HUMA Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 3rd SESSION

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

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, March 11, 2004

0905

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

Hon. Joseph Volpe (Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development)

0910

0915

The Chair

Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, CPC)

Hon. Joseph Volpe

0920

Mr. Brian Pallister

Hon. Joseph Volpe

Mr. Brian Pallister

The Chair

Hon. Joseph Volpe

Mr. Brian Pallister

Hon. Joseph Volpe

Mr. Brian Pallister

Hon. Joseph Volpe

Mr. Brian Pallister

The Chair

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

0925

Hon. Joseph Volpe

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

0930

The Chair

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

The Chair

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

Hon. Joseph Volpe

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay

Hon. Joseph Volpe

0935

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay

Hon. Joseph Volpe

The Chair

Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, Lib.)

Hon. Joseph Volpe

0940

Mr. Larry McCormick

The Chair

Mr. Larry McCormick

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP)

0945

The Chair

Hon. Joseph Volpe

Mr. Yvon Godin

Hon. Joseph Volpe

The Chair

Mr. Brian Pallister

0950

Hon. Joseph Volpe

The Chair

Mr. Brian Pallister

The Chair

Hon. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.)

Mr. Brian Pallister

The Chair

Mr. Brian Pallister

The Chair

Hon. Paul Bonwick

Mr. Brian Pallister

Hon. Paul Bonwick

0955

Hon. Joseph Volpe

The Chair

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay

1000

Hon. Joseph Volpe

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay

Hon. Joseph Volpe

The Chair

Hon. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.)

Hon. Joseph Volpe

1005

The Chair

Hon. Joseph Volpe

The Chair

Hon. Liza Frulla (Minister of Social Development)

1015

1020

1025

The Chair

Mr. Brian Pallister

Hon. Liza Frulla

Mr. Brian Pallister

Hon. Liza Frulla

Mr. Brian Pallister

Hon. Liza Frulla

Ms. Susan Scotti (Assistant Deputy Minister, Income Security Programs, Department of Social Development Canada)

Hon. Liza Frulla

1030

Mr. Brian Pallister

The Chair

Hon. Liza Frulla

The Chair

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Hon. Liza Frulla

1035

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Hon. Liza Frulla

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Hon. Liza Frulla

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Hon. Liza Frulla

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Hon. Liza Frulla

The Chair

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay

1040

Hon. Liza Frulla

1045

The Chair

Hon. Liza Frulla

The Chair

Hon. Liza Frulla

The Chair

Hon. Eleni Bakopanos

Hon. Liza Frulla

Hon. Eleni Bakopanos

1050

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay

The Chair

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay

The Chair

Hon. Liza Frulla

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

Hon. Liza Frulla

Mr. Yvon Godin

1055

Hon. Liza Frulla

The Chair

Hon. Liza Frulla

Mr. Yvon Godin

Hon. Liza Frulla

1100

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay

Hon. Liza Frulla

Mr. Yvon Godin

Hon. Liza Frulla

The Chair

Hon. Liza Frulla

The Chair

Mr. Larry McCormick

Hon. Liza Frulla

Mr. Larry McCormick

Hon. Liza Frulla

Mr. Larry McCormick

Hon. Liza Frulla

Mr. Larry McCormick

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Eugène Bellemare)

1105

Hon. Liza Frulla

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Eugène Bellemare)

Hon. Liza Frulla

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Eugène Bellemare)

Mr. Brian Pallister

Hon. Liza Frulla

Mr. Brian Pallister

Hon. Liza Frulla

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Eugène Bellemare)

Hon. Liza Frulla

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Eugène Bellemare)

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay

Hon. Liza Frulla

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay

Hon. Liza Frulla

1110

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Eugène Bellemare)

Hon. Liza Frulla

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Eugène Bellemare)

CANADA

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

NUMBER 003

3rd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Thursday, March 11, 2004

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0905)

[English]

The Chair (Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.)): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the third meeting of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Minister, we welcome you to the committee. Mr. Volpe, this is your first opportunity to appear before the committee since your elevation to cabinet. We know that you are very well versed with committee proceedings and have taken a very active role from another part of the committee from time to time. I think you're prepared for what will transpire as we go along.

We've asked you to come today to give us some broad, general thoughts on the department that you now head. Members of the committee will know that this very large department was split. We're anxious to know just what portion of the old department you've kept and where you may see yourself going in the future.

Minister, I turn the mike over to you, and welcome. You might introduce your officials as well.

Hon. Joseph Volpe (Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development): Wonderful. Madam Chair, thank you very much.

With me today is the deputy minister, Mr. Wayne Wouters, and Andrew Treusch, the assistant deputy minister and the man who knows all of the details. If there are any questions we're going to have on specifics that carry consequences of dollars and cents, I hope that you and the other committee members, Madam, will allow me to defer to either of the two gentlemen with me.

I thank you for that kind introduction, Madam, because I've been on both sides of the committee. For five years I served as an associate critic for what was then Manpower and Immigration, and today we call it Human Resources and Skills Development. For a considerable amount of time I sat on this side as well. That doesn't mean I'm well versed in the functions of committees, but I thank you for taking note.

I'm not sure there's an elevation of sorts, but there's certainly a shuffling of the chairs and moving around in different roles as parliamentarians.

You've asked me to address one specific issue, and that is the division, or the creation, as I prefer to think of it, of the former department of HRDC into HRSDC, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada. The other department is no longer in my area or the former department's area of expertise. I think you'll get my colleague here in about 55 minutes, and I will leave it to my colleague to address all the issues that relate to that other department.

You will know, Madam Chair and colleagues on both sides of the committee, that the intention behind the creation of these two departments stemmed in part from the desire to focus government policy in two separate areas and to release the energies required to develop that policy so that it would reflect the focus and the dynamics associated with departments that were in the process of delivering on programs that Canadians had come to regard as, in part, their right as Canadians and, in part as well, as their--how shall I put it?--commitment to a forward-looking, very progressive approach to how this new department ought to direct the very scarce resources we have in our country for the purposes of achieving goals and objectives, recognized by Canadians and expressed through their stakeholders and their representatives, representatives in Parliament and representatives in government. That's the general principle.

Second is that we wanted to focus on the way we deliver some of those services. The government feels that the best way to deliver those services, again, is to focus the public officials in a direction that is specific to delivery of services that we call in this new department the creative components of the former HRDC.

The delivery mechanisms have to be streamlined and include an ongoing auditing process, examination process, evaluation process, and a constant appraisal of the directions that we are pursuing and their effectiveness.

Madam Chair, I think colleagues will appreciate that when the new government was sworn in, it took very seriously the issues of accountability and transparency. We are implementing, in our department, those two principles in virtually everything we do. I say “virtually” simply because some of the functions of our department are in part statutory. Even there, that obligation towards openness, accountability, and performance is the principle that all officials at all levels are implementing.

¿ (0910)

Thirdly, what we in the department knew we wanted to do, and the department officials had already begun, is a re-evaluation of some of the formerly entrenched perceptions about the directions the department would follow.

Let me give you an example. In the Speech from the Throne, you will know, Madam and colleagues, that the Prime Minister responded by saying we need to have a new assessment of the purposes of some of our programs and the directions we ought to pursue, that the labour market, as we have assessed it in the past, needs to be viewed through a lens that takes into consideration all of the new dynamics and changes we have seen over the course of the last decade at the very least.

It needs to be reassessed in the context of the directions that we see developing in our relationships with our partners and competitors and in the context of some of the global dynamics and where our citizens fit. We need to do that. We can't simply tie ourselves into a system that was valid 10 or 15 years ago but now has to address different issues.

Secondly, we need to be cognizant as well of the fact that while we're looking at this macro evolution of labour market development, we still have obligations to our citizens and we have obligations to our communities. We want to be able to maintain and sustain local dynamics, regional dynamics, provincial dynamics, all the while that we are adjusting or moving forward on pan-Canadian, global issues. We need to keep these elements always forward if we are going to deliver proper services.

We need to be efficient in the delivery of those services as well, and I know you'll want to address those issues, but in the delivery of those services we're talking about making the adjustment as a deliverer according to all of the new mechanisms that are available to any professional organization.

But the most important thing is that we have to address how we spend the moneys that are generated through our department. Do we do that by taking a look at the requirements of lifelong learning dynamics that we see... I know there are a few people around the table who have a background in education and they'll perhaps bring a perspective on this that others might not. Do we assess, do we look at, how that lifelong learning will affect the services we provide and how we provide them? Do we take a look as well at the kinds of jobs that are emerging? And what are we going to do with respect to those types of jobs?

For example, members around the table will already know that the participation rate in jobs in general is amongst the highest in the OECD countries. They will also know that the types of jobs that are surfacing, emerging, being created, are requiring more and more education in the post-secondary level. In fact, I think some of the most recent statistics indicate that 70% of all new jobs that will be created in the next five years will require post-secondary education, and that includes specific training as well.

¿ (0915)

Do we look at these kinds of data and adapt our programs to them, to the new challenges, or do we simply look at the programs in the way they were conducted in the past and view this as simply an insurance scheme? That, too, is a valid position that would be on the table, but we thought what we needed to do is focus ourselves and to make sure we address this.

You know as well that the Prime Minister felt that in order for us to address the challenges of the jobs that require post-secondary education and lifelong learning, he appointed a parliamentary secretary, Mr. Bonwick, who sits on this committee, to address all of those issues that relate to post-secondary education, student loans in particular.

He also felt it was absolutely important that we understand the new dynamics of the social economy, so he appointed another parliamentary secretary, my colleague the Hon. Eleni Bakopanos, to address some of those issues and to help us in the department keep focused on some of those dynamics.

So I give you a sense of the directions we're pursuing. We're looking at workplace skills. We're looking at lifelong learning, but workplace skills development and honing, developing closer partnerships with those who create jobs, who would transition us from the 20th century to the 21st century.

We're trying to put something together, if you will, on a political basis, because members of Parliament, like this committee and the parliamentary secretaries, can provide the political will to keep going and to give the bureaucracy, our officials, an opportunity to refocus their energies and to be much more directive and prescriptive in some of the directions we will follow, both on a policy basis and on a delivery basis.

So there, Madam Chair, without much further ado--because I know you will want me to answer questions--in a nutshell are some of the directions we are pursuing as a result of that creation of a new department.

I want to say much more. Some of the things I want to say will probably be answered in about 10 days when we deliver a budget, but I'll leave that for then. I would prefer, in the next 40 minutes, if you don't mind, Madam, to answer questions from colleagues on both sides of the committee.

And in the event that I forget to do it later, I want to advise you that I will make myself available for the committee's deliberations at another time as well.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

We're going to have five-minute rounds. We'll start with Mr. Pallister, then Mr. Bellemare, and then Madam Tremblay.

I would remind both the questioner and the answerer that that's all encompassed in the five minutes, so if you use up too much time in your preamble there won't be enough time for answers, and if you use up too much in your answers, there's not enough.... Anyway, it's five minutes.

Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, CPC): Across the hall they're dealing with a scandal that is certainly not without precedent, but $100 million to friends and so on.... To a lot of Canadians that's a pretty small scandal compared to the scandal of artificially elevated EI premiums.

The Auditor General, in her 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003 reports, has commented to your government each time that the premiums are unnecessarily high, and now we have an overcharge to working Canadians of close to $44 billion. That is a scandal, not just according to me but according to Thomas Axworthy, who wrote in yesterday's National Post on that very topic and said that high payroll taxes are a scandal.

I'd like the minister to tell us how many jobs are prevented in Canada by the excessively high premiums that the government continues to insist working Canadians should pay.

Hon. Joseph Volpe: Madam Chair, I was hoping to have the kind of dialogue that would be bereft of charged language, because we're not talking about scandal. I thought we were talking about the way the department and the policy-makers are moving in the direction of addressing the citizens' needs.

That having been said, the committee will know better than most people that premiums have declined for 10 years in a row. They are at the lowest they have been since the Liberal government took office in 1993. It's a fact of life.

The second thing I would like to point out to the committee is that while it might be sexy to address issues in charged language, the employment rate associated with that kind of decline is such that in those 10 years we've gone from a 14-point-plus unemployment rate to a current unemployment rate that hovers just above 7%.

So when the honourable member asks me how many jobs have been prevented by what he calls a “scandalous” accumulation of a difference, he would probably want to keep in mind that over the course of the last year, just as an example, over 600,000 new jobs were created in Canada, while there's been a net decline for our nearest competitor, the United States.

I don't say this to score political points. I do it to put some of this discussion in its proper framework. And the proper framework would be—

¿ (0920)

Mr. Brian Pallister: Okay, thank you.

Madam Chair, if I may, the minister is obfuscating and not answering the question.

Hon. Joseph Volpe: —that if we are going to have an opportunity to talk about whether programs work or not, then you have to indicate that the sources or resources you draw from the system have to produce a specific objective. Surely the objective would be that you provide working opportunities for Canadians. And if those working opportunities are reflected in jobs, they should be kept in the balance.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Madam Chair, if I may, the minister is not answering my question.

Simply put, what the minister is doing is playing games with statistics, going from a recessionary period to a period of growth. Six thousand dollars from a low-income household may not seem like much to a minister who doesn't pay into EI. It may not seem like much to someone who makes much more than the cap on the EI contribution—$39,000—but to low-income Canadians, six thousand bucks is a lot of money.

Now, according to the Auditor General, not me—and I don't think the Auditor General could be accused of trying to score political points, sir—you are in danger of violating your own act. By leaving the rates excessively high, you are penalizing the most vulnerable Canadians, low-income Canadians.

Stop pretending and beating around the bush. What makes you think the EI fund is a piggy bank for your government? What makes you think you have the right to set premiums on a political basis? You've removed any opportunity for labour input, for employer input into the setting of the premium. When will that opportunity for input be restored?

The Chair: Mr. Volpe.

Hon. Joseph Volpe: Madam Chair, I suppose we can get exercised if we like, but the honourable member doesn't pay into the EI fund either. I guess none of the people around this table do, if they're elected.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Yes, I do. For all my employees, I most certainly do. So let's not play games.

Hon. Joseph Volpe: Well, I'm not going to argue about what you do in your private life, but Madam Chair—

Mr. Brian Pallister: A little research might make you more accurate in your observations.

Hon. Joseph Volpe: —we're talking about the elected Government of Canada that seeks a mandate on the basis of its programs. And on the basis of its programs and its mandate over the course of the last 10 years, as I said earlier.... We're not playing with statistics, although obviously the member would like to engage in that game. What we do is deliver on what we indicated.

Now, what we indicated through those electoral mandates is that we—

Mr. Brian Pallister: That's playing with statistics. The minister calls this playing with statistics. I'm citing the numbers from the Auditor General's report, sir.

The Chair: Your time has expired.

Mr. Bellemare.

[Translation]

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

I am going to try to change the tone to something more constructive, since this is not a war zone, here, it is a place where we are supposed to try to improve the fate of all Canadians.

Minister, first of all, congratulations, I am proud to see that the Prime Minister has appointed an educator to this position. I have a huge bias given that I myself was an educator, as you know. So I am going to ask a question about education.

In the February 2, 2004 throne speech, there was reference to increasing borrowing power under the Canada Student Loans Program. Students are to be given access to greater amounts. Minister, are you not worried that raising the limit on loans might aggravate the student debt problem in the future?

¿ (0925)

Hon. Joseph Volpe: Thank you, Mr. Bellemare. I greatly appreciated your comment, which was directed at another educator.

Like any other parent in Canada, I wanted to see to it that my sons and daughter would be able to go to college or university. So I made a decision. It was a personal decision. But in the context of government programs, there are always ways of facilitating access to post-secondary education. How? By giving our daughters and sons a way to borrow in order to finance their studies. That means that at the same time, the student has to understand his or her own responsibilities. We, as a government, do not want to put too great a burden on these Canadians. So we have taken steps to enable these students to keep paying off their debts without coming under an excessive burden.

I am going to continue in English, if you do not mind.

[English]

So we have interest relief components to these loans, we have a deferral of some of the interest payments until after employment is engaged, and we have begun to look at, as you'll recall from the throne speech, a more balanced approach to how loans and grants can address the needs of those students. I can focus you, I guess, on the directions the government has been pursuing to ensure that the appropriate costs included in some of those loan repayments and loan packages reflect the realities of today and the costs of today.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: To help students who have amassed a great amount of debt, what would the minister think of having credits, or even financing their debt after they graduate? After they graduate, they sometimes have a great amount of difficulty. Some have gone the bankruptcy route, which is very unfortunate for everyone involved.

I believe the question on bankruptcy has been addressed, but what would you think of having graduates volunteer in community work and get credits, or funding if you prefer, that would be directed to paying down their debt?

For example, a student with a $45,000 debt has started work, and probably has bought a car or done this and that. They probably have a fiancé, with plans to get married or to do a variety of things. Some are even married with children. If they contribute to the community immediately by spending some volunteer time helping out in the community--for example, seniors homes or preschool children--they are not paid for that by the institutions or the areas where they work. Rather, they get credits from the government. Maybe it would be the minimum salary a person could get.

So that amount would not be given to the student. Rather, it would be paid directly to the bank who lent the money.

¿ (0930)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bellemare. You've raised a very interesting question. The minister is going to have a lot of time to think about it, too, because he's going to get another question before he gets a chance to respond.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Madam Tremblay.

[Translation]

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

Minister, I would like us to take a few minutes to try to understand a reality. The Liberals are in power because they got 38% of the votes of the Canadian public, coast to coast to coast, just 38% of votes. So 62% of the population thinks differently, has different political ideologies than the Liberal Party.

There is also 38, 39 or 40%—it depends on which numbers you look at—of the unemployed who get employment insurance benefits. The rest do not; they are not eligible. You can no longer deny that reality, and you cannot claim, as your predecessor always did, that 80% of the unemployed get employment insurance benefits. That is false. At any rate, in our regions, we meet with the unemployed, we see them in our offices. Maybe ministers do not. Maybe in the urban centres, MPs do not see them either, because they go straight to the EI office. But in our ridings, the unemployed come to our offices, and we see them every day. Every day, they are there.

So, in my opinion, you have taken funds that belong to them. You have created a hidden tax on employment. You have misappropriated funds. When do you plan to treat the unemployed fairly?

Hon. Joseph Volpe: We are always treating all workers fairly in Canada. As I said, Madam, the results speak louder than words. For example, I must repeat the following facts: in the past 10 years, we have seen the unemployment rate go from nearly 14.7% to the current rate, which is approximately half...

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: I will interrupt you, Mr. Minister, because you cannot talk about the unemployment rate that way. It is a mathematical poll. One thousand fifty-eight people were polled, they were called on the phone and asked whether they were looking for a job on that day, yes or no. If the individual says no, he is not considered as being unemployed. You have presented us with a fantasy figure.

If you talk about the rate of participation in each region of the country, you will see that your numbers are wrong. I think you have gotten together with Statistics Canada to come up with numbers which suit you, the government, and if you were in the opposition, you would be saying the same things we are now. That is the problem with politics today. Everything is false, everything has become rooted in outrageous, systemic lies. You cannot tell people the truth. Tell them the truth and give them the rate of participation, rather than the rate of unemployment.

[English]

Hon. Joseph Volpe: I'm assuming, Madam Chair, that wasn't meant as a personal reflection on my abilities to distinguish between honesty and fabrication. I'm assuming that really was an explosion of dramatic theatre, which one would expect in a political environment.

An hon. member: No, those are the facts.

Hon. Joseph Volpe: Well, the way the system works is that you are identified as an unemployed person if you have entered the marketplace and then have had an interruption in your earnings, following a pre-determined period of time that you would have been engaged. That doesn't come through a call centre's survey but through a very specific engagement and an interruption of an engagement. In fact, one cannot be identified as employed until one is employed; similarly, one cannot be identified as unemployed until there's been an interruption in that employment. And those, Madame, are the facts.

What we do, and what this program has been designed to do in the past, is attempt to provide a bridging of income until such time as that unemployed person becomes re-employed or re-engaged and re-enters the marketplace.

Now, Madame, I don't know how else one would measure that someone is directly employed or not.

¿ (0935)

[Translation]

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: He does not even know that the unemployment rate is based on statistics, which in turn are based on monthly polls, even though he is the minister. Really, it does not make any sense.

[English]

Hon. Joseph Volpe: But if one wants to live in a world of rhetoric, of course, and doesn't want to hear an answer, that would be okay, too. But that's not the way it works.

If you look at the way it works, Madame, you will also identify other figures that indicate that there has been a greater level of participation in the marketplace. That means there are more people who are willing and prepared to work, or who make a decision to work, between the ages of 15 and 65, than were available in the past. And it's on that basis that we determine whether someone is employed or unemployed.

Those numbers, Madame, have gone up as the unemployed have gone down.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

Mr. McCormick—and I trust you won't be as theatrical.

Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, Lib.): Well, I certainly do not have the talent, and when I said “bravo”, I meant it for the abilities of the person who was giving the question—and I say that sincerely.

Congratulations, Minister. I'm glad to have you here and to have you sharing your talents.

What I've heard from all parties in the House around this table—especially when we're not being televised—is the fact that there is no more important committee on the Hill than the HRDC one. The politics here, you know.... I've been on the HRDC committee for 10 years. We had some challenges with grants and contributions, which we handled well. It was interesting at that time that the majority of the funds were an excellent investment in the ridings, but the majority of the ridings were held by the opposition. But Mr. Minister, you know this.

Mr. Minister, the other day we had the Prime Minister in eastern Ontario, in the town hall in Smith Falls. We had a round table of people, including municipal, agriculture, health, environment.... And we had a young teacher there from Napanee District Secondary School. I believe it's the third largest high school in all of Ontario, in my hometown of Napanee. Mike Sewell was there for one reason—to share his passion and to get the message to the Prime Minister to make sure we're focused on all aspects and facets of education.

It's a proven, accepted fact that Goodyear Canada put the most modern tire plant in the world in Napanee because of the trades program at our high school. Yet today—not in the future, but today—we're short of tradespeople.

The Prime Minister said publicly that on his behalf he will do everything to work in any way possible to develop tradespeople—and we need to invest in that. I think there are opportunities, and I do know about where the different jurisdictions lie.

Actually, yesterday my assistant went to a meeting to do with HRDC, and Dave Remington heard the fact that.... In the room, they didn't know who he was, as a new assistant. He heard that they were talking about one of these requests already.

But I'd like to hear it from you, because I want to make sure that we are addressing the needs.... Besides agriculture and construction, and some of those trades, which are driving our economy, we need those people. Yet there's a shortage.

So how can we help with that? I think this is the committee...and it's your mandate and our mandate.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Hon. Joseph Volpe: Thank you, Mr. McCormick.

I want to indicate—and I indicated in broad terms earlier on—that the big challenge we face is that we need to be able to have a workforce that is adaptable and flexible, that's appropriately trained and educated to meet the challenges of the new marketplace.

In order to do that, we have to provide a lifelong learning environment where we address the issues that our workforce needs to have and needs to master, literally from birth on.

You'll already know, Mr. McCormick, that we have a package, sponsored in part by our department, on early childhood development and early childhood education.

But the most important challenges for us in the immediate term are to ensure that the skills that are required in the marketplace are also those that are developed in conjunction with the workers and the private sector partners. Without going into more detail, we have begun to engage, as you know, the partnerships in the marketplace through our sector councils, so that we can be apprised and seized of all the new technological developments and the expertise required. As well, we want to engage those partnerships in the development of those skills, the retention of those skills, and the transferability of those skills. We can't be competitive, and we can't be productive, if we don't do that. Our department is focusing its attention and its energies on that.

I think you'll find, if you follow the logic that's been expressed in the Prime Minister's response in the Speech from the Throne, that we're going to be paying a lot more attention to that than we have in the past, not because it's highly innovative for everybody to do, but because it is a question of our own competitive, productive survival.

¿ (0940)

Mr. Larry McCormick: Madam Chair, if I just have a few seconds left....

The Chair: Just seconds.

Mr. Larry McCormick: I'm thinking about a daughter going to university on Vancouver Island. I met many of the students there. It's the same across this country. As my colleague mentioned on this side of the table, we must make greater efforts to make student loans available and greater efforts to help them with programs that can be repaid.

Mr. Minister, we must take a look at the companies that are indirectly and directly responsible in the collection. They only report to us, but not directly at all. We've all had the calls to our office. It is ridiculous and unbelievable, and not even legal, the tactics that companies will use to try to collect money, but which I realize is owed. You're aware of this, as a very vibrant minister and a member from Toronto. It's not directly in your jurisdiction, but I just want to put it on the record that we must recognize this.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would also like to welcome the minister to the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development. Even though you seem pleased with your appointment, I know, Mr. Minister, that your job is not easy, given the complexity of issues which fall under human resources and employment insurance, amongst others. We have had many discussions on those subjects. Of course, we do not all share the same points of view, but because of the position you are in, I realize you must support the Prime Minister and the Government of Canada.

However, the reality is that only 33% of women qualify for employment insurance in Canada and pay into the system. Your predecessor said that 85% of Canadians qualified for employment insurance. That is normal, but it should be 100%. People pay into the system, and the statistics are there to prove it.

Do you agree with me that the system... I do not think so, since you represent the government. Even though I cannot speak on your behalf, I presume the answer is no. We only have five minutes and that is unfortunate. Do you agree with me that, when you look at the employment insurance system, when you look at what is happening on the ground, when you take into account seasonal workers, when we consider...

When he was in the opposition, one of your predecessors, Doug Young, told New Brunswickers, in a piece that appeared in a newspaper dated July 31, 1989, that they had to rise up and fight against any changes which the Conservatives wanted to bring about, because any such change would have been disastrous for regions dependent on seasonal employment. Your former Prime Minister stated, in February of 1993, before being elected, that the main priority was economic development, rather than looking after the people.

Mr. Minister, I do not agree with lowering employment insurance premiums, but I think that more people should be eligible for employment insurance benefits. You have agreed with me that the banking of hours is a problem, especially in the southern part of the province, because people cannot work enough hours to qualify for employment insurance benefits, which is making their lives extremely difficult. Mr. Minister, every political party on this committee has recommended making changes. So this committee thinks change is necessary, and the minister's parliamentary secretary, who was a member of the committee, agreed with us that it was time to change the employment insurance system.

Mr. Minister, it is very hard to hear women call our offices and say they want to commit suicide and take their children with them. The system has to be changed.

My question is for you, Mr. Minister. Will the employment insurance system finally be changed? I personally do not care about Statistics Canada's figures. We have to make changes because real men and women are suffering while the employment insurance fund has swelled to $43.8 billion. I am not putting on a show; these are real life situations.

Tellingly, Dominic LeBlanc supported my bill in December, as did Georges Farrah, the member for Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, as well as Jeannot Castonguay. These are all Liberal members of your party. Andy Scott, who today is a minister, also supported the bill. They all know that something has to be done.

Will the employment insurance system be changed soon? People are dying because of the way the program is run today; people need money to look after their families.

¿ (0945)

[English]

The Chair: Two minutes.

Hon. Joseph Volpe: Thank you, Madam.

If I might speak in English, I've never questioned the sincerity of people, like the colleague, about what they would like to see done with the employment insurance system. Many colleagues, who have served and serve on this committee, have a similar philosophical passion for doing the right thing. I think we all do. When we highlight what some of the very specific dissidences are, we become much more passionate. We need to do that in order to keep our focus on some of the things that we need to do. I don't mean to belittle any of that at all.

Yes, there appear to be some inconsistencies in the way people will say things perhaps and appear to do in others. But if we focus on the employment component of the employment insurance system, then the main thrust of this department must be to at least make an honest, energetic effort to provide a marketplace where more jobs are available, where more people are qualified to take those jobs, and where those same people will have an opportunity to take those skills to a different level.

Now, I say that, Monsieur Godin, understanding full well that in some communities the transition might take a little longer than others, given the nature of the work environment and work opportunities. You're to be credited in New Brunswick for the level of participation of workers in the system--I think it's probably one of the highest in the country--where about 89.5% of the people who are eligible actually get an opportunity to access the system.

There is a very high participation rate in the EI system all across the country amongst men and women. I think for women, for example, it is about a 95% participation rate in the system

Mr. Yvon Godin: But 33% qualified, though.

Hon. Joseph Volpe: No, I'm talking about the qualification rate, the qualification rate at 89.5% in New Brunswick. It doesn't mean that there aren't difficulties and that there aren't challenges.

This committee has come forward with a series of recommendations in its reports in the past, reports that have been taken seriously and are being taken seriously by this department. They are put together in its annual re-evaluation of the way the services are delivered and the way the benefits are accrued and received.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister. It is very difficult to have to do it, but I have to be fair to all.

Mr. Pallister.

Mr. Brian Pallister: I'll read directly to the minister, because he didn't want to address it the last time I asked him. Instead, we're referred to the dispassionate political response.

I'll read to him from the AG's report, what she has said, and then he can respond.

In our view, Parliament did not intend for the Account to accumulate a surplus beyond what could reasonably be spent on Employment Insurance, given the existing benefit structure and providing for an economic downturn. The current surplus is about three times the maximum reserve that the Chief Actuary of Human Resources Development Canada considered sufficient in 2001.

In her view, and certainly in my view, and in the view of every organization that made submissions to your department and to Finance on the re-establishment of an arm's-length rate-setting process, every one of them.... When you can get the Fraser Institute and the Canadian Labour Congress to agree on something, you've really accomplished something, Mr. Minister. You have done that; your government has done that.

You should not be diverting funds from a dedicated program into general revenue. When you do that, it's profoundly dishonest. You have done that.

Now, if premium revenues exceed benefits, then clearly premiums are too high. The numbers from the Auditor General's report, and her comments to your government repeatedly since 1999, say that is the case.

You're dispassionate, but none of the workers who I talk to are very dispassionate about this. When their paycheques have a box that says “EI” and an amount is deducted from their take-home pay that they can't use for education savings for their kids, or use for a trip, or use to make a home improvement, they wonder how it can be that the money can be taken from them. It says “EI”, but it doesn't go to EI. Can you explain to those working Canadians how that is fair and transparent?

¿ (0950)

Hon. Joseph Volpe: I want to thank the member, Madam Chair, for drawing attention to the fact that the department and the government have been able to get two very divergent and diverse views on the same table and to agree on a particular proposal. It's an indication that the department is moving in the direction that's responsive to the Canadian public.

I want to also indicate for the member, and he might not have known this, that it isn't the government of the day that decided arbitrarily to take EI funds and put them into the consolidated general revenue fund. That in fact has been the case by an act of Parliament since I believe 1986. In fact, during the very lean years--for about nine years--the consolidated general revenue fund was contributing to a deficit in what we call the EI fund, which really is an accounting practice at this stage of the game.

It works both ways. There has been an accumulation of surpluses. No one denies that.

What I tried to give the committee an indication of, Madam Chair, is that those funds aren't hived away and hidden surreptitiously from public scrutiny. Clearly, the Auditor General sees it, Parliament sees it, and committees see it every year. What they also see and what they need to see is that those moneys, which have the authority of Parliament to be spent, are spent to produce results like the ones I indicated a little while ago that show success, i.e. that you have a greater participation rate. I think just the other day there was a recent report that indicated that Canada has the highest rate of participation of women in the marketplace, next to one other country, at 71%, and that we have one of the highest participation rates in the OECD countries, bar none.

If we were not employing those funds for producing these kinds of effects, then there would be a criticism, but there isn't one.

The Chair: Actually, we've reached your....

Mr. Brian Pallister: Is that my five minutes?

The Chair: Your five minutes are up.

Mr. Bonwick.

Hon. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

As a committee, whether it's today with the television cameras pointing at us or in the future, I think Canadians rightly expect us to try to set a bold vision, to try to think in progressive terms.

The honourable member from the Conservative Party, with the rhetoric--I'm making an impassioned plea--

Mr. Brian Pallister: Madam Chairman, if I may--

The Chair: All right. We have five minutes.

Mr. Brian Pallister: The rhetorical flourishes here--I'm quoting from the Auditor General of Canada.

The Chair: Mr. Pallister, you had your five minutes. Mr. Bonwick has his.

Mr. Bonwick, I think we're here to talk about the organization of the department. I know you'd want to get as much on the record as possible about the department you're helping to represent.

Hon. Paul Bonwick: I would, Madam Chair, but with all due respect, the intimidation and threatening tactics of the member are not helping me in getting those facts forward.

Mr. Brian Pallister: God knows you need the help.

Hon. Paul Bonwick: Once again, Madam Chair, I would ask you to take into consideration my time with respect to the honourable member's inappropriate actions.

Madam Chair, what I would like to put through to the minister is this. The minister and the Prime Minister have charged me with the responsibility of reviewing the federal role in supporting access to post-secondary education and lifelong learning. While that's a very noble cause, and certainly those who are in that sector are greatly appreciative of that and the support and leadership you've shown on it, there is a segment within our society that can't even dream about post-secondary education. Those are the people who are functionally illiterate. Those are the people who are illiterate in communities like mine, in communities all across Simcoe--Grey, and for that matter right across the country.

Madam Chairperson, what I'm asking, through you to the minister, is what are we going to do to try to provide greater opportunity for these people who are illiterate, for these people who have challenges, for these people who can't even make the dream of post-secondary education because they simply cannot read or write?

¿ (0955)

Hon. Joseph Volpe: Thank you, Mr. Bonwick.

If I might, I'll take the opportunity to address an issue that was raised in an earlier question, Madam Chair. It's important to keep in mind that as a result of our overall strategy of trying to engage as many Canadians as we can in the lifelong learning process through access to post-secondary education, fully 330,000 young men and women were able to access the Canada loans program last year. Of those we have on an annual basis, just under 80% of them--I think 78% is the actual number--have no difficulties in paying back those loans, so the accessibility and affordability are there.

Does that mean we've gone 100% of the way? No, we're trying to improve the mechanism.

Just as Mr. Bonwick has indicated, we are addressing the issues of numeracy and literacy amongst Canadians in all walks of life. We have a secretariat for literacy that's engaged in promoting literacy and numeracy with employer groups and community groups, those people who are closest to the needs and closest to the delivery potential. We are increasing our funds for those purposes.

In addition to that--the member will know and I know this committee will know--the grants and contributions system, which is available for those kinds of communities virtually everywhere in Canada from coast to coast to coast, tries to address the shortfall in numeracy and literacy. We have to make that up if we're going to give those men and women, young and old, an opportunity to access the workplace skills development required to meet the challenges of tomorrow.

I think we're taking a comprehensive view, and we're taking as well a comprehensive view as to the kinds of evidence-based strategies that are required in order to not only promote literacy and numeracy but to actually develop them. We're also taking a look at those mechanisms that work most efficiently and most effectively right across Canada irrespective of background and irrespective of any of the other challenges that are normally associated with illiteracy and innumeracy.

The Chair: Thank you

And, Minister, I know you have read with great interest the very extensive report this committee submitted on the problems of literacy, and I'm hoping we're going to see some action on some of the very definite recommendations we made on that.

Madame Tremblay, you're the last before we move on.

[Translation]

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Minister, for 35 years, I helped train preschool teachers in the province of Quebec. I am an expert in preschool education and when I was a student in Quebec, Boston and London, I was taught a fundamental precept: children need to be taught, from kindergarten on, basic life skills so they can function in society.

In Quebec, since 1960, the kindergarten program, as well as the grade school program, is based on teaching children basic skills. The last part of the reform program basically brought everyone on board, including high schools. The program involves the acquisition of skills, transversality, transferability, and other such things.

Therefore, as Minister of Skills Development, you also have a hidden role as education minister. How are you going to live up to your double role, which makes you a little schizophrenic? You are minister of this and minister of that. The question is: how are you going to fulfill your role as Minister of Skills Development while respecting the Constitution of 1867, which gives the provinces full jurisdiction over education?

À (1000)

Hon. Joseph Volpe: Ms. Tremblay, as a member of Parliament, just like you, no doubt, I am dedicated to the future of each citizen, and therefore I...

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: I am interested in skills.

Hon. Joseph Volpe: I always try to find a solution and to adopt a process which allows each citizen to benefit from all the advantages their country can give them.

Ms. Tremblay, you know full well that federal members of Parliament have committed the provinces—other jurisdictions as well, but mainly the provinces—to reaching these goals through labour force development agreements. We are working hand in hand with the provinces.

So, if we build a system which is to benefit all Canadians, we must implement a program giving them the possibility to fulfil their ambitions and chase their dreams.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

Ms. Bakopanos, for the remaining three minutes.

Hon. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair, and welcome, Minister.

I'll make it very brief. I have a particular interest in older workers. I have a huge textile industry in my riding and in my neighbour's riding. As you know, with innovation and with technology, a lot of those workers, who are mostly females and mostly immigrants, are illiterate even in their own language of origin.

As you know, the older workers pilot project was a great initiative of this department. It is being evaluated, so I'm going to make a pitch that we continue this initiative, Minister, in order to allow people over the age of 50, mostly.... I hate to say they're senior citizens at 50 years of age--I'll be 50 this year--but we have to look at initiatives just the same, because technology has had an impact. And yes, we did talk at the beginning about lifelong learning. So I would like to make a pitch that we evaluate the program and its impact.

But I can tell you, it has been a great success story: 80% of the workers who went through this initiative in the pilot projects in my riding ended up finding jobs. They were from ages 55 to 65.

So that's my pitch, Madam Chair, in the time that's available. Thank you.

Hon. Joseph Volpe: Madam Chair, I thank the parliamentary secretary for highlighting the role that the federal government has played in the lifelong learning process, and for highlighting as well the success of some of these programs. This clearly is one of them, and I receive her submission as additional lobbying for the continuation of the pilot program. Pilot programs, by definition, have a beginning and an end, but yes, the department is evaluating and re-evaluating all these issues.

I might add, Madam Chair, if you'll permit for a brief moment, that the greatest percentage of increase amongst the employed has actually come in this older worker category. That doesn't necessarily mean that more jobs were created for them, although that in part is one of the issues. But we do have an aging population, and those who reach 55 while they're still in the same job clearly are still going to be employed, and I hope they'll be employed for a long time.

Madam Chair, for all the members of the committee, this is another one of the challenges we are going to be facing as a country: an aging population with expertise that cannot be allowed to go untapped. It is a challenge because everyone makes his or her own individual decision about what to do in the productive and competitive environment that is today's marketplace. But we have to replenish our workforce, and we have to access the expertise that has been built in over time. We also have to take care of those who are in a position that one might address as being disadvantaged in a modern economy, and our department is not going to leave those behind.

À (1005)

The Chair: Thank you, Minister, on behalf of the committee, for making yourself available. We regret that the time was shortened.

As you can see, it's often very spirited here at the human resources committee, and we thank you for bearing with us and for responding. We will take you up on your offer to return at another time, and I know we'll be having your officials from time to time as well.

I'm going to suspend momentarily while we change places and bring in the other minister.

Thank you.

Hon. Joseph Volpe: Thank you, Madam Chair.

À (1006)

À (1012)

The Chair: We'll reconvene. Thank you for returning, Minister. I appreciate that you've had a very busy schedule and that you're on the run. We welcome you to the committee, we congratulate you on your appointment, and we look forward, as a committee, to working with you.

The committee and our viewers are well aware that there has been a major change in the department, that it's split off, and that you now have responsibility for social development. We're very anxious to hear your views on what has transpired.

We will start with your presentation, followed by questions and answers. We also understand that you have to be gone by 11 o'clock.

Hon. Liza Frulla (Minister of Social Development): I'm very happy to be here, and I'll make a short presentation on the new department. You have to understand, though, that the law of the department is not voted yet, so there are still grey zones. We're working to make sure that before passing the law those grey zones will be resolved. I think this is a prudent way of doing so.

I will ask my partners to join me afterwards. I want to make sure that on this committee we work together, because I do need you, and I'm saying it very openly. I also need the experience of the committee, since some of us have been here only since December 12.

We're talking about people. I call my department the people's department, the people's ministry. We're all there to make sure we do the best for our people. So we really look forward to working with the department.

[Translation]

Madam Chair,

[English]

distinguished members, I'm pleased to be here today to speak to you about this department.

Now, what is the social development ministry? It was created, as you know, on December 12, out of the former HRDC. The new Department of Social Development has become the point of convergence for all social policies and programs for children, families, persons with disabilities, seniors, and the voluntary sectors.

[Translation]

The department is mandated to secure and strengthen Canada's social foundations. We want each citizen in our country to be able to realize his or her full human potential and play an active role in society.

[English]

In concrete terms, the Department of Social Development represents $50 billion a year, at work for Canadians, and most of this money goes directly to Canadians as income support in response to the needs of children, people with disabilities, and seniors.

À (1015)

[Translation]

Allow me to discuss our first challenge, our children. Across the country, as we all know, there are children who do not have the basics, whether it is access to childcare services, warm clothing or, as in my riding, even a simple meal. Certainly, considerable progress has been made. The poverty rate has decreased by 5% over the past five years. While this is encouraging, the poverty rate is still at 11%. For a wealthy society, I have to say that this percentage is still too high. As a government, we also have a responsibility to ensure that every child has the opportunity to get a good start in life.

Obviously, this is a wise investment. Research has proven that the first few years of life make the difference between success and failure, at school and in life. This same research has shown that it is essential, for all of society, to invest in the first years of our children's lives.

The Speech from the Throne reiterated our commitment to our children. It said that we will accelerate the implementation of the Multilateral Framework on Early Learning and Child Care which will allow a greater number of quality childcare spaces, more quickly. We will also extend a successful community pilot project, Understanding the Early Years, which is currently operating in 12 communities across the country. It will be extended to 100 communities across the country, in order to collect and collate data and give it back to the community. This will support and extend the other work we have been doing through the National Child Benefit program and the Canada Child Tax Benefit.

The second category is people with disabilities. I was very proud to see the Speech from the Throne place such importance on people with disabilities. No less than 12% of Canadians have a disability, in other words, 3.6 million people. As a country, we cannot afford to waste this talent and knowledge.

The government currently allocates $6.5 billion a year for benefits, tax measures and programs and services for people with disabilities. This includes $200 million to help people with disabilities find or retain employment, and $50 million for approximately 40,000 low- or moderate-income families taking care of a disabled child.

For example, through the Employability Assistance for People with Disabilities Program and the Opportunities Fund for Persons with Disabilities, the Department of Social Development supports projects across Canada that contribute to improving the inclusion of people with disabilities into our society.

For example, in Portage—Lisgar,

[English]

were contributing $21,830 to a project that helps persons with disabilities in the workplace and assists them in finding and maintaining employment.

[Translation]

In the riding of Laurentides, we support the implementation of a voluntary action plan to increase the inclusion and retention of people with disabilities in the workplace. Our contribution is $43,000.

These are contributions we give to communities to help people with disabilities maintain and increase their employability.

However, these people must still face many barriers on a daily basis. We must absolutely give people with disabilities that extra boost that will make an enormous difference in their lives, their studies or their careers. Therefore, we will initiate real national partnerships with the provinces and territories to close the gaps that exist for people with disabilities in the areas of education, development and skills acquisition.

We must support these people and those who look after them. We can do this by using the tax system as a means of allowing people with disabilities and their families to overcome the barriers that are specific to them.

The Government of Canada also wants to set an example, because at the moment, it must be said that we are not a model employer. Consequently, we must promote the hiring and retention of Canadians with disabilities within the federal public service.

The third group is seniors. We must also ensure that our seniors play an active role. Nearly 5 million Canadians currently receive benefits through the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Program.

It is no secret to anyone that the Canadian population is aging. The number of people aged 65 and over increased by 13% in 2001 and is expected to reach 20% in 2021, according to Statistics Canada. While the baby boomers are approaching retirement age and our seniors continue to get older, we have the opportunity to change our policies to better meet the needs of seniors. Certainly, we must meet their needs, but we must also ensure that we make use of their wealth of experience.

Madam Chair,

À (1020)

[English]

distinguished committee members, I have always been among those who believe that the government has a role as an economic and social catalyst. I am also keenly aware that voluntary sector organizations and volunteers, day after day, accomplish amazing feats. In our communities they have made a huge difference to the quality of life of millions of their fellow citizens, and their work reflects the highest values that all Canadians hold dear.

[Translation]

a fourth area of activity is the voluntary sector, and we share responsibility for it with other departments.

[English]

In our country there are over 180,000 non-profit organizations, and more than six million Canadians donate their time to a voluntary sector organization. This translates into over one billion hours each year. Not only does this demonstrate the vitality of our communities, but it constitutes a significant economic force that generates $90 billion in revenue.

[Translation]

These hours donated by volunteers allow our organizations to contribute to their community—from serving meals to seniors, offering respite care to families in need, and ensuring that our children have the opportunity to develop their full potential through sports and cultural activities.

As the Minister responsible for the Voluntary Sector Initiative, I am committed to working with organizations from across the country to make this partnership a success on all levels. We are committed to developing more consistent and effective ways of working with the voluntary sector for the benefit of all Canadians.

[English]

Through the voluntary sector initiative we have made progress in addressing some challenges. But the sector needs to build upon this foundation to contribute to community-based social innovation. Too often, community organizations operate in relative isolation and confront unstable funding and growing pressure to deliver the service.

[Translation]

I would like to make a request to the committee. I am suggesting this because we inherited this responsibility, which was scattered about among various departments, including Heritage Canada. We have not completed our studies on the voluntary sector to determine, among other things, whether each dollar invested is working well in the communities. So, if you wish, one of your future projects could be to undertake a study on the voluntary and community sector that would draw on your expertise in this area. That would be very helpful to us.

[English]

You could help me enhance the voluntary sector, to strengthen its engagement in dialogue about future direction—public policy, if you like—to support innovative approaches to social and economic development, and finally to address the serious funding challenges it faces, such as perhaps establishing a community bank to meet its unique needs.

[Translation]

This would be of great benefit to me. Clearly, we will have to work in cooperation with the provinces and territories to accomplish this. We are aware, particularly myself, since I am from Quebec, of provincial and territorial responsibilities in the area of social development. We each have our own responsibilities. I must say that our main partners are the provinces and territories. Consequently, we are extremely cautious about not infringing on their areas of jurisdiction. However, we too have a role to play, which is why it is so important to work together on these issues.

We are there to help the provinces, municipalities and communities meet their objectives. In addition, however, we are trying to determine together some common objectives in the context of multilateral dialogue at the federal level. I must tell you that so far, things have been going rather well. I have spoken to several of my partners—including those from Quebec and Ontario. I must also go to Winnipeg and British Columbia, where we will be discussing our objectives together. We will be talking about the steps to be taken in the area of social development and the practical policies, geared to the needs of each province, that will be beneficial to Canadians.

Thank you very much.

I will now ask my officials to join me at the table. First, I would like to introduce my Deputy Minister, Ms. Nicole Jauvin. She assumed her responsibilities at the same time as me, on December 12.

À (1025)

[English]

Also with me are Madam Susan Scotti, the assistant deputy minister for income security programs, with responsibility for disability issues in the voluntary sector, and Ms. Cynthia Williams, the assistant deputy minister for strategic policy.

[Translation]

Mr. Tremblay, who looks after all our administrative matters, is also with us.

Of course, splitting a department,

[English]

is nice on paper, but we have to do it.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

You've stayed well within our guidelines of between 10 and 15 minutes. We appreciate that because it gives the committee an opportunity to pose questions.

We will begin with five-minute rounds again. We'll start with Mr. Pallister; then it will be Monsieur Bellemare, and then Madame Tremblay.

Mr. Brian Pallister: First of all, Minister, congratulations on your appointment as a minister. I look forward to working with you.

Also, please enjoy your visit to Manitoba. It is, of course, the best place to visit in the country.

Hon. Liza Frulla: They told me. They all tell me.

Mr. Brian Pallister: I was also very pleased to hear your words about the volunteer sector. It is one that concerns all of us. Probably in the next few weeks we'll be looking very much for volunteers ourselves. I'm expecting that's an important issue.

Hon. Liza Frulla: I can't help you on that, sorry.

Mr. Brian Pallister: I have two questions of some concern. One is narrow and focused, the other much broader.

I'll begin with the narrow one. As you know, our committee did a report last year—in December, I believe—on the issues surrounding CPP and made a number of observations and suggestions. The government responded. Let me ask you this. We know that definitions around CPP prohibit claimants from receiving benefits in many cases, but the plan does, if a disability is prolonged, severe, and so on, pay benefits after four months. I'm just curious whether there's a possibility for people who are diagnosed as terminally ill--as was the case with my dad--that some benefits could be paid earlier, rather than after the four-month wait. If that's not possible, could you explain the rationale for the four-month wait with respect to the program?

Hon. Liza Frulla: First of all, regarding CPP, I know you have a recommendation, and you know as well that we want to look at the broader perspective of revenue for the elderly. The Prime Minister has a committee in place. These are the issues we really have to tackle. So we're looking at all recommendations extremely closely.

As for the revenue, we know this is generally the way to do it. We also have to work with the provinces. I know Mrs. Scotti and her team really looked at those recommendations before we came in. We are working to make it as fair as possible, because we have acknowledged the problem. We're now looking at those recommendations, and I'll ask Mrs. Scotti to tell us about them.

Ms. Susan Scotti (Assistant Deputy Minister, Income Security Programs, Department of Social Development Canada): Thank you, Minister.

We have in place right now an operational guideline for our field offices that if a client is identified as being terminally ill, the application is turned around in 48 hours. On the committee's recommendation to drop the four-month waiting period, as the minister has said, we are undertaking discussions with the provinces right now to explore the possibility of making that happen. Those discussions are about to start.

Hon. Liza Frulla: Since this department is new, you have to understand that we don't have complete leeway or responsibility. There are things for which we do have direct responsibility, but with CPP and help to families we have to negotiate all the time with either the provinces or other departments, such as Finance.

À (1030)

[Translation]

I am referring here to the convergence of social policies. That is not always an easy matter: in fact, in the last 11 years, it has not been the practice of the government. We must therefore put social policies back on the agenda, so that they can be better integrated.

That is why the department was split. While I say that, this process is still being negotiated. In this specific case, we have to negotiate with the provinces to determine whether there is any potential. The important point is to acknowledge that there is a problem.

[English]

acknowledge the problem and be able to go to the provinces at the interprovincial table and say, “Listen, there's a problem. Do you have a problem? How can we solve this?”

Mr. Brian Pallister: I appreciate your comments, but I must remark on the stark contrast between the way we deal with cooperative mechanisms and dialogue on CPP issues and the way EI is handled, which is arbitrary and absolute. There is no consultation. There is no input from working groups, labour, or business groups at this juncture. There is such a stark contrast there.

My second question is a broader one and relates to the issue of mandatory retirement. Of course, you alluded to it in your comments, Minister, but on our aging population, from some of the OECD documents I have had the occasion to look at and meetings I have attended, it seems clear other countries are dealing with this issue. I am curious whether you are planning to examine this issue and act in some respects on the issue of mandatory retirement.

The Chair: Madam Minister, Mr. Pallister's time is up. I'm going to give you 30 seconds, but you may want to address it in your closing remarks.

Hon. Liza Frulla: Mandatory retirement was abolished in the public sector in 1986--abolished in four provinces and three territories. There is a discussion to be held.

I don't have fixed ideas, but I don't believe personally that you have to oblige somebody who wants to retire to take his retirement. When I say oblige, I mean change the system we have in place now to force people to stay in the workplace. But I believe that 65 is young now, 68 is young, 70 is young now. I believe that people who want to stay in the workforce, stop gradually, and give back should be encouraged and given every possibility to do so. These are the issues we are going to study.

There are a lot of great policy issues that have not been dealt with. As I said to the volunteer sector, if you're interested in helping us on this, we are extremely open.

[Translation]

I really believe that these are major social issues that must be dealt with.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Bellemare.

[Translation]

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Thank you, Madam Chair.

The committee recently did a study on the integrity of social insurance numbers. Has this issue been assigned to your department?

Hon. Liza Frulla: Yes. We have been given responsibility for this issue. Actually, it could have been assigned to either of the departments. We have inherited it for two main reasons. As of December 12, we were given responsibility for modernizing all services. Consequently, when there are problems, we must check to see whether they can be fixed through technological or other means. As far as the social insurance numbers go, we know there are problems there, and that in the seventies, these numbers were being handed out like candy. Now we have to pay the consequences of that.

The government operations committee has made some recommendations on this, which were tabled last June. The government replied in October, if I remember correctly, and now we are in the process of implementing systems that will enable us to comply with the recommendations and modernize the system. The objective is to improve the integrity of the SINs and to adopt more stringent management practices so that there are no problems in the future. Moreover, we also want to be much more demanding in future with respect to the issuance of social insurance numbers. We will be requiring the originals of birth certificates or immigration certificates, for example. There will be an expiry date for temporary social insurance numbers.

Beginning now, we are deactivating social insurance numbers that have not been used for five years. As a result, beginning in April 2004, close to one million SINs will be completely deactivated.

We do not maintain that there is no problem. But thanks to the thoughtful recommendations that were made and the mandate we have to modernize the system as a whole to make it more efficient, we can say that we are dealing with this matter.

However, there again, there is the issue of information exchanges with the provinces. The fact is that not all the data banks are equivalent. When we want to get information from the provinces, we have to take privacy considerations into account. It is difficult to get information that is accurate and complete. That makes our task somewhat more complicated.

À (1035)

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: I would like to congratulate you on your enthusiasm for dealing with this problem.

Hon. Liza Frulla: I can assure you that it is quite genuine.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: But what I do not understand is that you were not given responsibility for the homeless.

Hon. Liza Frulla: Indeed.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Is there some reason for that?

Hon. Liza Frulla: Your committee said that the former huge department was not working well. We had to find a way of making it more efficient, and the current government decided to split it into two: employability, on the one hand, and social development on the other. As I said, that is a good thing.

However, at the moment, we have to deal with the grey areas. I am pleased that the legislation has not been passed, because we really have to make some decisions about these grey areas. For the time being, we are responsible for the areas I outlined. We are not responsible for either social, affordable housing or homelessness. Now, there might some day be some recommendations along these lines. But you know as well as I do that it is up to the Privy Council, and, ultimately, the Prime Minister to decide who is responsible for what.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Do you think we have adequate income security for seniors at the moment?

Hon. Liza Frulla: My situation is similar to that of Mr. Pallister. I am responsible for my father, who is 89 years old. Consequently, there is no doubt that if you are asking me for an answer, I would say that in my view, it will never be adequate. We would like to give them so much more and we would really like them to have more. That said, we do have to look at what has been done. The poverty rate among seniors has dropped significantly—by about 12% in 15 years. However, it is still 7.6%. This may be the lowest level ever, but the problem has not gone away.

There is no doubt that in 1996-97, we managed to provide income security for seniors in their pensions and their income supplements. This helps reduce poverty. We can also say that demographically, there has been a change in our social fabric. There are more and more women with paid employment. Consequently, their incomes are greater. There are now pension and retirement plans in addition to what is provided by the government. As a result, the situation may be considerably better in 10 or 20 years.

It is important to provide income security first, but we also have programs for seniors. I think we could perhaps do better on the programs, and that is why we need to review the entire situation of seniors. We need to take a serious look at this, because in 25 years, one person in five will be over 65. We cannot say that things will just continue as they are and close our eyes. That is impossible.

The Chair: You have the floor, Ms. Tremblay.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Of course, Minister, there are many questions I would like to ask, because you deal with many subjects of interest to members of Parliament like myself. I am here to defend Quebec's interests, but once bitten, twice shy. I have been here since 1993, and every time the government said that it was going to do something in partnership with the provinces and territories, in fact, that meant that Ottawa knows best and that it was making the decisions and imposing them on the provinces.

I know you were a minister in Mr. Bourassa's cabinet, and perhaps in Mr. Johnson's as well, and perhaps in Mr. Ryan's shadow cabinet. In any case, you have been a minister in the Quebec government. If you were still a Radio-Canada host, I think your department would make an excellent topic for a great round table discussion, which I would be very pleased to take part in.

There are problems with daycare services. You say that children are our most precious asset. If there is one thing that is precious to a province, it is its children. You know that the daycare system that was put forward in Quebec penalizes parents at income tax time. The option offered by the Quebec government was to help people gradually and not to wait for income tax refunds to pay for daycare services, because we cannot make daycare centres wait a year to be paid. So this is a problem.

Let us now talk about income security for seniors. When it was discovered, for example, that there were thousands of seniors who had not received the income, it was also discovered that the act provided for a retroactive period of only 11 months. In the case of employment insurance in the special program for fishers, the possible retroactive period was six years. When the government has the political will to face up to problems, it can provide a retroactive period of more than 11 months. Seniors would have liked to have been entitled to more than 11 months' retroactivity.

I am asking all my questions at once, because we have noticed that ministers take a great deal of time to answer our questions, leaving us none to ask them more questions.

When you talk about partnerships, can you tell us whether your government is as aware as you are—and I appreciate that very much—that there is a real problem here and that it must be discussed with the provinces? It may not be a bad idea for the committee to study these issues and help you out to see how we could define the scope of all these issues. That might at least make some things possible.

There is another problem, which I will illustrate with a concrete example. When your government announced compassionate benefits—namely that six weeks of leave would be available to workers for the care of the terminally ill, you were the person who made the announcement on television, in French at least. You said that this was Mr. Volpe's responsibility. We just got a further package of information on this, and it came from Ms. Bradshaw. So it was Ms. Bradshaw who sent us this kit and told us that she was in charge. I find this rather strange. The kit just arrived in our offices and it was signed by Claudette Bradshaw. So how does this work?

À (1040)

Hon. Liza Frulla: First of all, where federal-provincial relations are concerned, there is something I have to tell you. I think that my colleagues here can vouch for the fact that the first thing that we did was to call on a constitutional lawyer from Quebec and his team to refresh our memory and explain to us exactly what social development meant in terms of federal-provincial relations. There is shared jurisdiction for this area, unlike for health care.

People working in the health field are lucky because there is legislation. There is a five-point framework for health in the act and if the provinces or the federal government fail to comply with these points, sanctions can be imposed. Why? Because there is legislation.

In our area, we are not so fortunate as to have legislation. And if you want to explore the possibility of bringing in an act, it would be helpful. But right now we do not have one. So we still have to deal with this shared jurisdiction. I believe that countries, whether we are talking about France, England or any other country, have a responsibility to ensure equal opportunities for everyone.

That said, jurisdiction for this area in Canada lies with the provinces, so we have partners. In some provinces, such as Ontario, even the municipalities have a role to play. So there are three partners.

To come back to what I was saying, we received a lot of information on these issues. As my colleagues can attest, we are extremely sensitive to the fact that we must not interfere in areas outside our jurisdiction, but we also realize that in some cases we need to encourage our partners. In Quebec, it should be said, the social policies are really good. But that does not mean that there is a lack of will in Manitoba. It all depends on the history of each province.

I also took a course. At one point, there was some talk of perhaps moving up the timetable for the multilateral framework on early childhood. In other words, there might be more money this year. We are crossing our fingers and hoping that this will be in the budget. Then my friends in the Quebec government said that this was a matter of provincial jurisdiction. I could not understand that, since I know that we send them a cheque. That is exactly what we do. But in the end I realized that all our investments are done through the social transfer. What often happens is that the only person who sees the social transfer is the Minister of Finance.

So we sat down and had a really good discussion about it, and I asked them if they knew that we would be transferring $211 million to them over five years. I told them that they could do what they wanted with that, but that it had to be used to support daycare services for young children. And I must say that they found that appealing.

So the problem is with the social transfer, especially since it included health, education and social development at that time. Generally speaking, the only person to see the money is the Minister of Finance. In many cases, even the responsible minister does not see it, and I know that since I was in that position myself. That is why dialogue is so important.

So we really want to take a multilateral approach. We want to say that we can support the objectives of each province. Is the focus on early childhood, as is the case in the multilateral framework? Are daycare services important? What needs to be done? Some provinces tell us that the key thing is to invest in quality and that this is the priority. Quebec has told us that it will have $200,000 in 2006, that it cannot invest anymore, but that it would like to improve its system to improve the balance between work and family. So we sit down with them and agree that, since we are partners in this and since this is what they want and need, this is what they will get.

I see that two daycare centres are being closed in Nova Scotia. We need to make sure that the money goes to the right places as well, since in Nova Scotia--

À (1045)

[English]

The Chair: Minister, I really hate to interrupt, but we have about two minutes--

[Translation]

Hon. Liza Frulla: I just wanted to reassure you that there really was a strong desire to work in a bilateral framework, and my own experience has shown me that this is the only way to make things work and achieve common objectives together.

[English]

The Chair: I think I speak for the committee when I say we appreciate your enthusiasm and sensitivity to that. For that reason, I let you go on well past the allotted time.

Hon. Liza Frulla: I'm sorry. Just cut me off.

The Chair: I'm being kind. It's your first appearance.

Ms. Bakopanos.

Hon. Eleni Bakopanos: Thank you.

[Translation]

Welcome, Minister. It is always a pleasure to see you. It is unfortunate that you did not have time to continue, but I have two very specific questions and will therefore not take up much time.

When the Canadian government introduced the National Child Benefit, there were some provinces that, unfortunately for the families, received the benefit and did some tax recovery. I know that you are visiting your various counterparts across the country. Has this subject been raised, and will steps be taken to ensure that families that need this vital assistance will not be deprived of it?

Hon. Liza Frulla: That is a problem that needs to be resolved, and once again it is a jurisdictional issue. To take the example of Ontario, Canada's largest province, part of the funding there is set aside and used for developing the province's own social programs. I sat down with my counterpart, Ms. Pupatello, and we discussed this issue. I know that the benefit will be increased by $185 and then by the same amount next year. They are aware of the problem. I am not the one that can resolve it, since it is a provincial responsibility.

Right now, my counterparts are putting pressure on the cabinet about a percentage of the funding being held back, and the fact that they may not get the additional money. I know that this concern came to cabinet from Ontario. It is something that I want to raise with all my counterparts.

Hon. Eleni Bakopanos: May I make a suggestion? When the transfers are negotiated—I do not know if all committee members agree with me on this—I think that this issue should be raised. The funding given for a specific reason should not be spent on other things.

I would also like to simply congratulate the minister.

À (1050)

[English]

I'll switch to English for our audience.

I'm very, very happy that you consider this committee should study the issue of supporting innovative approaches to social and community development. As you know, and as other people know, that was one of the mandates the Prime Minister gave in terms of my file, the social economy.

I know the minister has worked very hard for years in terms of social development. I don't know if in the one minute she has before this committee she would like to give her vision of where we should go in terms of social development. I know it's a very big question for a very short time, but I know she has worked very closely with le Chantier de l’économie sociale in her riding, and I've been working with them also.

I think the voluntary sector certainly has a role to play, and we have to look at the broader scope and how we include the voluntary sector initiative in terms of assuring that we create sustainable development for people who have certain disadvantages in our society.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[Translation]

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Madam Chair, I see that the time is passing quickly, since this is a very interesting issue. The minister was initially scheduled to be with us for two hours. However, because of various circumstances, she has only one hour to give us.

Could we not plan to invite her back so that we can finish asking our questions? We could also ask her to make a presentation that would answer that specific question.

[English]

The Chair: Absolutely. I have spoken to the minister privately, and I know she is most anxious to appear before this committee when we can make time for her. And it was not her decision that it would be only an hour.

[Translation]

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Of course.

[English]

The Chair: I appreciate that, and I think we do have that cooperation.

So if you want to make a very brief comment, given that we know that is certainly not your entire--

Hon. Liza Frulla: Yes, with pleasure, and I really want to come back.

Judi, I told you that we have to really look at the voluntary sector closely.

Le Chantier de l’économie sociale started in my riding with Nancy Neamtam, and listen, there are projects in my riding.... We call it social economy. In other provinces they call it social businesses.

It works so well. It's new on the federal level, and we really have to push it hard. It gives the opportunity to people who are on social welfare, who can't find a job--they get discouraged after eight months or a year--to get back into the workforce and into small businesses, and it does work.

Now, this is a new idea--the charity bank also. We were lobbied to have a charity bank. It means funds for businesses that couldn't get funds from the bank, for example. All these things are new.

[Translation]

We need to continue our discussions and create our vision.

[English]

To create our vision, these are new things we do have to integrate in what we look at in the community and in the voluntary sector.

Plus, in terms of the money we've inherited and the programs we've inherited, we have to ask ourselves the question, is it going to the right person? Are we using it well now that we have those two initiatives, and probably more?

So as I said, if you want to help me, I would really appreciate it.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Godin.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: The committee is proud to have you here. Congratulations on your appointment to the cabinet. I say that very sincerely. I hope that I never regret those words.

Hon. Liza Frulla: I will do my best.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Knowing the riding that you come from, I think that you know about poor regions. I believe that you are well positioned to understand the people of Canada and their situation. It is unfortunate that I have only five minutes. I would like to see you come back to the committee. I will try to ask specific questions. If you do not know the answer, there is no point wasting time, but I would like to get the answers later.

To begin with, I would like to talk about disability benefits. I would like the department to look into the possibility of appointing, not an ombudsman, but a workers' advocate, in order to help people apply for these benefits. Older people with disabilities have to appear before representatives of the Canada Pension Plan, and they have no one to represent them. It seems that now, when people apply for disability benefits, the department refuses them automatically. People have to go to specialists for this or that, and it takes two years before the person gets the benefits. I am not talking through my hat; this is the reality. I would like to ask the minister to look into this and see whether something could be done.

I would like to raise the matter of the Quebec Court of Appeal's decision about the federal government's jurisdiction for special employment insurance benefits. Employment insurance has been around, I believe, since the 1940s. I believe that the Quebec Court of Appeal was wrong, since it forgot that in the 1940s, only 5% of women were working, and the Supreme Court could give us its opinion on the matter. Work has changed. Most women are now working. The employment insurance system needs to adapt to that and provide maternity leave.

This is not a social program, but a salary protection program. When people lose their jobs, they should receive compensation. That is what we need to look at. I should point out that Quebec is incredibly progressive in terms of its programs. I congratulate the province on that. I cannot express how progressive these programs are, whereas we... I love what Quebec is doing with its social programs, its programs for ordinary people. But there are also nine other provinces that are not doing these things. The territories are not doing them either. The federal government has a responsibility because employment insurance is under federal jurisdiction. We are talking about an income shortfall for workers that should be partially compensated for by parental leave. That is how life works today. I am speaking openly here. I know that people in Quebec might not like what I have to say, but that is what a country is about. We have to be able to understand each other and listen to each other.

I know that if Quebec has a better program than the rest of Canada, perhaps agreements need to be reached with that province and funding transferred to it. We never have to worry that Quebec will not meet national standards, because that never happens. It is more progressive. I have to acknowledge that.

Moreover, you talked about families. I was disappointed and frustrated. I do not want to play politics with this, but I have to be frank with you. I received a letter this week from the department responsible for the sponsorship program, telling me that $5,000 had been awarded to Tracadie-Sheila for the Week of the Family, but that $2,000 would not be paid, because there was no proof of sufficient visibility for the sponsorship. I find that outrageous and unacceptable. The government can pay $1.6 million for a balloon festival and then come down hard on small communities working to help families and even doing this on a volunteer basis. I am going to send you the letter, Minister. You were talking a little while ago about volunteers. Volunteers were working long hours to really prepare for the Week of the Family, to bring people together, and the federal government refused to give them $2,000 of the $5,000 that had been earmarked.

I will leave you with those thoughts.

À (1055)

Hon. Liza Frulla: May I answer quickly?

[English]

The Chair: Very quickly, yes.

[Translation]

Hon. Liza Frulla: My partners and I will study the idea of creating an ombudsman position, since I think it is a good idea, especially because...

Mr. Yvon Godin: I withdraw the word “ombudsman” because that is not what we need: an ombudsman does audits, whereas what we need is a worker to make sure that people get their benefits.

Hon. Liza Frulla: It is a good idea, especially because people with disabilities often have to prove their disability again. It seems to me that if you are blind, you are blind for life.

Regarding parental leave and daycare, the situation is basically the same: the programs provided by some provinces are quite good, whereas those of other provinces are less so. That is why I believe that we need to work with the provinces on parental leave. Moreover, in this context, we had to wait until the Supreme Court made its decision.

Quebec, in fact, wants to improve this leave. It is not about getting money for the sake of getting money. The federal government, however, would not be able to implement this: it would be too expensive to do right across the country.

Quebec wants to apply the program on a pro rata basis, and it wants to administer it and improve it. Negotiations with the department responsible are currently under way. We will see how things go. I personally hope very much that this request is legitimate. That said, it comes under Mr. Volpe. I am not the one who is negotiating with them.

I do believe that it is legitimate, but it must not jeopardize parental leave in other provinces. I know that it can be frustrating, when funding is allocated for daycare, to see that the money is used for other purposes in some cases.

Á (1100)

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Money for health is used for education, for example.

Hon. Liza Frulla: It really is rather frustrating.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I will send you the letter about the $5,000.

Hon. Liza Frulla: Send it to me, and it will be sent on to Public Works.

[English]

The Chair: Minister, unfortunately I have to attend another meeting. Mr. McCormick has a very short question, and I'm going to turn the chair over to my vice-chair.

But before I go, I want to personally thank you for taking the time to come.

Hon. Liza Frulla: I can come back any time.

The Chair: And we're certainly going to take you up on that offer. It's been a real pleasure, and we wish you all the success in the upcoming budget, that you get the things you want. Everyone around here has their fingers crossed as well.

Thank you.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Congratulations, Minister, on your ministry...and certainly your challenges. Our committee needs and deserves your enthusiasm and wants to support it; it's great to see.

I wish I had more time. Another time we'll talk about the voluntary sector and the charity bank. There's so much we could do with entrepreneurs with disabilities, and sometimes it would take a very small amount of money alone, especially around the world and in rural Canada. Give them a small amount of money and women entrepreneurs especially could do great things.

I just have a question regarding a very small amount of money. There was some really good news in the supplementary estimates, I thought, where Human Resources was requesting $200,000 for a national campaign to help raise public awareness of government programs and services for children.

Now, this may be an FYI to your officials, but I'm thinking about Industry a few years ago when they came out with a catalogue, a bible, of programs and services. The rumour was that the bureaucrats would say to one another, wow, I didn't know we had all this. So when this publication with this information is shared with Canadians, I hope it includes programs and services from your department, Minister, but also from other departments. Even we sometimes get lost and cannot be aware of all programs through all departments. I think it would be important to include that.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Hon. Liza Frulla: Well, we could work with others. When we say we want to make people aware of the programs we have, of course we're thinking of our programs. But you're right, though, that it would probably work because that's what we do anyway, horizontally with the other departments, to make sure we also include their programs. This is an idea we can look into.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Minister, I appreciate that because I go back to a former secretary of state, Andy Mitchell. He was here with rural programs and now he's the Indian affairs minister. Andy never had much money, but he was able to be successful for rural Canada because all the departments are in these silos, as you mentioned. Having the capabilities and the talents going across departments--that's all I'm asking for. I appreciate that.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Hon. Liza Frulla: I'll just tell you, we have communication. Do you know what? There is a will, because we have had since November a communication table, I'd say, with all the departments broadly involved in social development. We could pass it through that because the mechanism is there. For example, we do have a table with the deputy ministry for--

Mr. Larry McCormick: It's a great new mechanism.

Hon. Liza Frulla: Exactly.

We do have a table for the elderly, let's say, and for working with the provinces, and whatever.

[Translation]

Mr. Larry McCormick: Yes, thank you.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Eugène Bellemare) : Minister, you show so much enthusiasm and interest. You seem to have a great deal of passion for this, and everyone likes to discuss the issues under your responsibility.

There are two members who would like to ask one question each of no more than one minute. Would you take the time to answer them?

Á (1105)

Hon. Liza Frulla: Yes, with pleasure.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Eugène Bellemare): That is very kind of you.

Hon. Liza Frulla: I do not believe that the government will fall if I am not at the cabinet meeting.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Eugène Bellemare): No.

Mr. Pallister, go ahead.

[English]

Mr. Brian Pallister: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Love is all around this morning, Madame Minister. The praise is flying everywhere here.

Hon. Liza Frulla: — [Inaudible—Editor]— because I know that we're determined to do...

Mr. Brian Pallister: I think it's early yet. Later, we'll get to the normal relationships.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Brian Pallister: But love wasn't flying around the other day when the Quebec Court of Appeal ruled that the federal government was outside its authority in offering family related benefits. I'd like you to talk a little bit about that issue, because I think it does have very significant potential impacts on our ability to offer programs that are national in scope.

Would you like to comment on that?

Hon. Liza Frulla: Yes, as I said in French, and I'll repeat in English, you have to understand that in Quebec they want to take their portion and administer it—because they have the infrastructure to do it—and add on the autonomous workers. So they're adding, and it will cost around $100 million and more.

That's what they're negotiating. They're not negotiating to say, “Well, just abolish the program for the rest of the province.” No, what they're saying is, “Can we sit down, and can we have our part, because we have the infrastructure to administer it, and we will add on?” So those are the terms of the negotiation.

But—and that's why it went to the Supreme Court—the judgment cannot, and should not, faire en sorte que the program would be abolished for the other provinces. So that's why we had to appeal and that's why it's at the Supreme Court level now. But there are negotiations with Quebec just to give it the part that it is entitled to, so that they can add on.

One doesn't go without the other, l'un n'empêche pas l'autre. So we're acting upon what Quebec would like to do. We haven't heard other provinces wanting to do so.

On the other hand, we have to make sure that this program applies to other provinces and that we can still administer the program for the other provinces, because 80% of families agree with the program.

[Translation]

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Eugène Bellemare): Thank you, Minister.

[English]

Hon. Liza Frulla: So it doesn't jeopardize the program when I said for the other provinces, but Quebec—

[Translation]

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Eugène Bellemare): Thank you, Minister.

We will go now to Ms. Tremblay.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My question is a very short one. Given the presentation that you made and the answers that you have given us, I see that my question is really not under your jurisdiction, but I do not really know who to ask, after the example that I gave you earlier about Mr. Volpe, Claudette Bradshaw and yourself.

Hon. Liza Frulla: Yes, that is a tough one.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: What I would like to know, in view of the large surplus in the employment insurance fund, is what the government can do to help women who are self-employed and who become pregnant. This affects more people than we might think, because a large number of women are self-employed. Who should I ask about this, would it be the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, or you, so that you might at least pass the message along to cabinet? I think this is a matter of utmost importance.

Hon. Liza Frulla: We are of course very interested in this issue. Take family leave, for example. We ensure that all families will be covered for one year. Quebec tells us that they have the required infrastructure and would like to rearrange the program in order to include self-employed workers for, I believe, six months. That is what Quebec is telling us, while promising to make up for any shortfall.

That is more or less what I mean when I talk about a partnership with the provinces. In order to review the entire program we will have to engage in some type of consultation. We will have to sit down with the various stakeholders, and see if the parents are in agreement. Anything that involves employment insurance or workers is definitely part of the mandate of my colleague Mr. Volpe. Since we are more familiar with what happens in Quebec, then of course we can provide advice, but we are not the ones who can negotiate or solve all of these problems. But we are obviously taking a special interest in these matters. We are concerned, but we are not directly involved.

Á (1110)

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Thank you.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Eugène Bellemare): We would like to thank you, Madam Minister, for the information that you have given us with such enthusiasm, and I have no doubt that this is only the beginning of a beautiful friendship between you and our committee.

Hon. Liza Frulla: That said, I would invite you once again to examine all of the sectors. Since we are in the process of building, we may as well all work together. Whether it be at the provincial level or at the heritage committee, this is how it has always been done. So if you feel that it can be helpful, I would urge you to provide any suggestions that you might have.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Eugène Bellemare): Thank you, Madam Minister.

The meeting is adjourned.