

    Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: That's correct. And I've already undertaken to provide a listing of all of those who were consulted, in the round tables, as experts, and also on the Internet--the feedback we've gotten.

    The Chair: Has the period of consultation been concluded?

    Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: Yes, it has.

    The Chair: Do you happen to know how many were made in broad general terms? Is it 100, 500, 1,000?

º  (1625)  

    Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: We received 28 written submissions, and many submissions came in on the Internet as well. I will undertake to make a listing. If I had to hazard a guess, just on a quick eye count, it looks like there are about 50 or so here who have made presentations, either through the round tables or on the Internet. That, of course, would involve multiples of individuals engaged in each of those. I will make those available to the committee.

    The Chair: All right.

    Mr. Pallister had about 40 second left before I interrupted, so, Mr. Pallister, you have 40 seconds.

    Mr. Brian Pallister: Thanks.

    I'm reacting partly to your comment and partly to my colleague's comment--I'm a small business person too--that I should feel good because the premiums came down. You mentioned rates have dropped--you gave us the historical fact--but the historical fact is that the premiums have dropped a fraction of what they could have dropped, and I think that's what small business people and working people are telling me they're concerned about.

    When you make the government's point for them that rates have dropped, it's like somebody coming in and stealing all my furniture but leaving my TV in the house and telling me I owe them a favour, that I should be thankful. If you're overcharging me 30% or 40% on my premiums, that's money out of my family's pocket and that's money from small and medium-sized business. This is where I'm coming from with this. This is why I'm asking you these questions.

    I don't think it's fair to say, yes, this should be left in the hands of actuaries, on the one hand, and on the other hand to have ignored the chief actuary and to have ignored the Auditor General for the last several years on this issue.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Pallister.

    Mr. Bellemare.

    Mr. Eugène Bellemare: To follow along on Mr. Pallister's question, save for the political tone he has used, can you honestly predict with some accuracy how much money will be required to provide EI funds to pay out the payments during a year? Can that be done?

    Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: We can predict, or we try to predict, in terms of what we know of the business cycle, what we know about expected take-up, what we know when you apply the EI rules and regulations. If this is an area on which we should provide greater detailed information, I'm probably at the limits of some of the information I can be providing, and I'd be happy to provide further information, Madam Chair, on another occasion.

    Mr. Eugène Bellemare: I doubt, personally, you could predict that, because you have downturns. There was quite a downturn some years ago, and I recall that the EI account--in those days the unemployment insurance account--was busted and we had to go into a deficit. The government of the day had to go into deficit, obviously increasing the debt. It works both ways.

    Mr. Pallister talks of one way as if he's purchasing insurance from a private company, and if the private company makes a lot of money, he's probably banging at the front gate to say, “I want more money. So-and-so died. I had insurance on him or her for $100,000 and you made a lot of profit this year. Therefore, I want some money back on my premium and then possibly out of the general account you have in this company.”

    You're mixing up a lot of items.

    I think he's mixing up a lot of items. For example, if he wants money back, perhaps he should have shares in the company or whatever.

    To get back to the government, since there is a balancing act and there's guesswork in where the economy is going to go, no one can really predict. I'm sure you cannot really predict, because you'd be a multimillionaire today in high-tech.... You would have predicted all that stuff and then, boom, all of a sudden it went down. Even the best in the world lost billions of dollars. So when you're looking at a country and the financing, you can't predict.

    The moneys are put in a general account, or you call it the consolidated account. It's not as if we have it in the bank somewhere and we can go and grab some of it. It's left and redistributed to these kind people who contributed their premiums. So it cannot be predicted.

    Do you agree that the government then has a responsibility to pay up when there's a big deficit and the economy has gone really bad? We have, let's say, $200 billion of taxes in, but we're going to have to pay out more in services, especially say in EI because of the downturn. Do you believe we have that responsibility? If we have that responsibility, do you agree that there is a give and take here? Do you think that maybe the people who are EI recipients should also participate in the deficit and receive less EI moneys when they've lost their job because of the drastic downturn in the economy? Do you believe they should also be paying part of that?

º  (1630)  

    The Chair: Mr. Bellemare, I'm going to suggest that perhaps these are rhetorical and that you don't want the department to give policy--

    Mr. Eugène Bellemare: I want to give the other side to Pallister here. He's a one-on-one kind--

    The Chair: You've put your views on the table, and I'm going to rule that you're asking for a political response as well.

    Mr. Eugène Bellemare: There's a balancing act.

    Mr. Larry Spencer: You're saying this government is a non-profit corporation, are you?

    The Chair: Did you have a question that was specific, that wasn't--

    Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Yes, to get back to my original question--

    The Chair: You have a minute and a half.

    Mr. Eugène Bellemare: I'm surprised. I'm not from Quebec, but $18 million was spent for homelessness in Quebec, $18 million in a well-off.... Those people who don't want to give their money away to anyone and who want to keep it all to themselves, I don't understand that.

    In regard to Alberta, do you mean to say that there are as many people homeless in Alberta as there are in Quebec, for example? I'm using these two because they've received the same amount of money--$18 million. I'm surprised. What happened there?

    The Chair: Mr. Cameron.

    Mr. Eugène Bellemare: My time is going away and I'm silenced.

    The Chair: Mr. Cameron is going to give you a very succinct response.

    Mr. Bill Cameron: Basically, you have to remember that when the program was designed it was really focused on 10 major cities, and 80% of the funding was allocated to 10 cities. Basically, it was based on a formula, and it's a complicated formula, but it's the low-income cut-off rate, vacancy, and population, and that's how the funding was allocated.

    As an example, when you look at Alberta, and you look at the aboriginal population in Calgary, you'll find that homelessness in part of the aboriginal community is very high. So factored into these numbers were population bases. Basically, that's the way it was allocated. At the time, 80% of the $442 million funding was allocated based on population and poverty rates.

    Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Are you saying that the original population skewed the figures?

    Mr. Bill Cameron: No, I'm saying that when you consider the demands and the needs, the fastest growing rate of homelessness in Canada is in the aboriginal population. If you examine the populations in Winnipeg, in Calgary and Alberta, it's astronomical.

    Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Is the amount of homelessness in Quebec and Alberta the same? Whether they're white or red--

    Mr. Bill Cameron: No, I'm not saying that, but based on the formula.... Because we had to be equitable under SUFA, what we needed was to have a fair formula. The formula worked out how the funding was allocated. It was based on poverty, the vacancy rate, and on the low-income rate. It was based on three factors. Those three factors determined the allocation. The formula was what drove it.

    Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Thank you.

    The Chair: Madame Tremblay.

[Translation]

    Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis, BQ): Thank you, Madam Chair.

    I apologize for missing the first part of the meeting, but since I am returning after a two-week absence, I had a number of rather urgent matters to attend to.

    I have been a member of Parliament for 10 years, and every time there is a committee meeting on the Estimates, the same questions are always asked. On the issue of homelessness, for example, why is it that we were unable to anticipate sooner that we needed money? Had we done that, we might have fewer homeless people today. The government waits until situations get worse, which means that there are always more problems to deal with. I fail to understand why we cannot do a better job of drawing up budgets.

    Mr. Pallister raised an extremely important question. The famous rate setting process is supposed to be transparent, but there is nothing murkier than this process. The incoming government has said that its main priority will be to reduce the debt. Perhaps it will increase the employment insurance rates again to raise billions of dollars of surplus to pay down the debt, as has been done for 10 years.

    We raise questions in the House and we get no answers. We raise questions at committee and we get no answers there either. For whom do the officials work? For the people or for a political party? If they work for the people, they should be able to answer the questions we ask. For example, I note that in the year 2000, the minister set up three committees to study the problem of seasonal workers. This work was done by officials. The three reports were submitted to the minister in August—one in the month of June—and I hear on my return that the Liberal Party has just set up a committee that will be studying the problem of seasonal work once again. Consequently, the work done by the officials does not satisfy the government either, since it has to set up its own committees to find out what is going on. I would very much like to understand all of this, because after 10 years here, I am really feeling discouraged. I would like to understand how all of this works. Can someone explain to us how all this works so that we can determine whether we achieve something by coming here or not? If the committees exist only to keep us busy, then we should be told that. I have many other things to do besides coming to the committee week after week to engage in pointless activities. I have a great many other things to do. I would like to know how this works. How accountable are you to us, for example? Are you bound by all sorts of secrecy requirements that prevent you from giving us some answers?

º  (1635)  

[English]

    Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: Madam Chair, as best as I can see, there are two aspects to that question. The first one is, why are we here today with supplementary estimates on the homelessness program; why wasn't this involved in the main estimates? Again, given that main estimates are prepared well in advance at the beginning of the fiscal year--for us that would normally be in December--they don't include measures that in this case, for example, were announced in the federal budget. The federal budget announced phase two of the national homelessness initiative, and therefore the appropriate place for us to have this conversation is in the supplementary estimates process. That's the usual place we acquire additional funds, and we're now in the supplementary estimates process.

    For the second question, which is the one that has to do with seasonal workers and the various activities for the seasonal workers' committees we have been studying and engaged with, I'll ask my colleague Madame Blouin Wilkinson to begin to try to deal with that question. This is another area where it's not that we haven't been working, but it's an area where the issue is extremely complex and complicated. The EI program may work well on a national basis when the nature of work is not seasonal in nature, but there are issues of a seasonal nature that keep coming up, and we try very hard to address them as they come up. Therefore, it's an issue that continues to be alive and is one of ongoing debate.

    I'll ask Madame Blouin Wilkinson to speak more directly to that point.

[Translation]

    Mrs. Francine Blouin Wilkinson (Acting Director, Policy and Legislation Development- Insurance Branch, Department of Human Resources Development): I am pleased to answer your question.

    It is true that several committees were set up locally to try to find solutions to local problems, and more specifically to problems related to seasonal work. We certainly thank these committees for the work they did. It was very useful. Some recommendations have been made to the department, however, unfortunately, we were unable to accept them, because although they were varied, they all amounted to ensuring a guaranteed annual income. In other words, the recommendations we received were not acceptable in the context of an insurance program, which must cover a percentage of the lost wages.

    We are continuing to try to find solutions. It must be remembered that employment insurance is a national program and that we have to find an adequate way of replacing income, both for seasonal workers and for other types of workers in the country. We hope that the new committee will help us continue to find solutions.

    We must also say that the program does not lie only with the Employment Insurance Program. Seasonal work is a complex issue and we must find solutions that involve all the departments. Actually, jobs must be created. That is the first way of ensuring that people can work longer. Paying benefits is not the only solution. We need a longer term solution involving a number of departments. That is what we hope to find with the help of the committee.

º  (1640)  

    Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: I am wondering about something else, Ms. Blouin Wilkinson.

    This is not a government committee or a parliamentary committee. It is a Liberal Party committee. How can you count on a Liberal party committee to help you find solutions? The committee that was formed was a Liberal Party committee, was it not?

[English]

    The Chair: I don't know of which committee you're speaking, Madame Tremblay.

[Translation]

    Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: I am talking about the task force that was created last week.

[English]

    The Chair: You're referring to the prime ministerial task force. As far as I know, there will be public consultation and a public report that will be tabled, and anyone can make representation to that task force. They will be travelling and will be posting their travel schedule, and they'll be asking members of the public to participate in that consultation process.

[Translation]

    Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: I would really like to have an answer from the witness. There have been departmental committees and now there is a partisan committee that is working on behalf of the Prime Minister with a deadline of January 2004. Are you telling me that the committees that have looked into the situation over the past two years have not found any solutions and that the Prime Minister's task force of which Mr. St. Denis is the chair and Ms. Ringuette the vice-chair will find the solution and do everything that you suggested during the consultations? That seems a little far-fetched too me. I find it strange that the witness is telling us that she has high hopes that the new committee will help her resolve these problems. This is a Liberal committee. It seems a bit bizarre.

[English]

    The Chair: This lady you refer to is a member of the department, and she did not set up the task force. The task force was set up by the Prime Minister to give information--

[Translation]

    Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: I understood that.

[English]

    The Chair: Well, I don't think it's fair to ask her to account for a committee she did not set up. It was not a task force the department asked for.

[Translation]

    Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: She just said that she hopes that the new committee will help people in the department.

[English]

    The Chair: I'm certain the department is happy to receive information from wherever it comes and will take that into consideration.

    Again, these are questions you should pose to the minister, and policy will be determined by the government. The officials before us are not setting policy. They are simply here to respond to--

º  (1645)  

[Translation]

    Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: I am sorry, Madam Chair. I have not been at the meeting very long, and you have told all those who have spoken that they should pose their questions to the minister. There is no point in inviting officials if we cannot ask them any questions. We just have to invite the minister and ask her our questions. That is what you are telling everyone.

[English]

    The Chair: We will pass on your request to the minister.

    I'm going to give Mr. Simard one very last one, and we'll wrap up with a very short one from Mr. Pallister.

    Mr. Raymond Simard: Actually, it's not a question, it's a comment, and it maybe reaches a little bit at what Madam Tremblay is getting at.

    With regard to fixing the EI rates, I'm one of those people who think this is a very serious and important topic. I'm one of the people, I'm sure you'll recall, who thought this committee actually would be extremely well positioned to look at that, to analyse it, and to contribute to the process. I'm very disappointed we didn't have the opportunity to do that.

    You were saying, Madam Flumian, that the consultative process is over. I thought this committee here would have been extremely well positioned...we could have analysed the impact of the rate as it is today and maybe even proposed some solutions or some alternatives.

    I just wanted to put that on the record.

    The Chair: I think, Mr. Simard, when the legislation is introduced, we can take the opportunity to examine it very carefully and to make amendments if we see the need. You won't remember, but others will, that when the EI legislation came before this committee, not only did this committee study the legislation before us, but it submitted a very large report entitled “Beyond Bill C-2”.

    Mr. Raymond Simard: So we will get an opportunity.

    The Chair: Yes.

    Mr. Pallister.

    Mr. Brian Pallister: Thank you.

    I wanted to thank Mr. Bellemare, my colleague, for his spirited defence of the status quo. I appreciate that, and I know most of the small business and labour groups who want change will appreciate his comments as well.

    I'd encourage him also to read the testimony of the chief actuary, when he testified before this committee--I've had the chance to review that--where he testified that the surplus was $30 billion in excess of what was necessary. It's not me saying this. I want Mr. Bellemare to be comfortable knowing I'm totally apolitical on this issue. Frankly, I want the money back in the hands of working Canadians.

    The Chair: I'm sure he'll read the gentleman's--

    Mr. Brian Pallister: I encourage him to read the testimony of the chief actuary--

    The Chair: I'm sure he will.

    Mr. Brian Pallister: --because the chief actuary has addressed that.

    An actuary, by the way, Mr. Bellemare, is an accountant with just a little bit of personality--just a touch.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Mr. Brian Pallister: Did you consult with the chief actuary's office at any time during this consultation process? In terms of the rate-setting mechanisms, I would think there would be something the chief actuary's office could perhaps bring to the process.

    Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: First, what I reported on, Madam Chair, was the first phase of those consultations, in order to go out and seek views from outside participants. I'm sure the entire consultation process that will lead to changes in the rate-setting process has not yet been concluded.

    For the phase now, where we're trying to wrap up the reflection on that phase--

    Mr. Brian Pallister: So in the subsequent phase there's a chance it would happen. I know that some of the copies of presentations I've received have alluded to a desire on the part of various groups representing labour and business to have the chief actuary play a greater role. This is why I allude to it.

    Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: Yes, we've heard their views.

    Mr. Brian Pallister: And I appreciate your efforts. All of us on the committee want to see these proposals before us so that we're able to debate them, and we look forward to it.

    Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: We look forward to it as well.

    Mr. Brian Pallister: Thank you for that.

    Specifically on the SARS aspect of the estimates, can you tell me how many non-EI-eligible individuals affected by SARS have received special assistance for loss of income?

    Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: Madam Chair, there were two dimensions to the measures that were announced related to SARS and for which the department had responsibility. The first was the two-week waiting period of employment insurance benefits for those people who were affected by quarantine restrictions. The second one, which is what I think the question specifically pertains to, is the grants initiative, the second SARS-related policy measure.

    Going by the most recent numbers, up to October 10, we've received 401 applications. We've approved 255 applications and rejected 142. Four applications are still in the process of being assessed. To that date, we've spent just under $0.5 million.

    Again, as of October 10, 43% of the clients who were compensated were compensated for less than four weeks of lost income.

    Mr. Brian Pallister: Can you tell me, were most of these people full time or part time, and how much was spent outside of the EI account to provide this assistance?

º  (1650)  

    Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: For this grant payment, the total being asked for is $1.5 million. We expect, too, that because the operating expenses associated with getting up this class of grant are quite high, we're going to spend about $0.5 million that we've made available internally. So our response to this SARS initiative cost about $2 million.

    Of the 255 applicants who benefited, as I mentioned, from this grant program, I know that 125 are self-employed. This would include people who run businesses on hospital premises, as well as doctors and nurses and folks of that sort. So there are some part-time folks. Although I don't have the breakdowns with me here, I could make those available as soon as we have them.

    Mr. Brian Pallister: Would you? That would be much appreciated.

    Thank you very much.

    The Chair: Larry, you have about 35 seconds.

    Mr. Larry Spencer: Thank you.

    This is a little different. The HRDC minister this past year spent quite a bit of money proving her point regarding her authority over the review tribunal in cases regarding section 32, or departmental errors. I have just two questions. One, where does that legal defence money come from, and two, what is the impact on the budget?

    Ms. Janet Milne (Assistant Deputy Minister, Financial and Administrative Services, Department of Human Resources Development): Sorry, I just want a little clarification. You're speaking of the legal defence money that supports the operations of the review tribunal...

    Mr. Larry Spencer: A legal case was taken to court--appellate court, high court--regarding whether or not the minister had the right to make the final decision in cases involving departmental error. How much was spent on that, and is it reflected in any of the budget lines? Or does it come from some other kind of fund?

    Ms. Janet Milne: I don't know the answer to the amount. I will find that out and get back to you on it.

    Mr. Larry Spencer: Thank you.

    The Chair: I have one very brief question.

    What's the protocol for reallocating funds within a budget after the tabling of the main estimates?

    Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: The protocol...

    The Chair: If the main estimates allocate $1.5 million for some specific thing, and it turns out that it can be accomplished at half the thing, and you have an additional $1 million left over, can you move it into another program? Or does it have to come back in terms of supplementary?

    Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: It depends on the program and on the funds that were originally voted for. In some cases, we have the authorities internally; in some cases, we obviously return to Treasury Board; and in some cases, we have to avail ourselves of supplementary estimates because we can't access the funds for internal reallocation.

    The Chair: Okay. Leading from that, you talk in here about the money that was reallocated for softwood lumber. Now, $71 million was for the EI fund--I appreciate that you can move that around--and $110 million was “for a national Softwood Industry and Community Adjustment Fund to support community economic development”. In the next line, you say that you reallocated from “internal” sources.

    On the community economic development, did it come from HRDC, did it come from internal...? And how does it get moved to softwood lumber?

    Ms. Janet Milne: I want to clarify. The money, the $110 million---

    The Chair: Maybe it will help, because it was in the submission. Actually, it's on page 3 of the written submission. It talked about SARS, and then on top of page 3 it says:

In addition to these items, HRDC will form a key part of the government's response to special needs arising because of the softwood lumber dispute with the United States. The government agreed to provide $71 million over two years to build on existing EI and other programs...

    So I can understand where the $71 million comes in. But it follows:

...as well as $110 million for a national softwood industry and community adjustment fund to support community economic development.

    It then goes on to say:

HRDC's softwood lumber contribution was covered by reallocating other internal program resources, and we are not asking Parliament for any additional funds.

    When you are reallocating funds... as I say, I can understand that the $71 million was EI, and you can easily move that, but I don't know that we have this thing called community economic development, or that we would ever have seen it in the main estimates.

    Ms. Janet Milne: The government did announce assistance of more than $246 million to help workers in communities and companies that were affected by that dispute. That does include the two parts that you've referred to, the $71 million for over two years to build on existing EI and $110 million for a national softwood industry and community adjustment fund to support the community economic developments. That was announced. Some part of that was covered through reallocation from within, not the whole $110 million.

º  (1655)  

    The Chair: Is it all being delivered through HRDC?

    Ms. Janet Milne: No, that's one of the other issues.

    Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: Correct. Some of it is being delivered by regional agencies, so you would see it in their estimates. Some of it is being delivered through Industry Canada, and you would see that in their estimates, and a portion by Foreign Affairs.

    The Chair: That's what I was getting at. We weren't seeing it here, but we would see it. So any funds being reallocated, we would see in supplementary estimates.

    Okay. Thank you.

    I know the other thing I was going to ask had to do with the--I actually have two others, and I beg the committee's indulgence. This committee had talked about beefing up the security and the process with respect to SIN numbers. Have you found the money internally to do that? How much has been spent? How much more do you think you have to do before you have a SIN number that is pretty secure?

    Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: We are reallocating some dollars internally. We've identified a requirement for additional costs probably in the range of about $5 million.

    Madam Chair and committee members, when you talked to us the last time we appeared on this matter, I think you all insisted pretty strongly and effectively that we needed to spend more money communicating with businesses and with individual Canadians about their responsibilities and the role of the SIN number.

    In addition to the changes we've introduced over the 900 series, we need to communicate those measures effectively to Canadians. So we are probably going to require $5 million there. In addition, in the past year we had allocated, for the year 2002-2003, an additional $10.8 million of measures. In this fiscal year we are continuing to make improvements, as has been suggested by the standing committee, the Auditor General, and others, on the way we manage the whole issue of integrity in the department. We will be proceeding forward to Treasury Board for additional funds as well, to put some of those measures in place.

    We're still developing that plan in its detail, and therefore the additional costing elements are required with it. We'll be happy to come back at some other time to continue our report on that issue.

    The Chair: So will we see that in supplementary B?

    Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: We hope so.

    The Chair: Finally, the last budget indicated there would be a reallocation of $1 billion from existing programs. What is HRDC's share of that, and will it be reallocated within the department, or does it go back to the centre?

    Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: We are reallocating. Our total share of the amount is $105 million. That is our target of the $1 billion reallocation.

    Perhaps Madam Milne will speak to where those dollars are coming from.

    Ms. Janet Milne: Our share of the $1 billion was $105 million. Effectively, all of the funds that have been reallocated, at least initially, go back to the centre for reallocation to other priorities.

    We did put together a group--and it was done very quickly, of course, after the budget, since we had about three weeks to a month to work that through--to look at what the options were, what kind of package we could put together. Some principles were developed to guide our activities, particularly things like whether we could find administrative efficiencies or find better ways of doing business. There were a number of places we felt we could do that.

    We also asked if there were areas where we felt the funds might not be fully expended in this fiscal year, and that was useful to us because in HRDC a lot of our funds are bound up in contractual arrangements with provinces, stakeholders, and sponsors, and it's not easy to disentangle those on a moment's notice. In a number of cases, we took temporary measures to deal with the first year to give us some time to negotiate changes in some of those arrangements.

    We put together a package of options that included some funding that comes from the Canada student loans program for this fiscal year. A big piece of that is related to measures that were announced in the budget that will not be feasible to implement in this fiscal year. It's a deferral, because they require regulatory changes. The Department of Justice has been busy trying to draft the regulations, and that will not be done until January. It would not allow us to spend those funds in this fiscal year, so we have deferred them and used them as part of this year's contribution.

    There is a fund related to the provision of services. The Canada student loans program is delivered by a third-party provider; it's not actually delivered directly by our organization. Some of the funds are being saved through the contractual arrangements we have with those service providers.

    We had received a grant from Treasury Board to deal with the issue of trying to put them online, as part of government online. In looking at what we were doing relative to the modernizing of services agenda, we felt it was more appropriate to do that work under that more integrated rubric. So we were able to find a total through those kinds of sources of approximately $49 million, some of which is permanent and some of which is just for this year, to give us some time.

    We've reallocated about $16 million out of the youth employment program, and that includes the skills link program. Again, that was a start-up program that is going to take some time to get in place, and we felt it wouldn't be feasible to put it fully in place in this fiscal year. Also, there was a reduction to the career focus program, which targets primarily post-secondary graduates.

    One of the principles we tried to bring to bear on this was to protect the most vulnerable of our clients, to not reduce programming directed at aboriginals, the disabled, and so on. As you can imagine, this is not an easy task.

    We had some money that was fenced in within the employment insurance account--about $20 million--to deal with the work-sharing while learning program for the softwood lumber, which had a much smaller uptake than had been anticipated, so that fund was also used in this fiscal year.

    Part of the money for homelessness, which we've talked a lot about here today.... The way the money for homelessness is managed is quite complex because of the two parts, one and two. We deferred $20 million from the part two budget announcement into a future year. That's why the estimates this time ask for $103 million, as opposed to, I think, $135 million originally. We did not ask for that money, as opposed to giving it back, so to speak.

    There were a number of items in our supplementary estimates where rather than giving money back to the Treasury Board and having them give it back to us in supplementary estimates, we simply did an internal reallocation and we've not asked for the money in the supplementary estimates.

»  (1700)  

    Effectively, for this fiscal year those are the sources of the funds; that's how we've come up with the $105 million. We are now actively involved in looking at future years and what we will do to come up with that on an ongoing basis. We are discussing proposals with the minister at this point.

    The Chair: I'm almost sorry I asked.

    I'm a little concerned about the Canada student loans program. I hope we can get that up and going. I consider that a vulnerable client group, given the kinds of costs they have. I echo what Mr. Pillitteri is saying: there's not enough in the fund to begin with. So cutting some back....

    Ms. Janet Milne: Yes. We will be paying that money back, by the way. That's a borrowing technique.

    The Chair: Okay, thank you. I appreciate your coming to be with us. There were some lively discussions.

    The meeting is adjourned.