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, 2nd SESSION

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

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, May 15, 2003

1515

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

The Honourable Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development)

Hon. Jane Stewart

1520

1525

1530

1535

The Chair

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

Hon. Jane Stewart

Mr. Larry Spencer

1540

Hon. Jane Stewart

Mr. Larry Spencer

Hon. Jane Stewart

Mr. Larry Spencer

Hon. Jane Stewart

Mr. Larry Spencer

Hon. Jane Stewart

Mr. Larry Spencer

Hon. Jane Stewart

Mr. Larry Spencer

Hon. Jane Stewart

1545

The Chair

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

Hon. Jane Stewart

Ms. Diane St-Jacques

Hon. Jane Stewart

Ms. Diane St-Jacques

Hon. Jane Stewart

1550

Ms. Diane St-Jacques

Hon. Jane Stewart

The Chair

Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ)

Hon. Jane Stewart

Mr. Wayne Wouters (Deputy Minister, Department of Human Resources Development)

Hon. Jane Stewart

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

Hon. Jane Stewart

Mr. Pierre Paquette

Hon. Jane Stewart

1555

Mr. Pierre Paquette

Hon. Jane Stewart

Mr. Pierre Paquette

Hon. Jane Stewart

Mr. Pierre Paquette

The Chair

Mr. Pierre Paquette

The Chair

Mr. Pierre Paquette

The Chair

Mr. Pierre Paquette

The Chair

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

1600

Hon. Jane Stewart

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Hon. Jane Stewart

The Chair

Hon. Jane Stewart

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

The Chair

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

1605

Hon. Jane Stewart

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP)

Hon. Jane Stewart

1610

Ms. Libby Davies

Hon. Jane Stewart

Ms. Libby Davies

Hon. Jane Stewart

Ms. Libby Davies

Hon. Jane Stewart

Ms. Libby Davies

Hon. Jane Stewart

1615

The Chair

Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.)

Hon. Jane Stewart

Mr. John Finlay

1620

Hon. Jane Stewart

Mr. John Finlay

Hon. Jane Stewart

Mr. John Finlay

Hon. Jane Stewart

Mr. John Finlay

The Chair

Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Canadian Alliance)

Hon. Jane Stewart

1625

Mr. Jim Gouk

Hon. Jane Stewart

Mr. Jim Gouk

Hon. Jane Stewart

Mr. Jim Gouk

1630

Hon. Jane Stewart

The Chair

Mr. Pierre Paquette

Hon. Jane Stewart

Mr. Pierre Paquette

1635

Hon. Jane Stewart

The Chair

Mr. Claude Duplain (Portneuf, Lib.)

Hon. Jane Stewart

1640

Mr. Claude Duplain

Hon. Jane Stewart

Mr. Claude Duplain

Hon. Jane Stewart

Mr. Claude Duplain

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies

1645

Hon. Jane Stewart

Ms. Libby Davies

Hon. Jane Stewart

1650

The Chair

Mr. John Finlay

Hon. Jane Stewart

Mr. John Finlay

1655

Hon. Jane Stewart

The Chair

Mr. Larry Spencer

Hon. Jane Stewart

Mr. Larry Spencer

Hon. Jane Stewart

1700

Mr. Larry Spencer

Hon. Jane Stewart

Mr. Larry Spencer

The Chair

Hon. Jane Stewart

The Chair

CANADA

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

NUMBER 031

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Thursday, May 15, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹ (1515)

[English]

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

I'd like to welcome the Minister of Human Resources Development, the Honourable Jane Stewart.

Minister, it's a delight to have you back with our committee. You know that we are looking at estimates, and you have come to enlighten us. So without further ado we'll allow you to proceed.

You might want to introduce the two very distinguished people you've brought with you from the ministry.

The Honourable Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development): Thank you very much, Madam Chairman and colleagues.

Let me introduce my deputy, Mr. Wayne Wouters, and Janet Milne, my assistant deputy minister responsible for finance and administrative services. She's the woman who keeps track of our money. She's here because we're talking about the estimates.

[Translation]

Hon. Jane Stewart: Madam Chair, thank you for inviting me once again to appear before your committee. It is always a pleasure to come and give you an update on the activities of our department which, as you know, affects the lives of almost all Canadians.

[English]

Given that HRDC serves Canadians across their whole lives and accounts for roughly half of the program spending of the Government of Canada, I would monopolize your committee's time if I tried to capture all of the files we've been advancing since I last spoke with you. I promise I won't do that, but I will take a different approach than I have in the past.

As some of you will know, in my previous appearances before this committee I've tended to focus on a particular issue, such as skills and learning, and to outline our policy and program approach in addressing this priority area. Today, however, I'd like to provide the context for our policy and program decisions within HRDC. I want to talk about the values and principles that drive our departmental agenda, and share my views about why a continued investment in social policy is so essential for Canada as we enter this new millennium. In this context it's particularly important when considering our main estimates.

We start from the position that our programs and services promote the social cohesion and full inclusion of all Canadians. Social programs are the glue that bridges the differences between the haves and the have-nots. Canadians want a Canada where everyone, regardless of race, gender, age, ability, or wealth, is able to contribute to the economic and social lives of our country, and share in its prosperity.

[Translation]

It is through social policies and programs that we reflect our shared values of compassion, generosity, fearness and commitment to equality. And that we exercise our belief in humanity and in democracy. Canadians believe that a strong, sustainable and vibrant system of social programs that advances these values is a key factor in the continual improvement of our quality of life.

¹ (1520)

[English]

Social policy not only touches on our traditional values, but is equally important to the values of competition, innovation, and economic prosperity. We're now living in a knowledge-based economy. It is our people and our ability to create and innovate that will drive our economy in the decades ahead.

Social investments are, in fact, also economic investments. In the past, some people considered these expenditures to be nothing but a drain. Not any more. Of course, they never were. But today more than ever they are all about a gain.

[Translation]

Investing in the early years ensures children get off to a good start so they are ready to learn when they get to school, so they will be ready, when the time comes, to work. Continuing to investing youth, in skills development and in life long learning helps Canadians keep pace with constant changes in the information age. It is these investments that will build the economy of the future.

[English]

Social spending also supports the economy by reducing long-term costs to the public purse and society at large. If we get it right in the early years, we reduce spending on health care, education, and the justice and welfare systems later on. Far more important, we build stronger families, stronger communities, and a stronger country.

Social policy is indeed driven by Canadians' values, but it's also shaped by principles. After almost four years in this portfolio, there are several principles that I believe must guide our policy development at HRDC.

The first principle is that our social programs must be sustainable. We want to avoid going ahead too fast, at the risk of having to pull back because we later find we can't financially afford the programs we've implemented or they aren't doing the job we expect. There's no point in presenting citizens with a plan or a program they cannot count on.

Second, our programs and services must be inclusive. In the past we built social programs and services with the majority in mind, but we always have to ask if all citizens are benefiting to the degree we expect. Canadians with disabilities, aboriginal people, and new immigrants all need to participate as much as other Canadians, and Canada needs the contributions of everyone. So we need to continually question whether everyone will ultimately have the same positive outcome we're looking for.

Third, good decisions depend on good information. Research that identifies the distinct needs of diverse groups is the foundation for the development, implementation, and testing of sound social policies and programs. At HRDC, we understand that research is essential to assure we are working toward a legitimate need and a public good. It has the added advantage that as we implement programs we can test them and make sure they're giving us the outcomes we expected to receive.

Another of the principles at the heart of our social policy approach is our belief that there is a role for both active and passive measures.

[Translation]

Our reforms to the employment insurance program reflects this balance approach. Individuals, through no fault of their own, can find themselves out of work and, through the government, can find temporary incomes support that enables them to continue to provide for their families while they look for a new job. But there is another peace of that puzzle. And that is providing those individuals the opportunity to learn and retrain to find a new job. Active measures to employment, from my point of the view, are critically important in the development of good social policy.

[English]

A focus on active measures is equally important to cost-conscious Canadians who want to shift social programs away from entitlement to empowerment. There's a growing consensus on the need for policies that are based on social investments that promote opportunities rather than provide stop-gap measures.

We need to be not only more responsive but also more flexible, to adjust quickly as circumstances change. We have to build programs that are as flexible as the Canadian public is dynamic and different. Our decision to double parental leave benefits demonstrates this principle, in practice. On average, 70% of Canadian families are dual-income families today. Parents have 40% less time with their children than our parents did just a generation ago.

Something else has changed: both parents want to be actively involved in raising their young children. This extension of parental benefits allows Canadian moms and dads to choose which parent stays home with their newborn or newly adopted child. You may already know, or at least be interested to know, that after one full year of implementation we have three times the number of dads staying home with their newborns--an exceptional change in our society.

When I talk about flexibility I'm also talking about service delivery options. In today's world people want fast, efficient, and convenient access to information and services, whether in person, on the phone, through paperwork, or via the Internet. That's precisely what we're working to provide through a major modernization process that is currently underway with our department. We're moving on multiple fronts to deliver this kind of citizen-first service.

I will talk more about that in a moment, but allow me to address two important principles around the delivery of flexible social programs: partnership and accountability. Without a doubt, good social policy depends on partnerships, whether this is done between government departments or among governments; with the business community or organized labour; with the voluntary sector, educational institutions, or individual Canadians. It's just not acceptable nor is it practical for the ideas to be developed, created, and then implemented solely by the Government of Canada, or any other government for that matter.

¹ (1525)

[Translation]

I am talking about a willingness to work cooperatively. There is no place for turf wars when people need social supports. What matters is that those programs and services get delivered in the most effective way possible. More often than not, this means involving those who are closest to the challenges and solutions—be it at the provincial/territorial, regional or community level.

[English]

While recognizing that flexibility is essential to ensuring that federally funded initiatives are responsive to the specific needs of Canadians, which can vary from province to province or territory, ensuring an appropriate level of accountability for those funds is equally important.

More and more, in areas of shared jurisdiction or in areas where we have identified joint priorities, we establish a common policy framework consistent with the social union framework agreement, but give the provinces and territories the flexibility to make investments against the backdrop of their own reality.

The September 2000 early childhood development agreement is an example that eventually set the stage for the recent child care announcement. On March 13, the federal, provincial, and territorial ministers responsible for social services reached an agreement on a framework for improving access to affordable, quality, and provincially and territorially regulated early learning and child care programs and services.

[Translation]

We agreed that to address local priorities the agreement needs to be flexible, but we also recognized that the importance of being accountable to Canadians and have committed to transparent public reporting.

[English]

In Manitoba we've taken the partnership on early childhood development even further. Through the Manitoba children's agenda, the federal departments of HRDC, Health, and Indian and Northern Affairs are working closely with the Government of Manitoba and with private and public organizations to support the healthy development of children.

New partnerships are being formed, such as a leadership council that brings together community members, representatives from aboriginal communities, local foundations and other funders, and business leaders, to focus on early childhood and development issues.

Sector councils are another area of cooperation where industry stakeholders work together to solve human resource challenges, but often collaborate with their provincial counterparts on different projects.

[Translation]

The Conseil québécois des ressources humaines en tourisme,

[English]

for example, sits on the board of directors of the Canadian Tourism Human Resources Council. As well, provincial-territorial tourism education associations have been established across Canada as part of the Canadian Tourism Human Resources Council network.

¹ (1530)

[Translation]

I have been talking about these principles for sometime before different audiences across Canada. I take a great comfort from knowing that, as our approach to policy and program development has evolved over the past decade, we have both reflected and responded to Canadians expectations.

[English]

Recent research has found that Canadians are right there with us endorsing our approach. You may be aware that in mid-April the Canadian Policy Research Networks released a report entitled “The Kind of Canada We Want”. The report is based on a series of dialogues with Canadians in ten centres across the country. HRDC was one of six federal departments that provided funding for this comprehensive and unique study.

This report is very different from standard polling or other public consultations, in that it involves interactive dialogues that provide a bottom-up view of what Canadians believe the social contract should be and how government is performing. We've heard from Canadians that they see a strong role for government in meeting social needs, but that their expectations are shifting. They still demand universally accessible health care and public education, strong income security programs, and targeted programs for the most vulnerable. However, they want better value for money, and think that program redesign must include input from those directly affected.

Your committee's work in studying literacy is a perfect example of the kind of public involvement I'm talking about. I was delighted to learn that you have heard from some 57 witnesses, whose input I'm sure you value as much as I do. I want you to know, Madam Chair, how much I appreciate your interest in this issue, and your committee members' demonstrated desire to address Canada's literacy challenges.

The CPRN study reported that people want governments to treat the citizen as a whole person and to meet their needs in as simple and streamlined a manner as possible. Researchers found there has been a substantial move from deference toward government to greater accountability. There was little evidence of a desire for less government, but rather for more accountable, smarter, and more strategic government policies and programs that engage Canadians and respond to their needs and concerns.

Researchers also noted a trend from a focus on rights to increased responsibility, with citizens stating that social programs should provide a “hand up”, not a “handout”. Even though citizens are more willing to do their part, they understand that all sectors in society are connected, and that progress can only be achieved if we work together. For example, they see a role for the private sector but would like it to be an even greater social partner. Of course, they expect the same of us, and that's exactly what we do in almost every aspect of our work at HRDC, notably when developing and delivering responsive social programs for Canadians.

On the question of service delivery, HRDC is now in the process of consulting with its partners and stakeholders. We know it's not enough to simply change our service delivery mechanisms, or to think that new technologies are all that's required to reach out to Canadians. Increasingly, it means developing citizen-centred policies and programs that are flexible and responsive to changing demographics, changing times, needs, and expectations.

The CPRN research findings reinforce the research our department has done in determining how we should be developing policy and delivering services to Canadians in the 21st century. Good policy, linked to good programs, linked to good service delivery is what HRDC's future agenda is all about. It has us looking at everything we do from the outside in. We're developing policies and programs from the vantage point of our clients and our stakeholders.

This reflects a fundamental change in our work philosophy and work style that is revitalizing the way the department operates. You'll be hearing more about this in future appearances before this committee, I'm sure.

[Translation]

Because it is probably one of the most ambitious and essential exercises we have ever embarked upon. We will be calling on you for guidance and advice as we work our way through this process.

[English]

Before wrapping up my formal presentation I want to make a final observation about being responsive to citizens. If there was one finding that the CPRN report brought to our attention it was that as Canadians become more demanding of and more engaged with governments, the legitimacy and sustainability of policy decisions will depend on how well they reflect the underlying values of citizens.

I think that is one area where HRDC has proven its leadership. Indeed, all of us in public life should be inspired by this reminder. Everything we do in government should be driven by Canadians' values because values lie at the heart of our democracy.

¹ (1535)

[Translation]

Creating an inclusive society and a competitivity economy depends on the contribution of all Canadians.

[English]

I'm very proud of HRDC's contribution to this process, and I look forward to working closely with Canadians to continue building the Canada we all want.

Merci.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

We'll now proceed to the question and answer period. I'm going to have seven-minute rounds, including the question and the response.

Mr. Spencer, we'll begin with you.

Mr. Larry Spencer (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank the minister for being here. I've looked forward to this for awhile.

I want to ask questions that I think are very much related to the Canadian values you were talking about, because I believe Canadians value the processes we go through in delivering our services. I think they value the financial prudence of their government, and transparency in government operations. My questions are related to those three areas.

I'm sorry if you think I'm going way back into the past. I am, but the past is also a part of the future. There are class-action suits going on that relate to GIS retroactivity, with groups seeking greater retroactivity than the 11-month period. What are your budgetary contingency plans, just in case they win and the department loses?

Hon. Jane Stewart: It's inappropriate for me to speak directly about individual cases that are before the courts, so I will contain my comments to the guaranteed income supplement itself.

There's no doubt from our point of view, and probably from the point of view of this whole table, that the guaranteed income supplement has become a very important part of sustaining Canadian seniors. It's a program of supplementary benefit that provides low-income Canadian seniors with additional income to help them through what can be difficult and costly expenses.

In the context of the guaranteed income supplement, I'm very happy to say that our focus has really been on ensuring that those who are eligible for this supplement receive it. You'll know that as a result of a new relationship with Canada Customs and Revenue Agency we are exchanging information on the annual tax rules of Canadian seniors, and then providing those who may be eligible for the GIS with a simplified form that has been completed, asking them to sign and return it to us to ensure that if they're eligible they'll receive the benefit.

Our focus in these recent times has been on building a series of significant information interventions to assure Canadians who are eligible that they will get the program. From my point of view, that is where we should put our interests.

On the period of retroactivity, I would indicate to the honourable member that in this program it's annually determined. It's based on income over the course of the year, and is therefore not an entitlement but simply there to be responsive to the needs of a particular individual--a senior--on a year-by-year basis. The 11-month retroactivity period is consistent with other social income support benefits that are provided by the provinces. We continue to believe it's an appropriate measure.

Mr. Larry Spencer: With all due respect, Madam Minister, if this goes on TV it will be on CPAC and it's supposed to be commercial-free. So I'm going to ask you to please refrain from giving us such long commercials because it eats up our clock.

Could you tell me in how many cases retroactive GIS payments have been made beyond the 11-month period?

¹ (1540)

Hon. Jane Stewart: First I'd like to say that because this is being televised, it gives us the chance to make sure that seniors who are watching get information about the program. So I think that's appropriate.

Secondly, if there are cases--and the deputy may know the number of them--there would be very few. They would only be allowed in the context of an administrative error that was made by the department in providing incorrect information to an individual. In the act the minister has the responsibility, certainly the authority, to provide more than an 11-month retroactive period if the department has made an error in providing essential information to an individual.

Mr. Larry Spencer: We're talking about main estimates here. Have you set aside anything in your budget, is there an item there, that would cover legal costs incurred in recovering debt--collection cases?

Hon. Jane Stewart: Legal costs incurred in recovering debt...? There's an ongoing--

Mr. Larry Spencer: I mean if you claim someone owes the department some money that was wrongly received.

Hon. Jane Stewart: For ongoing administrative responsibilities, those sorts of aspects are included.

Mr. Larry Spencer: Are they not listed separately?

Hon. Jane Stewart: They're part of our administrative budget.

Mr. Larry Spencer: So you don't have a line item for them. They're just in the big pot.

Hon. Jane Stewart: You might find them under the Department of Justice.

Mr. Larry Spencer: All right.

I have in my hand the transcript from a previous meeting, when representatives from your department were in this committee and I was pursuing this aspect of small overpayments.

We were told in that committee--and I'll read right from Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, there were four circumstances where you might forgive overpayments.

One is overpayment that cannot be collected in the foreseeable future. Another is that the cost of collecting an overpayment would far exceed the overpayment. The third one is that collecting the overpayment would cause undue hardship. And there is the case if an overpayment resulted in erroneous advice or administrative error.

Madam Minister, I think you're aware of a case your department is pursuing beyond the court, even to the appeal court. It is going to cost a huge amount of money to take three judges on site for this trial, all because you are trying to recover approximately $1,300 from a senior.

Based on information from HRDC, she filed applications that were then deemed to be incorrect and therefore she was overpaid by your department by $1,300. You're spending a fortune to recover that, and probably more than one of those four reasons would apply. Why would you do that in any particular case like this?

Hon. Jane Stewart: I would repeat that it's inappropriate for me to talk about an individual case. However, aside from these four criteria, there's also the potential for broad issues of principle associated with the act. So the amount of money in certain cases may not be the deciding point at all. The decision itself may be one that we need to get clarity on because for it to be taken as fact and law without fully challenging it may have significant impact on other cases.

If that is the question you're asking, and I believe it is, I suggest there may be individual cases that go right to the heart of the act and the principles associated with the act, so that's why we may pursue the case to the fullest.

¹ (1545)

The Chair: You're well over your time, Mr. Spencer.

Madame St-Jacques.

[Translation]

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

Welcome, madam Minister.

I would like to address an article I read recently mentioning that some people age 65 and over had not submitted their claim to the Canada Pension Plan. First of all, I would like to know if you know why. Is it because those people were not aware? Was anything done to inform them? Why have they not yet received their pensions?

[English]

Hon. Jane Stewart: In terms of working to ensure that Canadians are knowledgeable about the programs and services for which they may be eligible, there are a significant number of information strategies we utilize. We provide Canadians through the course of their lives with summaries of their contributions to the Canada Pension Plan on a regular basis. Before someone turns 64, we provide them with information about programs like old age security and the Canada Pension Plan. We have recently taken ads on television and modelled them to speak directly to Canadian seniors, so they're aware of the programs.

As I mentioned to Mr. Spencer, a new and increasingly effective program with the guaranteed income supplement is providing seniors who are potentially eligible for that supplement with a very simplified form they can read. Once they sign it, the department can review their circumstances and make sure they get the guaranteed income supplement if they're eligible.

We would like to build on that simplification strategy in other aspects of the old age security program and the Canada Pension Plan. But clearly, the Government of Canada is committed to ensuring that seniors know about the programs for which they are eligible.

Again I would congratulate and thank members of Parliament for the work they do at the local level in their constituencies to provide that information to Canadians.

[Translation]

Ms. Diane St-Jacques: You say that the forms have been simplified but we still hear comments about that. People have problems filling them out. Recently, I saw a lot of people at my riding office and they came to see us because they didn't understand them. I know that you're trying to simplify, but I wonder if we couldn't go just a little bit further. Those people often don't understand the forms. Maybe the language used just isn't simple enough. It seems that we're not necessarily attaining our objective. I don't know exactly what could be done but it still seems to be a problem.

[English]

Hon. Jane Stewart: It's not a problem to respond in the affirmative to your request. As I mentioned, not only are we finding the use of simplified forms effective in the guaranteed income supplement program, but we are developing simplified forms for the broad programs under the old age security and the Canada Pension Plan.

So we are continuously improving our strategies here, and look to the committee for continued advice on how best to get the message out to the appropriate group or demographic of Canadian society, regardless of program.

[Translation]

Ms. Diane St-Jacques: I now have a question on student indebtedness. We know that a lot of students have rather major debt. Is that indebtedness increasing all across Canada, in your opinion, or are the measures we're taking actually helping those people? Are the new measures that were announced recently actually allowing us to attain our objective?

[English]

Hon. Jane Stewart: There's no question that tuition at post-secondary institutions right across the country is rising. The honourable member will know that the determination of tuition levels is a provincial jurisdiction, so it's directly out of the responsibility of the Government of Canada.

Having said that, we have a tradition of participating in working to ensure access to post-secondary education. In the context of our recent skills and learning agenda, part of the innovations agenda, we've brought focus to the importance of access and capacity in the post-secondary education institutions.

As a government, we continue to provide $1.6 billion in loans through the Canada student loans program to Canadian students every year. We've added new programs, like grants for those Canadians with disabilities who want to participate in post-secondary education. The grants gets them to the point of being able to apply for loans. As you know, we have instituted the millennium scholarship program and the Canada education savings grant, which has been highly subscribed to by Canadian families, where the Government of Canada will provide up to $400 for individual accounts to children.

So there's a combination of investments that we're making. Indeed, in the most recent budget we made changes to the Canada student loans program in debt and interest reduction programming to the tune of $60 million, which we hope will also make that program more accessible and available to Canadian students, on the debt repayment side of things.

¹ (1550)

[Translation]

Ms. Diane St-Jacques: Are you satisfied with our model of direct benefits to students? Do we have any results? Do we know what's happening and whether the system is working well?

[English]

Hon. Jane Stewart: When we're talking about loan provision directly, we have positive relationships with the provinces and territories, which really make the determinations of eligibility for loans through their program elements. In two jurisdictions, Saskatchewan and Ontario, we've actually been able to move our yardsticks, and have implemented the principle of one student, one loan, so we're integrating our approaches.

My view is there's considerably more that can be done in terms of the issues associated with access to post-secondary education. A working group of officials from the provincial governments and the Government of Canada is directly attacking this question as we speak.

The Chair: Thank you.

Monsieur Paquette.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the minister for her presentation.

In a Human Resource Development Canada report last September, there was a December 2003 forecast for an accumulated surplus of over $44 billion.

I'd like to know whether, in your opinion, the surplus accumulated in the employment insurance fund will actually be of that order at the end of this year.

[English]

Hon. Jane Stewart: It's hard to determine what the actual results will be for any particular year. Of course, it depends on the levels of employment and unemployment. I believe that for this year the actuary has suggested $3.5 billion--

Mr. Wayne Wouters (Deputy Minister, Department of Human Resources Development): It's $4.2 billion for this year.

Hon. Jane Stewart: On the go-forward I think...is it $4.2 billion?

Ms. Janet Milne (Assistant Deputy Minister, Financial and Administrative Services, Department of Human Resources Development): Next year it will be $2.4 billion.

Hon. Jane Stewart: That's what I thought. I didn't think it was going to be as significant. That's what the chief actuary is suggesting. But as you know, the Minister of Finance is engaged in a complete process to move toward an equilibrium between revenues taken in through employment insurance premiums and benefits paid out.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Paquette: I'm quite happy to hear the answer that there will be a surplus this year because I put that question twice to the Parliamentary Secretary for Finance and he answered that the revenues will be totally spent and that there would be no surplus this year. So I'm happy to see that, coming from you, there is more transparency. Nevertheless, $45 billion of employer and employee contributions have been paid into the government's general account. I would like to know how you intend to refund those monies to the employment insurance fund. How will you reimburse the $45 billion to those who paid a premium in order to be ensured in case they lost their jobs and not to fund the government's general activities nor, even less, to pay down the federal government's debt?

[English]

Hon. Jane Stewart: As you know, in her recent report the Auditor General reconfirmed her belief that the appropriate way to deal with employment insurance premiums is to have them go into the consolidated revenue fund. That was the decision in 1986 that led to premiums moving into the consolidated revenue fund from a separate account. The Auditor General has confirmed that is appropriate to date.

In terms of investments through the employment insurance system, this year alone $13.7 billion was conveyed to individuals through income support--EI part I; $2.2 billion was for EI part II investments, and by and large those monies were transferred to the provinces for investment. So there are significant monies there. Thankfully the program is effective. We've also been able to reduce premiums every single year. Over a 10-year period, by 2004 compared to 1994, that will have saved Canadian employers and employees $10 billion.

¹ (1555)

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Paquette: That argument doesn't really convince me because when you look at the actuary's table, you'll see that for every year there were premiums, they were always too high as compared to the plan's needs. For 2002, for example, the forecast was that you'd need $1.87 to cover system costs but the premium for the worker was $2.20. It was brought down to $2.10, but it's still too high. The proof is that there is still a surplus.

You have told us many times that you owe nothing to the contributors and that, finally, this is just a tax like any other one. That said, the CNTU and the FTQ have taken steps against the federal government to have this misappropriation of funds declared illegal. There were representations early this week before the Superior Court. If the judge finds it's illegal—we know this will be a declaratory judgment—will you go with the court's judgment? Will you make a commitment to respect it?

[English]

Hon. Jane Stewart: Of course, what the courts determine will always be respected by this government, but there are a couple of points I would make. First, in the context of the revenues that have been generated, believe me, they've been used for very important priorities identified by Canadians, whether it be health care, continued Canada student loans, or infrastructure.

Second, I would remind the honourable member that the employment insurance account has not always been in a surplus. In fact, for many years it was in a deficit. If it's in a deficit, the government has a responsibility, by statute, to ensure that the monies are there for use for those Canadians who, through no fault of their own, find themselves without employment.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Paquette: Minister, the federal government has been in the black since 1995. In 1994, there was already an annual surplus of $2.283 billion, and the deficit was $3.601 billion. That was the last year in which there was a deficit. After that, the accumulated deficit was eliminated, and since 1995 you have had one surplus after another, with the result that there is now nearly $45 billion that has been skimmed off. But I think that we will not agree on that point. Let us hope that the Quebec labour unions win their case in court.

I want to come back to another point. In 1989, as you know, 83 per cent of those who paid into the fund were eligible for benefits if they lost their job. Right now in Quebec, 47 per cent are eligible. That is the figure for Quebec. For Canada as a whole, where the average unemployment rate is lower than in Quebec, it stands at 39 per cent. Do you feel that it is reasonable that, out of 10 people contributing to the fund, less than 4 people across Canada and less than 5 in Quebec have a right to benefits? Is it reasonable for an insurance fund to cover less than half those who pay into it? Is there not a problem with accessibility to the program following the various reforms that have been brought in?

[English]

Hon. Jane Stewart: There are some things that I should clarify for the honourable member. First, the monies have not been spent inappropriately, coming back to your introductory remarks to this question. I'd also remind you that if there is a surplus, the Government of Canada is responsible for paying interest on those surplus funds. Third, I'll repeat that there is a process ongoing right now that will end by June 30--I hope the honourable member will make representation--on a new premium-setting strategy.

Finally, through our monitoring and assessment report it's clear that the employment insurance system is working, and 88% of those for whom it's designed would be eligible for employment insurance should they need that benefit.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Paquette: But among those who pay in and lose their jobs, only 47 per cent in Quebec and 39 per cent in the rest of Canada are eligible for benefits. An insurance program that does not cover the majority of contributors has a serious credibility problem, and I think that that is the case here.

I would like to ask you a more specific question.

[English]

The Chair: The other problem is you've run out of time.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Paquette: You are sure that I have used seven minutes?

[English]

The Chair: Seven minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Paquette: I do not get seven minutes US?

[English]

The Chair: No, it's seven minutes Canadian.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Paquette: It is seven very ordinary Canadian minutes. I hope that there will be a second round.

[English]

The Chair: We'll try.

Mr. Bellemare.

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

I read in your report, Madam Minister, that there are 42 million inquiries to the call centres in your department. Anyone who calls anywhere where there's a call centre is always frustrated, to the point where programs like This Hour Has 22 Minutes could have a lot of fun with it. It's very frustrating when you call and get no one on the phone except a voice that says, “Press one if you want to speak in English. Press two if you want to speak in French”. You go on until you get to number 6,642, and by that time it's 5:30 and everyone's gone and there's no one at the other end of the line.

What are you doing to improve the call centre system so people get a live voice at the end and answers to questions that really pertain to their personal problems?

º (1600)

Hon. Jane Stewart: That is a very good question, in the context of the comments I made at the outset. On our modernizing of services, it's a priority for the department to look at everything we're doing from the outside in, and take a citizen-centred focus to delivery of services.

Specifically with regard to telephone service, you're right, Mr. Bellemare, we have call centres across the country that take calls on employment insurance and our pension programs. We are improving our automated telephone service messages so clients can help themselves electronically 24 hours a day, seven days a week, not just through the work hours cycle. We're making the programs more user-friendly and active.

On the longer view, through modernizing services, we want to be able to have those questions that can be answered electronically or by telephone--not by the human voice--done so as easily and efficiently as possible, and then restore at the front line the human face on the more difficult and complex questions. This is all part and parcel of this modernizing services strategy.

As I said, I'll likely be coming back to the committee for advice and direction on this, because I fully appreciate how individual members of Parliament become very much associated with the exasperations or successes of citizens when they're trying to get access to important programs.

[Translation]

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Thank you, Minister. My second question.

[English]

Is about the literacy program. As you know, this committee has been studying the literacy problem in the workplace. I understand that your department has also been studying the literacy programs, and you probably have a report pending.

We have a national literacy secretariat. Is your department willing to think about possibly giving the national literacy secretariat a lead role in literacy in Canada? That would mean providing them with more funds and possibly expanding their mandate.

Hon. Jane Stewart: I want to tell you, Mr. Bellemare, I am anxiously looking forward to the report of the committee.

The Chair: --system of leaking part of this report.

Hon. Jane Stewart: I expect that having heard from more than 57 witnesses, you're going to have some good recommendations for me. Fundamentally there's no doubt, as I've said in my appearances here before, we have to deal with this foundational issue of literacy. Certainly the national literacy secretariat is an important piece of the solution. I'm convinced of it.

I was lucky enough to be in the province of Nova Scotia announcing a $1 million investment in a literacy program that had a partnership worth celebrating--private sector investment and public sector investment. At the hospital there, every newborn receives a bag of books, membership in a local library, and other associated materials that hopefully will begin to enhance the experience of lifelong learning from very early days.

I certainly don't want to presume the outcome of the work of this committee, but I expect there will be some direct references to where I should be encouraging additional investment so we deal with this issue effectively.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: May I have one more question?

The Chair: You may.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: I would like to switch to student loans. I understand you provided $1.5 billion in student loans last year to 440,000 students. That's about half a million students.

Some years ago, when I was on the public accounts committee, there was always the problem of collecting from students. Of course, with the economic cycles there are periods when it's difficult to collect from students. I understand that often students change their names when they get married, or they move out of the country, and it can be difficult to collect this money.

Is the situation of student loans and getting money back worsening or getting better, proportionately speaking?

º (1605)

Hon. Jane Stewart: That's a very interesting question, and there are a number of ways of responding to it. I can get you details about repayment and collections. Janet was just telling me we have about 400 people across the country working in this regard.

But be aware that we've recently changed our delivery mechanisms for student loans. We've taken the responsibility back from the banks. I believe that's going to provide us an opportunity to improve our collections and the repayment of student loans, because we are taking a more significant opportunity to talk to students at the early part of the reception of loans, as opposed to waiting until they're in repayment.

Another aspect associated with this is taking provisions we introduced in the 1995-96 budget, which focused on debt repayment and interest reductions, and making them even better. Those aspects of the student loans program were introduced about five years ago, and we've found they haven't been as responsive and effective as we thought they might be.

So in this most recent budget, as I mentioned earlier, we've made changes that will probably cost us about $60 million, but will see us collecting on more loans and being more responsive. But it is difficult, and I certainly wouldn't want to leave the impression that we think students are abrogating their responsibilities.

A vast majority make their repayments on time. However, they require assistance, and that encourages us to continue to look at not only loans but grants. Again in the context of the most recent budget, we identified new grants to MA and PhD students, recognizing that they need to have considerable support, as we focus on the importance of innovation and learning and the contributions individuals will make to our increased quality of life and standard of living.

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Davies.

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. It's always a pleasure to have you at the committee, Madam Minister.

I have a couple of questions. First I want to come back to some of your remarks in your presentation. At the beginning and at the end you talked about social inclusion, and you remarked on the report that was done by the CPRN, which I agree is very good.

One of the things I'm very concerned about is a major shift in public policy that appears to be almost announced in your department, and that is how we measure poverty. Some of your officials will be coming to the committee on May 27 to discuss this, but that's also the day when they're going to announce the new market basket measure approach.

I'm very concerned about it because that approach, or what's called an absolute measure, really relies on a judgment, usually by bureaucrats who say, “Within this basket there's going to be such and such, and this is what we consider to be an acceptable standard of living,” whereas the LICOs represent much more of a relative measure.

When we look at info that came from Stats Canada in just the last couple of days, it shows us that the gap between wealth and poverty is actually increasing. I think the LICOs are a very important measure of how people are doing relatively. They're something you can look at much more from the point of view of social inclusion, and I don't think the MBM does that.

When this is unveiled on May 27, will it be a done deal? I've actually questioned your officials on this, and felt they were leaving just a little bit of sort of wiggle room, in terms of further consultations. But in your mind, is this approach now a done deal that's going to be unveiled on May 27, and whether we like it or not that's what it's going to be?

Hon. Jane Stewart: I'm very glad that officials will be here to talk with you about the market basket measure on May 27. I know we are going to present the findings of the work of the provinces and the Government of Canada that week, but I'm not sure what day it will be.

º (1610)

Ms. Libby Davies: It will probably be the same day.

Hon. Jane Stewart: The measure is going to add to our intelligence, when it comes to the very important question and issue of poverty. It's not intended to replace LICOs or LIMs, pre- or post-budget. Those data points will continue to be extraordinarily important to us. I don't think, quite honestly, we're ever going to find an absolute measure of poverty that we're going to be satisfied really tells the whole story, Ms. Davies. For me, it's making sure we have different statistics and data points that we can monitor year over year, whether it be on low income cut-offs, low income measures, or the new market basket measure.

As you say, it's a different measure and it is absolute. It takes a basket of goods that we can price in over 40 communities across the country. So it's another measure, but it's not intended to replace--

Ms. Libby Davies: I've heard from NGOs that HRDC-applied research has been the major source of all of this, and they will be saying to various groups that have research or contracts that they will have to use this in any work with the government.

Hon. Jane Stewart: Absolutely not.

Ms. Libby Davies: It really concerns me that Canadians who are living below the poverty line or in poverty are really not a part of it. It really is kind of judgemental. Who decides what year of car it is, whether you get to have a bus pass in the city, what adequate transportation is, or about going to a movie? It's people who are far removed from the reality of what that experience is. I just find that very concerning.

My colleague from Acadie--Bathurst, Mr. Godin, has been questioning you on his concerns about the fish plant workers in New Brunswick. I know they have requested to meet with you; I think they sent the letter on Monday. Are you prepared to actually meet with the plant workers? I know they have some very serious concerns and would very much appreciate knowing if you will meet with them.

Hon. Jane Stewart: Oh, indeed. I've checked and we haven't received their petition yet, but I'm always happy to meet with Canadians. In fact, I was in Shipigan in Acadie-Bathurst and met with the fish plant workers previously, so it's not a new relationship that we'll be developing.

Absolutely, I'm always prepared to meet with Canadians who are concerned about the opportunities and challenges they're facing. So that is not a problem for me at all.

Ms. Libby Davies: On post-secondary education, a number of the members have raised this issue, and I'm just curious to know your department's position on this. It seems to me there is a need for some kind of--I don't want to use the word “standard”--principle based on accessibility. I'm sure you're aware that organizations like CAUT and others have been doing a lot of work and research on the idea that, as we have in the Canada Health Act, we need to have certain principles around accessibility, affordability, or public administration. There's really nothing, from a federal perspective, laid out in terms of what we expect to see on PSE.

I just wonder if any work is underway to look at that, or whether you see it as an important issue in which the federal government should be involved, in terms of working in partnership with the provinces.

Hon. Jane Stewart: Indeed, I've been most encouraged by the discussions across the country that have come out of our skills and learning agenda. You've had a chance to look at our paper, “Knowledge Matters”, which we presented to the committee. It has really spurred conversation on so many aspects of learning, including post-secondary education and access to post-secondary education.

I would repeat that I'm anxiously awaiting some of the recommendations that are coming out of the federal-provincial table that's been constructed to look specifically at access to post-secondary education--our loan structure, their loan structures, levels of accessibility, accountability, appeal processes, and that sort of thing. So there is work going on.

It's a very active and positive table, and it's a critical area that we have to turn our attention to, given it is a knowledge-based economy and our future is dependent on being able to enhance and support this culture of lifelong learning.

º (1615)

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

Mr. Finlay.

Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I've been very interested in everything you've said, Madam Minister. Welcome to the committee.

I want to thank the researchers for the notes they sent. They were very useful.

Madam Minister, much of the information I have received is on the amount of money HRDC is putting into many programs. They point out:

HRDC has the largest consolidated expenditure on programs and services of any federal department, totalling $70.96 billion in 2003-2004, up $2.5 billion (3.7%) from the previous fiscal year.

I think that shows the importance of these programs you're supporting.

But I also note that the number of full-time equivalents is down by 429 over the year, and that occurred in other number lines. I would want to give you at least an AAA in record-keeping. I presume that's a matter of better processes, better equipment, or amalgamating. Give me some ideas on how you achieved that.

Hon. Jane Stewart: I might start by confirming that the size of our department is significant. Roughly half of the Government of Canada spending comes through our department, and 95% of that is through statutory programs. So it's money that has to be there for our pension programs, employment insurance, and Canada student loans.

In terms of the staffing equivalents and responsibilities, it's always a challenge, especially building on Mr. Bellemare's question about access and information, to ensure we connect with Canadians so they get the information they need and the programs and services in a timely fashion.

On an annual basis, we go through our programs and strategies, our full-time equivalents or staffing questions, and try to get the right balance. It's not easy. We are continuously trying to look at the increase in FTEs in headquarters versus in the regions, recognizing we really are at the community level. It's not an easy job, but I have a good deputy and I will give him credit for keeping the department running effectively.

Mr. John Finlay: I'll give a pat on the back too. In my riding of Oxford, I find that we are wonderfully served by HRDC. My staff can get almost any answer, and get it fast. I think we're fortunate mind that we have several centres, with one in each of the larger towns like Ingersol, Tilsonburg, and Woodstock. We have centres that provide all federal government services from the same venue, including computer courses, on-line access, etc. It's certainly a pleasure to know these things are being done in that manner.

I just want to make a comment about the EI reserve. To my colleague across the floor, if you read a figure and question how that can be, and then read another figure and say that's even worse, you should question the origin of the figures. I understood this person to say that only 47% of the people who pay EI in Quebec are eligible for it, and only 37% of people who pay EI in other parts of the country are eligible for it. What in the world are we talking about? Everybody who works and pays EI is eligible for the benefits. Where did this figure arise?

º (1620)

Hon. Jane Stewart: There are different statistics that tend to be quoted. One is the B/U ratio to eligibility. That ratio talks about all workers, whether they are self-employed, students, or those who are not covered by employment insurance. Then there are the numbers on those who pay premiums, for whom the program is established, and their coverage should they need the benefit. For me, that is the important number.

Every single year we do an analysis of that coverage in the monitoring and assessment report, and every year we have found that close to 90% of those for whom the program is designed would be eligible for benefits, should they find themselves in need. That's a measure we constantly follow. It has been a consistent and constant figure, despite changes in the economic cycle, which is also a positive reflection on the design of the employment insurance system.

It is responsive to changes in employment levels region by region with the EI boundaries. We're able to track employment on a monthly basis, and if unemployment goes up, eligibility for the program is reduced and the duration of benefits is increased. I think that has been a hallmark of the effectiveness of the overall employment insurance system.

Mr. John Finlay: Close to 90% of those for whom the program was designed can receive benefits. If they lose their jobs they can get benefits. What about the other 10%?

Hon. Jane Stewart: That may include individuals who have not been well attached to the workplace and don't have the eligibility requirements--the number of hours, and that sort of thing.

Mr. John Finlay: They don't have the number of weeks, but if they stayed there for a year....

Hon. Jane Stewart: They would be eligible.

Mr. John Finlay: Exactly. It's a silly number to be bruiting about because it does not describe the facts.

The Chair: The facts are that your time is up and we need to move on.

Mr. Gouk.

Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Madam Chair. So many questions, so little time.

I'd like to start by making it clear that the HRDC people in my riding, Kootenay--Boundary--Okanagan, are absolutely fantastic to work with. They've been great right through any of the problems that have arisen inside the department. They have been really good to work with. It's been a good relationship.

If I were travelling regularly between two points and I took a limousine that cost me $100, and suddenly the limousine driver no longer drove the limousine but showed up in a van that was in a car pool, where I rode with six other people squeezed in and only paid $10, would his rates have dropped or would I just be buying a different service?

You might wonder what this has to do with the price of eggs. Minister, you talked earlier about how you've done so wonderfully dropping the EI rates every year, but the reality is that even with all those drops--and we still have a surplus projected for the next year of $2.4 billion--the ability to get benefits has dropped tremendously. So many people have been cut, slashed, removed, and made ineligible, and that alone would account for the drop in the rates.

The reality is we still have three times what both the chief actuary and the Auditor General say we need. Not only could we drop it in little dribs and drabs as the department has been doing; we could drop it by 30%, start eating into that $45-billion surplus, and it would take us 13 years before we got down to a point where we would still have the surplus everyone says we need.

Why are we doing that? Are we doing it because it's better politically to keep the dribs and drabs coming a little bit each year so it looks like we're cutting the premiums, or is it because we don't actually have a $45-billion surplus at all; it's all on paper, it's gone, it's been spent, and if you had to dig into it you'd have to find somewhere to get it?

Hon. Jane Stewart: Mr. Gouk, thank you very much for the recognition of our staff. I appreciate that. I hope all MPs have the chance to get to know their local staff and have a strong working relationship with them.

I enjoyed your metaphors as well, mixed as they might have been.

On the employment insurance account, there are a number of things I would suggest. First I would remind you there have been periods--certainly the period just before we took office in 1993--when the account was in deficit. So it hasn't always been in surplus.

The other thing I would draw to your attention is that the Auditor General has confirmed in her most recent report that the right thing for us to do is to put the premiums into the general revenues, the consolidated revenue account. So yes, it is on paper; there's no question. However, from the point of view of accountability, we have to keep track of that because the government has to pay interest on those amounts that are not used and are in surplus, outside of the benefits paid.

Finally, I would remind you to participate in the process that's now underway to look at the premium-setting strategy. The Minister of Finance has made it absolutely clear in the most recent budget that he wants to move to an approach where we have a balance of premiums paid and benefits paid out. Now is the time to participate in that. The process goes on until June 30, so if you have some ideas please make them known.

º (1625)

Mr. Jim Gouk: Since you want ideas, I'll move to the different subject of the student loans program. Now that it's moved back into government hands from the banks and we don't have to deal through third parties, hopefully the government will take care of its own collections instead of turning them over to collection agencies that charge huge premiums and harass the living hell out of some of the students. I had one suicide in my riding as a direct result of that kind of process, so I'm glad we're starting to change that. It was a very sad situation.

Has the government considered doing this, since they're handling the whole thing and have another department at their fingertips? It's very good at collecting money--the taxation service. I want to call them the IRS, but....

Hon. Jane Stewart: No, we're in Canada.

Mr. Jim Gouk: --they're the other crooks. I mean the CCRA.

Have they considered collecting through them on an income contingent basis? So if you come out and flip hamburgers at McDonald's because you can't find something, you pay very little or perhaps have a holiday. If you come out and get a job with a legal firm at a high rate, you pay it back much faster. It's varied according to your income and you pay it back on that basis.

We would never again have default because the only two sure things in life are death and taxes. If we took that through that system, would it not be more effective and also fairer to the students?

Hon. Jane Stewart: It's interesting that you raise the question of income-contingent repayments. That suggestion was very much on the table when we did the social security review back in the mid-1990s. Students were adamantly opposed to that strategy. We then moved to a different series of programs of debt reduction, interest reduction, and the principles that are in place now, which we've augmented and improved with this most recent budget.

The idea of income contingent repayment comes and goes. In my recent discussions with student bodies, they're still not all that enamoured of it. Their view is that it may lead to increased tuition. So there's a balance there. Certainly it's something that has been discussed in different venues. In terms of the real citizens here--the students whose views we want to consider--to date there hasn't been strong support for that approach.

Mr. Jim Gouk: Just jumping to a different program, I've recently had reason to look at the work share program. I was doing a study of the airline industry and the impending problems with that. I think it's basically a good program and has a lot of merit. I'd like to see it continued, but I'd like to see safeguards in place so companies don't end up abusing that sort of program; so we don't end up financing companies.

I'll refer to a specific example that is not a court case and has already been discussed openly. It's the recent funding to Bombardier of $1.56 million to keep 900 employees employed in a job share program.

Bombardier has their hand out and they're receiving $1.56 million from your department. But they are handing out $7.5 million to two employees for them to not work. One of them is 58 years old, and the other one asked to resign. On the one hand we're giving them money to keep workers going--that's reasonable--but at the same time that same company is saying, “Thanks for $1.5 million. We're spending five times that to let two people go”.

What kind of message does that send out to the public, and what is your department doing to try to prevent both this image and this reality?

º (1630)

Hon. Jane Stewart: Let me first thank you for recognizing the importance of the work sharing program. In our most recent monitoring and assessment report there is an assessment of the work sharing provisions in EI, part I. It's very interesting because it suggests that in times of cyclical downturn, work sharing could really add stability to a local economy.

In the context of the program itself, work sharing cannot be utilized unless the company has a recovery plan. So it's a tough time for an industry or an individual employer because this is organization by organization. There has to be a recovery plan that is substantive and defendable before we can even consider work sharing.

What Bombardier does with its executive is a question for the shareholders. I'm concerned about the 900 men and women who are working there now and were subject to a 12-week layoff. That layoff has been averted because of this relationship. The employees have to agree to work sharing so they'll reduce their hours, and the employer has to accept a reduced work schedule. Only then are the benefits paid.

In the majority of cases we're finding a savings to the EI account. Individuals continue to be associated with their employers, they continue to work, and they get their benefits while they continue to work. So the program is working well.

The Chair: Thank you.

Monsieur Paquette.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Paquette: Madam Chair, I would like to thank Mr. Duplain for allowing me to go ahead of him. As you know, today is a Bloc Québécois opposition day on the missile defence system, and I have to speak in a few minutes on that issue. I do want to take advantage of this opportunity, however, because I still have some questions for the minister.

In 1997, the POWA was abolished and pilot projects were set up. The pilot projects have been in place for five years now. The latest monitoring and evaluation report on the employment insurance program, which was made public on May 1, I believe, shows an increase of 11.3 per cent in applications for benefits from older workers.

Would the fact that pilot projects for older workers have been going for five years and applications for benefits have been increasing not be an argument for restoring the program for older worker adjustment, which was very useful in the past? I remember that it was used, for example, in the case of Marine Industries Limited. It was also used when the Asbestos mines closed in the Asbestos region.

Does the department or the minister intend to re-establish a program to help older workers?

[English]

Hon. Jane Stewart: The honourable member is making reference to the old program for older workers' assistance, the POWA program, that we stopped some years ago. The idea comes back to being consistent with some of the commentary I made at the outset, and certainly the views of Canadians, that where possible we want to have programs that are empowering, as opposed to passive. The assumption that people are going to just fade into retirement has become somewhat passé.

In that context, our approach has been to focus on the issues facing older workers through the pilot programs that the honourable member made reference to. In fact, we have very strong partnerships with the Province of Quebec with these older worker pilots. We've recently extended the strategy for another year.

We're right at the stage now of bringing the provincial partners together to look at the different pilots that have been utilized in the last five years, and look for best practices and results. I'm anxious to get that information, and will certainly be glad to share it with the committee because we want to take active measures.

These pilots continue to ensure that older workers are working, so it's not pensioning them off or saying it's over; rather they are active measures. From my point of view, especially given the demographics in a country like ours with a low birth rate and an aging population, we have to look at things and ways of encouraging continued longevity in the workplace.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Paquette: I have just one comment on that. I quite agree with you that we need active measures, but we also have to take regional realty into account. When a whole industry disappears from a region, you are not going to be able to turn the whole economy around overnight. When workers are 58, 50 or 60 years old, it is rather illusory to make them believe that with professional training or recycling in their region they will be able to make a living. In that sense, I would invite the Minister to be extremely attentive to the needs of the regions. Our interest is not to empty out the regions and draw people into our major cities when our aim is to avoid depopulation.

While we are on the subject of occupying territory, in the case of those transitional measures for the lower Saint-Lawrence and the North Shore, we have not forgotten that you changed the boundaries used to calculate the unemployment rate. You explained before, of course, that has things are going a bit better for the Lower Saint-Lawrence than for the North Shore—and that is still all true today—the fact of including both regions would have had rather negative effects.

Thank goodness there were elections in November 2000 and the measure was announced in the spring or summer of 2000. So in September 2000, you said that you set that aside temporarily. You also said that there would be transitional measures and that eventually the boundaries would be implemented and it was coming soon. We know that right now there is a tragic situation on the North Shore. Don't you think it will be possible to extend those transitional measures at least until the next federal elections.

º (1635)

[English]

Hon. Jane Stewart: These questions are all very good, and there are a number of things I'd like to say in response.

First--and I think this is very significant--we have to have a strong program of income support, and employment insurance does provide that. From my point of view, we have to continue to challenge ourselves in working right at the community level to diversify economies. It's just not acceptable for governments--municipal, provincial, or federal--to continue to sit back and say one-horse towns are acceptable. You go through these cycles--whether it's asbestos, the fishery, or in my own riding certain manufacturing endeavours.

We must understand that we need to have economic diversity if communities are going to have strong and lively incomes over the long term. That's where good partnerships need to be built between departments of government--my department and regional agencies, for example--with provincial governments, and right at the municipal level.

In the context of the transitional measures, the honourable member's right. We introduced transitional measures in two areas for three years. I've been most excited, quite honestly, by the developments in Quebec in Baie St-Laurent and the North Shore. New ideas are helping diversify the economy, even in the seasonal industries. They're broadening the shoulders of those seasonal industries of tourism and forestry. I want to make sure that relationship continues.

The transitional measures are due to expire in October 2003, but we are working directly and will continue to work with the provinces and the communities to look at how that transition is occurring. That is a challenge of the 21st century. We know seasonal industries are important, and we know rural Canada is important. But we have to turn our attention to expanding and diversifying economies, in the interest of communities, provinces, and Canada.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

Mr. Duplain.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Duplain (Portneuf, Lib.): Good afternoon, madam Minister. It is a pleasure to see you here and even a double pleasure because I had the opportunity of discussing with you a certain problem a few months ago with you. You had come up with a pilot project that allow certain women who did not have the full maternity benefits while they were on preventive re-assignment to choose between the option of getting the employment insurance benefits and the right to a longer period of leave. As I am trying to give a title of the project, I get the impression I am describing it in total.

Today, I would also like to congratulate Ms. Burns who made me aware of this problem. We did not manage to settle her case but she along with many other women helped us to correct the problem for many women now. I would like to know how many women so far have had the benefits of that pilot project and what stage it is now at.

[English]

Hon. Jane Stewart: The question is a very good one, and it relates to our expansion of parental benefits. It was never our intention to exclude mothers, but in Quebec, because of certain positive legislation and practices, a pregnant woman can be relieved of her responsibilities at work due to health considerations and the security and safety of her and her child. In that context, Monsieur Duplain, I appreciate the energy you've put into drawing this to our attention and helping us look at a pilot project that will allow us to ensure that those mothers have access to the parental benefit.

We're talking about 400 women, so it's a very small number who were negatively affected by this relationship. But every mom is important, so we have a pilot project now that is providing coverage for them. I anticipate and hope that in the course of assuring that approach is effective, through the use of the pilot, we'll be able to make it long term.

º (1640)

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Duplain: Is this a pilot project for all of Canada or only in Quebec as the benefits...

[English]

Hon. Jane Stewart: It's only required in Quebec because of provincial legislation, so that's how we missed it, I'm sorry to say. It was an individual circumstance with a small number of women. It's only an issue in the province of Quebec.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Duplain: One last question. You mentioned the new, sometimes aggressive, measures that you are trying to take to improve services for Canadians and I would like to know if HRDC is working hard on new measures to help Canadians.

[English]

Hon. Jane Stewart: The undertakings are currently being developed. We will probably begin to focus on our benefits and the provision of benefits to Canadians, but it will be a massive undertaking. To help us become much more citizen-focused, I'm looking forward to being able to work with the committee on this really significant and ambitious project.

We are working with the Treasury Board and receiving recognition for this transformation that we want to undertake. It is about service delivery, putting citizens first, and using technology effectively, but not making changes because of technology. It's going to really transform the whole service approaches of our department.

We've been moving along using telephone and the Internet, understanding where and how best to provide in-person service. But it's a massive overhaul of our whole service delivery strategy and is taking a considerable amount of energy and time, rightly so, for the department. As we develop and continue with this approach, I'll be happy to come back with officials to talk to the table and get your advice, because I know as members of Parliament you deal with these questions on a daily basis.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Duplain: Thank you, Minister.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Monsieur Duplain.

Madam Davies.

Ms. Libby Davies: Thank you very much.

I want to ask you a question that's generally under the issue of the Social Union Framework Agreement. A review was conducted, and I want to use that as an example because it's often held up as the model now of federal-provincial relations and transparency.

I know I've written to you about some letters from groups, particularly in B.C. These are community organizations that have a lot of interest in things like early childhood development, and so on. I really think there is a gap there with organizations like the ones that wrote you the letter, because they feel they really haven't been included in the kinds of reviews or the process that's unfolded.

That leads me to the whole issue of transparency. I don't know if you got a chance to look at the last report that was done by the National Council on Welfare. They do some really excellent work. On this one they looked at income assistance levels across the country. The report contained very little editorial comment; it was just the statistics and the actual data on income assistance levels across the country.

The report showed that income support levels in many provinces were falling. They made an editorial comment that it's so complex to keep track of the child tax benefit, where it's going, and what these income support levels really are. Even for them to do the work is incredibly complex.

I want to ask you about that because the big buzz word in government now is transparency. Yet to even find out what's happening with income assistance across the country and what governments are doing is really hard. Even the child tax benefit, which is still being clawed back in most provinces, and where it's being reinvested is also supposedly part of SUFA.

It's a general question but I really want to challenge you a bit. Transparency is talked about, yet it seems to me we're still a long way from having an understanding of accountability about these monies on the child tax benefit or on SUFA generally.

º (1645)

Hon. Jane Stewart: It's a wonderful question, and one that I've been kind of pouring my heart and soul into as we have been developing federal-provincial-territorial agreements in areas particularly related to children. Ms. Davies, you mentioned the National Council on Welfare. They report directly to me, so I have the pleasure of meeting with the executive on an infrequent but somewhat regular basis, and I appreciate the work they do.

But in the context of both the national children's benefit, the early childhood development agreement we have, and most recently, the agreement that will provide increased support for early learning and care, I'm very encouraged by the work we do with the provinces and territories on the question of accountability. Every year with the NCB, for example, all the jurisdictions have to make public their reports on where the moneys have gone, what they're investing in, and what the outcomes are. Those reports are getting better and better. It's again an issue of continuous improvement.

With the early childhood development investments the reports are coming together, and we are encouraging provinces to report on the same day every year so Canadians can get used to receiving those reports. We're comparing one jurisdiction to another, and following the money from the Government of Canada into the provincial and territorial jurisdictions. That is more and more becoming a common agenda item at the table of social services ministers.

We're making this transition, thanks to the Social Union Framework Agreement, strengthening the federation, finding areas of national priority, and recognizing how the Government of Canada can play its role, very often in a provincial jurisdiction--a service delivery program. Then instead of using heavy hammers we're being flexible, as I said in my opening statements, to the needs of provinces. They're often in different places on these priority areas, but we're insisting on annual reports on how much money has been received, where it's gone, and what the outcomes are. We're getting better and better at that, although we're a long way from where I would like to be.

I encourage you to look at the reports that have been tabled for the last number of years on the national child benefit; the reports that are increasingly available for the Early Childhood Development Agreement; and the reports on the employability of persons with disabilities program, where we transfer moneys to the provinces for investment in programs to support Canadians with disabilities. That's one where we report on the same day every year on those measures and outcomes.

I encourage the table to continue to stress at the provincial level with us that the reporting mechanism, accountability, and transparency are critical. They are to me. We aren't perfect but it's coming along, and with every agreement we receive, we get better reporting results.

Ms. Libby Davies: Are there specific things that could be done by your department through that process to actually improve accessibility for what I would really call community partners? I really think they have a lot to say. They're often the people on the front line, at the grassroots, who can actually see whether or not all of the stuff that's being reported is translating into meaningful change at a community level.

I've had enough feedback from people--at least in B.C., I don't know so much about elsewhere--who feel their ability to access these various reviews that go on, and so on, is really not adequate.

Hon. Jane Stewart: Certainly from the point of view of the Government of Canada, we make it a priority to engage and include stakeholders. So we encourage our federal stakeholders, often the national organizations. The provinces tell us, “Give us the responsibility to engage our stakeholders”. That's fine. It's part of the jurisdictional issue, and I'm not going to get in their way there.

But certainly with other developments, I've been encouraging the ministers of social services--we often meet twice a year--at their meetings to set aside a period of time where stakeholders can come in and talk to us about different issues, whether it be Canadians with disabilities, aboriginal people, stakeholders focused on early learning and care, or the children's agenda. I think we're finally getting there.

We need to use those tables not only as opportunities for us as ministers to talk about areas of priority and strategies for meeting the needs of Canadians, but for federal, provincial, and territorial ministers to hear from Canadians at the same time. We've been encouraging that, and I hope they will respond to that encouragement.

º (1650)

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Finlay, we're at five-minute rounds and I'm going to be very strict on the five minutes. Off you go.

Mr. John Finlay: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have a question from near the end of this document I've been dealing with. Madam Minister, will you be sharing with this committee the findings of Shirley Seward and Dr. Benjamin Levin, who I understand you've asked to consult on the broad parameters of the proposed independent pan-Canadian learning institute? Will the mandate of that organization include literacy, since we're interested in literacy?

Hon. Jane Stewart: Mr. Finlay is making reference to the Canadian learning institute, a new institute that was recognized to receive funding of $100 million in this most recent budget. Coming back to Ms. Davies question about transparency and accountability, it's fully my expectation that this new institute will provide us with another venue to look at lifelong learning. It will give us, as citizens, private-sector interests, public sector, government, and individuals information about what works best when we're investing in lifelong learning.

I'd be happy to convey to the provinces and territories--my partners in this--the results of the cross-country tour done by Ms. Seward and Mr. Levin. If the committee is interested, I'll pass on their remarks to me.

We're currently in the process of developing the parameters for the Canadian learning institute, so that hasn't been completed. I'll be meeting with the executive of the Canadian ministers of education at the front part of June to talk about their input. This is a critically important new institute that can give us advice and give Canadians a view on how best to invest in their own learning--where the government should be investing. As I said, lifelong learning is a priority for us in the context of the knowledge-based economy.

Mr. John Finlay: Ms. Davies raised these concerns and I just want to underline them. On the employment insurance regulations for employability assistance for people with disabilities, in our experience back in the riding and my experience generally, this is the area where the greatest need exists, although not for a huge number of people perhaps.

There's nowhere in Ontario that will look after children with severe disabilities, other than foster care, which parents understandably don't wish to put their children in because they're not sure they're going to get the love and attention they need. They grow older and get heavier, and if they're non-ambulatory somebody has to carry them around and lift them, etc.

I have a case where a woman and her husband, now retired, have a daughter who has a husband, a disabled boy, and a not-disabled girl. I think the girl is suffering probably as much as any of them because she isn't getting any attention. The boy is getting heavier and bigger--he's now 14--and his mother can't carry him. The father comes home and does it. He's had to struggle to keep a job at a factory and is working shifts. When they want him on night shift, his wife needs the help at home because she's been at it all day.

I bet we could multiply this sort of situation 100 times in every riding in Canada. As a result, in this case, we're going to have four or five ill people and two disabled children--one completely disabled and one psychologically disabled, I'm sure, before we're through. We've done everything we can, short of insisting they give up that child eventually, and I don't know how you can do that.

º (1655)

Hon. Jane Stewart: The question of supporting Canadians with disabilities is an extraordinarily important one, and we are addressing it in a number of different ways. I'm working with the ministers of social services to build an effective strategy for employability. We're using the EAPD funds, and restructuring and redeveloping those contributions for use.

When we're talking about children, though, there are huge challenges. In the most recent budget, you'll know that we have added a special supplement through the national child benefit for Canadian children with disabilities. It's direct income support that really is necessary for those families who need to buy services, and have additional challenges because of the difficulties associated with their children's lives.

I would also note that the Minister of Finance has stakeholder groups working with him looking at the disability tax credit, to understand how we can improve that credit. We've expanded the medical devices credit as well. So there's a complement of things, recognizing that the provinces have programs associated with support. But it is an issue of real priority, and I believe we're making progress.

Fundamentally, it comes down to the principle of recognizing that all Canadians count; they are citizens and need to have access; and as we develop new programs and policies we have to consider all Canadians. That's been a priority in the policy development strategies that I've conveyed to my department. We don't go far ahead with the majority and leave minority groups behind. We've got to make sure we walk together.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Finlay. You're well over your five minutes.

Mr. Spencer.

Mr. Larry Spencer: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I've asked questions about financial prudence and transparency, and so far we have no idea how many have received 11 months' retroactivity. We have no plans to financially handle the possible loss in class action suits. We have no estimate of the legal costs to recover losses. No real purpose has been stated for refusing to forgive overpayment that's very minimal, even when it could have been avoided because of an offer to settle by the senior. So now I want to go to the process for just a moment.

On the GIS appeal process, as I understand it, first you make an application for the GIS. If you disagree with that, you're allowed to go back and ask for a department review of that decision. If you disagree with that, you then go to the tribunal. After the tribunal, with the minister disagreeing or the client disagreeing, would you then go to the pension appeal board for anything? We're talking about GIS.

Hon. Jane Stewart: There are a number of things, Mr. Spencer. First, I don't think it's fair to presume outcomes of court cases, so I'm not going to do that. Second, surely you would agree it's incumbent upon the minister to ensure the integrity of the act, whether it be the Pension Act or the Employment Insurance Act. On behalf of beneficiaries, but also on behalf of Canadian taxpayers, I have to recognize and respond to the act as it is written. That's what laws are all about.

Mr. Larry Spencer: Oh boy.

Hon. Jane Stewart: With specific reference to your question on guaranteed income supplement and the appeal process, I don't believe after the review tribunal you go to the pension appeal board. But maybe we can look at the individual case you're making reference to. I'll be happy to provide all that information to you.

» (1700)

Mr. Larry Spencer: I think there's information that contradicts that. I have the transcript for when your representatives were in this committee. We were told twice that after the review tribunal you might indeed go to the pension appeals board. It's here in writing in the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence. The client, with whom you well know I'm in contact, was also given instruction at the tribunal that he should go to the pension appeals board. Therefore he was distracted and went the wrong way, and never went to the review tribunal to see his case.

I'm just curious why your department officials would come and give us wrong information in this committee, and why the tribunal would distribute that same wrong information to a client making an appeal.

Hon. Jane Stewart: Let me look into the details you're presenting here, and we'll work with you to clarify the aspects of this.

Mr. Larry Spencer: Thank you.

The Chair: With the one minute that is left, some time ago there was a commitment made by the department to introduce compassionate leave legislation. I get calls from people on a regular basis wondering when we might see this legislation. They're also wondering about the six weeks. Will it have to be taken all at once, or can it be spread out into perhaps two three-week periods of time?

Hon. Jane Stewart: I'm so happy that in this budget the legislation required to implement compassion leave is now before us. In fact, it's in the House as we speak. So the legislation required will be passed, should the budget bill be passed.

We anticipate having the program up and running by January 4, 2004. It's quite complex, and the details associated with it are myriad. You're right that the maximum will be six weeks. There will be details on how the time can be split. In fact, different family members may be able to take parts of the six weeks. So it's going to be as flexible as possible, coming back to our fundamental principle of providing flexibility to Canadians so they can really respond to individual needs. We will be on track to have this new benefit in place by 2004.

We'll make sure that members of Parliament get the details of it because it's such a popular program. It received such great support from Canadians when we suggested it in this budget that I know members of Parliament will be receiving calls. So as we develop the program we'll ensure that you have the details so you can share them with Canadians.

The Chair: I appreciate that. I also appreciate the time you've taken today and many times over the course of this committee to share your views and answer questions. I think everyone will agree it was a lively and very informative session, and I thank you.

Just before I adjourn the meeting, on May 27, committee members will be hearing from witnesses on the market basket approach. It's going to be televised and will be in this room. We hope to have an in-depth study on the report on literacy, in camera, on May 29 in the morning, probably from 9 to 12. We're going to break from our regular period.

Minister, again thank you.

The meeting is adjourned.