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]

Wednesday, March 1, 2000

• 1538

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Colleagues, before I actually read out the order of the day, I suggest, as we have our visitors here, that we speak clearly so that our interpreters can translate into one of the two official languages and our colleagues from Sweden can follow, whether it be in French or in English, on the earphones.

The order of the day is pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), and is a meeting with the standing committee on the labour market with the Parliament of Sweden.

I would very much like to welcome Margareta Andersson.

Margareta, are you the chair of the committee or the vice-chair or...

Ms. Margareta Andersson (Head, Parliamentary Delegation from Sweden): I am the second vice-chair.

The Chair: The leader... Is this the right word?

Ms. Margareta Andersson: Today, yes.

The Chair: I would like to welcome you and your colleagues to this meeting here in Ottawa with the members of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. We're very pleased to meet with you. We were very glad when we received your request to be here.

• 1540

This is our standing committee. We have 16 or 18 of them on Parliament Hill. This one is a combined committee. Previously it was the human resources committee and there was another committee for the status of persons with disabilities. They were then combined into this one. Normally we have 18 members. Of those members, nine are government members. At the moment they are Liberals, and you will hear from them in a moment. Eight are opposition members and represent the four opposition parties. You will hear from them in a moment.

I'm the chair of the committee. I'm a Liberal, a member of the government party. In our Parliament, the chairs of the standing committees are all government members, except in the case of the public accounts committee—obviously, it's self-explanatory what it does—where, by tradition, the chair is an opposition member.

I'm elected by my colleagues, but I don't have to be particularly modest about that, because I know I'm elected simply because there are nine Liberal members and only eight opposition members. That's why I'm the chair. It's not because I'm the best person here.

Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): The vote was unanimous, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Oh, the vote was unanimous, one of my Liberal colleagues says.

I thought, Margareta, that before you introduce yourselves, it might be useful for you to hear from our members. They will say who they are, what their party is, and which part of Canada they're from. Then we'll turn it over to you.

I have to say that Diane Ablonczy, who normally sits here as one of the representatives of the Reform Party on this committee, is, I understand, speaking in the House of Commons at this moment or very soon, so she will be arriving a little later. She sent her apologies to you.

One more thing: the Liberal members sit on this side, which is your left, and the opposition members sit on your right, by tradition, as you saw that they do in the House of Commons itself.

We'll start with the opposition members.

Libby, could you proceed?

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): First of all, I'd like to welcome the delegation. My name is Libby Davies. I'm a member of the New Democratic Party and I represent a riding in Vancouver—Vancouver East—which is on the west coast of Canada. I'm the critic for the NDP for children, youth, social policy, housing, and post-secondary education. Welcome to you.

Ms. Laila Bjurling (Member, Parliamentary Delegation from Sweden): Is that all?

Ms. Libby Davies: Yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): I would like to start by welcoming you to our committee meeting.

My name is Yvon Godin, and I am the member of Parliament for Acadie—Bathurst, a riding located in northeastern New Brunswick, in a region known as Acadia. I am my party's critic on natural resources, which includes energy, mines and forestry. I am also the critic on employment insurance. The Minister responsible for this portfolio is the one you saw defending herself today in the House. I am also the official languages critic and the NDP whip.

The Chairman: Thank you, Yvon.

[English]

The Chair: John Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): I'm John Godfrey, a Liberal member of Parliament from Toronto. I have a number of interests, but the ones I'm working on now are these: I am chairman of the Liberal Party's social policy caucus; I am chairman of the Liberal Party's national children's agenda caucus; and I chair, for this committee, the Sub-Committee on Children and Youth at Risk.

Tack sa mycket.

• 1545

The Chair: Rey Pagtakhan.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I'm Rey Pagtakhan from Manitoba. My riding is Winnipeg North—St. Paul, and I am chair of the northern and western caucus, which constitutes four provinces and three territories in Canada. My job as chair is to reconcile the complementary, occasionally competing, views of my caucus.

Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): I'm Judy Sgro. I represent a riding in the northern part of Toronto, and I was elected in a by-election three months ago.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): My name is Bryon Wilfert. I am from the riding of Oak Ridges, which is made up of Richmond Hill and Whitchurch-Stouffville. It's just north of Toronto. I'm the vice-chair of the standing committee and also chair of the greater Toronto area caucus, which represents about a quarter of the Liberal caucus.

I've had the pleasure of visiting Sweden on two occasions within the last five years, once as the president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. I met many mayors in Sweden and talked particularly about how advanced you are in the area of district energy or community energy systems.

The Chair: Okay. Bonnie Brown.

Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My name is Bonnie Brown. I'm the member of Parliament for the riding of Oakville in Ontario, which is the home of the Ford Motor Co. of Canada, and the home of Glen Abbey Golf Course, which is the host of the Canadian Open golf championship every year. I serve as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development, and as such am a member of this committee.

The Chair: Judy Longfield.

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

My name is Judy Longfield and I'm the member of Parliament for Whitby—Ajax, which is a community just to the east of Metropolitan Toronto, on the north shore of Lake Ontario. I'm the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour, which also makes me a member of this committee. I also serve as a member of the national defence and veterans affairs committee.

The Chair: Raymonde Folco.

[Translation]

Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My name is Raymonde Folco, and I am the member of Parliament from the Liberal Party for the Laval West riding, a city north of Montreal, in Quebec, of course.

In addition to being a member of this committee, I am a Joint Chair of the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages. I am the chair of a Liberal caucus on immigration, which is my specialty.

The Chairman: Ms. Monique Guay has just arrived.

Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): I apologize for being late. I was very busy.

My name is Monique Guay and I am the member of Parliament for the riding of Laurentides, in Quebec, which is a one-hour drive north of Montreal. I am my party's labour critic, and this includes the Labour Code. I am pleased to be able to meet with you today.

[English]

The Chair: Margareta.

Ms. Margareta Andersson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's been very interesting to come here and we are very grateful that you could receive us in this meeting this afternoon.

The standing committee on labour in Sweden is working mostly with labour affairs in Sweden, including issues around minorities, and discrimination questions around women's equality, disabled persons, immigrants, and so on. That's one of our 17 standing committees in the Swedish Parliament. We have 16 standing committees and one committee that deals with European Union questions.

I am deputy chairman of this committee, and I come from the Centre Party. I don't think you have a similar party here in Canadian politics, but we are near the Liberal Party, so to say, in the political scene.

My colleagues here are from different parties, and I think it's better if they introduce themselves.

Mr. Martin Nilsson (Member, Parliamentary Delegation from Sweden): My name is Martin Nilsson. I'm representing the Social Democratic Party. I'm also a member of a committee specially working with issues relating to equality between men and women and issues relating to anti-discrimination laws. That's my speciality.

• 1550

Ms. Sonja Fransson (Member, Parliamentary Delegation from Sweden): My name is Sonja Fransson, and I also represent the Social Democratic Party. I work mostly with questions around handicapped people, disabled people, and I'm very interested in the discrimination law you have regarding handicapped people. That's mostly it—and issues of work, of course.

Ms. Laila Bjurling: My name is Laila Bjurling. I'm a Social Democrat, and I'm a member of the standing committee on labour too. My most interesting work now is about working time, about time free from work. We have a lot of that in Sweden, as you probably know. We have a lot of laws that allow employees to be free from work, and so on. I also at the moment work with a group who studies excellence in work.

Ms. Maria Larsson (Member, Parliamentary Delegation from Sweden): My name is Maria Larsson. I represent the Christian Democratic Party, and I'm interested in all questions about the labour market. I come from the south part of Sweden.

Mr. Stig Sandström (Member, Parliamentary Delegation from Sweden): I am not ordinarily a member of this committee, so I'll give a little background.

My name is Stig Sandström, and I represent the Left Party in Sweden. My usual committee is the defence committee, and I'm also a member of OSCE, which I think Canada is also a member of. Thank you.

Ms. Christel Anderberg (Member, Parliamentary Delegation from Sweden): My name is Christel Anderberg, and I represent the Moderate Party.

In the committee, I have special responsibility for the gender issue, and like Mrs. Bjurling, right now I work a lot on the working-hours question, which is very much in debate in Sweden right now.

Mr. Patrik Norinder (Member, Parliamentary Delegation from Sweden): My name is Patrik Norinder. I also represent the Moderate Party, the second largest party in our Parliament. I deal with labour market questions, of course, but I also deal with agriculture and environmental questions.

And what I heard about a golf course was really interesting. I think we're going to find each other.

Mr. Yvon Godin: The Prime Minister would like it here.

Mr. Runar Patriksson (Member, Parliamentary Delegation from Sweden): My name is Runar Patriksson, and I'm from the Liberal Party. We are only 5% in Sweden, but we hope to be like here. My work is as deputy in this group, and my professional specialty is defence, like Stig. I work with defence policies in Sweden.

The Chair: Colleagues, you'll notice Runar is a replacement on the list you have. Just so colleagues know, we have Elver Jonsson on the list, and I think Runar is in his place. And I'm pleased to see it's a Liberal replacement.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Don't start now.

The Chair: Margareta, I don't know how you'd like to proceed now. Would you like to say something? Would you like us...

Ms. Margareta Anderson: I would like to present our master of staff, Gunilla Upmark. She's here to accompany us and to help us write a report of everything we learn here.

The Chair: Gunilla, welcome.

Danielle Belisle.

The Clerk of the Committee: I'm Danielle Belisle, and I'm the clerk of this committee.

• 1555

Mr. Kevin Kerr (Committee Researcher): My name is Kevin Kerr. I'm a researcher with the committee and employed by the Library of Parliament.

Ms. Margareta Andersson: I think it would be interesting to hear what exactly is now going on in the Canadian Parliament on these issues, and then maybe we could have a bit of a discussion.

The Chair: You should know that Judi is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour. I think she said that.

Bonnie Brown, who is here, is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development.

Our committee, as you probably guessed if you looked at our title, covers labour, the matters you've generally described. It covers matters that have to do with disabilities. I've mentioned that part of our title is the Status of Persons with Disabilities, and I think you've all received a copy of the HRDC report on labour. At the back of the room you will find copies of our reports on older workers, and also copies of our report on the use of the social insurance number in Canada, which is one of the issues this committee has been addressing.

To give you a sense of the diversity, I'm going to go to Judi Longfield in a moment, specifically on labour issues, but we have considered the matters of labour force aging, the aging of the population, the impact of that and the incidence of unemployment among older workers, which is a serious matter. We have some tables comparing the situation in Sweden with the situation in Canada, which we have looked at. We've also been concerned about lifelong learning, and I think this is something that is of concern to us all, the change in the marketplace as well as the change in the workforce and the fitting of those two together. Of course, one aspect of that is lifelong learning.

I have a note here that says that as a proportion of national output, Sweden spends more than twice that of Canada—and I'll come back to that in a moment. I have another note here that has to do with the OECD economic outlook report for Sweden and how you're trying to deal with the serious problem of unemployment, as we are dealing with that.

So those are some of the things we could discuss.

But if I could turn to Judi Longfield, Judi, you might want to comment on what we think of as more specifically labour matters, even though I know and you realize that HRDC does many of the things their labour department does.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Essentially, the Canadian Ministry of Labour is charged with responsibility for the Canada Labour Code. It's a three-part code. The first part deals with industrial relations, and the second with occupational health and safety.

Recently we've made some changes to our labour code, which are described in greater detail in the document that's before you. But essentially, our changes to part I of the Canada Labour Code streamlined the collective process, established an industrial relations board, and clarified the rights and obligations of parties during work stoppage. Those kinds of matters were dealt with under amendments to part I of the Canada Labour Code.

Currently before the House we are amending part II, which is the occupational health and safety. We're trying to bring about a system that allows for government, employers, and employees to work congenially to resolve the issues of occupational health and safety, to make certain there are committees established where employees feel they can resolve those kinds of difficulties right on the ground. We are looking at the changing workforce and the ergonomics of many of our people under the federal labour code in dealing with repetitive action strain and those kinds of things.

A number of the things we're doing apply only to those who are under federal jurisdiction. That's essentially those in transportation, communications, banks, and telephones. Ports, railways, airlines—those kinds of things fall under our code. We try to coordinate our efforts with each of the provincial departments of labour.

• 1600

The Chair: Margareta, if I can interrupt, you can see that our definition of jurisdiction of the Minister of Labour is actually much narrower than yours.

Ms. Margareta Andersson: Yes.

The Chair: Our committee has labour, and it has these other matters, which actually come under the Minister of Human Resources Development and Bonnie Brown. Bonnie Brown is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development.

Bonnie, would you want to move from labour, as we define it, into some of the topics they mentioned, in HRDC?

Ms. Bonnie Brown: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I should perhaps explain what HRDC is. It is the largest-spending department in the government. The budget of the Government of Canada is about $120 billion a year, and this department spends about $60 billion of it. As such, it has sometimes been subtitled “the entitlement ministry”. Indeed, we are in charge of almost all the programs that flow money to individuals, such as old age security, the Canada Pension Plan, and employment insurance. In addition to those, there are some supplementary fundings that assist people by topping up what they're getting. We're also in charge of Canada student loans and those things for students, the arrangements with the banks, and so on, for them to get their loans.

One of the reasons we studied our social insurance card was because we were worried about its misuse. As it is sort of the ticket to the entitlement programs, it's very important that its integrity be maintained.

On the labour market issue, we have been distracted by some criticism of late—

Ms. Raymonde Folco: That's an understatement.

Ms. Bonnie Brown: —criticism on the social insurance card, and criticism on our grants and contributions program, which you heard about today in the House.

But one of our ongoing concerns for a number of years has been the effect on the allocation of work for money that has happened with the arrival of more free trade—in other words, the globalization of trade and its effect on the national workforce and how we could go about perhaps sharing work and thereby the fruits of that labour, or the question of whether or not the labour market will continue to be the best way to distribute wealth in future, particularly when you add the technological revolution and the fact that so many jobs that used to take ten people now take one person.

It seems to me that the combination of free trade and digitization is having massive effects on the labour market and has massive implications for the future. In my view, we would have liked to work on that more, but we seem to be in more of a reactive mode, therefore we have not done very much work on some of that creative thinking about the future. But maybe you will tell us what you've been finding out.

The Chair: Margareta, again, I have colleagues who are willing to ask you questions, but we're in your hands. How would you like to proceed now?

Ms. Margareta Andersson: Maybe we could have some questions from our side, and then we could answer your questions.

The Chair: By all means.

Ms. Margareta Andersson: I leave it open to Martin.

The Chair: Okay, Martin Nilsson.

Mr. Martin Nilsson: We have lots of questions. Of course, some of them tend to be obvious to you but not to us, so you must excuse us if we ask some rather foolish questions.

We've met some other people at the ministry or organization that works with immigrants, newcomers. Of course an important issue to us is the unemployment among immigrants, which, at least in our country, tends to be at a rather higher level than for the rest of our population. I'm a little curious about your opinion, and especially what you are doing for immigrants in the labour market. I understand that you have some demands for equity plans at the federal level, but on a more general perspective. That's one question.

• 1605

I would like to ask you another question about the discussion on lifelong learning. That's a discussion that's going on all around the world, and it's an important issue to meet the new society. We heard some discussion on the information about it, and how to make people want to be educated and employers see the need for education. But we are having a discussion about whether or not that's enough to encourage the amount of education that will be needed in a future society.

I wonder if you are discussing some sorts of economic incentives for education, to increase lifelong learning.

The Chair: We have two questions here. One is on the immigrant community, and the other is on lifelong learning.

Rey Pagtakhan.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Let me respond to the immigrant community question, because I had an opportunity to chair the committee that produced or reviewed the Employment Equity Act in the previous Parliament.

We have four target groups. In addition to people with disabilities, aboriginal people, and women, we have visible minorities. Visible minorities, of course, are included as target groups, not quotas. There's a difference between the two, because new immigrants come from countries where there are visible minorities, and we define through legislation who they are, other than the so-called Caucasian population. So we have a target that has to be met.

Secondly, the immigration law states that no job may be offered abroad unless you can demonstrate that people in Canada, whether they are citizens or immigrants, cannot handle the job.

Lastly, we provide settlement services for immigrants and groups precisely to encourage them.

That is my initial response on how we handle the question of employment of immigrants.

We have one remaining problem, and I do not know if Sweden has this one. The accreditation of foreign-obtained credentials remains a continuing problem nationally, but the jurisdiction is provincial. We have not addressed this problem yet, but efforts are being made.

The Chair: We'll keep to the same point, which is immigration—not immigration, but equal...

Raymonde Folco. Is it under the same point?

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to add to the comments of my colleague.

First of all, when an immigrant arrives here who doesn't speak the language, the government offers them—it may be the federal government or the provincial government, it's not homogeneous across Canada—language courses and culture courses. I think you do that in Sweden, as well.

It is very important to remember that after three years, immigrants become Canadian citizens, but a lot of immigrants start their own businesses. In fact when we look at small and medium-sized businesses in Canada, a lot of them are owned by former immigrants. It's not easy, but it's a quick way to create your own job, rather than enter into a structure that's already organized.

On the rate of unemployment for immigrants, I don't have the figures in front of me, unfortunately, but I could get them for you eventually if you're interested. But it is not as high as it is for other segments of the population.

Our unemployment really touches other segments, and I'll just mention the fisheries, for example. I'm sure other people will speak about that, so I'll just mention it.

I will mention that there are federal government programs, such as the contracts the government signs with industries. When an industry agrees to have visible minorities amongst its employees, it can be put on a list and the government will then buy its supplies from that industry, or from industries like it. That's a step in the right direction. I can go into details, but I don't think I will have time for that.

• 1610

Unfortunately one of the big problems in terms of immigrants is that we have very few former immigrants or members of visible minorities, as we call them, who are members of the civil service of Canada. So that is a very big problem.

The Chair: I have a list on this one topic, which is the immigrant. We have to go back to Martin's second point, and then all the others I'm sure want to ask a question. So we'll try to keep it moving.

Libby Davies.

Ms. Libby Davies: Thank you. I'll try to be brief. I actually wanted to touch on both questions.

The Chair: Please do.

Ms. Libby Davies: The area I represent has a very high level of immigration. East Vancouver has basically been built on immigration. The experience I have there is that most new immigrants contribute very productively to the economy and to the community through their own employment and small businesses. However, there are some very significant systemic issues that we don't face very well.

One I know is that for a lot of new immigrants, the issue in Canada of professional credentials is very serious. Whether it's doctors or academics or people who have certain kinds of certifications, it is often very difficult for them to go through the equivalency here. So you may have a scientist who's running around as a taxi driver and certainly not contributing in a way she or he would want to. That's a very big issue I face locally.

Although there is a lot of support for what we call settlement services, there's also a very high demand. For example, in the Vancouver school system, there are many children who have English as a second language. To ensure there is adequate language and social support—not just for the children, but for the families, who are trying to make adjustments in a new and different culture and society—is often not very easy.

I would agree with Raymonde on the issue of what we call employment equity. A number of you said you were looking at this issue of discrimination. There is discrimination. It's not necessarily overt in the employment system, but it's what we refer to as very systemic. We tend to hire people who are like us. That's a big issue for the federal government, but also in other jurisdictions. It's something we as parliamentarians have to be very, very vigilant about to ensure our workforce is representative of the broader community. That's a very big issue in my community.

Just briefly on the education matter, as I'm also the education critic for the NDP, I'll say honestly I really don't know whether in Canada we have grappled with the big picture of lifelong learning. We talk about it a lot, but in terms of real access for mature people and for young people, we still have a post-secondary educational system that is very much based on tuition fees. In fact this is one of the big points we argue about: what students have to face in debt to go through school. In many European countries, post-secondary education is free.

It's something we all believe is important, but I would argue the facilities are not adequate and are barely coping with even the needs of young people who are coming into the system, never mind workers who want to be retrained or go back to school and the whole idea of lifelong learning. I'm sure we could have a three-hour discussion just about that. It's certainly an issue here.

The Chair: Martin, I agree with a fair amount of what Libby has just said, but I could give you some other points. To give you an example, the federal government has just put every elementary school and every high school on the Internet. We've also established Internet access centres in every library in the country. That is one example. Nevertheless I agree with many of the things Libby said.

I think we should move on though, Martin, if that's okay, to Margareta or someone else.

Ms. Margareta Andersson: Patrik wanted to speak.

Mr. Patrik Norinder: Thank you very much.

I have two questions. One is very simple.

• 1615

The Chair: Sorry; just a minute.

Monique.

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay: I would like to add a few points about education.

The Chairman: Certainly.

Ms. Monique Guay: There are some economic incentives designed to promote education. I should stress that here in Canada, education comes under provincial jurisdiction. Consequently, our educational programs are designed to meet the needs of each province. Our needs in Quebec are different, where, as you know, the majority of the population is Francophone.

There are many programs at both the federal and provincial levels. Since I represent Quebec, I will talk about the situation in my province. We have established scholarship programs for students to help them with their post-secondary education. The provincial government also provides financial incentives for parents who want to invest their money for their children's post- secondary education. The government invests an amount determined according to the amount invested by the parents. So we do have some incentives to encourage our young people to pursue their education.

One problem that exists throughout Canada is the retraining of workers. A few years ago, people worked for the same company for their whole lives—for 40 or 50 years. Things have changed very much today, and workers will have two, three or four careers during their working lives. That's now a common phenomenon. Workers who have to switch from one field to another have to adapt to many changes, and unfortunately, we do not always have the structures required to help them retraining.

I think this problem occurs mainly among workers between the ages of 40 and 55. That seems to be a critical period in a worker's life. Employers prefer to hire young people who have just joined the labour force, rather than older workers with all the necessary skills, but perhaps overqualified for a position. This is a serious problem that we should be studying. I'm wondering whether you have the same problems.

[English]

The Chair: Monique is right. Quebec has the lowest tuition fees in Canada for colleges and universities, and Ontario, which several of us represent, has the highest. So there is a diversity here. I don't know if that sort of diversity occurs in Sweden, but there are big differences because of jurisdiction.

Patrik.

Mr. Patrik Norinder: Thank you so much.

As I said, I have two questions. One is very simple, and you can give a very short answer. It would be interesting to hear how you work in this standing committee's meetings and how you deal with different questions.

The other one is more focused on the labour market. I learned today that the participation rate, the employment rate, is quite low, at least compared to our circumstances. Could you give some comments on that issue? In Sweden we have set some goals. For example, by 2004, 80% should be employed. Have you set any goals like that?

The Chair: Colleagues, do you have any comments or any bright ideas on this? No? I have the figures here.

[Translation]

On the same subject? Yes, Yvon Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Earlier I was speaking with Margareta about the Swedish system. Although people say that the unemployment rate is low here in Canada, I am inclined to disagree. I think the Statistics Canada data do not tell the whole story, because they do not take into account all the people who are not working. They only reflect people receiving employment insurance, not people receiving social assistance. So the data are incorrect.

For example, where I am from in New Brunswick, the unemployment rate is not 9%, but rather 20%. The real unemployment rate at the moment is more like 40% because of the closure of the fishery in the Acadian peninsula. As members of the opposition, we are not proud of this. Some government members are indicating that they agree with me, and I am pleased that they are aware of this serious problem facing Canada.

• 1620

Many countries prefer to use figures that look good, but that do not tell the real story. When we calculate the number of people not working, we should not necessarily take into account those who have retired or those who are ill, but should definitely take into account those who are looking for a job and cannot find one, and those who have simply given up looking, out of frustration. I may have sparked some reaction.

[English]

The Chair: I thought Patrik was quoting the employment rate and the participation rate, not the unemployment.

Mr. Patrik Norinder: Yes.

The Chair: It doesn't matter. There are some good points.

John Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey: I just wanted to answer the first question. How does this committee function? I would say—

The Chair: Oh, let's keep on this one first. We'll come back to that. That's too easy.

Mr. John Godfrey: Well, I could make it very short.

The Chair: No, you can't.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: I think that gives you an idea of how the committee works.

I was surprised by the question. I was not surprised by Yvon's response, because we could discuss unemployment, and maybe we should. On the participation rate, which includes the unemployed—so it's those in the marketplace, including the unemployed—what I have for 1998 is 81.8%. Well, let's take the totals: 75.4% in Canada and 78.1% in Sweden. So there is a difference. That's participation. For employment rates, the equivalent figures are 69%, which is lower, and 71.5% in Sweden. So there are differences, to your advantage.

The unemployment rate, which Yvon says is understated, was 8.3% in Canada and 6.5% in Sweden in 1998.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Which I don't agree with.

The Chair: Patrik, how do you count your unemployed? For example, how do you count students? How do you count people who are in prison? How do you count armed forces?

Mr. Yvon Godin: What about people on welfare?

Mr. Patrik Norinder: That's why I said it was the participation. The employment rate is the important thing, not the unemployment rate. We have different ways to count that.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Patrik Norinder: It's impossible to compare unemployment rates. There are so many ways to do that. That's why I asked about the unemployment rate. We put that in the labour force, a percentage of the labour force. How many are employed out of... We say between 16 years and 64 years. You have others, but that doesn't matter so much. This is the way we do it. It's between 16 years and 64 years.

The Chair: Before I go to Rey Pagtakhan, the figures I tried to give you were OECD calculated, 15 to 64 years old. Although you have 78.1% participation, as it says here, we only have 75.4%. That's 3% less. On unemployment rates, same figures, you have 71.5% and we have 69%. Again, you're ahead of us, but not by much.

Rey Pagtakhan.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Yes, Mr. Chair.

In one of the documents I read from the embassy of Sweden, it says the unemployment is 6%. In another statement it remains high. When does your employment rate make it so that it is no longer high? In the documents from your embassy, it says unemployment rates remain high. I read somewhere that the rate is 6%. So my question, for interest, is when does your employment figure... What figure would make it no longer high?

Ms. Margareta Andersson: I think Martin will answer this question. He is the representative for the government.

Mr. Martin Nilsson: The majority.

Ms. Margareta Andersson: The majority, yes.

Mr. Martin Nilsson: Your question was when is our unemployment no longer high?

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Yes.

Mr. Martin Nilsson: Our goal is of course full employment and no unemployment, unless there's unemployment that is caused when people change jobs. As a first target, we want to reach 4%. You should know, however, that the rate... I guess my colleagues from the conservative party perhaps will tell it otherwise, so I'd better tell it myself.

• 1625

You should know, of course, that we have a tradition of having people in active measures in the labour market, in different training programs and so on. I understood that you have that as well. If you count them as well, the unemployment is higher. I should guess it's up to 10%, or perhaps 8% or 9%.

The Chair: When you standardize Sweden's unemployment rate to ours, using our system, yours goes from 6.5% to 8.2% in 1998 and ours was 8.3%.

Mr. Martin Nilsson: That's probably true.

The Chair: So they were very similar.

Patrik, I know it's your question.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Excuse me, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Rey Pagtakhan.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: What do you consider—

The Chair: It's Patrik's question, you realize.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: What percentage of unemployment is full employment? I know it is not zero.

Mr. Martin Nilsson: That's an academic question, I guess. You could discuss it and so on, but we think the unemployment could go down to 4% with no problem. I guess that—

The Chair: Okay, Martin.

Mr. Martin Nilsson: —the least the system could—

The Chair: Margareta, you should control your people much better than this. I can't control mine. At the very least...

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Patrik Norinder: We are not talking about unemployment because it's so difficult to measure unemployment. I think it's better to say employment. What I have here is a labour force document from Canada. It says the employment rate in 1997 was 58.9%. When I compared it to Sweden, we had about 72.8% in 1998. That's the difference I saw when I looked at the figures. They're very different, and this is so difficult.

The Chair: Yes. It's not only difficult, it is actually very important. How we define it affects the people who are involved. We understand that. Kevin might look at those figures and say something in a moment.

I should go to... Who should I go to? Yvon Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I just want to say that I have to leave. It's not because I don't want to be here—this is very interesting—it's that I have to go meet with the Speaker and we have to be there in a few minutes. But I really enjoyed this discussion and I hope you have a bon séjour here in Canada.

The Chair: Merci, Yvon. Thank you.

John, are you going to comment on this or are you going to the next item?

Mr. John Godfrey: I was going to give one answer and move on to the next item.

The Chair: Patrik, if this is okay, John Godfrey will answer.

Mr. John Godfrey: To answer your first question, as you may gather, this committee is more or less like a dysfunctional family. Just imagine a typical family in an Ingmar Bergman movie and you have this committee. It's taken us a month to figure out what we're going to do next.

My question really has to do with the kinds of issues your committee considers. I noticed this morning in the Globe and Mail, one of our national newspapers, a headline that said “Swedes are Getting Burned by the Hectic Pace of Technology; Stress Becomes a Health Problem”. I have two questions, which are related.

Does your committee, by itself or with other committees, consider the implications for population health of the way in which you organize work? That is to say, in issues like this, regulation might protect workers. That's the first issue. Can you handle a large question like that? How does the organization of work affect the health of the population?

The second one, which is somewhat related, is that this committee, before it started doing other things, was considering a study of the Canadian workforce for the 21st century. I guess if we'd gotten around to it, it might have been a very big study, a kind of life-cycle approach to what we need to do to make sure that as many people as possible in our population can participate in the workforce, whether they're disabled, whether they're marginalized, or whether they're just the normal sorts of workers we've had. Do you do those sorts of big studies on the future of the labour force, for example?

• 1630

Ms. Margareta Andersson: I think we have many different answers here.

To the first question, yes, we are dealing with questions with regard to how labour is organized and all these things. During the depression we had in Sweden I think we discussed these questions much too little. It was just how to help people get a job, not what kind of job, or not how the job was organized. That's why in Sweden we have questions like those you read about just now, although I suppose you also have the same questions in many other parts of the world.

I think Martin and Patrik would also like to answer this question.

Ms. Bonnie Brown: Yes, let's have gender equity here.

Mr. Martin Nilsson: I could add a few words to what Margareta already said.

We have a law with regard to the work environment and conditions in the workplace, but there are new conditions that have not been focused on. This article, as you mentioned, discusses stress in the workplace and so on. I think our laws have been a little bit too concentrated on physical issues and not enough on things like stress and newer related problems in the labour market.

With regard to the second issue you mentioned, any big studies on the labour force and so on, I don't really know if we have such ones. Right now, though, the government has a group working, trying to study different problems in the labour market. For example, why is it hard for immigrants to get into the labour market? Why is it hard for the disabled to get their own space in the labour market?

Traditionally I think we have looked at it from the point of view that there is something wrong with the immigrants, or that there is something wrong with the disabled. But perhaps there's something wrong with the labour market. Perhaps there is something wrong with the demand.

We're trying to change focus and to discuss what we can do to look at those sides of it. But it's discussions, not a big study.

The Chair: Before we move on, perhaps I can answer the question about the committee in terms of mechanics. You've already had the psychological thing.

As you heard, we represent about half the budget. We have this committee and we have at the moment two permanent subcommittees, one on children and youth at risk and one on persons with disabilities. Organizationally, that's how we work it.

It has been suggested to us that we might have a third subcommittee, or share another subcommittee, on economic dependency relationships—that is, the possibility of two or three people forming a group that's a bit like a family group with economic dependency relationships.

I say this to you now, as a chair who's a member of the government, that one of the difficulties we've had until this last month has been getting the proper attention of a very large government department. The department has had its problems, but it's very big and very diverse. Until quite recently we had difficulty getting the department to respond to our interests, some of which you've heard about.

We do have the department's interest now, but unfortunately it's focused, as you heard in Question Period, on a particular audit being conducted on grants and contributions in our government, and the inquiry into that. We now have to conduct public hearings into that one matter. The department is very interested in us now, but it's for that one reason.

I think that's where we are.

I have Bonnie Brown here, and then I have Rey Pagtakhan.

Ms. Bonnie Brown: I wanted to respond to one question Patrik raised. It was something about whether we set social goals to reach.

I have to say, in my view, we have done a fairly good job of setting financial goals—for example, reducing the deficit. When the government turned over in 1993, we had an annual deficit of $42 billion. We set the goal of reducing it, and we actually eliminated it in 1998, I think. In five years, essentially, we brought the $42 billion deficit down to zero. Now we are in the enviable position of having a surplus.

• 1635

When it comes to money and budgeting, then, we often have goals, but we are less adept at identifying social goals and assembling the political will to get there.

There was a motion passed in the House, I think unanimously, prior to our arrival that suggested we could, or should, wipe out child poverty by the year 2000. I think many countries signed that. It was kind of an international thing.

At any rate, there was a motion in our House of Commons that said this, and everybody supported it. It has turned out to be a rather elusive goal. However, in trying to achieve it, we have gotten quite a bit of money allocated in the budget for families of the working poor to try to help these children in those families. It's called the child tax benefit.

There are two pieces to the benefit. One is a tax thing and the other is actually a payment by the government to boost the income.

The Chair: One's a credit and one's a benefit.

Ms. Bonnie Brown: Yes. One's a tax credit and one's a benefit, and some people take advantage of both to boost their income.

In a general way, I would say we seem to be less willing to clearly articulate social goals and to then move as quickly towards them as we can. However, in spite of that, the accomplishment of some our economic goals, which we are more inclined to articulate out loud, has actually led, for example, to a reduction in the rate of unemployment. So we have had some good social benefits from some of our thrusts on the economic front.

The Chair: Margareta, I have two people on my list, but I would sooner go to yours, if we can.

Ms. Margareta Andersson: I have three.

The Chair: I have Rey and Monique on my list.

Ms. Margareta Andersson: I think Patrik wanted to answer your question and then Sonja has another good question to raise.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Patrik Norinder: Actually, my first question is with regard to how you work in this standing committee in terms of what we have seen and heard today. We met with HRDC. It's a huge ministry. We have separated it into one ministry and one authority to deal with these questions. We don't work with this huge... Is it a ministry?

The Chair: It's a department, Human Resources Development Canada, or HRDC.

Mr. Patrik Norinder: I was wondering what your part of it is, and how you work with them.

We were also talking about employment and unemployment. Again, it's impossible to compare. If you set goals in unemployment, you can hide unemployment in statistics. You can hide it here and there and say, well, look at this, we have set our goals and we have met them. You can hide a lot of unemployment. That's why I don't like unemployment goals. I like employment goals.

Ms. Bonnie Brown: Yes.

The Chair: Very briefly, I read an article on your 16 or 17 committees. In theory, our committees are an extension of Parliament. If bills are going through Parliament, we receive them and all that type of thing. But I don't believe we have oversight in the way that U.S. Congress committees do.

Bonnie Brown is the parliamentary secretary to the minister. So there's the minister of this very large department...

By the way, Patrik, this was as a result of the downsizing you heard about. We eliminated the deficit but we combined four or five departments into one. So there they are in one. We cut the number of government departments from 41, I believe it was, to 22 or something like that.

That may be part of the problem we face in this department, but it means we try to deal with Bonnie's minister, our Minister of Human Resources Development, who you saw today in Question Period, and we try to deal with the Minister of Labour. My point about getting the attention of the department has to do with their size and the diversity of the groups that are in that one department.

• 1640

This committee has been, in a political sense, quite successful. I'm new to it. On the children's agenda, John is the chair of the subcommittee, and members here are on it. Any success we've had in getting attention to children's problems has been helped by this committee. I can't say more than that. We can't direct or whatever.

On the matter of disabilities, we are engaged in that, and we are the part of government... Again, we have members of our committee on both sides—I'm not talking about just government or just opposition members—who are devoted to the matter of integrating peoples with disabilities into the workforce and so on.

So politically, I don't want to exaggerate, but the committee has been successful. But we still have difficulty—and this is on the record, so the department will read it—getting the real attention of this very big department. I have to say that to you.

Can we go to some more of your colleagues, Margareta?

Ms. Margareta Andersson: Yes, Stig has an answer to this question, and then there are two people who want to raise new questions.

Mr. Stig Sandström: I will say something about this burning out, because we also had this discussion when we were in Washington, with Ted Kennedy's secretary. We are a bit afraid when we look at the U.S. workers, how hard they work and how long they work.

This is a typical political discussion we have in Sweden that we from the left wing drive very hard. We think we must protect the human resource also, as we protect the environment and nature. We must see the long term. If we can cut the working day, perhaps we can work longer, if possible. It's also connected with lifelong learning.

This is a typical political question. In Italy and France they also discussed this and tried to cut the working day. We have no consensus on these political questions.

The Chair: Judi Longfield on that.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: I just wanted to ask what your current hours of employment are and what your retirement age is.

Mr. Stig Sandström: The normal working week is 40 hours a week. We want to cut it to 35. The pension age is officially 65, but in reality it is about 58. We have a growing number of elder people—

The Chair: Stig, we just missed that. In reality it is...

Mr. Stig Sandström: It's 58.

An hon. member: Can they get their pension then?

Ms. Margareta Andersson: That's the average age when people get their pension.

The Chair: I see. Okay.

Ms. Margareta Andersson: But if you work until you're old enough, you should be 65.

The Chair: On the same point, Libby Davies.

Ms. Libby Davies: It's slightly different.

The Chair: It's another point? Okay.

I know you have to leave at 5:30. We'll have some refreshments in a moment. I'm going to try to keep it moving.

Rey, are you okay now, or do you want to say something very briefly?

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I'd like to say something.

The Chair: Okay. It's going to be Rey and then Monique, if you don't mind, and then we'll come back to your other person.

Rey.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I have a very quick one.

In terms of equal participation of immigrants, in the Charter of Rights is a beautiful provision about mobility rights that treats citizens and immigrants equally in terms of employment. That is why once upon a time citizenship was a requirement for a good number of jobs. That no longer is true. You want to take that into account if it is not yet in your constitution and charter of rights and laws.

Number two, you asked about education incentives. The Prime Minister announced in the previous budget what we call the millennium scholarship, which has really been an incentive for a lot of students around the country. Secondly, we give the Prime Minister's science awards. Thirdly, in this present budget, the deduction for scholarships, etc., has been increased from $500 to $3,000. So a lot of incentives are being given.

• 1645

In terms of how we help women, we have maternity leave and we have parental leave during employment, and now again this has been increased in this present budget.

If you do not have an employment equity act yet and you are thinking about it, you may want to learn from the beautiful experience of Canada, and you may want to distinguish very clearly between quotas and targets. Two, you may want to consider having a sunset clause. When the objective has been reached, you may want to have a sunset clause for those objectives. It's just like treating a patient: when the patient is cured, unless it's rheumatic fever, you do not continue to give the penicillin.

The Chair: Rey is a medical doctor. We don't usually use medical analogies here, but he's excused for that.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: The last comment is this. In Canada we have medicare, and we consider that a comparative advantage. If you have it, do you consider it also a comparative advantage in terms of the economic aspect of the country?

The Chair: I think the answer to the first part is you do have it.

Ms. Margareta Andersson: Yes, we have it.

The Chair: The second part of the question is, is it a comparative advantage for your immigrants? I think this would be the point.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: No, no.

The Chair: Oh, for everybody?

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: For the whole country.

The Chair: For the country, excuse me.

Mr. Martin Nilsson: We have health care that is basically financed by taxes and not by tuition. It's discussed politically of course, but the majority of the parties see it as an advantage for society to have it publicly financed by taxes and available to all people in society. There's rather a large consensus on that issue.

The Chair: We'll go to Monique as our last one, and then we'll go through yours, so we won't interrupt you.

Monique Guay.

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay: I will speak, because I am an opposition member. As Ray was saying earlier, the situation is not always rosy. We all agree that it is extraordinary to have a universal health care system, when it is working well and not when we are having serious problems throughout the country, in all the provinces, as is the case here. Transfer payments to the provinces have been reduced. Canadians are having to go outside their province for treatment, even to the United States, because our services are inadequate. Not only Quebec, but all the provinces are facing this serious problem. Something must be done about it. All the provinces are trying to find their own solutions in order to provide care for all those who need it. Cancer patients sometimes have to wait six months before they get treatment. The situation is so serious that people have to be sent outside the province for treatment.

I would like to ask you some questions in another area. Does Sweden have a labour code similar to Canada's? Are there any provisions regarding precautionary cessation of work for women?

We will soon be studying Part II of the Labour Code, which deals with occupational health and safety. I think some new ideas could help us improve the Code. Perhaps you could provide me with some information on this.

[English]

Ms. Margareta Andersson: Should we have an answer to the question? Do you mean that—

Ms. Monique Guay: The labour code.

Ms. Margareta Andersson: Yes, we have a labour code, and we have also codes about motherhood, medical care, and maternity leave before the child is born. Such codes we have in Sweden. We have paternal leave after the child is born until the child is at least 18 months old, with payment until it's a year, for one of the parents. One month is compulsory for the mother, one is compulsory for the father, and then they can share it as they want to.

Ms. Monique Guay: What percentage of their salary do you give them?

Mr. Martin Nilsson: We give them 80%.

• 1650

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay: You pay them 80% of their salary. That is much better than what we do here.

[English]

The Chair: Could you tell us a little bit more about the—

Mr. Martin Nilsson: It's 80% over—

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay: Do you pay them 80% for one year?

[English]

Mr. Martin Nilsson: Yes, but there's a ceiling. If you have a high income, you don't get 80% of your salary. But in general it's 80%, yes.

The Chair: Could you tell us briefly about the prenatal leave you mentioned?

Mr. John Godfrey: Was it leave or was it protection?

The Chair: What did you say about before the baby is born? Could you explain that?

Ms. Margareta Andersson: If it's necessary for the mother or for the baby's health, then you can have this leave before. If everything is okay, then you can continue working.

The Chair: That's very interesting.

Libby Davies.

Ms. Libby Davies: I have to go to a meeting at 5 o'clock, so my apologies for leaving early. I wish we could continue the discussion.

The Chair: Libby, you're more than welcome to take some sandwiches and a glass of wine with you.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: Margareta.

Ms. Margareta Andersson: Thank you. Sonja, you have another question you will raise.

Ms. Sonja Fransson: Yes. Thank you. I want to ask you two questions.

One is that I have heard that you have a general discrimination law for handicapped people just like ADA in the U.S.A., and I wonder how it's functioning. Is it a good law, and how is it going in practice? How do you practise it?

Another thing is, do you have a program for people with a disability so that they have work? Do you help them with salary rates, equipment, or something else? Do you have special programs for young people who have a disability?

The Chair: Bonnie Brown.

Ms. Bonnie Brown: The programs you saw being criticized in the House include seven main programs, and within that set there is a special fund set aside called the Opportunities Fund. That Opportunities Fund is specifically targeted to people with disabilities. Its specific use is directed toward trying to get them into paid employment. Within the parameters of that fund, it could be used in a variety of ways. It could be used for some training and upgrading. It could be used as a wage subsidy to an employer who was willing to take on the disabled person. It's pretty flexible, that particular fund.

But in addition to that, and not restricted to disabled people, we have our youth employment strategy. A young disabled person also might be able to take advantage of the various components of our youth employment strategy, and there are several: the first one they usually encounter is the summer jobs program for students. We put a lot of money out to employers to encourage them to hire students in the summer, and in some cases disabled students are able to take advantage of that. There also are moneys for youth who come out of school and want to start their own business. There are again wage subsidies for employers who will give people their first job.

I'm trying to think of some more.

The Chair: There's the youth internship program.

Ms. Bonnie Brown: There's the youth internship program whereby we help to fund young people who are having their first eight, ten, twelve months of work in a company to learn about that company and the kind of work that is available there. But they are paid to go. It's just like their first job.

The Chair: The transition from school to work program, Bonnie, is another one.

Ms. Bonnie Brown: Yes.

The Chair: Another one is the employability assistance for people with disabilities, which again is designed to integrate people.

• 1655

Sonja, perhaps I could answer. I think we then should move on.

With regard to the first point about it being comparable with the United States, the federal employment equity legislation applies to federal employees and to other private areas that come under federal jurisdiction.

Mr. John Godfrey: Federally regulated companies.

The Chair: Yes. One of the target groups for employment equity is people with disabilities. This means that those employers, the federal government itself and these corporations that are regulated by the federal government, have to employ people with disabilities in proportion to their percentage in the population. That is the comparison I think you wanted to make. Is that okay? Can we move on?

Just a minute, Monique.

[Translation]

Another colleague has just arrived.

Would you please introduce yourself, Christiane Gagnon?

Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): My name is Christiane Gagnon and I am the member of Parliament for Québec, which is located in the capital of Quebec. I am a member of the Sub- Committee of the Human Resources Committee that is studying children and youth at risk. Family policy, including poverty, is also one of my areas of interest.

I have read that in Sweden you have a policy on the integration of women and labour that has some teeth. I would like some details about this policy. I understood that the birth rate in Sweden had increased considerably compared to other countries.

[English]

The Chair: How interesting.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: That is very interesting. I would like to know more about this. The information I had, appeared in a document analyzing the policies of the various industrialized countries. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: We only have a few minutes left. I think we can break, and we're going to have a little bit of food. I know you have to leave, but perhaps you have time for a glass of wine. Go ahead.

Ms. Margareta Andersson: The number of births is getting much lower now. We had a baby boom in the early 1990s, and now there is no boom. There is the opposite of it, I think.

We have some laws about women and labour, and I think we could discuss that.

But I think Maria has another question she wants to ask.

The Chair: Maria, as you and I discussed, you have the largest percentage of women members of Parliament of any parliament in the world, I believe. Is that right?

Ms. Maria Larsson: That's correct. We are about 42 percent.

I want to ask a question about labour. We have understood that there are big differences in provincial politics. Is that a problem? If you look at labour market issues, is there a problem from the federal level? Please give some examples whether the answer is yes or no.

The Chair: I will ask my colleagues to respond, but I want to respond to it first, if I might.

First of all, I believe that in a country like this a confederal approach is the only way we can operate. I believe it is a very creative way of governing. There are different levels. Each of them is very democratic. The municipal level is very strong and very democratic, and so are the provincial and federal levels. So we all have our place. But it does lead to frustrations.

The issue of the mobility of labour is an important one, which is affected. With regard to the point we asked before about life-long education, even if the federal government does things, it is the provinces that have that jurisdiction. Sometimes there are difficulties in going from the educational level in one province to the educational level in another.

But those, I believe, are short-term disadvantages. I have to say to you unequivocally that even though I get frustrated as a member of the federal Parliament, I think the decentralized democracy we have is very strong.

I'm going to go to John Godfrey first, and then to Rey Pagtakhan.

Mr. John Godfrey: I think the challenge for us in all areas of social policy, whether it's labour or family, is in fact to find a common way of working together. Christiane and I work, for example, on the children and youth at risk committee. The challenge for us is to find a larger purpose that brings us together. That is, whether the policy realm is provincial or municipal or federal, unless we have a common goal of how we're going to pull all of those elements in a kind of

• 1700

[Translation]

national societal project, so to speak.

[English]

Unless we can actually work together, and it's very difficult... We're trying, for example, in the realm of early childhood development, to come to a deal with the ten provinces and two territories by the end of this year. The Prime Minister has invited the premiers of the provinces to work together at the community level.

So how do we make sure that everything we do works to a common purpose? Whether it's in the labour field or, as I say, in almost any other social field, the health field, it is very challenging, but as Peter says, unless we... The advantage is that different provinces are further ahead on some of these issues. Quebec is further ahead in family policy, childhood policy, and young offenders.

Ms. Monique Guay: Everything.

The Chair: Not in everything, but in some things.

Mr. John Godfrey: In some things. There are other provinces who are further ahead in manpower training. But the point is that if we all try to go up to the higher level set by different provinces, we'll be a better country.

The Chair: Rey Pagtakhan.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: There have been problems that we must admit. One problem of course is the nature of the political process. There is such a thing as federal bashing. It happens.

Number two, sometimes we do not get credit for the things we give them. For example, the manpower training dollars have been transferred to a number of provinces now as part of decentralization and devolution. Unfortunately, when they announce these programs in the provinces, the provinces selfishly only claim the credit. They do not give the credit to us but they give us all the problems. So you should safeguard against that.

In terms of some other positive aspects of the federal-provincial relations, again to get back to the issue of immigration, if we have to recruit workers who are not available in Canada, there is an agreement with a number of provinces—almost seven out of ten, if not eight. There is the federal-provincial nominee program where the provincial governments designate the skills needed, identify the people to be recruited, and send the papers to the foreign embassies. The foreign embassies tell the applicants, and the applicants then are assessed only for medical clearance and national security clearance and therefore are assured of entry to the given province. That is the federal-provincial nominee program that answers to specific labour market demands identified by the provinces. That is a good sign of federal-provincial relations.

The Chair: Monique Guay. And then we should wind this one up, because, as you can see, we could get into something here.

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay: As you can see, we have different schools of thought here. In Quebec, we have a completely different way of seeing things. I'm sure you have heard about the situation in Quebec vis-à-vis the rest of Canada. It is a unique situation, and it is difficult. We have been talking about sovereignty for 30 years. We are still talking about it, but someday it will probably be a fait accompli.

Since we are sovereignist members of Parliament, naturally we are always trying to get the most possible powers for Quebec. We fought for 10 years to get powers in the area of employment, and to avoid the systematic waste of billions of dollars because of overlap between the federal and provincial governments. We finally managed to get full powers over employment, because we had already set up a system. Other provinces, on the other hand, have still not acquired these powers. For example, Quebec collects its own taxes and income taxes, while the federal government does it in the case of the other provinces. That is something we did as...

[English]

The Chair: Very efficiently, we collect the taxes.

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay: ...the government of Quebec, that's all. So differences do exist. In the case of employment, the process was very complicated. People would go to a federal employment centre and then were directed to various provincial programs. People constantly had to go from one place to another, and they were fed up. We patriated all these programs and we have been implementing them to suit our purposes. It was not easy, but the system is working well now.

• 1705

[English]

The Chair: Maria, you can see this is a very interesting question.

Now, I have two colleagues, but if I can... We're not going to get any refreshment here because I know you have to leave. Margareta, do you have other colleagues who want to ask...

Mr. John Godfrey: Why don't we do it informally over drinks?

The Chair: Can we do it informally over a drink?

A voice: I think so.

The Chair: Bryon, very briefly, then Christiane. Very briefly.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: I want to say that the reason we have a federal system in part is because of geography, and part of it is because of language, and part of it is because of culture. My colleagues on the other side represent one element in Quebec. They don't represent the only element in Quebec. The fact is there are strong federalists in Quebec.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: But one of the comments I would make is that often the federal government in Canada will give money, such as in health care, while we do not administer any hospitals or have anything to do with the health care system. We transfer money, but we get all of the criticism, because the provinces continue to say they don't get enough. But when you don't have the ability to administer, you have a problem. So the system is constantly—

The Chair: Christiane Gagnon.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: I am being given another opportunity, and I will make a few comments on what the member has just said. Patriation of the responsibility for employment was done as a result of a consensus between federalists and sovereignists in Quebec. These powers were patriated because we wanted an integrated employment policy in order to provide services to both the unemployed and welfare recipients. We wanted these people to have access to one-stop shopping. We did not want to make distinctions between people according to their eligibility for employment insurance benefits.

We will stop with our criticisms at this point.

[English]

The Chair: Margareta, we're in your hands. I want to say to you all that this has been very interesting for us. We hope we can have some refreshment before we leave. We want to thank you for visiting Canada.

On the point of size, I happened to look it up, and the province of Ontario covers exactly the same area as Sweden, and the province of Quebec is almost twice as big.

Ms. Margareta Andersson: We do also thank you very much for this very interesting meeting, and I think it would be very interesting to continue this discussion. But then we could do it in Stockholm. We would be very glad to invite you to Stockholm, okay?

Mr. John Godfrey: We'll come, we'll come.

The Chair: More! More!

Ms. Margareta Andersson: You are very welcome. Just to show you what you could see in Stockholm, we would like to hand a little gift over to you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, indeed. And thank you all very much for being here. We hope the rest of your stay is interesting.

If there is material that you need, Gunilla... As I mentioned, we have some reports here, but if there are others, we would be glad to try to provide them for you.

Ms. Margareta Andersson: And we want to thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

The meeting is adjourned until tomorrow at 11 o'clock, our regular time, colleagues.