PACC Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES COMPTES PUBLICS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, June 1, 1999

• 1535

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.)): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(e), we are considering chapter 6, “Human Resources Development Canada—Accountability for Shared Social Programs: National Child Benefit and Employability Assistance for People with Disabilities”, of the April 1999 report of the Auditor General of Canada.

Today we have witnesses from the Office of the Auditor General: Mr. David Rattray, the assistant auditor general, audit operations branch; and Mr. Lewis Auerbach, director, audit operations branch. And from Human Resources Development Canada, we have Ms. Claire Morris, the deputy minister; Ms. Susan Scotti, associate assistant deputy minister, human resources investment branch; and Ms. Margaret Biggs, associate executive head, strategic policy.

Welcome, all. As usual, we'll start off with the opening statement from the Auditor General's office.

Mr. Rattray, do you want to lead off?

Mr. David Rattray (Assistant Auditor General, Audit Operations Branch, Office of the Auditor General of Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for this opportunity to present the results of our study on accountability for shared social programs from chapter 6 of our April 1999 report. I'm accompanied today by Mr. Lewis Auerbach, who was the lead director for this study. This chapter is closely linked to chapter 5, which is entitled “Collaborative Arrangements: Issues for the Federal Government”. Should the committee wish to pursue broader questions related to that chapter, Mr. John Mayne, the lead principal for that study, is also available to come to the table.

The federal government's role in Canada's social programs has undergone important changes over the last few years. Recently the government has agreed with nine provinces and two territories on a framework for new types of arrangements in a social union. Citizens and legislative bodies, and thus audit offices, may justifiably seek assurance that these new arrangements increase or at least do not diminish accountability for expenditures on shared social programs and their outcomes. This chapter looks at the challenges for accountability that characterize the two recently implemented social programs that are already part of the social union: the national child benefit and employability assistance for people with disabilities.

I would like to underscore that our office undertook these case studies at an early stage so that the partners would have an opportunity to address several important issues while the programs are still being implemented and the accountability regime for the social union framework is being designed. The key question that our office, your committee, and the partners in these arrangements may need to address is how to assure Canadians they are getting accurate and adequate information on whether money for these programs has been spent for the purposes intended and whether desired outcomes have been achieved.

In our study we focused primarily on the accountability reports that will be published annually for each program. It is through these reports that readers will be able to assess the programs and how well the federal government and its partners have fulfilled their joint commitment to achieving the goals they have set.

Because this was a study of programs at an early stage of development, we did not have formal criteria against which to audit. We did nevertheless have expectations that could be used in a future audit. They derive from our 1997 report, chapter 11, “Moving toward Managing for Results”. In particular, indicators and measures should be clear and concrete, and secondly, information should be understandable, balanced, attributable, and reliable.

The national child benefit, introduced in July 1998, has been described by first ministers as a good example of how provinces, territories, and the federal government can work together in the social union. It is an innovative combination of federal tax expenditures, in the form of an increased child tax benefit, and provincial programs. Its three main goals are to reduce the depth of child poverty, increase parental attachment to the workforce, and reduce overlap and duplication.

[Translation]

We are pleased to note that all partners have committed to achieving transparency in accountability and to publishing annual reports on the achievement of these goals. However, the Auditor General's concern is that despite these commitments, there is the possibility that information may be incomplete, not easily comparable between one province and another, or inaccurate. We believe that the department shares our concern and is working with its partners to address this issue. This is a matter on which your committee may wish to obtain further details.

• 1540

An especially important feature of the National Child Benefit is that the financial commitment of provinces, territories, First Nations and Ontario municipalities is equal to the savings they will realize in reducing social assistance payments by the amount of the National Child Benefit supplement. Assessing whether this commitment has been met presents challenges because of the intrajurisdictional issues involved, differences between data systems, and the fact that both First Nations and Ontario municipalities, who were not part of the negotiations, now have reinvestment obligations because they directly administer welfare budgets.

The first report on the National Child Benefit was released in Quebec City just over two weeks ago. One of the most distinctive and positive aspects of this report is that it is a joint product of the participating governments. It also represents their emphasis on accounting to the public for the program, as distinct from accounting to Parliament and provincial legislatures or by one government to another. In our view, accountability to Parliament is no less important than accountability to the public. Your committee may wish to pursue this point further.

[English]

As the federal, provincial, and territorial ministers of social services say, the report only begins to fulfil our commitment to report regularly on the progress of this initiative. So clearly all agree that future reports should provide more information on outcomes and actual expenditures. This may be another matter on which your committee may wish to seek elaboration.

The national child benefit represents a new way of doing business. To parliamentarians and others who wish to examine the early accountability and performance reports on the national child benefit, we offer in this chapter five suggestions consistent with the general suggestions we offer parliamentarians in chapter 5 of this year's report on collaborative arrangements.

First, ask how and when we will know if desired results have been achieved; in other words, have reasonable expectations for the accountability reports. At current levels of funding, the national child benefit cannot be expected on its own to fully eliminate child poverty or the welfare wall. Some impacts will not be visible in the first or even in the second year, but means of collecting the data to show the impacts must be in place now.

Second, ask how reliable the information is. How good are the data? How can one know? Information could be unverified and still be reliable, but in what circumstances should only those supplying the information make this judgment?

Third, accept that the choice of outcome measures is partly political. Consider asking under what circumstances it might be appropriate to delegate the responsibility to independent third parties for implementing or revising the measures and evaluating the results.

Fourth, encourage transparency and openness by treating the publication of negative trends and outcomes as opportunities for learning or improving the program, not for laying blame.

Fifth, accept that in an inter-jurisdictional situation such as with the national child benefit, accountability is shared. Seek answers from those best able to answer. Overall accountability can be achieved only through holding partners accountable, not only for their own programs, but for overall outcomes.

Our other case study concerns employability assistance for persons with disabilities. This is the other specific program to emerge from 1997-98 federal-provincial-territorial discussions on the social union. The aim of this fifty-fifty cost-shared arrangement is to help people with disabilities overcome the barriers they face in the labour force. It is a more traditional contribution arrangement and does not have the unique features of the national child benefit. The process of arriving at an agreement was clearly collaborative, and partners are committed to transparency and accountability.

• 1545

Our interest at this early juncture is similar to our concerns for the national child benefit: that steps be taken to ensure the information each partner will provide is credible and permits meaningful comparisons of different provincial approaches, and that there is an assessment of the program's overall performance. This includes having clear roles and responsibilities and committing resources for the necessary program evaluations.

We note that in the annual reports to be prepared by partners, it is not clear whether there will be an overall report on employability assistance for persons with disabilities that will permit comparisons and provide information on best practices. Such a report would contribute to accountability for the federal expenditures and should be prepared.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my opening statement. We would be pleased to answer any of the committee's questions.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Rattray.

We'll now turn to Ms. Claire Morris, the Deputy Minister of Human Resources Development Canada, for her opening statement.

Ms. Morris.

Ms. Claire M. Morris (Deputy Minister of Human Resources Development): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm very pleased to be appearing before the committee today to discuss the national child benefit and the employability assistance for people with disabilities initiative. I'm accompanied by Margaret Biggs and Susan Scotti, who are our respective and respected experts on both of these programs.

HRDC has had a remarkable opportunity over the last few years to play a major role in setting the stage for a new relationship between the federal and provincial governments in the area of social policy and programs.

To put this in context, when large social transfer programs such as the Canada assistance plan, CAP, and the vocational rehabilitation for disabled persons program, VRDP, were first introduced in the 1960s, governments were accountable for spending dollars on approved programs, but not for the impact of this spending upon Canadians. There was no concerted or consistent effort to prepare reports focusing on these outcomes.

Today our relationships have progressed to the point where governments are moving away from financial accounting principles towards a broader and more inclusive objective: shared accountability for achieving social policy objectives and goals that serve the individual and collective interests of Canadian citizens.

Through our work with provinces on the NCB and the EAPD, we have set the tone for agreement on the social union framework. We've proven that governments can work together on shared priorities in the best interests of Canadians. The national child benefit and the employability assistance for people with disabilities initiative mark the beginning of an important new direction in social policy and program development, an environment where governments set priorities together and work collaboratively.

We've accomplished a great deal with these two new arrangements. We're charting new ground by being more transparent, more inclusive, and more accountable to Canadians and to provincial and federal legislatures. But we also understand there are many challenges ahead in order to make these new approaches work.

Chapter 6 of the Auditor General's report highlights a number of the key issues we will need to address in the short and long term, as we move towards greater accountability on reporting and on results and information.

My department appreciated the opportunity to work closely with the Auditor General's office as they prepared the case studies on the NCB and the EAPD. The result is a thoughtful analysis that will inform our work with provinces and assist us in meeting our accountability objectives.

[Translation]

Our work with the provinces is guided by a multilateral framework that was agreed to by Minister Pettigrew and his provincial colleagues responsible for social services. This framework outlined our commitment to work together through joint planning and evaluation to provide a stronger focus on employability for employability assistance for people with disabilities funding program.

As well, the provinces agreed to provide annual reports to the federal government on results of programs and services funded under Employability Assistance for People with Disabilities.

Reflective of this commitment, we are currently developing a prototype report that will be further refined through discussions with our provincial partners. The Auditor General indicated the importance of consistency of reporting across the country. Additionally, as recommended by the Auditor General, we intend to consolidate information from provincial reports into a national report that would be available to the public.

• 1550

We have also made the first steps towards developing an approach for evaluating employability assistance for people with disabilities. We expect a report by an independent evaluator in September that will recommend the methodology and process for this evaluation. This work is being co-managed through a federal- provincial steering committee on evaluation.

[English]

I'd like now to turn to the national child benefit.

At the heart of the issue of accountability is the national child benefit governance and accountability framework agreed upon by federal, provincial, and territorial social service ministers and released in March 1998. The framework outlines the key agreements, understandings, and operating principles that govern the partnership between the Government of Canada and the provinces and territories on the national child benefit initiative.

This framework spells out a new kind of collective accountability, a dramatic change from traditional federal-provincial programs, which involved one government, typically a provincial government, being held accountable to another government, typically the federal government.

The national child benefit governance and accountability framework commits social services ministers to jointly report to the public on an annual basis on what has collectively been undertaken through the NCB. The framework also commits governments to focus on program outcomes as the primary goal of reporting on the national child benefit. In other words, what kinds of results are we getting for our investment? Are we making progress on the objectives of reducing the depth of child poverty and helping parents enter and stay in the workforce?

Evaluation and research are also important aspects of answering these questions. The governance and accountability framework recognizes the importance of evaluative and analytical work to ensure the appropriate and reliable measurement of program outcomes.

[Translation]

Ministers of social services are now reporting on the National Child Benefit, less than one year into the initiative. At their May 14 meeting in Quebec City, social services ministers took an important first step in meeting their commitment to public accountability with the release of the first National Child Benefit progress report.

This first progress report is a preliminary one as the initiative has only been in operation since last July. However, this report will set a baseline for future reports on the National Child Benefit.

The progress report contains: program data on the Canada Child Tax Benefit and provincial/territorial and First Nations reinvestments; important contextual information on trends in child poverty and labour force attachment of parents; and potential outcomes indicators that may be used in future reports to assess the progress and influence of National Child Benefit initiatives.

As an important complement to the national child benefit progress report, ministers have agreed to undertake a coordinated approach to evaluation of the national child benefit. In my view, this is a critical element for this approach to accountability. It will allow governments to learn from one another's experience to develop more effective programs over time.

[English]

This new collaborative approach to the development, implementation, and collective reporting on the national child benefit is not without challenges. It requires all governments and first nations on reserve to work together in establishing the standards by which information is collected, analysed, and made public. It requires agreement on the progress indicators that measure the national child benefit's success in meeting its goals.

Within this collaborative process there are a great many opportunities to learn from one another, to determine what works, and to adopt new measures that more effectively reduce child poverty and help parents better support their families.

• 1555

Building on the Auditor General's very valuable suggestions and the shared commitment of our partners, we are actively working to ensure our objective of full and timely accountability to Canadians is met.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Ms. Morris.

Mr. Mayfield for eight minutes, please.

Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I'm anticipating a rather interesting discussion today.

The Chairman: Good.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: As I read the Auditor General's report on not only what he sees has happened but what he hopes might happen and how he might have a meaningful part in that, some interesting questions come up about the relationship between the provincial governments and the federal government in this.

One of the things that does catch my attention as I read this is perhaps something of a lack of definition of goals, of whether child poverty is going to be measured in quantitative terms or qualitative terms. The way the Auditor General keeps reminding us of the necessity for consistent reporting, he surely has something in mind when he says that. He discusses how disputes may be resolved.

I'm wondering, from the point of view of the department, how you see these things shaking out. I remember one time I was talking to a provincial bureaucrat about a constituency program, and the person thought for a minute and said, “Well, you're federal and I'm provincial, and I don't have to give you this information.” And that was the end of the conversation.

I'm hoping that's not where we're at in this, but I would like to know, in light of what the Auditor General has said, the nature of the relationship between you and the provincial governments, the expectation for success in this, and what is going to be not only the bureaucratic but the political necessity for making this succeed.

Ms. Claire Morris: You're quite right; it will require a very honest, trusting relationship between the partners—between the provinces and the federal government. That's part of our enthusiasm and excitement about this particular project, because we have moved a great distance on that front.

To speak specifically to your concerns about how we measure what we're setting out to do and how we ensure the consistency of that measurement, if you've had an opportunity to look at the report—

Mr. Philip Mayfield: I have.

Ms. Claire Morris: —the table on page 26 summarizes quite nicely the kinds of progress indicators we would be striving to use as indicators of each of the three goals under the national child benefit.

We've been working with our partners all the way through the process to have common agreement on those goals and working through the next stages in terms of how we measure those and how we show progress has been made. There is a recognition. Consistency of reporting is an absolute must on this particular initiative, and we have—

Mr. Philip Mayfield: But considering the number of partners in this agreement, how are you going to determine that that consistency will be maintained?

Ms. Claire Morris: So far, in the progress report, we have been successful in agreeing on common parameters for moving ahead. As we work on the evaluation methodology and the very specific indicators, we will again seek consensus from our partners that these are in fact the ways we can measure and that people report against those, which would be part of the commitment.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: Is there a means for one partner to, I suppose, look at the books of the other partner to be sure all partners have agreed?

• 1600

Ms. Claire Morris: In fact this is a joint report on the part of the provinces and the federal government. The provinces have all shared their data with respect to their reinvestments and the areas in which they've made those reinvestments. All the partners are in turn accountable through their own jurisdictional mechanisms.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: So you can actually quantify the performance of each of the partners in the reporting?

Ms. Claire Morris: We're moving in that direction. We've been fairly honest about saying this is just a beginning. Many of the comments the Auditor General has made are very relevant to how we see ourselves moving forward and strengthening that reporting mechanism.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: I understand this is a new initiative and perhaps a new way of the governments of Canada doing business with each other, so I'm not surprised that you're feeling your way along, but I have a tentative feeling about what happens if something begins to go off the tracks. How are disputes going to be looked at? How are they going to be resolved? And are independent eyes going to be looking at what's happening, such as the Auditor General of Canada or the auditors general of the provinces? How is this going to work out? Can you tell me that? And it might be fair to ask the Auditor General's staff for their insight into this.

The Chairman: We'll start with Ms. Morris.

Ms. Claire Morris: We obviously have benefited a great deal and continue to benefit a great deal from our Auditor General's review of and perspective on this, and his recommendations with respect to how we can strengthen the accountability. Every one of those recommendations is actively in the works.

Similarly, the provinces must account to their auditor general as well for their expenditure of funds. So respecting the individual jurisdictions—

Mr. Philip Mayfield: Does this mean the auditors general of the various constituencies will have communication with each other? Or will they be each submitting a separate report? How is this going to be coordinated so that the report that comes out is something everybody can agree to?

Ms. Claire Morris: Again, we rely on the provinces to ensure the information they're reporting is accurate and substantiated. They in turn do their reporting with their respective auditors general, and we do with ours.

Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): And we expect them to be honest.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: Well, I come from British Columbia, where we don't always assume that's the case. Pardon me for being a little cynical.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chairman: Mr. Rattray, you had something to say.

Mr. David Rattray: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to try to deal with the Auditor General question.

Nothing specific in the arrangements right now deals with audit as it does with evaluation and research reporting, but each of the provincial audit offices as well as the federal audit office has a mandate to report against expenditures in those various jurisdictions. The interesting discussion that will undoubtedly occur between the auditors general—which can occur at a council of legislative auditors, which is a national body comprised of the provincial auditors general and the federal Auditor General—will be how we work together in a collaborative audit sense to work with similar types of arrangements.

At the federal level, we will continue auditing the Revenue Canada ministry as we have, with child tax credits and benefits. We will continue to audit Human Resources Development Canada expenditures related to this. The interesting challenge will be when auditors have to provide some form of opinion on the indicators and outcome measures. That we will work on together, but we each have our own jurisdiction at the moment to comment on our own affairs. How it rolls up and is reported is yet necessarily to be dealt with.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: There are lots of questions to ask about this, but I'd like to get to dispute resolution, which I'm sure has to be something that somebody has given some thought to, because it's going to happen. What are your plans for implementing some kind of dispute resolution mechanism? Can you talk about that in fairly specific terms, please?

The Chairman: And make it a brief response, please.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: Yes, briefly and specifically.

• 1605

Ms. Claire Morris: We have a number of structures in place that we use to resolve difficulties. Essentially we have a federal-provincial-territorial group of officials. If it can't be resolved at the officials level, it will move to the deputies level, and if it can't be resolved there, it will move to the ministerial level.

Mr. Mac Harb: And that's where it gets buried.

A voice: That's right.

The Chairman: And from there, the PMO.

[Translation]

Ms. Gagnon, eight minutes, please.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): I'd like to have details on the document provided for the meeting. On page 2 of the document prepared for the Standing Committee on Public Accounts of the House of Commons, there is mention of the amounts committed to by the provinces, except for Quebec, and a total is given.

[English]

Mr. David Rattray: Mr. Chairman, is that a briefing note for the committee?

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Yes.

Ms. Claire Morris: We don't have that document, Ms. Gagnon.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Quebec is a participant in the national child benefit and I'd like you to explain, for the benefit of my colleagues, the reality in Quebec as concerns this national child benefit. We used to have unified family allowances. The way I read the document, it's as though Quebec wasn't a participant and the national child benefit did not exist in Quebec. It would be nice to specify how the national child benefit works in Quebec.

[English]

The Chairman: Madam Gagnon, I'd like to point out that what you're reading from I believe is the briefing prepared by the Library of Parliament, which isn't a public document. It is a synopsis of their impressions of what has been said so far, so it's not actually part of the public record.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Fine. However, I can put the question because Quebec is a participant in the national child benefit. Agreements were concluded between the federal and certain provinces decreasing their share to be able to meet certain of the population's essential needs.

Ms. Claire Morris: Can I answer briefly?

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: If the committee thinks that, I must point out that that is not what happens in reality.

Ms. Claire Morris: Mr. Chairman, the Quebec government stated that it agreed on the basic principles of the NCB, but it not a participant in this initiative because it wishes to keep full control over income support measures for Quebec children.

The government of Quebec has publicly stated it was in agreement with the NCB objectives and that it would answer to its citizens for its own expenditures in the framework of its family policy.

The Quebec government has also made a commitment to reinvest its savings in Quebec's family policy, more specifically in the $5- a-day care services.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: I sit on the Sub-committee on Children and Youth at Risk, sub-committee of the human resources committee. We're told the NCB could help decrease poverty. We're discussing the rate of poverty, but if we have no schedule we can refer to in order to check whether our efforts have borne fruit or not, then there is a danger. We'll be operating in a sort of a vacuum if we can't define what poverty is and if we can't establish a base salary from which and a basic context in which we can provide family support.

I don't know if you can tell us anything about the negotiations. I know that the federal government and the provinces would like to agree on a poverty rate that would be neither the low income threshold, nor the consumer basket of goods, nor another threshold that I just can't remember at this point.

Ms. Claire Morris: As you so ably pointed out, there are essentially three levels or threshold of poverty described in the report; two of those measurements are rather relative while the third one is rather absolute. It's important to present the information based on those three thresholds because that allow us to judge the situation and use consistent bases. It's not the fact you're choosing one or the other of those thresholds, because the three measure poverty in their own way.

• 1610

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: In the context of what's going on between the provinces and the federal government with a view to recognizing a poverty threshold of x, based on certain criteria, if you decrease that threshold, then there's a danger of putting less effort into the community networks, for example, because the problem is less severe. When the objective to be attained is not as high, then you rarely make a greater effort to attain it.

Ms. Claire Morris: Essentially, we will always use multiple measures. The important thing is to keep the same ones year after year and to measure progress as compared to each measure. It's important to have the three because there's a difference between the three. That allows us to evaluate progress on that front.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Ms. Gagnon.

[English]

Mr. Myers for eight minutes, please.

Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I want to start with the national child benefit progress report of 1999. I wonder if you could outline at this time whether or not the figures contained in the report are in fact subject to audit, as recommended by the Auditor General. Could you confirm that one way or the other?

Ms. Margaret Biggs (Associate Executive Head, Strategic Policy, Human Resources Development Canada): The provincial figures in this document right now are estimates of what they will be spending this fiscal year. The program really only initiated in July 1998, so it hasn't had a full year running, and it hasn't even had a complete accounting year from a fiscal point of view.

So these numbers in here are estimates, but as Madame Morris said, it is our belief that all provincial governments have internal audits and auditors general who have the ability to look at and audit the actual expenditures. Right now these data are currently estimates, because we're midstream in the current expenditure year.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Is it your position then that at the end of the year, the figures will in fact be audited figures and we can be reassured by that fact? Is that what you're saying?

Mr. David Rattray: Could I intervene in that to help out?

The Chairman: Mr. Rattray.

Mr. David Rattray: It's not my interpretation that one can read the next report in the fall of 2000 and say all the financial information, as a minimum, has been subject to audit. Each provincial auditor general or equivalent has an audit cycle and a coverage they do, and they may, for whatever reason, due to other conflicting priorities of audit effort, not look at any reinvestment of expenditures in that particular year. So I don't think one can start off on the assumption that whatever is here, even at the basic financial expenditure information level, let alone the other performance indicators, has been audited.

Mr. Lynn Myers: That's an important note and one we have to keep in the backs of our minds as more and more of these programs develop. It's something we should be aware of. Clearly at the public accounts committee we'll want to, maybe at a later date, have a discussion about these kinds of programs.

But let me move on, if I might, to the provinces. It's my view that there's somewhat of a mix of programs across the country, sort of a patchwork quilt, you might argue. In your view, with respect to the national child benefit, are we as a federal government effectively meeting our goals and objectives, given the fact that it varies somewhat from province to province? Is that something you can comment on?

Ms. Claire Morris: We've set three major goals to which all provinces, all partners, subscribe. There's a recognition that in different jurisdictions there may be different ways of getting there, but in fact the commitment to these three goals is solid. The real challenge is in coming up with the indicators that we have in fact made progress on each of these goals, and in ensuring we have that kind of consistent reporting from all of the provinces.

• 1615

The unique nature of this particular program is that it does provide that flexibility, unlike some of the traditional cost-sharing programs, where in order to get your fifty-cent dollar, you had to meet a very stringent set of requirements with respect to what the program looked like. There wasn't always a recognition of the varying circumstances and the varying needs in different provinces. This provides for that flexibility, all the while holding people accountable for meeting the same three goals of the program.

Mr. Lynn Myers: It's gratifying to note that that flexibility is built in and inherent, because it speaks to the very nature of the country. So it's very good that we can proceed on that basis.

Let's get back to the progress report with respect to what you hope will happen in the way of outcomes and evaluation. I understand there's a preliminary report. Is it available now? Is it a public document now? If it is, will we be able to see it? And when will the final one come out for the year? This is an interim report of some sort, is that right?

Ms. Margaret Biggs: This report was just released a few weeks ago, and it is a progress report. One of the things governments have tried to do is have a constant transparency about what's happening with the national child benefit initiative and public reporting, even in interim products such as this one, which reports on what is currently happening but also begins to set some of the context and a bit of a template for what kind of reporting will take place in the future.

It won't be until probably fall 2000 that we'll actually be able to report on a first full cycle of expenditures under the national child benefit initiative, but there will be other milestones along the way in terms of continuing to try to keep some public transparency in reporting on what's happening.

Mr. Lynn Myers: The transparency side is good, but once a full cycle is completed, that's when we want to see the real report, because it seems to me it will speak to those three points you list: program data; contextual information with respect to trends, for example; and outcome indicators with respect to future reports. That will be key information that clearly we will need.

I'd like to ask one further question. As you know, some provinces vary with respect to the reinvestment of the money they're recovering from families. I certainly know a little bit about the Ontario example. Do you think that's working? Again, it goes to the flexibility issue, and I understand that, but is that working in a meaningful way? Are families ultimately benefiting, or is this a problem of some sort?

Ms. Claire Morris: Again, the expectation is that provinces have identified those key areas where they need to make an investment, and they've been given the flexibility to do that through this program. In one province, for example, it might be a children's dental health program, and in another it might be an early intervention program. It speaks to the range of services that are or are not in place in any given province.

Your question brings us right back again to the subject of indicators and being able to measure that we have in fact made a difference on those three very specific goals for the NCB. We have to be able to show that this mix of programs has bettered the lives of low-income families and children, has promoted attachment to the workforce, etc.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Which begs the supplementary question, will that kind of information be shared among provinces? Of course the answer is yes, but will there be some sort of commitment? If there are strong indicators, for example, that certain programs are working, will provinces then buy in, or has there been no such commitment? If the answer is no, in a way that's a shame.

Ms. Claire Morris: In fact one of the very strong motivating forces at work is that this is an opportunity to share best practices to see what works, to see what does make a real difference. And a lot of that is going on already.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Very good. Thank you.

• 1620

The Chairman: Mr. Mayfield, we're now into round two, so it will be four minutes this time. Thank you.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to come back to the assistant auditor general and continue the conversation with him about this.

What is your assessment of the collaborative arrangements between the various partners in these two studies? You seem to have raised some questions, and I'm just wondering how you feel. Is it on sound footing, or is there still work to be done in the basic agreement?

Mr. David Rattray: As we point out in the chapter, this is a fairly unique type of arrangement. We also point out that it has been very much a positive effort, from all the interviews and on-site meetings we have had. It has been built on trust and a real working federal-provincial-territorial group. So we'd first of all like to leave the impression that this is in an early stage of development, and it's a very positive overall effort at collaborating.

Secondly, we have done this study early in the development of the NCB and the EAPD programs to see whether there might be areas where we think additional attention should be given as the programs further develop. For example, in establishing clear outcome measures, there will be difficulties, and we've put those forward and advised parliamentarians to keep an eye on them as they are developed, because they will be a challenge.

We've talked about the role of having credible information. That's critical, in an accountability framework, to work from. It will be a challenge to deal with the territories, provinces, certain Ontario municipalities, and first nations to gather all of this material together and have some common base or uniformity so that one can aggregate to give a national picture, a total picture.

We've said this is a challenge, if one looks to see how the $1.7 billion that's going into this, federal contribution alone, is spent and whether outcomes are achieved. We've said that's an important area.

The whole idea of a public report as opposed to a report to any parliamentary body is an interesting change in standard practice for legislatures and auditors, so we've said this is interesting in how this will be dealt with.

I would say I'm very positive about the message we're trying to leave, but we're putting forward a number of signs to just keep an eye on, and we're saying as this evolves, you need to sort out what your role is and how you can best play that in an accountability framework, as parliamentarians.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: Going on a bit, what would you see as the necessary elements for this kind of effective accountability you're calling for? Do you have areas of concern? Certainly your department will be involved. What areas of concern do you see? Are they beyond what you've written in your report? Would you like to elaborate on specific areas?

Mr. David Rattray: I'll try to be brief, Mr. Chairman.

Your first question was, what are the elements? Chapter 5, which is really a compendium with this report, lays out some clear ingredients of what a good accountability framework would constitute, and there are five elements in there. I won't repeat those, but they can be found, and that's paramount to overlaying this whole reporting and expenditure process.

An overarching concern is, will the public and parliamentarians really be able, at the end of the day, to judge whether the desired outcomes are being achieved for the amount of effort—financial and person effort—that goes into this? Are they achieving the results people expect? When one puts hundreds of millions of dollars into such an important program, it's important to know what one is buying. As parliamentarians, in your scrutiny role, you have to make sure the outcomes are what people say they will be and that the information being brought up and given to you is credible.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: By next year there will be better than $1 billion on the table in this. Is that correct?

Mr. David Rattray: By 2000-01 there should be $1.7 billion federal money put into this.

• 1625

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Mayfield.

[Translation]

Mr. Perron, four minutes, please.

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Thousand Islands River, BQ): If a province or territory wishes to withdraw from either of the two programs, will it have the right to do so and will it be with full compensation?

The Chairman: Ms. Morris.

Ms. Claire Morris: As this involves direct assistance to families, the mechanisms for full withdrawal don't exist within the framework of those two programs. The way Quebec has addressed the program, it subscribes to—

Mr. Gilles Perron: I'm not talking about Quebec. I'm talking about any province or territory.

Ms. Claire Morris: So you have the answer.

The Chairman: That's it?

Mr. Gilles Perron: That's it, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Mahoney for four minutes, please.

Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Thanks very much.

I'd like to pursue the issue of the provinces. It's my sense that you're telling me everyone is getting along well.

The Chairman: I think that's right.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: That may be happening at the staff level, but I'm not sure it's happening on the ground.

Is it not the case that, for example, in the province of Ontario, when the national child benefit arrived, the welfare cheques that corresponded to those same families were reduced by a like amount or an even greater amount than the national child benefit?

Ms. Claire Morris: Unless Margaret corrects me otherwise, the commitment made at the inception of the program was that no one would have a lower amount than they had at the initiation of the program. But many provinces chose to take the federal child benefit and the provincial comparable amount to reinvest in other supportive, complementary programs for children, so that children and families had the same level of income coming in but had additional complementary programs.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Well, I don't wish to involve you in a political debate on this, but certainly the perception I see on the ground is that a....

Poor kids come generally from poor families. A family is on welfare in the province of Ontario, the national child benefit is announced, and everyone thinks, “Isn't this wonderful? We're going to get $300 more a month from the national child benefit to help us with our costs.” Then a corresponding reduction of over $300 a month is announced in the cuts to welfare by the Mike Harris government. That's a fact. That's not a partisan statement in any way whatsoever; that's exactly what happened in the province of Ontario.

So how do you track it? In my perception, that reduction in welfare went to finance a tax cut. It didn't go to help kids. You could argue that a tax cut helps kids, but I doubt that poor families would agree with that.

Is there a way? Since $1.7 billion of federal taxpayers' money will be going into the provincial coffers for the national child tax benefit, how do we ensure, control, and have some influence over these programs so that they don't simply use it to change another program that's totally unrelated, and at the end of the day the poor families and the poor kids are no better off? That's what we're seeing.

Ms. Claire Morris: I'll let Mrs. Biggs respond to this, since she was there at the inception of the program.

Ms. Margaret Biggs: This is an issue of the policy objectives and policy design of the initiative, as much as accountability or accounting—

The Chairman: It's a measurement of how each partner is putting their money in.

Ms. Margaret Biggs: That's right. But, for example, in the case of Ontario, the agreement governments have made is that no one will be worse off as a result of the national child benefit. So it would be surprising and contrary to the agreement around the national child benefit if a provincial government were offsetting the federal benefit by more than the federal benefit. So if it were $30—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: But what about an equal amount?

• 1630

Ms. Margaret Biggs: An equal amount is acceptable under the national child benefit, which goes to the consensus all governments agreed to around the need to break down barriers to employment and the need to focus on low-income working families, who currently have fewer benefits, supports, and services for their children and families than do families on welfare. So that was the nature of the policy objectives around the national child benefit.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: So it amounts to a change in the use of transfer payments for the provinces. He's cutting me off, but I thought I'd get that in anyway.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Mahoney.

Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I'd like this to be continued a little bit.

The Chairman: Do you want to have Mr. Mahoney continue for your time, Ms. Phinney?

Ms. Beth Phinney: Yes.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Mahoney, you have received a donation of time from your colleague.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I'd better find out what I owe her for that.

Ms. Beth Phinney: After.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I don't mean this in any way as harassing you, Ms. Morris. I'm just saying this. When the payments to the families on welfare are reduced, they are definitely no worse off; I think that was the term you used. But is that the proper use of the national child benefit? It is simply allowing, in this case the Province of Ontario, to fund their welfare payments. It's not benefiting the families. They're not getting any more money.

Ms. Claire Morris: I'd like to comment on that, because at the time the program was initiated, I happened to be at a provincial level.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: So was I.

Ms. Claire Morris: The direction was very clear. There was a consensus among the provinces—and Margaret repeated what I said—that no welfare family would lose. But in a number of provinces where the welfare wall was judged to be problematic—in other words, where families on welfare literally had disincentives to move off welfare into the workforce—it was judged wiser, from a policy point of view, to provide some other supports to families.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I appreciate that, and I guess my point should be that if through federal-provincial negotiations we determine that the welfare wall is at the point where it is worth more to stay at home than it is to go to work, then perhaps there should be adjustment in the welfare wall, but not using something called the national child benefit to do it. It seems to me the national child benefit was designed by this government to specifically go toward assisting poor kids.

It's interesting to me how we always talk about poor kids, but we never mention the fact that they're from poor families, and it's the families we're trying to help. So I would question, probably more if I were over there than here, whether or not we're actually using the national child benefit in an appropriate way, given that it's become a tool for social adjustment by a provincial government that might have other priorities, such as reducing taxes for the wealthier families.

These poor families are, I admit, no worse off, but they're certainly no better off. How can we say they're better off if we increase their child benefit and decrease their welfare payment?

The Chairman: We'll have a quick response, and then Ms. Phinney also wants to get a little question in on her time.

Mrs. Biggs.

Ms. Margaret Biggs: I have a quick response.

For example, in the case of Ontario, I wouldn't want to leave the impression that Ontario isn't reinvesting the dollars. Ontario is reinvesting a significant amount.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: In kids?

Ms. Margaret Biggs: Yes.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Where?

Ms. Margaret Biggs: Provincially, they're reinvesting in an Ontario child care supplement, which is based upon earnings and is targeted towards low-income working families. Ontario municipalities are largely reinvesting in prenatal nutrition, child care, and other early child development initiatives. I'm not here as a spokesperson for the Ontario government, but they have—

The Chairman: You're doing quite well.

Ms. Margaret Biggs: But it is in the document. In the progress report, there is an explanation of what Ontario is doing, and it's our sense that they have accounted fully for these dollars.

Again, it gets to the earlier question of the other gentleman. We're not passing judgment on which province is investing in the best reinvestment program, but there will be a process over time to see which of the provincial reinvestment programs are the most beneficial for families with children. So there is that possibility to learn from experience.

• 1635

The Chairman: Thank you.

Now, Ms. Phinney, you have a couple of questions.

Ms. Beth Phinney: It may have just been answered.

Ms. Morris, you mentioned that if a province is not using any of this money for this program and they're going to use it for something else, they'll use it for other support programs. You just mentioned that in Ontario they've put it into the Ontario child care benefit program. In the auditing, is it very evident? Do we see this amount of money? I don't know how much it would be, but say it's $50 million. Do we see it being moved over? Do they say, “We're not putting it into this project, but we are putting it into this project, and it's exactly the same amount of money”? Is that clear?

Maybe I should ask the auditor.

Is it clear to you that that sum of money, that exact amount, is going into other supports?

Mr. David Rattray: You're getting at one of the concerns we put forward, because you're into different jurisdictions, not only for provincial social services, but for audit. There is a provincial auditor for Ontario who looks after provincial expenditures, so it would be Mr. Peters in his role who would have to look at how the moneys in the Province of Ontario are in fact to be spent, how they are spent, and how they are accounted for.

Ms. Beth Phinney: I just heard that with this program, it is guaranteed that that's what's going to happen. How do we know it's not going to roads?

The Chairman: Let's hear from Ms. Morris, who seems to have a comment to make here.

Ms. Claire Morris: I just want to clarify. The program, as you know, provides the national child benefit to not only families on social assistance but a whole range of low-income families. The only amount being reinvested—the only amount available for reinvestment—is the money that has replaced provincial money going to social welfare families.

In Ontario, for example, or any other province, you have a large number of children who are part of low-income families but not social assistance families. So the amount of money that's been reinvested in each province—and that's in table 4 in the progress report—is the amount that would have been directed to children in social assistance families, where the province has made a judgment that that money, rather than increasing the income levels in those families, is better spent on some support programs that can help families and children.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Mayfield, you have four minutes.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: Thank you very much.

How is the EAPD supposed to help with employment, and what are your expectations there? What are your goals for that? Have you established targets? If you have, what are those targets?

Ms. Claire Morris: The overall purpose of the program is to try to encourage, facilitate, and support the employment of persons with disabilities. We've clearly accepted the Auditor General's recommendation that an annual report be prepared. The kind of information we'll be providing will include a description of the range of programs and services, the people being served, and the expenditures associated with that. We want to look at quantitative outcomes—the number of people employed and the number of participants who are completing funded programs—as well as some of the qualitative indicators that relate to best practices and customer satisfaction, if you will, with the programs delivered.

But again, it is a flexible funding instrument that allows the provinces to tailor the programs to their particular situations and the needs of their particular population.

• 1640

Mr. Philip Mayfield: From the days when the family allowance started, it seems as though there was the intention to put money into it, but never much determination to discover the results of putting that money in. Is that the case with this too?

Do you have some expectations for this money? Do you expect to see how many more people with disabilities are able to work, either part-time or full-time, in a way they're not able to now? Do you have some goals for this, or is this just more money being thrown in there hoping it will do some good?

Ms. Claire Morris: No, not at all.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: Can you tell me what your targets are, please?

Ms. Claire Morris: We don't have fixed targets in terms of numbers, but what we will be reporting on is the number of people employed, and we'll be measuring it year over year, so that you can follow the progress and you can follow the value of that investment.

I'd make a point on the earlier discussion as well. This whole notion of reporting on outcomes is relatively new. We've been reporting for years and years on expenditures—

Mr. Philip Mayfield: That's right.

Ms. Claire Morris: —but this is a really important step, to actually start reporting on outcomes. Is our money doing what we intended it to do?

Mr. Philip Mayfield: And will we be able to determine, as Mr. Mahoney has said, how much money has been put in and avoid someone else spending the money without the benefits you had anticipated being there? Whether the money comes from the federal government, the provincial government, or the municipal government really doesn't make a lot of difference to the person who needs the money. But what good is it going to do unless there's some kind of coordination, and it's not just one partner playing a game against the other partner?

The results have to be for those who are standing in need, for their own independence and their own benefit. I would just like some assurance that you've done more than think about how this would be, and I haven't heard that yet; I'm sorry.

Ms. Claire Morris: Well, again, this is another brand-new program, and we're currently working with the provinces to define all those measures that will provide the kind of data you're seeking. We're all completely in agreement with having to focus on the outcomes of our investment and finding the best indicators to measure that.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: So we have a $1.8 billion gamble going on right here. Is that what it is?

Ms. Claire Morris: Are you talking about the NCB or the persons with disabilities?

Mr. Philip Mayfield: I'm talking about the persons with disabilities, but in looking at these two studies together, we have a lot of money on the table, or at least there's going to be a lot of money on the table, and we're still studying to see where it's going to go. Is that basically the message?

Ms. Claire Morris: No, I don't think that's accurate. We're working to develop the most effective indicators so that you can see results and we can measure results, so that we can answer the questions you're asking about the value of our investment and the end result of our investment.

In both cases, we're talking about brand-new programs, so we're working our way through the process, as is the AG, in terms of how we do this in an environment of shared programs.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: What would be an acceptable result and what would be an unacceptable result, in your own terms, in your language, from your perspective, Ms. Morris?

Ms. Claire Morris: Well, when looking at investments made in an employability program for disabled persons, I would want to know the number of disabled people who have been employed or who have been sustained in their employment. I'd want to look at the number of people participating in the employment programs and successfully completing them. I'd want to know how many people weren't able to access the programs, on the negative side of the thing. And I would want to know the number of people who are receiving supports that are permitting them to participate in employment.

The Chairman: And the costs involved too, presumably.

Ms. Claire Morris: Absolutely, yes.

The Chairman: Does that answer the question, Mr. Mayfield?

Mr. Philip Mayfield: I guess so.

The Chairman: Do you want to try it again?

Voices: Oh, oh!

The Chairman: Mr. Harb, you have four minutes. Thank you for your patience.

Mr. Mac Harb: Thank you very much.

Ms. Morris, I think it's fair to say you have an excellent program. I have had the opportunity to speak with constituents on both sides of it, those who are receiving family benefits and those who have low income and are beneficiaries of your program, and it's really fair to say you have done something absolutely outstanding. It's very much needed.

• 1645

I would say perhaps this is the kind of program we should take to other departments and other areas so that we can have the same kind of service delivery across the country, in a joint effort between the provincial and the federal level.

My first question to you is, do you have any best practices? Do you interact with other departments offering programs that fall more or less within a provincial jurisdiction, so that they can look at what you have done here and perhaps try to copy it or try to learn something from what you have done?

Second, if you were to ask us at the committee here for Parliament to do three things for you so that you could do your job better, what would those things be?

Third—and I'm sure she's made a mental note of this—my colleague asked a question about people with disabilities in the program. A lot of my constituents come to me and say they filled out forms and submitted them to Revenue Canada to be able to claim the disability benefit; I guess it's some sort of program jointly administered by Revenue Canada and your department. Some of these constituents have a mental illness or a problem, and they have a letter from a doctor and another letter from another doctor, and a report from here and another report from there, and still the questionnaire asks the individual, “Can you dress yourself?” Yes. “Can you walk?” Yes. “Can you do this?” Yes. “Then you're not eligible.”

Have any proactive things taken place in your department, with Revenue Canada perhaps, to tell Revenue Canada and give them a directive so that issue will be resolved once and for all? I'm not saying they are wrong. They are right in a lot of what they are doing, but in some cases they're slow with the clarification that is required.

So there are three questions I'm asking you, along with a bouquet of nice flowers you can pass on to your staff.

The Chairman: Let's take these questions one at a time. What's the first one, Mr. Harb?

Mr. Mac Harb: She already knows.

The Chairman: Okay.

Ms. Morris.

Ms. Claire Morris: I'll start at the end, because my memory is best—

The Chairman: With the flowers?

Voices: Oh, oh!

Ms. Claire Morris: No, no, no. I'm going to come to the flowers at the end. That's what I want to walk away with.

On the disability question, I think you're probably talking about the disability applications under the Canada pension plan.

Mr. Mac Harb: Yes.

Ms. Claire Morris: As those of you who serve on the subcommittee know, that program has been under a tremendous amount of stress, both on the appeal side and also on the initial application side. We're working very hard on that front.

We're discovering that in fact the definition of “disability” under the Canada pension plan is quite a strict definition that talks about a permanent and total disability. It's a fairly strong one. Yet companies and employers tend to use the CPP disability door as the first door to which they refer people. So in a lot of cases, it's an inappropriate challenging of people. People would like to use us as the first port of entry rather than the last port of entry. That's an issue we're attempting to deal with.

This time I'll reverse the order a little bit. On your first question, with respect to other departments and other initiatives, I think it's fair to say we probably have taken the lead, by virtue of the nature of our work, in developing these kinds of partnerships between the federal government and the provincial governments. But the social union framework agreement, as you know, reflects very much a commitment to these kinds of partnerships. Although we're still in the very initial stages of these partnerships, we like to think we've been successful enough to show that this is in fact a viable way to do business and that we will see this grow over time in other sectors. The sharing of best practices is something we're doing very deliberately internally.

You ask what you can do as parliamentarians to support us. First of all, it's important that you continue to ask these kinds of questions. Accountability for the investment of taxpayers' dollars is absolutely critical. The focus on outcomes is essential. This is a new way of reporting, but it's something we should be doing in any number of program areas. And the whole issue of public reporting and transparency, reporting to the Canadian public about what we're doing with their money, is important. If there were three messages you could keep pounding for us, those would be the three.

• 1650

And with respect to the bouquet of flowers, it would have to be awfully big to thank the number of staff who were involved in this.

Mr. Mac Harb: Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Harb can quite easily afford that, I'm sure.

Do you have a small supplementary, Mr. Harb?

Mr. Mac Harb: No, actually, because she did exceptionally well in answering very efficiently and very effectively every one of my questions, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Well, that's wonderful.

I've been listening to the testimony this afternoon, and without meaning any offence, Ms. Morris, I've found that what has been said about measurement has been largely platitudes but not a great deal of substance. Now that the program has been ongoing for about a year, I would have thought we'd have been able to say we have benchmarks A, B, and C agreed upon by the provinces and the federal government, so that at least we'd have that part clarified and agreed upon and be moving further on. How far are you in actual benchmarking?

Ms. Claire Morris: Well, Mr. Chairman, for a program that was initiated last July and that has taken a considerable investment on the part of all of the partners to be able to report in the form of this progress report, we've made a fair amount of progress in terms of identifying the kinds of indicators—

The Chairman: But I don't want the platitudes. How many do you have in place? And give us an example of a couple or three of them.

Ms. Claire Morris: Well, I can give you the kinds of indicators we've arrived at, and again, they're on page 26 of the report.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: [Inaudible—Editor].

The Chairman: No.

Which report is that again, Ms. Morris?

Ms. Claire Morris: It's the actual progress report, the document we're discussing.

The Chairman: Which has been distributed, I believe, to all members, Mr. Mayfield.

Ms. Claire Morris: Page 26 has a nice table that outlines the three goals and the kinds of indicators we would be looking at: number of low-income children and families, incidence of low income among families with children, and depth of low income among families with children.

I apologize, Mr. Chairman. I thought everybody had a copy of the—

The Chairman: Members of Parliament are busy people.

Ms. Claire Morris: Okay.

With respect to labour market attachment, it shows the percentage of low-income parents who are employed during the year, the average weeks worked by parents of low-income families, the percentage of weeks worked full-time by employed low-income families, the average earnings as a percentage of low-income thresholds, the percentage of low-income families on social assistance for the year—

The Chairman: Do you have goals to change these benchmarks? If we invest the $1.7 billion over the next two or three years, will these benchmarks you have just talked about improve? And do you have measurements of improvement, of goals you're trying to achieve?

Ms. Claire Morris: What we're setting in place is the benchmark against which you measure progress on an annual basis so that in fact you are improving those.

The Chairman: Okay. You have your benchmarks and you have your base data in place at the beginning of the program now. That's what you're telling me. Is that correct?

Ms. Claire Morris: That's what we're in the process of developing with our partners.

The Chairman: Okay, you're developing the base data levels. Are you also therefore developing goals that, three years from now or 10 years from now, you expect to achieve changes in these benchmarks?

Ms. Claire Morris: No, we're not setting those goals. We're measuring the impact, the change in each of these indicators over time.

The Chairman: Well, that's my point. Are you expecting change, and what kind of change is deemed a success? Are you articulating that ahead of the game? Are you going to say 10 years from now the data shows progress by 10% and therefore declare that success, or are you setting out a goal to be achieved ahead of time, saying you want a 20% improvement before you call it success? Are you setting out those kinds of goals?

• 1655

Ms. Margaret Biggs: The first goal of the national child benefit is to help prevent and reduce the depth of child poverty. That's the goal.

The Chairman: But do you have a measured standard?

Ms. Margaret Biggs: No, ministers have not said that by the year X, they want a 10% reduction or a 20% reduction. It has not gone that far. But the indicators against which you would measure progress vis-à-vis that goal have been listed in the document. They're still the subject of discussion with experts, stakeholders, and our partners, but they are down there, and we will begin to collect data on the basis of the indicators in the report.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Rattray, you said in your opening statement that indicators and measures should be clear and concrete. Do you feel that in addition to the base data saying this is where we are today, at the beginning of the program, there should be measurable goals and targets to work towards?

Mr. David Rattray: That's a fairly clear statement. When looking at key elements for an accountability framework, one would expect clear goals and expectations to be laid out in terms of targets.

That said, I would come back and say it is still early in this program, but we have an expectation that that will be done. We don't know how big a challenge it is and how soon it will be done, but we would like to see it.

The Chairman: I refer to a conference I was at, which Mr. Richard Goodkey from the treasury department of the Province of Alberta attended. He has done a great deal of work on benchmarking and I think is the pre-eminent expert in the Government of Alberta and perhaps even in the country on benchmarking.

He said two things. One, your benchmarking has to be consistent. When you set out your benchmarks at the beginning, as you have done, even three or five years down the road, you find out you could have refined that better. He says it's better to stay with the benchmarks you have, to be able to demonstrate progress or otherwise, rather than always changing the benchmarks. Is that your intention?

Ms. Claire Morris: Absolutely. I would have to say every jurisdiction that has struggled with the issue of benchmarks—and Alberta and Oregon are probably the two best examples—knows it's not an easy task, but the consistency of reporting against a common benchmark is absolutely critical.

The Chairman: Okay.

On the first nations, I'm concerned about the lack of transparency in their financial transactions once block funding goes to the first nations. You've spent a great deal of time telling us about how open and how public these reports are going to be. How open and public are they going to be on the moneys and the progress in first nations?

Ms. Claire Morris: Much like the other partners, first nations are committed to open reporting on the NCB.

The Chairman: To the same degree of openness as provincial governments?

Ms. Claire Morris: Yes.

The Chairman: Without reservation?

Ms. Claire Morris: To the best of my knowledge, yes.

The Chairman: Okay.

In the Province of Ontario, the municipalities are now administering quite a number of benefits to families, but I understand they were not at the table. Are there any problems in the Province of Ontario with the municipalities carrying the program and being able to measure the reporting, the openness, and the benchmarking? Is that going to be a problem in the Province of Ontario?

Ms. Claire Morris: Ontario is committed to reporting to the public on reinvestment activities, both at the provincial level and on those implemented by the municipalities.

Essentially the municipalities have about 20% of the reinvestment envelope, which includes, as Margaret mentioned earlier, early intervention programs such as Healthy Babies, Healthy Children; the Learning, Earning, and Parenting program; child care; and employment supports. And the Government of Ontario is committed to preparing a supplementary report for release in the fall of 1999 that will highlight those municipal reinvestment strategies.

The Chairman: On the subject of reporting to Parliament, I understand these documents have basically just become public documents at the department's discretion. Mr. Rattray talked about the reporting to Parliament, which just seems to be one of the general public who gets a copy of the report along the way. What decisions have you made to keep Parliament fully informed, up to date, and participating in this program?

• 1700

Ms. Claire Morris: You're quite right; the report was released two weeks ago approximately, at the federal-provincial social services meeting, because in fact the progress report is a product of that group. In the progress report we stressed the new approach to public reporting, and we may have inadvertently conveyed that we ascribe lesser importance to the traditional form of reporting, which is not at all the case. We were simply trying to make the point that reporting to the public is a new feature. But all of the traditional relationships still obtain.

The Chairman: So simultaneous tabling in the House of Commons would be quite appropriate from your perspective?

Ms. Claire Morris: Your point is well taken, yes.

The Chairman: You are focusing on outcomes rather than inputs now, and I have to congratulate you on moving in that direction. The concern I have is one I brought up on a different issue, regarding HRDC and the social insurance number.

The Auditor General had tabled a fairly critical report on social insurance numbers and the money being lost through fraud and so on. While the department was quite knowledgeable of the audit, which had been ongoing for quite some time, and while the results of course were published in the Auditor General's report, when the performance documents of the HRDC were tabled last fall, there wasn't even a single mention of social insurance numbers, good, bad, or indifferent. I'm concerned that the report you refer to and the performance documents are going to again be full of platitudes and without really clear analysis.

Do you feel the public policy you're trying to achieve through the national child benefit and helping those with disabilities is clearly and properly enunciated as to what you're trying to achieve in these areas? And do you feel it's appropriate that the public policy be well enunciated?

Ms. Claire Morris: I'll refer to your first comment on the social insurance number, just to make sure the record is clear. I'm sure you know we've set up five working groups to look at the whole issue of the integrity of the social insurance number and its management, and we will in fact be reporting to the public accounts committee by mid-June, and we'll be reporting to the human resources committee in the fall.

The Chairman: Yes. My point with the social insurance number was that this is something that was within your jurisdiction as a department, and while it certainly wasn't functioning well, there was no mention of it, good, bad, or indifferent, in the performance document. It didn't even acknowledge that that responsibility fell within the HRDC. That's the point I was trying to make with the social insurance number.

Here we have two major social programs, and there may be more as the social union expands. We want to be able to see a clear statement of accountability, progress, money spent, and benchmarks so that Parliament and the public can see taxpayers' dollars are providing some benefit.

Ms. Claire Morris: That's a goal we share, Mr. Chairman, and this progress report is the first step.

The Chairman: So my question was, do you feel the public policy regarding the national child benefit and people with disabilities is properly enunciated in these areas so that you know exactly what you're trying to achieve?

Ms. Claire Morris: Yes. It's a work in progress with our partners, but we know where we want to go with the program.

The Chairman: Okay. Do you feel therefore that you're capable of evaluating the program? I know it's joint and collaborative, and therefore difficult, because there are so many players in the game, but nonetheless, difficult doesn't mean impossible. Do you feel you can evaluate the progress of the program so that we can see we are getting some value for our money—the $1.7 billion or whatever it costs?

• 1705

Ms. Claire Morris: Absolutely. That's the direction we're moving in in developing the evaluation framework and developing a regular reporting format that will allow you to measure exactly that.

The Chairman: You also mentioned that initially every province is reinvesting the money in the ways they feel it's most beneficial, but if you're doing the analyses properly, years down the road, perhaps we can see that one program actually delivers better results than another program. If that is the case, are you going to try to encourage the best use of taxpayers' dollars to enhance these programs, to definitely show they are working?

Ms. Claire Morris: I think that's everybody's expectation. One of the positive features of the partnership is that people can share best experiences, and as we begin to measure the impact and the success of these different interventions, we can all learn from it and take advantage of it.

The Chairman: This is my last question. We hear so much about duplication, overlap, and so on in the provinces. In a collaborative program such as this, there must be a significant amount of costly communication to try to bring people to a meeting of the minds. How are you handling the efficiencies of the administration of these programs?

Mr. Mac Harb: Efficiently.

The Chairman: Mrs. Biggs.

Ms. Margaret Biggs: Well, it is true that partnerships require a lot of communication, most of it over the telephone, but one of the interesting things about the national child benefit is that each order of government is playing to its strengths, so in fact there is very little overlap and duplication. The federal government is using its established child benefit program through the tax system, and provinces are building upon their existing....

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Mayfield, do you have a question?

Mr. Philip Mayfield: I had one 20 or 25 minutes ago.

The Chairman: That's right; value for money.

Ms. Beth Phinney: She hasn't finished yet.

The Chairman: Oh, sorry. My apologies. I was distracted. I do apologize.

Ms. Margaret Biggs: I was just going to say something about overlap and duplication.

One of the things about the national child benefit that I think all governments agree to is that our roles and responsibilities—what the federal government does and what the provinces do—are quite clear, so we're not actually overlapping and duplicating in what we're doing for Canadians.

At the same time, there have been a number of administrative efficiencies, because a number of provinces are using the federal tax delivery system through Revenue Canada to deliver a number of their initiatives. So we have begun to streamline a number of our administrative practices. In fact it is the third goal of the national child benefit to have more efficient administration.

Again, it's a work in progress, but there has been some progress in that area. It's one of the building blocks of the national child benefit.

The Chairman: I have just one more question before I pass it to you, Mr. Mayfield.

Mr. Rattray, do you feel this type of progress is the progress you're looking for as you set out the benchmark audit for this program? Are you looking to move in this direction? Have you any comment on that?

Mr. David Rattray: Early in the program, we've certainly been encouraged by the way it seems to be evolving. Despite the fact that we have laid out a number of flags for Parliament to be aware of, we're encouraged by the way the working group is working together. We're encouraged by the early signs of how the trust has been built amongst the players.

The progress report has come out and certainly lays some of the initial groundwork. We'd like to see more in terms of aggregate indicators. That, I think, will come. How long it will take I'm not sure.

The short answer is we're encouraged by what we see. We'll be doing a follow-up, which is our normal practice two years after we do a study such as this, and that will fall very closely after the tabling of the next progress report, which we hope will be a significant advancement. More remains to be done, but a lot has been done to date, and we're encouraged by that.

It's an innovative program, and it's giving all players, including auditors, I guess, cause to step back and re-examine how we all function, given that this is not a traditional federal-provincial shared program. We keep wanting to pull audit, control, and scrutiny back to the traditional ways of doing business. I'm encouraged by it, but at the same time we're hoping the statements of progress to be made will in fact bear fruit, and that when we do the follow-up, we'll have a positive story to tell, not one of concern.

• 1710

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Mayfield.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: As you're establishing benchmarks and goals from which to measure, are there going to be different benchmarks for each of the provinces or partners, or are you looking to have a common set of benchmarks that will apply to all the partners in this? And how do you do that with the various members of this partnership? I'm sure their circumstances are not all the same, so how do you do that, if there are going to be common benchmarks?

Ms. Claire Morris: There has been agreement on the three basic goals of the NCB. You're absolutely right that it's critical we operate from common benchmarks; otherwise we don't have the consistency in reporting that everybody agrees is fundamental. So the process we're in the middle of now is getting agreement that these are the key indicators that serve as the benchmarks we're all prepared to commit ourselves to.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: Will all of the partners have the capability of reaching those benchmarks?

Ms. Claire Morris: We think so, but I'll let Margaret speak to that.

Ms. Margaret Biggs: There are some issues to do with capacity on the part of some of the smaller jurisdictions, in terms of their ability to generate the same richness of administrative data that larger jurisdictions can. This is noted in the Auditor General's report. It's something we're aware of and are working toward. Others may be able to bring some assistance to jurisdictions that don't have the same capabilities.

If I can just reflect back, as Claire mentioned in her opening comments, under the Canada assistance plan—and the Auditor General reported on this—we had almost 30 years of federal-provincial programming, but we didn't have a focus on outcome, so we didn't know what was working, and we also didn't develop common administrative structures and systems across the country. So now, when we're trying to do something where we can truly find out what's working best across the country and compare and learn from best practices, we don't have some of that administrative infrastructure built up.

That isn't to say we shouldn't keep trying, or as the Auditor General's report has pointed out, that we shouldn't be looking to identify where the data gaps are and trying to fill them and help along some of the other jurisdictions that don't have the resources or the capacity to do that. The federal government is trying to help bring them along in that regard.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: I'd go on a bit farther, if I could, please.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: I understand there's a lot to be done and that the surface you're starting from is pretty uneven. Do you have any idea when these targets will be reached, when these benchmarks will be in place? I understand you're still in a learning process, but does this go on forever, or do you have a time when you're going to say this is what we're going to be working from?

Ms. Margaret Biggs: We have a list of what we're going to be working from. It will take another year or two to begin to report on them. Much of this data will come out of Statistics Canada work. As you know, there is a lag period with the surveys, but we've gone some distance. We have identified the indicators we're going to be using.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Mayfield.

Mr. Myers, you had a quick question.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Chairman, I just want to say something briefly, because I know we have to go vote and we need some time to get there. I want to compliment the department on the good work they're doing on putting in place the kinds of measures and outcomes that are important to Canadians. It's important that that be said on the record.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Myers. That is on the record.

I have just one quick final question, and then we'll get a wrap-up from Mr. Rattray.

You said, Mr. Rattray, in your opening statement, in point 16:

We note that in the annual reports to be prepared by partners, it is not clear whether there will be an overall report on Employability Assistance for Persons with Disabilities.

Ms. Morris, will we get one?

Ms. Claire Morris: Yes. We spoke to that earlier and indicated we had accepted that recommendation.

The Chairman: Okay, thank you.

Mr. Rattray, do you want to have some closing comments?

• 1715

Mr. David Rattray: Yes, very briefly, Mr. Chairman.

I do thank the committee for calling this chapter, because it's a very important one and it's a very innovative program. You can see from the questions today that we've struggled, from a parliamentary scrutiny point of view as well as an auditing point of view. I hope this chapter will result in a report from the committee to help clarify some of the issues we've brought forward today. There are challenges with outcome measures, reporting, certainly audit and review, and the role of Parliament in the process.

So thank you very much for having the hearing today and dealing with this very important subject on a very large expenditure of public funds.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Rattray. The public accounts committee is more than glad to look at these issues.

Since this is perhaps the first time we've ever looked at a program at its inception, we certainly want to encourage the department in their efforts to provide a cost-beneficial program that is going to help Canadians in need.

Thank you again.

The meeting stands adjourned.