HUMA Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT AND THE STATUS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DES RESSOURCES HUMAINES ET DE LA CONDITION DES PERSONNES HANDICAPÉES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, May 10, 2001

• 1109

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Colleagues, you have before you the order of the day: that the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002, votes 1, 5, 10, 15, and 20 under Human Resources Development, laid upon the table on February 27 this year, be referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, and, pursuant to Standing Order 81(7), consideration of the 2001-02 estimates, part III, report on plans and priorities, Human Resources Development Canada, and so on.

We have witnesses before us. I want to apologize to all concerned for the delay.

• 1110

Minister, our committee was meeting on another topic. I think it was a very constructive meeting and the additional five or ten minutes were very useful to us.

Before I introduce our witnesses, I'd like to mention that we have in the room visitors from Russia who some of us met last evening. We're very pleased that they're here. With us we have Elvira Ermakova and Anatoliy Golov. Ms. Ermakova is a member of the Duma, which is, as you know, the Russian parliament, and is the deputy chair of the Duma's committee on labour and social policy. Mr. Golov is also a member of the Duma and an expert on that same committee. We welcome our colleagues from Russia.

We're very pleased that you're here.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

The Chair: We are delighted to once again welcome our minister, the Honourable Jane Stewart.

Minister, it's very good of you to take the time to be with us.

We also welcome the Honourable Ethel Blondin-Andrew.

Minister, we're grateful that you're here with us also.

The deputy minister, Claire Morris, and the assistant deputy minister, Mr. Alan Winberg, have both been at this committee before.

Mr. Hy Braiter, I don't think you have been before the committee since I became chair, but welcome. It's a very friendly group, you'll find.

Minister, we're in your hands. If you or your colleagues have statements to make, we'd be glad to hear them. Then we'll proceed as usual with questions.

The Honourable Jane Stewart.

Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Indeed, both myself and my colleague, Secretary of State Blondin-Andrew, have opening comments. Please don't apologize for the delay on my account, because I'm sure I'll be receiving good advice and direction from the committee.

Let me also welcome our visitors from the Duma. I had the pleasure of visiting Moscow a couple of years ago in a former portfolio as Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I became acquainted with members of the Duma, was offered great hospitality and had the opportunity to visit Salekhard and explore some of the undertakings in that part of Russia.

It's important to come before this committee following the tabling of the main estimates for the years 2001 and 2002. Most important, I welcome the opportunity to convey to the committee what we've been doing over the past year and also outline our strategies for continuing our progress in the coming months.

Let me say before getting into the meat of my presentation on estimates how thankful I was for the work done by the committee on Bill C-2. The numbers of witnesses you heard and the recommendations that came forward were appreciated.

[Translation]

I also very much appreciate the work of the sub-committee on children and the sub-committee on disability. Both committees have helped to drive the agendas for children and the disabled in Canada and I look forward to their ongoing advice and support with respect to these issues.

[English]

I want to start by reviewing the government's vision for social policy and Human Resources Development Canada's strategies for the future.

In January 2001, the Speech from the Throne indicated that the government has a strong desire to build a stronger Canada that secures a higher quality of life for all Canadians. The government identified the challenges of innovation, creating a more inclusive society, securing a clean, healthy environment, and enhancing our Canadian voice in the world.

As the department responsible for many aspects of the labour market and the social policy agenda, HRDC will help meet these challenges by emphasizing the goals of creating and sharing opportunities.

[Translation]

This is a vision driven by the conviction that all Canadians must have equal access to opportunities to realize their full potential, so that they can live rewarding and productive lives.

[English]

This vision is grounded in the realization that to achieve these goals people need to be equipped with information, skills, and financial resources that enable them to contribute to their communities, the economy, and society.

The report on plans and priorities outlines how we achieve these objectives. The report sets out all of the elements of HRDC's agenda. As a result, it reflects our understanding that people's needs change over time and that citizens require different supports at various stages of their lives.

• 1115

That's why the department is working hard to ensure that children get a good start in life, that young people have the necessary information and opportunities to develop their talents, that working-age Canadians keep learning and improving their skills for an increasingly innovative economy, that workers also have a relevant system of employment insurance, and that older Canadians have income security to live their retirement years with dignity.

We've made progress on each of these fronts since tabling last year's report on plans and priorities. I'd like to briefly refer to some of this progress and in particular highlight some of the challenges in relation to skills.

To ensure that children get a good start in life, we doubled the length of maternity and parental benefits under employment insurance. We also reached a $2.2 billion five-year agreement on early childhood development with the provinces and territories. As well, we invested $1.5 billion as the federal contribution to the national child benefit.

To help young people make a successful entry into the labour market, we invested in the youth employment strategy and hosted youth information fairs. We've provided financial support through the Canada education savings grants for parents or anyone saving for a child's education under a registered education savings plan. We've provided Canada study grants and implemented a new direct financing regime for Canada student loans.

Another priority has been to help working-age Canadians keep learning and improving their skills so that they can adjust to the demands of the knowledge economy. Thanks to EI reforms, we make more than 144,000 interventions per year under the skills development component of the employment benefits and support measures. Under this program, unemployed Canadians improve their skills so that they can make a strong re-entry into the workforce.

Initiatives such as the older workers pilot projects, the aboriginal human resources development strategy, employment assistance for persons with disabilities, and the Opportunities Fund are helping disadvantaged Canadians find their rightful place in the economy and society.

[Translation]

We also remain committed to the well-being of Canada's seniors. The public pension system ensures that all Canadian seniors, especially our most vulnerable, have a secure income. The dramatic decline in poverty among seniors over the past 20 years is, in significant measure, due to public policy, the Canada Pension Plan, the Old Age Security pension and, in particular, the Guaranteed Income Supplement.

[English]

Over the past year, HRDC has strengthened the administration of grants and contributions programs. In this regard, we've just released our fourth progress report, which confirms that HRDC has made substantial progress on its commitments relating to the administration of grants and contributions.

I also want to use this occasion to recognize the special efforts of all of our Human Resources Development Canada employees over the past year and to thank them for their work.

The report on plans and priorities also sets out how HRDC is looking to the future to harness the potential of new technologies to deliver our services to Canadians where and when they need them.

Just as we recognize that people's needs change over time, we also understand that times change. Economies and societies don't stand still. A people-centred economy depends, as never before, on workers' skills. The human mind is now the engine of growth. It's people and their knowledge that lead to innovation. Therefore, the report on plans and priorities indicates that skills and learning will be a major focus of HRDC.

Canada's greatest social and economic challenge in the new century is to find enough workers with the necessary education and skills to contribute to Canada's evolving economy. We've been seeking the views of Canadians on how best to meet these challenges all across Canada.

In April 2000, the Conference Board of Canada released a study of 500 Canadian firms in 16 different sectors that found that 83% of companies are currently experiencing skilled labour shortages. In another report called “Performance and Potential 2000-2001”, released last September, the Conference Board suggested that Canada could be short almost a million skilled workers by 2020.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business also released, in February of this year, a report concluding that there are 300,000 unfilled skilled jobs in small and medium-sized companies across Canada.

• 1120

The Canadian Labour and Business Centre's recent survey of industry and union leaders has found growing concern over the looming retirement of older, experienced workers and the ability to replace their skills in the workplace.

Consider that by the year 2004, 72% of new jobs created in Canada will require some form of post-secondary education. Then factor in the reality that nearly eight million Canadians, roughly 40% of the working population, currently are functioning at low or very low levels of literacy.

Mr. Chair, I would like to refer the members of the standing committee to the adult and education training survey, which was released earlier today. Jointly conducted by StatsCan and HRDC, the survey found that six million adult Canadians, roughly 28% of the adult population, took part in formal education or training in 1997.

The report notes a worrying trend, however. The overall rate of adult participation in formal learning is declining at the very time when it should be increasing. What also concerns me is that Canadians with the least education are the least likely to engage in training as adults. This is cause for national concern as well, because skills and training matter more today than at any time in our history.

Continual learning and skill development prevent job losses by providing individuals with the tools to adapt to and benefit from change. Skills also enable unemployed and underemployed individuals to get and keep jobs, eliminating the growing gap between the haves and the have-nots.

That's why we will help adults who want to improve their skills but who face difficulty finding the necessary time or resources to do so while providing a living for themselves or their families. We are looking at developing learning accounts and grants to make it easier for Canadians to finance their learning. And we want to improve the loans for part-time students so more workers can learn while they earn. We want to encourage lifelong learning.

In response to the Speech from the Throne, we are also looking at ways to attract the skilled workers Canada needs and to help immigrants integrate more rapidly into society. We will also reach out to those at greatest risk of exclusion: single parents, aboriginal Canadians, people with disabilities, youth at risk, and people with low skills. Canada will need every one of these people to remain competitive in a world in search of ideas and talent.

[Translation]

Our Speech from the Throne also outlined that we would like to work with the provinces and territories, the private sector and voluntary organizations to prepare the ground for moving forward on a national literacy initiative, helping to equip Canadians with the basic skills they need to acquire further skills.

[English]

We'll continue to work closely with the 25 sector councils across the country that are helping to address some of the workplace challenges I've highlighted today, as well as a range of other important partners. And while governments have an important role to play, industry must take a leading role in providing employees with training and knowledge to keep pace with changes in the labour market. Regulatory bodies have a key role in reducing barriers to labour mobility as well.

Over the past several months we've engaged in consultations across the country. To date, we've held three national round tables to assess the challenges and explore potential solutions to Canada's skills challenge.

I'm also looking to members of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities for your ideas and your support as well. With your consent, Mr. Chair, I'd like to invite committee members to examine the issue of skills, with a particular focus on the role of employer involvement in training and learning, credential recognition, including foreign credential recognition, and the future of apprenticeships.

There are serious questions around the issues of supply in the labour market. For example, how do we encourage more young people to enter into apprenticeship and the skilled trades?

Your advice on these issues would be very helpful in supporting our work on the skills agenda.

In closing, Mr. Chair, let me simply state that none of us can afford to be complacent about Canada's skills and learning challenge, either for our own or our country's future.

[Translation]

We need to recognize that, if Canada is to maintain its enviable record of prosperity in the 21st century, our citizens come first. People are at the centre of an innovative economy.

• 1125

[English]

I'm confident that with the backing of the members of this committee, we're off to a good start on skills. I'm also confident that in all the aspects of our department's agenda we can work together with Canadians to secure a strong labour market and social policy agenda.

I now ask my colleague, Secretary of State Blondin-Andrew, to emphasize certain aspects of the work now going on in the department.

The Chair: Minister, I want to thank you for giving us this report on adult education training so promptly. I assume all members have it.

I also would like to ask whether our Russian colleagues have a copy of the minister's speech, either in English or in French. For those who don't have them, if we could arrange for that, please.... Also, they should perhaps have a copy of this report, either in English or in French. Before the next minister starts, I think perhaps at least one of you reads French so perhaps you could have copies in English and French of the Honourable Ethel Blondin-Andrew's remarks, please. I apologize for that, Ethel.

Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Secretary of State (Children and Youth)): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm very pleased to be here with my colleague, Minister Stewart. I too welcome the opportunity to discuss my responsibilities concerning the department's plans and priorities. My role as well is to ensure that Canadians can create and share in the opportunities of this country.

One great challenge facing our society is to help young people attain the skills and learning necessary so they can make their contribution in today's world. Young people's chances are so much better if they have attained literacy and a love of learning that will propel them from school to work and from one skill level to the next. Helping light that spark of learning in young people involves all of us in society, but it starts first within the family, where parents can encourage a love of reading in the child's early years.

I'm committed to helping Canadian families, including aboriginal families, ensure their children get the best possible start in life so that they are ready to learn. Let me mention a few recent initiatives by the Government of Canada in support of families and children that I am personally committed to.

Probably the most important happening was the early childhood development initiative, which gives the provinces and territories more financial resources to expand their early childhood development programs and services in their communities. Under this agreement, we will also be working with first nations to expand these programs and services on reserves. We want to encourage the spark of learning with children so they can continue the momentum at school and beyond. Learning must be a lifelong venture.

As the minister said, in four years only one in 17 new jobs will be held by a person who did not finish high school. Consider that one of every five aboriginal Canadians has less than a grade nine education. Compound this with the fact that more than half of our aboriginal population is under 25 and is the fastest growing segment of Canada's workforce. Over the next 25 years an estimated 400,000 aboriginal youth will be poised to enter the Canadian job market.

Now is the time to act. Tremendous opportunities are opening up in the north and elsewhere. It is in our interest that aboriginal young people and all young people gain access to these future opportunities. That is why promoting literacy among Canadians is so important.

One such initiative here is the community round tables on workplace literacy that I helped spearhead last fall in Halifax and Yellowknife.

The first one, in Yellowknife, brought together 80 participants, including business leaders, industry representatives, community groups, educators, and territorial government officials. One message rang out clear: workplace literacy needs champions, business and community leaders who can promote the benefits of workplace literacy.

To conclude, Mr. Chair, aboriginal youth need better access to literacy skills programs targeted at families, schools, businesses, and communities across Canada. Many success stories exist among our aboriginal young people. Our goal is to duplicate that success many times over. I hope I can count on committee members in helping to make this happen.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

Ministers, are your colleagues going to add anything at this time, or should we proceed with the questions?

Ms. Jane Stewart: You may proceed.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

• 1130

Again, for the witnesses, particularly for Hy Braiter, I suppose, as the others have all been here before, because it's a fairly large committee, we have roughly four- or five-minute question-and-answer periods, and the time of our members includes the answers, so it's not just the questions. I'm going to try to keep it to that. We rotate among the parties. Given the numbers today, quite a few members will get at least two kicks at the can, I would think.

Ms. Jane Stewart: My can?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: It was a—

Ms. Jane Stewart: It's cricket.

The Chair: In a manner of speaking, Minister, I should say.

So it's Val Meredith, Diane St-Jacques, Paul Crête, Joe McGuire, Carol Skelton, Alan Tonks, Robert Lanctôt, and Jeannot Castonguay.

Val Meredith.

Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Ministers, for appearing before the committee for estimates. I think what I'm going to do is ask my three questions and then you can take your time to answer.

After the problems the department had last year, I'd like to ask you, Madam Minister, are you aware of any audits, reports, or studies your department has done that might cause you concern over the way the taxpayers' money is being spent?

Second, you control billions of dollars of spending through grants and contributions and the Human Resources Investment Fund. How can you assure Canadians that the controls are there, that the money is being spent wisely, and that we're getting the best results we can for that expenditure of almost $6 billion?

Third, we've just studied the EI program and we've heard lots of witnesses. With the spending of billions of dollars over a period of 40 years, we've spent a lot of money in high unemployment areas, and today we keep seeing the same high unemployment areas coming back with the same situation. If putting money into the communities hasn't really worked, hasn't brought employment opportunities, is the government looking at different ways of addressing those issues, given that things haven't changed in the 40 years of just pouring more and more money into the communities?

Ms. Jane Stewart: Thank you very much. Let's start with the discussion about audits, reports, and controls in respect of grants and contributions—really, all the programs in the department.

One of the things I feel very strongly about, Ms. Meredith, is having appropriate structures in place that allow us to continuously review our programs and services. To my mind, that's why strategies like internal audits are so valuable and supportive. Thus, when I did receive the results of the internal audit particularly related to grants and contributions, we responded the way we did. We took it very seriously, we made it public, and we have engaged the department in a hugely comprehensive rework and redesign of management of grants and contributions. I'm very pleased to see that as a result of that, whether it be the Auditor General, external consulting firms that are doing work on our behalf, or results in the field, we're seeing recognition for the strategy of change.

It was a systemic challenge we were facing, where we moved, I think, very competently and aggressively to provide service more directly at the community level, but we hadn't developed the requisite modern comptrollership structures, recognizing that we partner with over 46,000 individual groups across communities. Building a modern structure of contracting, reporting, assessment, and outcomes has to be part of a modern way of governance, and I'm glad to say we are on track towards doing that.

As to what's in the can—speaking of cans—the planning structure of audits, from external bodies and internal ones, are very much a part of our ongoing management tables, and I look to my deputy and her team to draw my attention to issues as they become evident.

But I feel very good, and again, as I did mention in my commentary, I want to recognize the incredible work of the department right across the country in embracing the six-point plan and making sure a real change is occurring.

• 1135

There are a number of interesting things happening. I was just down in Prince Edward Island, where we are successfully implementing ISO 9002, which is giving us a greater strength. So I feel good about it, and I think the transition over the last year has been good for the department and the changes are palpable and recognizable.

The Chair: Val, you have about a minute.

Ms. Val Meredith: Fine. I would be more interested in answers to the last two questions.

The Chair: Very good.

Ms. Jane Stewart: The last question with regard to employment insurance is an important one. Fundamentally, the changes that were made in the 1995-96 amendments are ones we continue to support, the principle of restructuring employment insurance away from a program that creates dependence to one that provides active measures to encourage upgrading and skill development within beneficiaries, as well as providing the ongoing support they need when they're between jobs. The government continues to support the recent changes.

The Chair: Very briefly, Minister.

Ms. Jane Stewart: The recent changes in Bill C-2 do not in any way take us away from those principles. I would just point out that the unemployment levels by and large across the country have come down. So there really are changes happening at the community level, but we continue to work in communities where seasonal work is still a mainstay to try, at the community level, to develop new economies and diversify those economies. That will continue to be a priority for us.

The Chair: A comment, Val.

Ms. Val Meredith: That's fine. I was looking for the vision of where this government was going other than with EI. I would suggest that after a period of forty years the same communities seem to need some support in income through the EI. How do we get communities beyond that? I was glad to hear that you're focusing on other opportunities in industrial development and that sort of thing.

The Chair: Diane St-Jacques, Paul Crête, Joe McGuire.

[Translation]

Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My first question pertains to labour and labour development. I'm deeply concerned about the labour shortage in various regions of the country. I've seen this morning's report and I will read it carefully. You may have already broached the subject, but could you elaborate further on the training methods that will be used to facilitate learning and on the steps that will be taken to help people acquire the skills to meet the demands of today's market?

My second question is directed more to Ms. Blondin-Andrew. What is the status of the early childhood development program and of the agreement that was signed? Can you report this morning on any significant progress that has been made in this area?

[English]

The Chair: Minister Stewart.

Ms. Jane Stewart: With regard to the first question, first and foremost I would like to make it clear to the committee that when we're talking about apprenticeship and training, ultimately those are provincial jurisdictions. So if you take the opportunity to read the Speech from the Throne, you'll see, as we talk about the need for a national skills agenda, every time we're talking about specific groups of Canadians who need additional support, we recognize that we have to work with the provinces and territories. In no way do we want to curtail or cut back the commitment we made and the progress we have made in, for example, the EI part II dollars, writing the labour market development agreements with the provinces, and encouraging them to provide the training opportunities needed for Canadians, in this case, who are EI beneficiaries. So in the context of training and apprenticeship, let's first understand that those are fundamentally provincial jurisdictions.

That said, there is a body, the Canadian Apprenticeship Forum, which we support through my department, that allows different provinces and their experts in apprenticeship to come together and talk about common elements and strategies. We feel that is an important role the Government of Canada can play, facilitating those discussions and debates. But you'll see that there are very different approaches to apprenticeship province by province. That may be something the committee would like to look at further in the context of recognizing the skills issues and the national challenge to, for example, encourage more young people to go into the skilled trades.

More broadly, with regard to training again, I think some of the fundamental things we have to accept both Minister Blondin-Andrew and I have mentioned. Literacy is at the heart of that, and when you look at the reality facing Canadians, 40% of us haven't got the fundamental literacy capacities we need, which will be even more important in a knowledge-based economy than they have been in the past.

• 1140

I think that's one area where we really do have to reach out across jurisdictions and say, there's more that we can do there. Right now the Government of Canada fulfils, again, a research role. I think we need to continue to do that and share best practices. We can do that.

But as provinces, and certainly at the table of labour market ministers, we've identified literacy as being one area where we should think communally, recognizing that services need to be provided at the provincial level, where we need to build on our partnership there.

The Chair: I think, Minister, we should move to the second question to Ethel Blondin-Andrew, if that's okay.

Ms. Jane Stewart: Perfect.

Ms. Ethel Blondin-Andrew: I understood that question to be on early childhood development?

Ms. Diane St-Jacques: Yes.

Ms. Ethel Blondin-Andrew: Well, as you probably know, the government was very successful in reaching an agreement with the provinces, in having secured $2.2 billion. There has already been funding dispersed to the provinces, and I do believe there's going to be feedback from the provinces on how some of that funding has already been expended.

It has been a very...it's probably one of the most far-reaching programs next to the national child benefit and maternal benefit. It all sort of fits together and supports one another. But this is basically, I guess, the security for children that's provided through a partnership with the provinces.

It brings together the concern of all levels of government. It basically is expressed in terms of the funding that's there, the partnerships that are being built, and the initiatives that are being undertaken.

Some of the work that's being done and promoted to be done is very outstanding, in terms of what happens with children to give them an early start, to do early intervention and prevention, and to give children a proper start in going from infancy to learning in the schools. I think it's a very outstanding piece of work, actually.

[Translation]

Ms. Diane St-Jacques: However, if I understand correctly, we have yet to see any results. There is nothing concrete to date that would incite us to take a proactive approach.

[English]

The Chair: This will have to be a very short comment.

Ms. Jane Stewart: I can say, indeed there are.

We have just issued, or will be issuing, the second report for the investments on the national children's benefit. We're starting to see in provinces that have taken an early lead, particularly British Columbia, that the impact of those income supports is having a positive effect on poverty. So we're starting to see the results.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

[Translation]

Thank you very much, Diane.

[English]

So it's Paul Crête, Joe McGuire, Carol Skelton, Alan Tonks, Robert Lanctôt, Jeannot Castonguay.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): Good morning, Ministers.

I have three brief questions, in the hopes of eliciting as much information from you as possible. You mentioned the possibility of developing learning accounts and grants to help Canadians finance their learning.

Does the government intend to act as it did in 1964 and 1965 in the case of loans and grants to Quebec, so that this initiative can be integrated into the Quebec system, or are we going to see a repeat of the disastrous Millennium Scholarship model?

Before I put my second question, I would like to underscore the work of this committee on Bill C-2. There has been a certain measure of continuity. We heard from 60 witnesses and we are working on a report which, hopefully, will contain unanimous recommendations on major changes to the EI regime. Will you commit to following up on these recommendations, if they are indeed unanimous? It should be remembered that this committee represents all members and that in 2001-2002, the EI account will contain an accumulated surplus of $7 billion.

My final question is very pertinent and important to many women in Quebec and Canada. You stated that the Canada Pension Plan has helped seniors in the past 20 years. I agree with that statement. However, older women who live alone experience considerable hardship. Are you considering changes to the GIS or some other initiative to correct this perceived shortcoming in the current system?

• 1145

[English]

Ms. Jane Stewart: There are three questions. With regard to learning grants, one of the things we know as we talk to Canadians is that, for them to engage in lifelong learning, the real barriers are time, money, and their workplace/family challenges. One of the responses that we think we can make is to help Canadians save more for lifelong learning. And we think we may be able to build on the success of the Canada education savings plan, where Canadians save individually and the government provides a direct top-up.

The other thing we know is that part-time loans, through the Canada student loans program, are not anywhere near as numerous as full-time loans. And, in talking with Canadians, having the opportunities to earn as they learn is a priority. So those are the kinds of things we're looking at in the context of supporting Canadians.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Madam Minister, I believe you talked about grants. Correct?

Ms. Jane Stewart: Not like

[English]

Millennium scholarships, but it would be more like...when we're looking at individual learning accounts, assisting Canadians to save for their lifelong learning.

In terms of Bill C-2, yes, I'll look forward to the report of the committee. The honourable member talks about continuity. Indeed, I think if you look at the responses of the government to date, we have continued to make changes to upgrade and improve employment insurance since making the changes in 1996. I don't expect that this focus will change.

We have the monitoring and assessment report. I'll be directed by the work of the committee. There are other reports and research that are done on a continuous basis. So we want to have the best EI program possible, which responds to changing needs—

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: And if the recommendations are unanimous, are you prepared to commit to following through on them?

Ms. Jane Stewart: I congratulate the committee on a very interesting initiative. Basically,

[English]

in terms of pensions, I think one of the most important things that Canada has and can be proud of is the fact that, as a result of an integrated and comprehensive pension structure, poverty amongst Canadian seniors has been reduced considerably in the last two decades—really, by about 40%.

For us, making sure we continue to have that safety net—that framework—in place is a priority. Certainly the work that we've done to modernize the Canada Pension Plan is a reflection of that as well. But for us, for our government, making sure we have not only the non-contributory aspect of the program through OAS and GIS, but the contributory aspects through CPP, and the self-managed portion through RSPs and associated pension programs, is part and parcel of what we view to be right for Canada.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Are you prepared to acknowledge that women who live alone may have problems? Overall, the system is valid and I am not calling it into question. However, has your department observed that where single women are concerned, some adjustments to the system may be warranted? Have any solutions been considered?

There are far more older women than men because women have a longer life expectancy. Given this reality, do you think that either the legislation or the pension plan should be amended to account for this reality?

[English]

The Chair: Minister, it'll have to be a very, very short reply, please.

Ms. Jane Stewart: I think, again, we look to the impact that the pension system has had in reducing poverty, whether it be for men or women, but recognizing, Monsieur Crête, the reality of women living longer. They, too, are benefiting from the pension structure. We make a commitment to ensuring that those structures are there for the future.

The Chair: Okay. It's Joe McGuire, Carol Skelton, Alan Tonks, Robert Lanctôt, Jeannot Castonguay, Anita Neville.

Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It was my pleasure recently to host both ministers. They came into a national youth volunteer conference in my riding. One of the, I guess, complaints that was pointed out by volunteers, and things that we received at the constituency level—and one that was also noted by the Auditor General when he was before us—was the massive increase in red tape that has occurred over the past number of months, to the point where volunteer groups and sponsors are becoming discouraged in participating in HRDC programs. I just wonder if you're finding that to be true or widespread. If it is, how is the department addressing it?

An unrelated question, Mr. Chairman, is on page 23 in part III of the estimates. It's stated that there are one million investigations into possible EI misuse and abuse. At this number of cases and under the old EI system, I am wondering whether the employers who participated in false records of employment basically got off scot-free. I was wondering under the new legislation whether very many employers are penalized. Is this discouraging the practice of the misuse of records of employment?

• 1150

Ms. Jane Stewart: Thank you, Mr. McGuire.

Indeed, the word to underline is one of balance, making sure we provide service in an effective and timely fashion, but also being able to respond directly and appropriately to the taxpayer on how and why and on the results of the grants and contributions we're making.

We're going through a transition phase here. As I pointed out, my department alone partners with over 46,000 different organizations, many voluntary, not-for-profit organizations, as we provide services. My belief is that the voluntary sector wants to improve their capacity for management professionalism. That's why the Government of Canada is sponsoring the voluntary initiative, which is probably one of the single-most important undertakings we will have in the front end of the 21st century. It is recognizing that our relationship with the voluntary sector is important and will probably continue to grow.

So there may be some bumps as we move to implement a new and productive system of modern comptrollership with our contractual partners. I'm convinced that in the context of balance we'll get through this in fairly short order and continue to provide good and efficient service and improved accountability to the taxpayer.

Specifically with regard to your question about our investigation teams and the numbers of reviews in employment insurance fraud, perhaps Hy can make some comment about the results there.

Mr. Hy Braiter (Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Service Delivery, Department of Human Resources Development): First of all, the number of one million investigations sounds very large, but most of our investigations are computer-generated, so to speak. In other words, where we have reason to believe there's something wrong we call it an investigation, but it's not actually interfering with the lives of a client.

So there are a million such observations put forward, which we then cull down to those we want to actually interview. We gain over half a billion dollars in overpayments identified by our investigation and control officers.

Most of those deal with unreported work and earnings detected by computers some time later after the person has filed his claim. We also work a lot on prevention and deterrence and education with our clients. We tell them up front what they have to do and what could happen if we don't get accurate information.

As far as what the Auditor General was talking about, that was a very specific issue related to one province where there was a lot of confusion in one sector as to the records of employment, the workers and a certain industry. We're working very closely with CCRA on that, and these are the minority of the million investigations of that type.

We do have the authority to penalize employers a multiple portion of what they have caused in terms of overpayments, but we have not used that authority extensively. Only in very minor cases have we used it. We'd rather work with the employers to educate them on how to fill out the records of employment and what is legal and what's not, so that's where we've been focusing.

The Chair: Joe, briefly.

Mr. Joe McGuire: We are quite sensitive to these investigations. We went through one that lasted six years, and there seemed to be confusion during the whole process of the relationship between your department and the revenue agency. Has anything been streamlined there to make the roles of both departments any more effective in dealing with these cases?

Mr. Hy Braiter: Yes, we have. CCRA has appointed a person to deal only with that, to coordinate with us. We've educated our staff recently and we've facilitated the exchange of information. That's what we're doing commonly.

Mr. Joe McGuire: Okay, thank you.

The Chair: Carol Skelton, Alan Tonks, Robert Lanctôt, Jeannot Castonguay, and then Anita Neville.

Ms. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian Alliance): Madam Minister, I know from the estimates that voted grants and contributions are up by $71 million, or 7%, over last year. Your department is continuing to spend over $3 billion on grants and and contributions and including about $2 billion on job subsidies. You just stated a couple of questions ago that unemployment levels are coming down.

• 1155

Why is your department spending billions on job subsidies when unemployment hasn't been this low since 1975? Can you explain that to me?

Ms. Jane Stewart: It's as a result of the kinds of strategies that we've undertaken on unemployment that have had an influence on bringing unemployment down. A significant portion of the job interventions occur in partnership with the provinces or they are managed by the provinces in providing part II benefits to beneficiaries. So not only do they receive their income support but also the skills development strategies that help them to broaden and strengthen the base of their skills.

Beyond that we continue to believe there are groups of Canadians who need the support of fellow citizens, whether it be youth at risk, aboriginal people, or Canadians with disabilities. So we continue to strongly support the Opportunities Fund, for example, which supports Canadians with disabilities and our youth at risk program.

More specifically, on the $70 million that you referenced, I'd just point out that in the course of time last year, initiatives like homelessness and the Canada Jobs Fund were new initiatives. Getting structures in place particularly at the community level for homelessness meant that some of the funding didn't get out into the communities as fast as we wanted, so we've reprofiled that money. It's not new money, but it's been reprofiled.

From our point of view, we didn't want to penalize Canadians as we develop new systems. The Canada Jobs Fund, as you know, has been closed down. We are accepting no more applications, but we have to ensure there's a continuity of finishing up with the final projects, and so that's the $25 million there.

Ms. Carol Skelton: Okay. We have a surplus in the EI account that will be about $43 billion at the end of this year, and the surplus alone for this year is $7 billion approximately. We're talking about going into a recession. Will you commit to us to reduce payroll taxes in order to preserve as many jobs as possible?

Ms. Jane Stewart: Our record stands on its own. Every single year since we've been elected the government has been able to reduce the premiums for employment insurance. That's a commitment we've made in the past and we will hope to continue with, recognizing, however, that it hasn't been so long since the employment insurance fund went from a surplus to a deficit. So we have to manage it prudently and wisely. Again, I would point to the changes in Bill C-2, where we are anticipating, with final royal assent, the ability to look at how premiums are assessed and to make changes in that regard that will be responsive to the interests of both employers and employees.

Ms. Carol Skelton: Last year you put the grants and contributions on the Internet so that all Canadians could look at how HRDC spends their money. That information now is outdated. Are you and will you be adding to it for the year 2000-01?

Ms. Jane Stewart: One of the things that I'm committed to is being as transparent as possible in letting Canadians know where their investments are going. We're currently working on strategies to ensure that all our Gs and Cs are going to be posted and available in different venues, not the least of which is through the web.

Ms. Carol Skelton: Good. Thank you.

The Chair: We'll go around very quickly. I would say this to the opposition members who'll be coming up again quite quickly now. So it's Alan Tonks, Robert Lanctot, Jeannot Castonguay, then Carol Skelton.

Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I'd like to give the ministers a short feedback because rather than kicking cans, we characterize this as a two-way discussion when we're going through the estimates.

Yesterday at John Godfrey's subcommittee on early childhood, and I'm sure Anita Neville would support this, we had the UEY program, which is doing the national longitudinal research study right across the country. Often we don't see how all of these things are...there is such a vastness to the programs, so we don't get that kind of feedback.... The research project will in fact attempt to empower communities in the area of early childhood needs, and that's very holistic, including families and so on. We were extremely impressed with the research, impressed with the indicators being developed, and impressed with the whole role that HRDC staff are playing with local communities.

• 1200

Now, having said that, in the estimates you make mention with respect to the homelessness program and city facilitators. I'm interested to know...you explain the relationship of HRDC to the provinces and the sensitivities there, too. Are we delivering programs directly through city facilitators to cities, or are they going through the provinces—any funding with respect to homelessness?

I guess the second question associated with that, Mr. Chairman, is in the review of the social union framework, which lays out the principles with respect to support to provinces and municipalities. There's no mention with respect to the role of the standing committee or Parliament in the evaluation of the social union framework outcome such as the child tax benefit and other programs that spin off out of that. So my question really is, how are we relating to the cities through these city facilitators and, I guess, the sensitivities with respect to the provinces—how are we dealing with that and the evaluation of the social union framework process?

Ms. Jane Stewart: Specifically, with regard to homelessness, one of the appreciations that we had is that homelessness can take on a very different face depending on where you are in the country. As an aspect of the strategy, a considerable amount of the moneys that are being provided are being provided for investment through community-based organizations, which are partners of the provinces.

Indeed—and responding to Ms. Skelton's question when we were talking about the $70 million—in some of the local communities, getting the organizations up and running took more time than anticipated. So the moneys that were available for last year didn't get spent. So rather than let them lapse, we've requested appropriately through Treasury Board to have them come forward. Indeed, a good portion of the $750 million for homelessness is being invested right at the community level with the support of community organizations.

With regard to the social union framework agreement and the role of the committee in making assessments about our partnerships and the outcomes of our investments, I think it's a very important role for this committee or its subcommittees to undertake, whether it be in the context of the national children's benefit or what different provinces are doing with their investments in those outcomes.

As we move forward with the early childhood development agreements and as provinces identify where they want to make their investments, a very important role the committee can take is viewing the investments across the country and trying to help us race to the top.

So I would say, Mr. Chair and committee, that those are the kinds of undertakings that I would appreciate you doing, and I think they are very logical ones that could be valuable to giving us advice on the effectiveness of these new partnerships and the way in which we are investing Canadian tax dollars.

The Chair: Thank you.

Robert Lanctôt, Jeannot Castonguay, Carol Skelton, Anita Neville.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I may ask for a little extra time since I am a dual critic. We are focusing on youth as well as on persons with disabilities. I will try to ask brief questions and not assign priority to either issue. However, I have to begin somewhere.

So, let's start with persons with disabilities. The sub-committee appears to be lining up to make some unanimous recommendations. Judging from the testimony heard thus far, one thing seems clear: people are tired of programs and studies. What's lacking are resources and funding. The figure mentioned for the integration of persons with disabilities is approximately $200 million, which in reality amounts to under-funding. Every stakeholder has said as much. Therefore, I would like to know by how much funding for persons with disabilities is set to increase?

• 1205

Secondly, all stakeholders, even those from other provinces, agree that Quebec leads the way in terms of programs for persons with disabilities. To avoid duplication and to avoid wasting time and money, the percentage of funding to be allocated would be determined on a proportional basis. I hope that considerably more money will be allocated and transferred directly to Quebec so that it can continue to operate its own programs and to move in the same forward direction. As we know, some provinces are starting virtually at the beginning, whereas Quebec is much further along. Quebec must be able to spend these funds as it sees fit, even if it has progressed further. Therefore, is it possible for these funds to be transferred directly to Quebec?

With respect to young persons, I'd like to make three points. Transfers for education are at their lowest level in thirty years. Here again, this money could be given to the provinces. Today's economy is knowledge based. Are you committed to providing proper funding to students, to teachers and to education in general, that is to invest in the Department of Education? Consideration should also be given to increasing the number of hours in the classroom. Quebec is starting to look at this issue. In short, there is a need for considerably more resources.

Lastly, I hear a great deal from students about discrimination with respect to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. I realize that this doesn't really come under the jurisdiction of Human Resources Development, but rather Industry. However, this directly concerns the Secretary of State. Do you have any good news to report on this front? Will the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act be amended to allow students to file for bankruptcy when they experience serious financial problems?

On the subject of early childhood development, why not acquiesce to Quebec's request concerning parental leave, a move which would be truly beneficial to all children and all families in Quebec? Why are you not willing to participate? Or, are you in fact planning to come on board?

Thank you.

[English]

Ms. Jane Stewart: Let's start with the issues that are facing Canadians with handicaps. The Government of Canada does invest, through the provinces, $189 million a year through the employment assistance programs that the provinces manage on our behalf for Canadians with disabilities. Again, we made permanent the Opportunities Fund, which originally started as pilot work but has proven to be quite successful in dealing with individual needs and requirements of Canadians with disabilities, and we, at the community level and through not-for-profits in all provinces, are supporting Canadians with disabilities in that regard.

More broadly, though, I think some of the things that are mentioned in the Speech from the Throne recognizing that Canadians with disabilities are and can be better able to participate in the economy are priorities for us. We look at the skill shortages and ask, where will we find the people we need? There are many Canadians who are not included in the Canadian economy for various reasons, and we can, without question, do a better job jointly in supporting Canadians with disabilities.

We're looking at an innovation fund, trying to help increase the numbers of supports that are developed and provided for Canadians with disabilities. We've also made a commitment, and the provinces are interested in working with us, to actually build a labour market strategy jointly for Canadians with disabilities. I'll be going to Halifax next week, meeting with ministers of social services, where the issues facing Canadians with disabilities will again be on our agenda. So we are working jointly in this regard.

With regard to youth and education, Monsieur Lanctôt, I'd say that when we're talking about support for education, fundamentally that is transferred through the Canada health and social transfer. You're aware that as of last September, an additional $23 billion has been identified and will be passing to the provinces for health care and for education. That's essentially how we support the broad interests, particularly of post-secondary education, today.

In regard to students, and particularly the issue of bankruptcy, this is a conversation that I've had and continue to have with the members of the different student unions. I think, from our point of view, the last thing we want is for young people to start their lives in a circumstance of bankruptcy, and that's why you've seen the significant changes we've made through past budgets—I think of 1995, which we talked about; it's the education budget—and additional changes and measures to the tax credits, and looking at the changes in terms of repayment through the Canada student loans program.

• 1210

The Chair: Let's move on.

Ms. Jane Stewart: There are a number of things we are doing. We continue to work with student bodies to look at the facts and figures associated with bankruptcy in particular.

The Chair: I must stop it at that point. You'll have another chance.

Jeannot Castonguay, Carol Skelton, Anita Neville, Paul Crête, the chair, Judi Longfield.

[Translation]

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Madam Minister, thank you for coming. Your department is indeed a hive of activity. Hats off to you, because I'm sure it's no easy task managing this large portfolio.

Mention was made of the Registered Education Savings Plan or RESP. I gave the matter some consideration. Students are wondering right now if they will be able to pursue their education further. They must contend with such problems as debt and student loans. When a family invests in an RESP, the government matches the contribution. I've very pleased and grateful for this government initiative.

However, what about the families that cannot afford to invest in an RESP? Couldn't the Canadian government consider investing in a similar fund when a child a born, so that in twenty years' time, students can benefit from the wonders of compound interest and ultimately have a better chance of pursuing an education? Has your department considered or would it be willing to consider an initiative of this kind?

[English]

Ms. Jane Stewart: Indeed, we're trying to find strategies that really recognize the joint responsibility—how important education and continuous learning is in today's economy. I think it demands all the partners, whether it be the Government of Canada, provinces, individuals, or employers, to recognize how we can do a better job to upgrade the skills of our labour force and to create and encourage a sentiment and a culture of lifelong learning.

There are a number of things we have done already, and Monsieur Castonguay, you've pointed to some of them. They've been mentioned at the table already, whether it be the Canada education savings grant, where there is money available indeed.... There has to be a reciprocal investment made, but it's a very important undertaking. We all necessarily are making choices in terms of our investments.

We also have Canada study grants, which are moneys available for Canadians, for example, with disabilities. Or those single parents who want to go back to school are eligible for Canada study grants. That was a new undertaking with the 1995 budget. The Millennium scholarships are also an indication of our commitment in this regard.

There have been significant changes to the tax treatment of the costs associated with going to university. There's an interesting report that has been done, if I'm not mistaken, by Queen's University—by the university presidents—that looks at circumstances surrounding the cost of education pre changes to our income tax structure and post. Those might be studies the committee might like to take a look at to get an impact of the effects that the changes we have made in the last number of years are having on access—positive changes to access to post-secondary education.

Indeed, this is a priority not only for our government but for the country. That's why you see us talking about the need for a national skills agenda, which can't be talked about without the kinds of things that are needed for post-secondary education.

The Chair: The honourable Blondin-Andrew.

Ms. Ethel Blondin-Andrew: I'd just like to mention, on the Canada student loans, my territory and your province share something in common. We've had post-secondary education devolve to your province and my territory. Our territory took upon itself to make a granting system for all students. All post-secondary education students who apply are eligible for grants. We took what the federal government gave us and turned it into a granting system. It has conditions. But it's something that the provincial and territorial governments have full right to do what they will, and that's the course of action we took. I'm not sure what Quebec's circumstances are. Or course the demographics are different, but then the budgets are different too, so....

• 1215

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: It's found in both provinces—New Brunswick.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you, Jeannot.

[English]

Carol Skelton, Anita Neville, Paul Crête, the chair.

Ms. Carol Skelton: Madam Minister, I'd like to go back to the debt question, but I want to look at it as fiscal responsibility.

In your report on page 96, you stated that you're planning on writing off more than $2 million worth of debt per year on student loans—a total of about $673 million over the next three years. That's getting close to $1 billion. How can you justify a public policy that invites students, especially young people, to default on a taxpayer-funded loan?

Ms. Jane Stewart: Well, indeed, I don't believe we do support a system that encourages that. In fact, that's why we've made considerable changes to our debt repayment structures for Canada student loans.

In particular, there were some decisions made by the province of Alberta recently about the statute of limitations associated with these debts. As a responsible government, we've had to take action to limit the liability as a result of that decision by the province to limit the time in which we have to collect back student loans.

Interestingly enough, they made the changes only for Canada student loans, not for provincial student loans, but that's why you see at this time an increase in the amount of expectations for return.

I don't know if there's anything else you want to add to that, Alan.

Mr. Alan R. Winberg (Assistant Deputy Minister, Financial and Administrative Services, Department of Human Resources Development): What we've presented in the estimates is according to the generally accepted accounting principles. There's a potential for future losses. It doesn't mean there will be those future losses, but we're making the provision based on past history.

We have a very professional collections approach. We apply all the provisions of the law and we collect the debt in a very humane way, but we do collect the maximum that can be collected. There will always be some debt, which cannot be collected due to serious illness, death, or other circumstances, and that's where we're making a provision.

Ms. Carol Skelton: I'm not familiar with the province of Alberta's new law, so I'll have to look into that.

Thank you.

The Chair: It's Anita Neville, Paul Crête, the chair, Judi Longfield, Robert Lanctôt, and Joe McGuire.

Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Madam Ministers, thank you for coming. When I look at your report and listen to your comments, I again am overwhelmed with the comprehensiveness and the vastness of your department and the many things you address.

Just a quick ditto, in a sense, to Alan Tonks' comment on the UI/EI program yesterday. It was a spectacular presentation by many jurisdictions and really shows what can be done in a holistic, comprehensive way with sharing of information.

I want to focus on skills training. I have lots of questions, but I'll try to just focus a little bit today. You talked at length about the skills shortages, the reduction in participation rate by adults in learning. You've asked the committee to focus on issues related to employer learning and credentialing and apprenticeships.

One of my particular areas of concern is the older worker—retraining of the older worker. My experience is saying that many of the older workers are not as anxious to exit the labour force as they once were. They're looking for second careers. Life circumstances are changing. I notice there's a pilot program, but I'm interested in knowing whether there's any more comprehensive strategy as it relates to the older worker. That's one question.

Secondly, you reference the role of the provincial government, and we know the devolution of responsibility of training to provincial governments. How do you see this committee—your government—continuing to work together with provincial governments in addressing these issues, which are significant major issues and certainly jurisdictional issues for lack of a better word?

• 1220

Ms. Jane Stewart: First, with regard to older workers, there are two things. We recognize that older workers have a more difficult time making the transition from one place of employment to another at this point. So that's where you see the investment through the older worker pilots, $30 million. We're partnering directly at the provincial level. The provinces identify areas where we could have pilot projects to try to facilitate and encourage the transition of older workers from one employer who has gone missing to another. So we'll look at the results of that.

But in the broader context of the skills reality and our needs, I think you're quite right. I think Canadians want to continue in employment. That's where the urgency of strengthening a tradition of lifelong learning becomes even greater. Focusing on adult education is something we have to do. We don't have good structures of adult education and continual learning in Canada. Typically, it's really been for upgrading, allowing adults to get their grade 12 or their minimum high school standard. But there's so much more we have to do. We have to expand our competence in e-learning strategies and new models of providing learning and training. That will, as much as anything, assist adult learners. A high priority in the overarching skills agenda has to be that recognition of focus and improvements in the adult learner.

Ms. Anita Neville: Are you looking also at workplace accommodation for the older worker?

Ms. Jane Stewart: These are the kinds of things that are very important, not only in the context of Canadians with disabilities, but for all of us as we age, the requirements and the opportunities we can develop, so that our contributions can be extended and improved upon.

With regard to the relationship with the provinces and territories, I feel very positive about the work that has been undertaken, quite directly, as a result of the social union framework agreement. Look at ECD, for example, where the Government of Canada says children are a priority for us. There are some things we can do unilaterally and must do to indicate our interest, like doubling the parental benefits, but then there are things we have to do jointly. To get an agreement on ECD that is respectful of provincial jurisdiction and also to move yardsticks is tremendously important, not only for children, but as a model that we can build on in the context of skills and learning.

I'm hopeful that whether it be at the table of ministers of labour, or maybe even through improving our relationship with ministers of education where we don't have a federal-provincial table, we can jointly come together and say, what are you doing, what more can you do, how can we help you do what you want to do, not infringing on your jurisdiction, but helping you do what you want to do? All of this is in the context of providing better and stronger benefits for Canadians across the country.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Paul Crête, the chair, Judi Longfield, Robert Lanctôt, and Joe McGuire. Then, unless I get very strong indication, I'm going to try to draw it to a conclusion.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Thank you very much.

On the issue of parental leave, one legislative provision stipulates that when an initiative is introduced, the federal government must participate. I'm curious as to whether the responses that you are currently providing in the House reflect your opposition in principle, or whether you have decided, because you are extending maternity leave provisions under the EI program, to oppose Quebec's own parental leave program. Or, it is matter of the federal and provincial governments agreeing on figures, the same ones in place when Mr. Pettigrew was minister? I'd like to know where you stand on this issue.

[English]

Ms. Jane Stewart: Indeed, we have undertaken significant improvement in the parental benefits as of the end of last year. The impact of that, I think, is going to be significant for Canadian society in the long term. It's a huge change, but one that builds on 30 years of experience, where the Government of Canada has provided maternity benefits first and then parental benefits. From my point of view, understanding the impact of that on Canadian society is going to be a priority. But as I say again and again in the House, there is nothing that would stop any employer or province from augmenting that program and that undertaking.

• 1225

I think one of the important aspects—and I mentioned this again yesterday in the House—is that we have expanded this benefit without increasing premiums. I know Ms. Skelton and Ms. Meredith were interested in that. We're trying to find the balance of investments, while at the same time expanding.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Madam Minister, are you prepared to implement the legislation and to turn over a specific amount to Quebec? I'm not interested in negotiating the exact amount, but are you prepared to concede that a portion of the EI account should be assigned to Quebec so that it can institute its own parental leave program? Do you agree with this in principle or have you backed down and are not prepared at this time to see any kind of parental leave provisions included in Quebec's family policy?

[English]

Ms. Jane Stewart: I would remind you that we have in the past sat down with the Province of Quebec, and they left the table over the issue of how much money they felt was owed to them. So it's not that it hasn't happened in the past. From my point of view, the important thing is to get a new and huge expansion of the program that is there for all Canadians, in the province of Quebec and right across the country, up and going, to understand what the impact is, what the uptake is, and to be comfortable with that.

At this time, with such an expansive improvement and intervention, I think we owe it to ourselves to see how that works. Again, there is not and never has been any obstacle to an employer or to a province doing what they choose to do with their own investments.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: You're talking about money they themselves have invested. However, are you prepared to assign to them the portion of the EI account that is due to them, the amount provided for under law? The act stipulates that where a province sets up a parallel program, the federal government must allocate an equivalent sum of money. Am I interpreting the legislation correctly?

[English]

Ms. Jane Stewart: The reality is that we have made these significant changes. Trying to assess what the uptake is, what the value is, is premature.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Surely you heard representations from the Coalition d'organisations québécoises pour les congés parentaux. Benefits will be extended to self-employed workers. Coverage will be universal and everyone can participate in the program. Are you prepared to allocate the proper funding? I'm not talking about the amount per se. I agree that this should be subject to negotiation and that the amount can vary. However, are you saying that you are not required by law to assign these funds if the province so requests?

[English]

Ms. Jane Stewart: At this point I would just reiterate what I've said in the past, which is that we've made a huge expansion of the program. We don't know what the uptake is going to be; we haven't got any experience with the results. We forecast it, we budgeted for it, but the reality is still to be determined.

For me, the priority is to improve the opportunities that exist for Canadian parents in their attempts to balance workplace and family challenges. I think the undertaking we have made is an important one, it's a significant one, it's there for all Canadians. I think the appropriate thing to do is to see what that impact is. At the same time, we should recognize that we've done it without increasing premiums, in the context of expanding benefits.

I would say again that as in the past, there is nothing that stops jurisdictions or employers on their own reflecting to either their electorate or their employees their commitment to continuing expansion of the opportunities.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Are you prepared to turn over to a province willing to institute its own system, Quebec for instance, its share of the EI account that is rightfully due to it?

[English]

The Chair: Joe McGuire.

Mr. Joe McGuire: I would just like to observe how well our ministers are doing, to the point where they have struck terror into the hearts of their critics—they either don't show up or they leave early. So what a difference a year makes. I want to compliment them on the great job they've done.

Ms. Jane Stewart: It's clear that this government has made a priority of supporting Canadian families in the challenges they face with the changing economy and their increasing “sandwich generation” reality. I don't think we're going to stop making improvements. I hope we will be recognized for the contributions we've made and for the commitment, which has been clear, that we will continue to improve these realities. We'll see how that develops in the future. I'm not going to comment on the hypothetical, but—

• 1230

[Translation]

The Chair: You've used up about seven minutes. I'll allow one brief comment.

Mr. Paul Crête: One comment?

[English]

The Chair: That's it, if that's the right word.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: As I understand it, the legislation stipulates, as you indicated, that if a province or employer wants to put in place their own system, they are within their rights to do so. However, the legislation also stipulates that the federal government must turn over its share of funding. What I'm trying to have you admit is that you are require by law to assign these funds, but you seem unwilling to do that. That's what intrigues me. It's almost as if you are acting above the law because you have instituted another regime that affects all of Canada. I'm not denying that this regime has some merit, but the federal government, given its attitude, seems to be turning its back on its own legislation.

[English]

The Chair: Please answer very briefly, Minister, if you will.

Ms. Jane Stewart: But you see, Mr. Crête, you just answered your own question—if the translation is right—and I apologize if I didn't get the nuance.

You talked about the system being in place. It's not in place, so what are you making investments against? My view is that the province can move ahead at any time to develop a system, and we'll go from there. As you point out, there is no system in place at this point. What we have done is expand the program enormously, and the benefits will be available to all Canadians, including Canadians living in the province of Quebec. I think this itself is a reflection of how seriously the Government of Canada takes the issues that are currently facing Canadians.

The Chair: Thank you. Je vous remercie, Paul.

Minister, I'd like to ask about the clawback of the national child benefit. I only know Ontario, but I understand it's in virtually every province now. I understand the way it works is that it's clawed back for people on social assistance and that then there's a reporting of what the moneys are used for. I've seen one of those reportings, and it's all good work.

My concern is twofold. One is that we are reinforcing the stigma that is attached to people on social assistance. Simply by doing it, we are saying they're different from other people who are poor in Canada. That's one.

There's another stigma to it, and that is that the groups that deliver the programs the provinces are basing their decisions on, decisions as to the money being clawed back, are working with those same people, the people on social assistance. The people on social assistance know the money's been clawed back. They know the money these groups are giving them is based on that clawback, and the groups then feel that they're laundering dirty money. There's a stigma attached to them. These groups are delivering—do you understand my point?—services that are based on those finances. I wonder if any thought is being given to that, because I think it is a serious matter.

Ms. Jane Stewart: I think there are two points I'd make here.

First and foremost, in the context of the national child benefit, the thrust was to recognize the moral dilemma that exists when a parent has the opportunity to move into the workforce and leave social assistance. At the same time, however, they potentially leave behind benefits that are so important to them, and they may not earn sufficient moneys to replace those benefits. When trying to build and strengthen a platform of support, where do you begin? The point of the move from social assistance to the workplace was the logical place, and I continue to believe that. We take children off welfare by providing the income. The provinces take their savings and provide services, so that dilemma of moving off is not there.

Now, that being said, is there more that needs to be done at the end of supporting individuals on social assistance? Probably there is, and I can say to you, Mr. Chair, that not all jurisdictions do claw back. In fact, there are jurisdictions that have found ways to integrate their system with the new system and that are not clawing back. I applaud them, and we're trying to encourage that kind of transition to occur in all jurisdictions.

Again, it's a question of principle, of strategy, of what are you trying to achieve, and of how do you go about it. In the context of the NCB, the fundamental issue is bringing down the welfare wall; that's what this was about.

Is there more that needs to be done in terms of recognizing the issues facing Canadians who are on social assistance? Sure, there is. I can tell you that, for example, in Newfoundland there is an integrated benefit that's being provided so there is no clawback. There are different alternatives.

• 1235

Again, those may be things that I think would be helpful, should the committee want to build on Mr. Tonks' suggestion to look at the results of very important undertakings, not the least of which is the NCB.

The Chair: The last thing people in that situation need is to be demeaned. That's my thought.

I wonder if for the rest of my time I could talk to Ethel.

It concerns literacy in first nations. In my riding we unfortunately just had to close down a native friendship centre. I have two first nations, and we had this native friendship centre. They were doing particularly important work with respect to literacy and a number of other things in the urban context with, by the way, HRDC support.

As more and more first nations people move into the communities, I wondered what your thoughts are as to what we as the federal government can do to assist. Let's perhaps focus on the literacy side of it and the problems you identified for first nations in particular.

Ms. Ethel Blondin-Andrew: First of all, I think we have to continue to build partnerships within the community. We've tried to do many things with first nations: Inuit, Métis, and the aboriginal communities. Some have been successful, but for the most part they haven't felt that they are part of the solution and they haven't felt that they've played a part in the design.

The partnerships we build are not restricted to any one institution or body. We reach out to everyone. Workplace literacy is a huge issue for aboriginal people.

If we're looking at integrating them into the labour market, the biggest challenge there is that they don't have any pre-employment skills or any job skills. It's not only a matter of being able to function in terms of your responsibilities, it's also a matter of safety in the workplace. That's a major priority for us, to be able to work at that while we do other things that speak to just basic literacy skills, reading, writing, and numeracy.

How can we get help? I think we need as many champions as we can get on workplace literacy for aboriginal people. A lot of them are experiencing encroaching development, but they don't have the critical mass of skills for the jobs industry is offering them. In almost every province and territory you know, you have forestry, mining...if you have any kind of industry, even the textile industry, and you have opportunities for aboriginal people, probably most of them would not qualify in great numbers because they don't have the skills to take on those jobs.

I would say we need champions. We need to continue to build partnerships, and we're working on that, not just from our department but along with other partners across the government.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I regret that despite HRDC help this particular native friendship centre had to close down.

It's Judi Longfield next, then Robert Lanctôt, then Joe McGuire, and then we'll finish.

Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's good to see all the officials and the two ministers here.

Much of my question was covered in Anita's questions on skills development. The skills challenge we face, the skills gap that has been identified by the Conference Board, independent businesses, Canadian labour.... I understand that while there's much we can do on the individual learning accounts, the student loans, and employment insurance, much of it has been devolved to the provinces. They administer labour market agreements and apprenticeships, for example.

Given all the talk about accountability and transparency, I'm very concerned about how those transfer partners report back to us and about how frequently they report back to us. Are we developing a reporting system that Canadians can understand, one where we can ensure that the goals of the federal government are met? If we're going to devolve these things—and there's a whole philosophical debate as to whether we should have devolved them, but the fact of the matter is that we have done so—we must give the provinces the opportunity to spend the money as they see appropriate. I understand that we may not want to tell them how to spend each dollar we give them, but certainly there's a responsibility that they account for the moneys we give them. Where are we with the reporting and the accountability?

• 1240

Ms. Jane Stewart: I think we're making good progress. I think generally you're starting to see an overall transformation at all levels of government towards providing outcomes for the investments we make. That's really only started to happen significantly, Alan, within the last four or five years. As that becomes part and parcel of regular business, you're going to see our joint areas of responsibility, or our new programming strategies, whether it be ECD or NCB, things we might do in undertaking skills development, also reflect that reality.

In our ECD agreement, for example, there's very specific wording about the accountability regimes also including Canadians in developing what are acceptable outcomes, what are the right measures.

So I'm quite heartened by the transformation that is occurring, and I find it to be very useful in terms of building the federation, that instead of using the stick, we are recognizing, accepting, and respectfully supporting each other's jurisdiction and using accountability and reporting mechanisms to respond and improve our realities in whatever sector we're talking about, as opposed to trying to be directive and ultimately confrontational.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: I can understand that there's a delicate balance. They need to reflect our priorities because these are our funds.

You mentioned ECD, and you certainly suggested that you're pleased with what you see happening in British Columbia. How many other provinces are as advanced in that particular process?

Ms. Jane Stewart: When I mentioned British Columbia I mentioned it in the context of the national child benefit, because it was essentially British Columbia that started the idea of these income support benefits. They've been at it a couple of years longer and they're starting to see the impact of that income support on poverty.

But, generally speaking, when we talk about the NCB, there are investment strategies that are pretty clear in every jurisdiction. With early childhood development...I think of the report I just got from Manitoba and from Saskatchewan. Nova Scotia just outlined their priorities yesterday or the day before. I'm not clear on Ontario's strategies yet. I had hoped for more clarification in the budget. Perhaps we'll get some today.

A number of us are going to a very important conference at—

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Particularly because they've announced all this funding, and I'm wondering whose funding it is.

Ms. Jane Stewart: Again, there will be requirements for annual reporting, and we'll see where the investments are going.

I think, again, it's helping Canadians to understand who has what responsibility. In this context, I think members of Parliament could have a role to play, to say, look, we have provided funds. It's now the province's responsibility to invest them against the common priorities that have been agreed to; hold them accountable—we will, too, but hold them accountable—and should you think that we need to make larger investments, come and talk to us about additional funding amounts.

I think it behooves us to really take the time to talk with our own constituents and explain to them who has what jurisdiction, so that they too can encourage the strengthening of the federation and appropriate investment strategies.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: I have one last question.

You talk about regulatory bodies having a role in reducing barriers. I also look at foreign credential recognition. Those are all things that we need to look at. What role does the federal government have in encouraging or helping them along?

The Chair: Very briefly.

Ms. Jane Stewart: I can tell you that in the context of the table of labour market ministers, we've been directed by the premiers and the Prime Minister to reduce labour mobility barriers by July 2001. We've been working aggressively, because the provinces have jurisdiction over the...they've essentially devolved to the professional organizations. We've made considerable progress. The committee might be interested in seeing the reports that come forward. But indeed, I think as we go forward, encouraging credential recognition could be our next step.

The Chair: Robert Lanctôt, then Joe McGuire, and then we're finished.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm utterly amazed at my inability to get the answers to which I am entitled. In particular, I wasn't expecting to get the answer I received concerning the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

I find it incredible that you claim to be making an effort to ensure that students cannot declare bankruptcy, when many large and small companies as well as business people file for bankruptcy after racking up debts in the millions of dollars. We're talking about students with debts of up to $30,000. They don't have an easy time of it and you're prepared to mortgage their future.

• 1245

You claim that you are making an effort to prevent this from happening. I find your answers incredible in light of the government's surplus in the hundreds of billions of dollars. These people need a second chance and the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act exists to give them that second chance. These students have acquired some knowledge and there are many different reasons why they may not be able to repay their debts. Working out a repayment schedule is one solution, but it's not the only one. The Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act should apply to them as well, perhaps not in a general way, but at least to many of the students who have spoken to me. Some of them are in dire straits and their entire life will be mortgaged because of their student debt load. This legislation would give these students another kick at the can.

Moreover, you maintain that because a parental leave program is not in place in Quebec, you can't say how funding would be transferred. However, you admit that these funds must be transferred, that you have a responsibility to do so. Further to the talks you have held, you know very well that the program Quebec is proposing to implement is vastly superior to the one being considered by the federal government.

Again, the whole situation is incredible and gives me cause for concern. If asked by the sub-committee on the status of persons with disabilities whether you intend to seek additional funding and resources, are you going to respond that because the program is not yet in existence, you won't be transferring the required funding? This truly has me worried, Madam Minister.

[English]

Ms. Jane Stewart: There are a couple of things.

First of all, with regard to students, we're not stopping them from going into bankruptcy, and that's not at all what I said. What I find incredible is that you think that is an appropriate strategy yourself as a way for a young person starting their life.

Indeed what we are trying to do is make changes and improvements to the financing regimes, whether it be through the tax system or more recently in our new approach to providing Canada student loans, where we are requiring our third-party contractors to develop relationships with students not at the point of repayment but right at the beginning of the issuance of the loans, so students can appreciate and understand and prepare and work within their realities to plan for financing their education.

So please don't get me wrong in the context of taking options away. The options still exist. But where we've been putting our efforts is to change our regimes and our structures so that we are reflecting the realities facing students.

Indeed, one of the interesting conversations I have on an ongoing basis with the student unions is agreeing to look at the data—we don't have good data—and comparing the realities and the results of the changes we've made and the impact on student financing and debt.

But our priorities are to help and do what we can to ensure that students get their education, have the wherewithal and the ability to pay for it, and that we manage and build structures that encourage that, because surely the right thing to do is to be able to repay those debts and to go out and become employed, and to take advantage of the investments they've made in themselves to become educated so that they are self-sufficient and also contributing to the Canadian economy.

Finally, with regard again to the expansion of parental benefits, surely you're not suggesting that what we have done is insignificant. Surely you can't argue that should a particular province want to continue to develop and improve on those benefits, allowing them to do that is wrong. They can do that.

I think what we want to do, as we do in really all our undertakings, is work jointly to respond to the modern needs of Canadians. I think on behalf of the Government of Canada we have reflected that reality. We have to let the new and significant changes take hold and see what the take-up is, what the impact is. But there's nothing that ever stops a province from continuing to lead the way and to add to the system. But we've tried to make improvements—

• 1250

The Chair: We have to wind it up.

Ms. Jane Stewart: —without increasing the premiums that employers and employees have to pay. And I think we've been responsible in that.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

Joe McGuire.

[Translation]

An hon.member: I'd like to ask one last quick question.

The Chair: No.

[English]

Joe.

Mr. Joe McGuire: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I guess another topic that could be talked about for some time, too, is Canada Pension Plan disability and the amount of time it takes to process an application and the fact that so many people, when they apply, are rejected the first time around. These things used to be dealt with, when I was first elected, fairly rapidly. But as time goes on, there seems to be an awful lot of pressure on the program, and it's just taking way too much time to process. And then if somebody who does get through the system tries to work again, he doesn't have very much time to prove that he can or cannot stay in the workforce. Is there any improvement being made recently, or going to be made, in sort of accelerating the efficiency of the system?

Ms. Jane Stewart: I would say, as a member of Parliament, that there's probably no greater number of personal interventions that we make than around the Canada Pension Plan.

Mr. Joe McGuire: Yes.

Ms. Jane Stewart: And I agree that continuously working to improve the system has to be a priority for us. I note that my senior official responsible for the program is going to be appearing before the subcommittee of this committee focused on Canadians with disabilities, and I think there'll be a fulsome discussion on the views of the committee members, as well as the things that are being undertaken within the department to improve the administration of CPP, particularly CPP disability.

I can say that we have added more judges to our panels in the review and appeals process. We have doubled the adjudication staff, particularly the medical adjudication staff, so we can get the applications reviewed more quickly. We're looking at new ways of intervening directly with Canadians on the decisions made by the review panels so that they have better advice as to whether to proceed with appeals or not. But I'm convinced that there are more ways that we can improve the system, and I'll look forward to the representations made by members of Parliament at the subcommittee to Mr. Migus.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Colleagues, if I could release our witnesses, then we'll proceed to consideration of the votes—and you have the chart for the votes.

The Honourable Jane Stewart and the Honourable Ethel Blondin-Andrew, we thank you both for being here. We've appreciated your attendance.

Claire Morris, Alan Winberg, and Hy Braiter, and also the people whose faces we recognize at the back, who are here with the ministers, we do appreciate you being here. Thank you very much.

We'll continue with our meeting, if you care to leave.

Colleagues, I'm going to call the votes now. I call the votes less the amount that was voted in interim supply. And you can see that column on the chart, so I won't repeat the amounts that are on the chart.

HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Department

Vote 1—Operating expenditures $474,966,000

The Chair: Shall vote 1, less the amount voted in interim supply, carry?

(Vote 1 agreed to on division)

Vote 5—Grants and contributions $1,062,797,000

The Chair: Shall vote 5, less the amount voted in interim supply, carry?

(Vote 5 agreed to on division)

Canada Industrial Relations Board

Vote 10—Program expenditures $7,935,000

The Chair: Shall vote 10, less the amount voted in interim supply, carry?

(Vote 10 agreed to on division)

Canadian Artists and Producers Professional Relations Tribunal

Vote 15—Program expenditures $1,570,000

The Chair: Shall vote 15, less the amount voted in interim supply, carry?

(Vote 15 agreed to on division)

Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety

Vote 20—Program expenditures $2,255,000

The Chair: Shall vote 20, less the amount voted in interim supply, carry?

(Vote 20 agreed to on division)

The Chair: Shall I report the estimates to the House?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Colleagues, thank you very much.

Next week, we meet again; we complete the EI report. You remember, we have an absolute final deadline of June 1, which, if you work it out, means it's very short. And then we resume our consideration of access to higher education.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: We don't know the dates as of yet, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: No, not exactly. It depends on the EI report.

The meeting is adjourned at the call of the chair.