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, March 2, 2000

• 1107

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Colleagues, we will begin. If there are any visual media here, I'd be grateful if they would leave.

The order of the day, as you can see in the agenda, is pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), a study of HRDC grants and contributions.

I'll introduce our witnesses in a moment, but before that, first of all I want to thank the members who have submitted lists of witnesses. I would urge you, if you have witnesses, to submit them as soon as possible. That will allow us to plan various things.

I would also like to report two things. First of all, the responses to the questions we left with our witnesses on February 10 are essentially available at the moment and you will be receiving them in your office, if not today then very soon. So that's the February 10 meeting.

Also, going back now to before Christmas, just so you know, in response to our various discussions there on Canada Pension Plan disability, I have received a summary of disability appeals, which is something we asked for. That will be circulated to you. You'll remember that Victor Rabinovich was here and he promised us that information. We do have it.

In a follow-up to that meeting, I had a meeting with Commissioner Peter Smith. He's the commissioner of the review tribunal of the Canada Pension Plan and old age security. I had a general meeting with him. He came. He had been following our meetings. He left some material with me. It's not the sort of material I would circulate to the committee, but if any of you are interested in that, he has said that as commissioner, he's more than willing to appear before the committee if we wish or to provide us with other material on the disability review process. I'll leave this material with the clerk. If any of you would like it, that's where it is.

I will now proceed and introduce our witnesses. As you recall, we're discussing grants and contributions in general. This is the idea. This is to lay the foundation for our public hearings in the following weeks, the foundations for the sorts of questions we will be asking our future witnesses. As I understood it, it's kind of a briefing on grants and contributions in general within the HRDC.

• 1110

We have with us Claire Morris, the deputy minister. Claire, we welcome you here again. You've been with us a number of times. We appreciate that. David Good is assistant deputy minister, Human Resources Investment Branch. David, welcome to you once again. Alan Winberg is assistant deputy minister, Financial and Administrative Services, and Bill Ferguson is director general of the New Brunswick region. Bill, you're new to our committee. We welcome you here. It's really good of you to come this distance.

I understand in a sense we have the Ottawa part of HRDC here and you're sort of representing the regions in this briefing. Welcome, and thank you for coming all this way.

Deputy, we're in your hands. I understand you have a statement of some sort. You know the procedure; we will listen and then we will have questions from members on all sides. Claire Morris.

Point of order from John Williams. John, we welcome you as a substitute on this committee.

Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I have had an opportunity to read the briefing that's been provided by the deputy minister, which is pretty general in its application. I was wondering if it could just be appended to the notes—

The Chair: John, I think not. This is a public hearing, and I think it's better if it's on the record what the department has to say. My understanding is that it's relatively brief. I understand your point, but I think there are other purposes to these hearings than just informing our members.

Claire Morris.

Ms. Claire Morris (Deputy Minister, Department of Human Resources Development Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm pleased to be here today and have the opportunity to outline for you the grants and contributions of the department and to take any questions you have on these matters. You've graciously introduced our colleagues and indicated that we have both a regional and a headquarters presence here today.

[Translation]

I'd like to begin this brief by providing you with some key background information and by situating our Grants and Contribution programs in the broader context of the administration of our departmental programs.

I will ask David Good to provide a brief description of our major groups of Grants and Contribution programs.

In light of the significant work plan of Standing Committee on these matters, I'd also like to offer from the outset whatever assistance we can provide. I understand that a number of days will be set aside to hear from officials and others.

[English]

HRDC would be pleased to provide you with technical briefings on all aspects of how we are strengthening the delivery of grants and contributions. Subject to your views, we could address in more detail such issues as the legislation and Treasury Board regulations under which we operate; the financial monitoring and assessment practices we follow; the accountability and management structures and work processes we're implementing; details of individual programs and how they are delivered; and of course the specific elements of the six-point action plan outlined to you on February 10 by the minister.

Although I know members of the committee are well aware of the scope of the department, I think it's important to comment briefly on the makeup of HRDC. From our involvement in developing the national children's agenda to our delivery of old age security benefits, we really do reach Canadians of all ages with many kinds of programs and services.

HRDC was only created in 1993 as part of the major government restructuring that year. All or major parts of five different departments came together under one new umbrella. That was followed by many more changes. The government launched its social security reform exercise in 1994, Employment Insurance reform in 1995, program review also in 1995, and then the labour market development agreements with the provinces and territories beginning in 1996. During this period we reduced staff by 5,000 person-years to the current 23,000, closed or consolidated over 300 offices, and transferred over 2,000 staff who managed grants and contributions to the provinces to deliver devolved programming.

There have always been many challenges before HRDC and we're the first to recognize that sometimes we don't meet the high standards we set for ourselves. A special challenge is getting the right balance between working innovatively with partners to get results and ensuring the proper administrative controls and transparencies.

• 1115

There are many other challenges. There's the challenge of ensuring the proper balance between our emphasis on local autonomy and client service, on the one hand, and on the other, sufficient attention to monitoring and controls. There are the people issues, such as training and workload; there are the process issues, like the adequacy of our methods for controlling quality; and finally, there are information system challenges, both technological and administrative, to help modernize our programming. I share our minister's deep concern for the need to address and manage all these administrative challenges, and I'm confident that HRDC will rise to these challenges quickly and effectively.

[Translation]

Let me take a moment to situate Grants and Contributions in our overall programming.

Every policy, program and partnership in HRDC is designed to help achieve our departmental mission, which is to enable Canadians to participate fully in the workplace and the community. One way or another, they are all focused on that goal.

There are many ways to enable that full participation and these are reflected in our programming. Well over 90% of our budget goes to statutory expenditures such as EI, CPP and OAS benefits. Those transfers to individuals represent one delivery instrument. The use of a legislative and regulatory framework is another delivery instrument. Examples are the Canada Labour Code and the Employment Equity Act which set common standards for the workplaces that they cover.

[English]

Over a million Canadians are unemployed, and there are many other social policy pressures and challenges in communities across the country. These challenges are severe in some regions and with some groups in society. In many cases, grants and contributions are the appropriate program mechanism. Spending on them this fiscal year involves $3.3 billion out of a $60 billion HRDC budget.

I'll take a minute to define our terms here.

“Grants” are unconditional transfers. Once a project is approved, the funding is not subject to the provision of receipts, but results are tracked.

“Contributions” are conditional payments. The money has to be accounted for against legitimate expenses incurred, and it is subject to audit. The majority of HRDC programs are contribution programs, not grant programs.

They aren't one-size-fits-all programs. While they share the same broad objectives, each program is tailored to meet the specific needs and realities of a particular clientele or a detailed policy objective. They operate in different ways. They use many different service delivery instruments. Perhaps most importantly, depending on eligibility criteria, projects can range from less than $5,000 to many millions of dollars.

Some programs are directly managed by HRDC. Within those programs, some are delivered at the local level, largely by our staff at the HRCC centres; others are the responsibility of HRDC's regional offices, because they involve partnerships with provincial or territorial governments who deliver the programs, or with other partners who operate at that level. Combined, this accounts for about 90% of the grants and contributions programming and almost all of its labour market programming.

Finally, some are delivered by staff at our national headquarters because they involve partnerships with national organizations. This totals about 10% of the programming. Many programs are delivered on our behalf by third parties.

[Translation]

We work with an extremely wide range of partners in our Grants and Contributions programming. Under the Labour Market Development agreements, the Northwest Territories, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec and New Brunswick have taken on full responsibility for the design and delivery of contributions under Part II of the Employment Insurance Act.

In the 2000-01 fiscal year, we estimate that those governments will be responsible for about 45% of all EI Part II program spending—largely grants and contributions that we used to be responsible for. Under the agreements, they are fully accountable for results.

• 1120

We work with literally thousands of partner organizations.

There is no one single model in all these partnerships. The choice of partners and design of instruments depends very much on our assessment of best options for achieving policy goals.

[English]

Over the years there have been significant changes in the way HRDC delivers these programs. For example, we now have a more direct partnership with these organizations. We have more multi-year agreements, and we've introduced more flexibility to ensure that programs are effective in meeting community needs. These changes have come as a result of assessing policy requirements and the evaluations of our programming.

In the spirit of supporting such partners to create jobs, build community capacity, or help workers find new work, administrative processes have sometimes been secondary to getting results. We recognize, however, that sound public administration strengthens our ability to be effective. We therefore need to ensure that our administrative tools and practices are as well adapted to the realities of program delivery as possible so that it's evident that rigorous administration and achieving results go hand in hand.

[Translation]

While we pursue our policy objectives through grants and contributions in many different ways, I want to make clear that all grants and contributions operate in a consistent legislative and regulatory framework.

After Cabinet agrees to an initiative that involves the use of grants and contributions, the next step is to develop a detailed proposal for the program. The terms and conditions for the initiative will set out eligibility, time frames and other elements. Treasury Board ministers review and approve any grants and contributions terms and conditions.

[English]

Our grants and contribution programs are also subject to assessments for performance measurement purposes. This is consistent with our commitment to review our programs and to make them work better.

Our internal audit bureau has an annual workplan to review program administration and management issues. The internal audit bureau focuses on the how of what we do.

[Translation]

HRDC also has a very strong program evaluation function that considers the overall program effectiveness of our programs and services. It focuses on the “what and why” of what we do. Each type of review, audit and evaluation complements the other.

There is one other method of tracking accountability and effectiveness that I want to mention. Our report on Plans and Priorities and our departmental Performance report to Parliament set out concrete commitments to obtain key results.

[English]

I've outlined the general context of how HRDC approaches grants and contributions programs. I've set out the broad legislative regulatory policy and program design and performance assessment frameworks under which they operate. With your leave, I would like to ask David Good to provide a very brief description of our seven major categories of grants and contributions programs.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Good.

Mr. David Good (Assistant Deputy Minister, Human Resources Investment Branch, Department of Human Resources Development Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will be very brief, and I will refer people to the pie chart that is located in their package. My intent would be simply to take people through the seven program areas with a brief description of each.

As you will see on the pie chart—

The Chair: Colleagues, it's in the folder, just inside the front page.

Carry on, David.

Mr. David Good: What I would like to do is to relate the purpose of the programs basically to the information that was provided two weeks ago with respect to all the projects administered within HRDC.

As you will see from the chart, the largest area in grants and contributions is really in the area of labour market programs. Those programs are really designed to help get people back to work and promote the attachment of people to the labour force and to work.

• 1125

The largest component of that is really the employment benefits and support measures, a large amount of which has been transferred and devolved to the provinces. We work with and through the provinces with regard to the achievement of the results in that program.

You'll also see an amount that is about 5% of the total for the Canada Jobs Fund. That, of course, is aimed at providing opportunities for sustainable jobs in areas of high unemployment.

The second area is the youth programming, and it's the next largest. It's nearly $300 million. It's basically designed to help young people get that critical experience they need and exposure to career opportunities so they can make that key transition from school to work. It provides opportunities for them in that regard.

The third area is the aboriginal programs. These are delivered with and through our partners in the aboriginal communities to deliver employment and training programs that are geared to the specific needs of aboriginal communities. That's a comprehensive program dealing with both on and off reserve, with both youth as well as people with disabilities. It's a key part of our aboriginal human resources development strategy.

The fourth component is our sectoral partnerships. There our objective is to look at opportunities for individuals as well as working with our sector councils so they can bring together employers and employees to look at the individual skills that are required within a particular sector, be it the mining sector, the steel sector, the automobile repair sector, or what have you. Basically, the key there is to look at the individual skills that are required and how we develop those.

The fifth area is social development partnerships. In that area we have two major programs. The first is child care visions, which focuses on supporting innovative research and development projects to look at the best practices with respect to child care. And the second is the social development partnerships, which again is a research and development program that supports efforts in social development with a strong emphasis on the voluntary non-profit sector.

The sixth area I want to mention is learning and literacy. This is a key part of our strategy to promote life-long learning. It basically has four components. One is a learning initiatives fund, which encourages and supports the development of relevant results with regard to increased learning. Second is international mobility in higher education, which supports individuals and student mobility across jurisdictions both within and outside of Canada. Third is our office of learning technology, which focuses on new ways of looking at learning technology. And lastly, there is the National Literacy Secretariat, which addresses the needs for literacy and basically focuses on increasing awareness, improving learning materials, and supporting research in the literacy area.

The last program I'd like to mention, Mr. Chairman, is in our labour program, which you can see from the pie chart is a small program but nonetheless an important one. The purpose there is to support employers and unions to test out best practices and best ideas to improve the workplace.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Deputy. I appreciate that.

Colleagues, you know I'd never try to direct the committee. Our purpose today is to understand grants and contributions to programs we're concerned with.

Our next witness is going to be the internal auditor. One of the things we have to do before we finish today, if any of you are thinking of leaving, is to determine at least who the witness after that will be to try to get some focus to this inquiry into the internal audit we're looking at.

I'm going to try to be as fair as I can. The witnesses recognize that the chair is here. I hope you will all continue to do the same. I already have a long list, so I'm going to keep it moving.

John Williams.

Mr. John Williams: Mr. Chair, I'm a little confused here.

The Chair: Are you?

Mr. John Williams: Yes. We have the deputy minister and two deputy ministers here before us today, and you are saying that we're just going to set out a framework of what we intend to do as a committee. If so, will the deputy minister and assistants be back?

The Chair: John, I'm willing to take as much time in these things as you wish. We have a plan that the committee—you have not been here—is following. We have tried to come up with some design. It has taken us I think three weeks to get to this point.

Mr. John Williams: Yes.

The Chair: This first meeting is a general briefing.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): One meeting.

The Chair: You will see that I am not going to use technicalities to stop you asking some question or other, but I am going to try to keep the discussion focused so we can move on. For example, if we're not prepared for the internal audit, if we don't understand these things, when the internal auditor comes we'll waste yet another meeting. So if you don't mind, as the first three on my list I have Diane Ablonczy, who is there, Bryon Wilfert, and then Paul Crête. And then I have a lot of others.

• 1130

Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Chairman, I'm filling in, as you know. Do you not go back and forth and everybody has an opportunity—

The Chair: I do, and certainly you'll be on. As you'll see, I have at the moment people who have already asked me. I have Reform, Liberal, Bloc, Liberal, NDP, Liberal, Reform, Liberal, Liberal. By the way, I can put you in if you wish.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Yes.

The Chair: Very good. You'll be on the list as soon as I can get you in here.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Thank you very much.

[Translation]

The Chair: Yvon, you are already on the list.

[English]

Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I have a point of clarification. Are you giving us, so we can frame our time of questioning, the five minutes we expect—

The Chair: No, I'm not going to do that.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: What are you doing then, Mr. Chair?

The Chair: Rey, I don't want to do that. I've never done it before. We haven't done that since October and I'm not going to change now. I have to balance individuals and parties and I do my very best to do that.

Diane Ablonczy.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Chairman, thank you.

Mr. Good mentioned the information that was provided two weeks ago. As I'm sure he is aware, with respect to the Transitional Jobs Fund, which was part of the information that was provided, we had obtained a list of this program and the grants that were made under the program previous to the list being then provided two weeks ago, and there were some very substantial differences, omissions and changes in this document, which was an historic document. We asked for it last May, which is nearly a year ago. This is not information that has to do with anything that's current, but information that has to do with grants that were given over a three-year period.

I would like to know why there are discrepancies between the two documents that purport to set out grants that were given in an historic sense.

Mr. David Good: There are a number of caveats and notes to readers included in your package, which really describes two sections within the material. One section is called section 2 and the other is section 3. I would refer members to that.

Under section 3 we have attempted to provide the most comprehensive—

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: I'm sorry, there are no page numbers. Can you give me a reference so I can follow along?

The Chair: Section 3 is more detailed information on the Transitional Jobs Fund, right?

Mr. David Good: I'm dealing with the information package for members of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities and I'm referring to the first page, which deals with the various sections.

The Chair: It's section 3(a), colleagues. Ça va? Okay.

Mr. David Good: You'll see with regard to sections 2 and 3.... I'm at the covering page, and then I will go down into those individual sections.

Under section 2, what we provided is information by constituency. That has been on the basis of information that has been input to us from the regions. We have both TJF and CJF projects listed under that section.

If one wants to get the most complete and updated information with regard to CJF and TJF, the best place to go is to section 3, because basically that provides the most up-to-date information we have. So if one would turn to section 3, what one has in that section—

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Again, there's no section 3. There's only—

The Chair: You do have to watch this; you've lost me here. We have 3(a) and 3(b).

Mr. David Good: With respect to the Transitional Jobs Fund under section 3(a), basically, what was provided was information that outlined for each of the projects the member of Parliament, the riding in which the project took place, the name of the sponsor, the actual location of where the project took place, as well as the amount of money that was approved for the TJF project, the amount of contribution from the other partners, the expected number of jobs at the time in which the project was approved, and as well—

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: I'm sorry, that's not getting to the heart of my question, and we are very limited in time.

Why would this information be different on two different lists?

Mr. David Good: The reason it is different on two different lists—and the notes indicate that—is because the information that was provided in section 2, which was really the input from the regions.... Basically, we've indicated that is not the most accurate information to use. The reason it is there is because we had complete information with regard to the constituencies.

• 1135

As you'll see in the notes from the reader, the information to use is found in section 3(a) with regard to TJF and section 3(b) with regard to the Canada Jobs Fund.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Can you put that in plain English for me?

Mr. David Good: What I'm saying is that to do any analysis or to examine the best information on TJF, use section 3(a), information that's been provided, and with respect to CJF—

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Yes, but what's section 3(a) information? We have two lists. One was provided under the access to information process last year. One was provided two weeks ago. Which of those two lists is the list that can be relied on? Why can't the other one be relied on?

Mr. David Good: The most recent list is the one to rely upon. The reason is that some projects that were under way may not have proceeded, and other projects were not—

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: But these are projects that were finished at the time. These are projects under the TJF, which was finished at the time we asked for the information.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Mr. Chair, maybe the witness can complete the answer and then the member can pose a subsequent supplementary question.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: I'm sorry; I'm the one who's asking for the information, so please allow me to do that.

The Chair: Let's go ahead. Colleagues, David and Diane, through the chair. Go ahead.

Mr. David Good: I guess what I'm trying to indicate is that the most recent and up-to-date information we have is the information on TJF and CJF that was released two weeks ago. That updates the information from previous lists that may have been available.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: But my problem with that, Mr. Good, through you, Mr. Chairman, is this. At the time the information was compiled under the access to information process, those programs were finished. The TJF was finished. It then became the CJF, as you know. It was finished at that time; the projects were history. So why was there not an accurate list provided to us under the access to information process about those projects, which had been completed?

Mr. David Good: Again, I would have to look at the exact request as to what was specifically asked for in the access to information request. What is provided from the department is what the request was. Whether it was a complete request for all of the information, I'm not sure. I can assure you that the most recent information we have and the most reliable information, the most up-to-date information, is in fact the information that was released last week. That is comprehensive information.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: My question really would be, Mr. Chairman, why would there be information added from the time we asked for the information a year ago to the information we just got? The subject matter of those programs had already been completed when we asked for the information last year.

Mr. David Good: I guess there are a number of explanations for what would make the list different. One is that some projects may have been approved but didn't proceed. Some projects may have gone out of business or bankrupt in the period of time. We find over time that because of mergers, some names actually change on the projects. You will see that as you go through and examine them. I do want to assure you that the most recent information we have is the information released two weeks ago.

The Chair: Diane, if you don't mind, I'm going to move on.

I will remind you—and this is for Elsie's and others' benefit—that there are 18 people on this committee and that ten minutes each is three hours. The ten minutes would include the answers, so both should be short.

I have Bryon Wilfert, Paul Crête, and Larry McCormick next.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Just a moment, Mr. Chair. In my view, historical data cannot change. There were changes. I'm not satisfied with the explanation. I would recommend to the committee that we examine that very thoroughly.

The Chair: I hear the recommendation.

Bryon Wilfert.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My question is through you to the deputy minister.

You started out by talking about how the department was put together in 1993. What you described, to me personally, is a bit of an octopus, in fact a very unwieldy octopus, one which may account for the situation we find ourselves in at the present time with all of the subdepartments that are included under HRDC.

My first question is going to be a very subjective question. Do you believe that the department, as it is currently made up, can continue to function? Given the problems of monitoring and controls and reporting systems, maybe it is far too large and it needs to be reviewed in terms of reorganization, both in terms of structure and in terms of delivery.

• 1140

Ms. Claire Morris: It is a very large department with a very wide range of programs, but, as I believe I indicated in my opening remarks, there is a great deal of commonality in terms of the basic objectives and the mission of the department. I think it's important to put in perspective again that when we talk about the grants and contributions area, which is where we've identified the major administrative deficiencies we're addressing, that is a $3 billion portion of a $60 billion budget. As you know, many of those other programs are statutory programs delivered under very defined frameworks, legislative frameworks and regulatory frameworks.

My own sense is that the department functions very well as a department. We can learn from the strengths of each of the branches in the department. I think we would all agree that the area where we have the administrative weakness is in the area of grants and contributions. With the action plan we've put in place and with the initiatives we've undertaken, we can in fact strengthen that significantly.

The Chair: Bryon, very briefly.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Mr. Chairman, I certainly will be wanting to delve into the action plan. I think that is a very crucial element.

I still come back to the fact that you had a task force on monitoring that was done in the early 1990s. I don't know that you can get into great detail today as to what recommendations were implemented and, if they were implemented, why we wound up in the situation we find ourselves in today.

I won't belabour some of the statistics I have read and am all too familiar with. They make my blood boil. My question, through you, Mr. Chairman, is this. Has there been any discussion of looking strategically to whether or not we can deliver, in light of the fact of the partners you talked about, a more streamlined approach by maybe reducing or splitting off certain elements of the department in order to be more effective in serving the clients that in fact we do serve?

The Chair: That's a long question, and it has to be very brief.

Ms. Claire Morris: That's not an issue we're pursuing, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Okay, thank you.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: There may be something, Mr. Chairman—

The Chair: Thank you. It's duly noted.

Paul Crête, Larry McCormick, Yvon Godin, then Judi Longfield.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): I have a burst of quick questions. First of all, I'd like you to tell me the actual number of files that were investigated, whether it be a legal, administrative or a financial investigation, and I would like it if you could please provide me with a list.

Secondly, I'd like to talk about the Canada Jobs Fund. I would like to be able to get my hands on a copy of the guideline that specifies the criteria other than the unemployment rate which allows for exceptions, if such a guideline exists.

Thirdly, you stated in your brief that the amounts indicated under the CJF represent the amount initially approved, and not the modified amount or the amount actually spent. Are you not able to tell us how many jobs were actually created and how much money was actually spent? If you are able to do so, when will you provide us with this information?

And lastly, does the internal audit accurately reflect the operation of the entire department? So if, out of the 457 cases there were a certain number of problematic cases identified, then if we were to extrapolate on that, it was an understatement when you said that you were not measuring up to the high expectations that the department had set for itself.

Ms. Claire Morris: I will try to answer your first and fourth questions and I will ask Mr. Good to answer the others, which deal with criteria relating to the regions where the job creation program applies as well as the number of jobs created.

• 1145

In response to your question about the list of investigations and audits which have taken place until now, as the Minister stated in the House yesterday, we are aware of nine police investigations, seven of which by the RCMP and two by local police forces. It goes without saying that we are not able to provide more details because we might prejudice these pending investigations.

With respect to the 37 cases which we raised questions about, I can tell you that the investigation has been completed in 34 of the cases, whereas three of them are still being investigated.

And finally your question about the audit...

Mr. Paul Crête: Your answer is incomplete. I asked you if there were administrative or financial investigations other than those ones. Am I to understand that to the best of your knowledge, there are no other investigations currently being carried out in your department? I was not only referring to legal investigations.

Ms. Claire Morris: Pardon me, but I didn't understand the last part of your question.

Mr. Chairman, it goes without saying that for the purposes of our review of all the active files, we may identify some cases which will be the subject of further investigation. The investigation that is being undertaken at the current time is led by our staff who, if they deem it necessary, will call on experts from outside. Unfortunately I don't have available the figures that you would like to get.

Mr. Paul Crête: Are there not other internal cases which should be looked into by either an administrative or financial inquiry, as was done in the Rosemont case, where there was, if I'm not mistaken, a general administrative inquiry? It was my belief that your staff were only at the audit stage and that they asked that no further action be taken to investigate more closely some of the files.

Ms. Claire Morris: No, not to my knowledge. However I have to emphasize that this is something that we're in the process of doing, that is taking place from day to day.

Mr. Paul Crête: Okay.

Ms. Claire Morris: I will answer your last question, before giving the floor to Mr. Good. You asked me if we could extrapolate to the department as a whole the results that we obtained during the internal audit of our grants program.

Mr. Paul Crête: I was referring more specifically to the grants and contributions programs which you have been talking about today and which come under the mandate of the committee.

Ms. Claire Morris: Mr. Chairman, we have chiefly undertaken a review of all our current files dealing with the grants program in order to address as soon as possible any deficiencies that were pointed out following our internal audit.

Mr. Paul Crête: So you recognize then that this could reflect the general state of affairs within the department when it comes to its grants and contributions.

Ms. Claire Morris: You will remember that the audit that we undertook consisted of a review of the administrative procedures used for our files.

Mr. Chairman, I would ask David Good to supplement my answers.

[English]

The Chair: More than half of Paul's time is gone. We're gathering a lot of information, but I'd be grateful if you would focus your answer.

Mr. David Good: I will keep my answers very brief. The first one is on the eligibility requirements for the Transitional Jobs Fund, and the second on the number of jobs that are created.

With regard to the eligibility criteria, the program has four key eligibility criteria: first, projects must lead to the creation of sustainable jobs; secondly, partners and sponsors must contribute at least 50% of the overall project costs; thirdly, projects need to be consistent with the local regional development plans; and fourthly, the province or territory in which the project takes place must approve.

As a guideline, we have used the 12% unemployment rate for eligibility, using the employment districts as our basis for that. There has also been provision, as you know, for areas of high unemployment within those so-called pockets of unemployment, based on a methodology that has been used to develop and to indicate what those pockets are. There is also provision in the program for the funding of community needs or areas of special interest, be it persons with disabilities or aboriginals. As well, there is provision in the area for spinoffs from one region into another.

• 1150

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Chairman, I had asked if there was a Transitional Jobs Fund guideline which allowed for the possibility of awarding grants for projects in regions where unemployment rate is below 12%. Does such a written guideline exist? And if so, could you please provide the committee with a copy of it?

[English]

The Chair: The committee would be most interested in those guidelines or any information you have on them.

Mr. David Good: I'd be very pleased to table that with the committee.

The Chair: Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Chairman, can the witness confirm that there is such a guideline within the Transitional Jobs Fund which allows for exceptional grants to be awarded in regions where the unemployment rate is below 12%? I'm not talking about the Canada Jobs Fund, but the Transitional Jobs Fund. Does such a written guideline exist which would allow for these decisions?

[English]

Mr. David Good: Yes, there are. We made those public a week and a half ago, and we would be prepared to—

The Chair: If you could submit them to the committee, we would be most grateful.

I'm going to go now to Larry McCormick, Yvon Godin, Judi Longfield, John Williams—

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: He did not answer the third question.

[English]

The Chair: Be very brief. We can come back to it. You will have another chance.

Mr. David Good: The third question was the number of jobs created from the Transitional Jobs Fund. On the basis of a formative evaluation that was undertaken in 1998, it has created 30,000 new jobs.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Chairman, I would like to know whether or not you are able to provide us with the number of jobs created for each project and the amount actually spent.

[English]

Mr. David Good: The amount spent was $300 million over the three years, and 30,000 jobs were created overall.

The Chair: Paul, we're going to have to come back to it.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: My question is not very long. I will be as brief as possible.

[English]

The Chair: Okay, you have 30 seconds.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: I would simply like to know, yes or no, are you able to tell us the number of jobs created and the amount actually spent for each project.

[English]

Mr. David Good: We don't have information with regard to the number of jobs that have actually been created project by project. This was an evaluation that looked at some 300 of the 1,000 projects that were undertaken. On the basis of that—

The Chair: Larry McCormick, Yvon Godin, Judi Longfield, and John Williams.

Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you, HRD officials, for being here.

I heard yesterday in the House of Commons the number of programs that are being investigated now by the law. With previous audits you've had ongoing over the last few years of HRD, following other audits, have there been investigations or have there been cases handed over to the law? How frequently has this happened before? What types of numbers are we looking at?

Ms. Claire Morris: I'm sure there have been referrals over the years. They are very small in number.

The department has a very regular process it uses when it's reviewing a file or working with a file. When there are administrative problems or even some concern about expenses improperly claimed, there is typically a second-level review that is called for so that the evidence can be accumulated and the facts clearly recorded.

If at the end of that exercise there's a determination that a referral to the police is required, that is done, but there are several steps that need to be taken. My understanding is that over the years that number has been a fraction of the overall number of projects we're involved with.

Mr. Larry McCormick: I realize, Deputy, that today it's a very small fraction. Of course, as I asked the question to the minister here when we were being televised, my main concern today is the holdup of the good programs and the holdup within your jurisdiction because of this small problem in the programs.

• 1155

You have the levels to check on all these good programs, and you do that within your department. But with this audit it's a little different. You're having a better audit done, but we're seeing more programs being handed over to the authorities for legal investigation. There must be a list somewhere. Does it alarm you that this number has grown, compared to other years—something to judge by here...?

Ms. Claire Morris: Again, I think it's really important to underline the purpose of the audit that was done. I know you'll spend a lot of time, at some point, discussing the audit. It's clearly referred to as a file review. It was an audit to look at the adequacy of our record-keeping in the department. It was not an audit of individual projects, looking for mismanagement or fraudulent activity. That's a separate issue, and it's important to keep those separate.

When we become aware of any concerns we have with individual projects, we move, through our regular monitoring, to examine the files. If we need a financial review, we launch a financial review. If that calls for a forensic audit, we do a forensic audit.

Mr. Larry McCormick: No. I don't think the audits normally get handed over to the RCMP, or whatever. I'd like to perhaps have a record of how many were investigated to this degree before. I would also like to see when these programs that are being investigated today started within your department—whether they were from last year, this year, or whatever.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: We'll hear from Yvon Godin, then Judi Longfield, John Williams, and Rey Pagtakhan.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all I would like to welcome you to the committee. I'm very interested in what we are discussing here today, and I recognize the great importance of these programs. In my region, budget cutbacks have cost employment insurance $65 million per year. We seem to be sliding down a slope which may well lead to the loss of these programs which would have been able to create new jobs in our regions and allow people to work.

We were told that only regions where the unemployment rate was above 12% would be eligible for the Transitional Jobs Fund. Then all of a sudden we heard talk about pockets of unemployment. I asked a question in the House on this topic but I didn't get an answer. I had asked when the 301 members were informed of this change. I am a New Democrat MP, and not a Liberal MP, and I represent the people of Acadie—Bathurst, just like the NDP MP from Winnipeg-Centre represents the people of his riding. I believe that MPs have the right to know these things. I asked the Minister to specify the date on which her department had made these changes, as well as the date on which parliamentarians, the officials elected by Canadians, had been informed.

When the Department of Human Resources Development Canada drops the ball, the impact is felt across the country. This is why we are here today asking you these questions. It is important that you be able to answer them. Is this program some sort of slush fund for Liberals? This is what we're starting to ask ourselves, Mr. Chairman. I would like to hear the deputy minister's answer.

Ms. Claire Morris: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In December 1995, we publicly launched this program and announced its terms and conditions. Moreover, in 1996, we published a pamphlet in order to invite Canadians from all regions to familiarize themselves with this program and file applications. The pamphlet very clearly stated the program criteria that Mr. Good described.

Our offices told us that they had relayed the details regarding this program to all parliamentarians representing all regions. The results we obtained allow us to state that the projects have been implemented in all parts of the country.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask a very specific question about that. I would like our witnesses to table with the committee the letter that was sent to members of Parliament in 1996 to inform them that this 12% criterion was being changed and that pockets of unemployment would thereafter be taken into account. I never received any such letter and I would ask you to tell me if I'm wrong. What caused serious problems is the fact that people didn't know about this.

• 1200

The 12% unemployment rate was well established: the pamphlets came out, as well as the criteria. I want to know when a member of Parliament can go to his region and state that the unemployment rate is 8.6%, as in the Minister's riding, and then suddenly say that his region has an unemployment rate of 8.6% but that it is considered a pocket of unemployment, And we are all surprised about that. What is a pocket of unemployment? I want to know when members of Parliament were notified about this and I want to see the document that was sent to members' offices, with the date and the departmental signature.

The Chair: Ms. Morris.

Ms. Claire Morris: Mr. Chairman, we'll be happy to table the document. An HRDC program guide was sent to members of Parliament in June 1998, and it very clearly indicated that job creation programs targeted geographic locations within communities where the unemployment rate was above 12%. So we will be pleased to table that document.

Mr. Yvon Godin: No, no. We are talking about an unemployment rate of 12% or less. I'm talking about pockets of unemployment.

Ms. Claire Morris: No, no.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I can't take—

Ms. Claire Morris: Mr. Chairman, to clarify the question, let me say that the larger region had an unemployment rate of 10%, and that within that large region, there were pockets—

Mr. Yvon Godin: There were sites, yes.

Ms. Claire Morris: —small places.

Mr. Yvon Godin: The Liberal pocket.

Ms. Claire Morris: No. There was a small geographic location where the unemployment rate was higher than that of the larger region.

[English]

The Chair: I think we'd really appreciate whatever it is you have there, because it's an important point.

Okay, Yvon?

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: Very well. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Judi Longfield, John Williams, Rey Pagtakhan, and Elsie Wayne.

Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): A number of questions that I had have actually been posed by members opposite.

There's this whole sense that there's $60 billion in question and that this is a large department. You clearly stated that the grants and contributions are $3.3 billion. Just our of interest, how much of the remaining is in EI, CPP, and OAS? Just give us the figures there.

A voice: I don't have that with me.

Ms. Claire Morris: We don't—

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Okay. If you don't have it, could you provide it for us?

Ms. Claire Morris: Absolutely.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: I think it would be very helpful.

For the other thing, grants and the unconditional transfers, and the conditional payments, what's the percentage? You indicate that most of them are conditional payments that require much more documentation, so could we have the dollar figures on those?

I also want to also follow up on Monsieur Crête's point on the eligibility requirements. You've undertaken to provide that for the TJF, but for the other remaining six programs, are there similar eligibility guidelines, and if there are, could we be provided with them?

This is easy so far for you.

Approval process: I am assuming that each program has a very clear approval process, whether it be ministerial, regional autonomy, or local autonomy. Could you provide that for those programs?

The Chair: Yes, if I might say something, I think the minister promised to provide those. Judi asked the question before; it's information on the approval process and the approval levels, with dollar amounts. The minister did say we would receive that.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Okay, but—

The Chair: But I think it's very important. We haven't received it yet.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: The other thing is local autonomy. I know that there is a fair amount of local autonomy in some of the programs. The amount that's transferred, that's included in that $3.3 billion that has been transferred directly to the provinces, and where they have full approval process and responsibility for that....

Finally, we know that a great amount of the number of dollars that go in from our perspective out of the $3.3 billion is matched, or there is a contribution from the private sector. Is there any documentation that would give us a figure of how much we've been able to leverage out of the private sector? If we're putting in $3.3 billion, what's the net result to Canadians? I mean, how much are we getting for it? We know that in programs like infrastructure, when we put in one-third, we're getting huge dollars back. I would like to know our return on our investment.

Ms. Claire Morris: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm not sure whether you'd like as many of the answers as you can have today and we'll forward the rest to you, or whether you'd like it all on paper.

The Chair: Yes, the more you can forward the better.

• 1205

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Yes. In the interests of time, those are things I clearly want answers to, and if you can provide those in written documentation, that would be wonderful.

Ms. Claire Morris: Absolutely. I believe one piece of it is already on its way as a result of your question at the last committee meeting, where the minister did make an undertaking, and that's specifically the approval process. So we'll ensure that you have that.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Thank you very much.

The Chair: If I could, then, on behalf of the committee, to complement what Judi said, you provided us with this sheet—and I can show you which one it is—of HRDC grants on contributions programs by directorates. You gave us a list. We actually would be grateful for a breakdown by the subprograms you have, with each program, with the dollar amounts, expenditures, and an indication of how much is delivered by HRDC directly and how much is delivered by a third party.

I am trying to move this thing along, Deputy, so the sooner we receive this information the better, and if that isn't clear in the transcript of the meeting, I'd be glad to discuss this list with you.

I'm going to go now to John Williams, Rey Pagtakhan, Elsie Wayne, and then John Godfrey.

John, I know you have great experience in chairing the public accounts committee, but there's already one party who has not had a question yet, so you have a shorter time than the first representative of your party, okay?

Mr. John Williams: Perhaps you can give me an indication when you're going to cut me off, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Right. Go ahead.

Mr. John Williams: Thank you.

Through you, Mr. Chair, to the deputy minister, it seems that this audit was a big wake-up call for your department: the minister announced the six-point plan. Why did it take from summer to January to make the decision to do something about it?

Ms. Claire Morris: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In fact, the department had undertaken.... And as I think I mentioned at the last committee meeting, looking at our internal processes, looking at our management practices, is a constant thing in the department. We had the benefit of the Auditor General's review of the TAGS program.

Mr. John Williams: But if I can answer the question, talking about the TAGS program—

The Chair: Through the chair.

Mr. John Williams: Sorry, Mr. Chair, if I may answer the deputy, in the TAGS program it said that “34% did not contain any proposal to support the project”. Now, that was tabled by the Auditor General in the spring of 1999. You were aware of that audit prior to it being tabled in the House of Commons. Why did it take a full year after you were aware of these types of issues before you even did anything and only did it when it became public?

Ms. Claire Morris: Mr. Chairman, that was the point I was going to make: that in fact when we saw the Auditor General's report on TAGS it did raise for us concerns that in our grants and contributions programs we might find similar inadequacies. We began early in June, through the establishment of a working group led by a very senior official in the Ontario region, to put together a set of initiatives designed to strengthen our management practices in the department.

We were very actively at work through the summer in working throughout the whole organization and involving staff throughout the organization in identifying the kinds of initiatives that needed to be undertaken to strengthen our ability and, particularly, our file management in the grants and contributions area.

The Chair: A short follow-up, John.

Mr. John Williams: Well, Mr. Chairman, that's a pretty short period—

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. John Williams: —but if I only have one final question, it will be to the deputy minister. In a story in the Ottawa Citizen of Friday, January 28, 2000, Kathryn May, the reporter, talked about a 1994 audit. If I can quote from the article, “Overall, 67 per cent of files”—that's two-thirds—“had no record of monitoring while none of the training projects worth more than $100,000 were monitored.” And also, “...their supervisors often didn't know the terms of the programs they were overseeing.”

That was in 1994, Mr. Chairman, and we are finding that the story from the minister was that when she became aware of the problem in the fall of 1999, she ordered changes and they came up with a six-point plan.

Now I want to know from the deputy minister why a 1994 audit that said there were serious problems, a TAGS audit released by the Auditor General in the spring of 1999 that said there were serious problems, and an internal audit finished in the late summer of 1999 did not trigger any action until it became public in January 2000.

• 1210

Ms. Claire Morris: Mr. Chairman, I believe I indicated the kind of action we took subsequent to the TAGS audit, so let me go back to the question on the 1994 audit. My understanding is that audit remained a draft—

Mr. John Williams: It raised questions.

Ms. Claire Morris: It was not formally submitted to the audit and evaluation committee in the department, and that was largely because of the kind of change that was going on inside the department. In my opening remarks I spoke to the magnitude of change that was going on with respect to the LMDAs, with respect to program review, and with respect to employment insurance reform. Many of the programs that had been looked at in the 1994 draft audit were going to be totally reconfigured, and that's my understanding of why that did not come forward—

Mr. John Williams: I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: As long as you're brief.

Mr. John Williams: It is very brief. Mr. Chairman, I asked a specific question about the 1994 audit, and we're into this long-winded diatribe about how we're going to—

The Chair: I didn't hear that. I heard an explanation about the fact that the department has become a department of five previous departments in that period of time. That was the answer. You may accept it or not, but that was the answer.

Okay, Rey Pagtakhan, Elsie Wayne, John Godfrey, and then Paul Crête, or Stéphan Tremblay.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Thank you, Mr. Chair. In the four minutes you have deemed that I should have, let me pose the following question.

Do you assure the committee that monitoring of a project is critical to assessing the effectiveness of any given project?

Ms. Claire Morris: Absolutely, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: So when there is a failure rate far too high in terms of that monitoring, would you say that it really appalled the department—those findings?

Ms. Claire Morris: I think it's important, Mr. Chairman, to make the distinction between the record-keeping that shows the evidence of monitoring and the actual monitoring. Just as an example—I'll keep it short—I visited many of these projects across the country. I went to meet staff across the country. They know these projects well; they know the people who run them well, and they're regularly in contact with them. What they weren't doing was keeping the paperwork and the files in such a way that it tracked that.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: So while the effectiveness was there, it was the record-keeping that was the major problem.

Ms. Claire Morris: That was the finding of the audit, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: But could you assure the committee today, having learned now of this result, that effective today, or from the day the audit was released, there is indeed an effective monitoring process, that we can be assured that effectiveness will be measured?

Ms. Claire Morris: Absolutely. As you know, we've undertaken a review of all of our active files to ensure that all of the paper that's required to show the necessary evidence is there. That's underway as we speak, and our action plan has set very stern deadlines in terms of reporting back.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: And in the contributions subject to audit, is it now the practice that project recipients of funds would be required to submit on a regular basis, on a timely basis, receipts for any expenditure as a minimum requirement of monitoring?

Ms. Claire Morris: That would typically be the case in a number of the contributions programs. One of the things you'll notice in the audit is that it covered a wide range of programs, including student summer employment. There are different requirements inside each program. But yes, where expenses are submitted, they have to be there before payments are made.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Is the rationale for approval of a project a very important component in assessing the quality of the project itself?

Ms. Claire Morris: Well, again, I would draw the distinction if we were talking about a summer employment project for student or we were talking about a TJF or a CJF project for $2 million. I think we'd want a different kind of project proposal and rationale for the project. We would want to weight them appropriately.

• 1215

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Then you can assure the committee that particularly for—and I hope it will be for all projects—very significant amounts, the rationale is stated clearly henceforth.

Ms. Claire Morris: Absolutely.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you, Rey. I appreciate your patience.

Elsie Wayne, John Godfrey, Paul Crête, Judy Sgro, Bryon Wilfert, and John Williams.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have two or three questions here.

I would like to know when the new deputy minister took over her duties.

Ms. Claire Morris: I joined the department on December 1, 1998, and I was appointed as associate deputy. I was appointed deputy on February 15, 1999.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Thank you. What is the correct date, Madam Deputy, that you were first advised of the problem with grant programs, and when did you first advise the minister about these problems?

Ms. Claire Morris: As I indicated in earlier questions, we in the department were aware of concerns...in fact long before I joined the department.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Before you joined, right.

Ms. Claire Morris: In regard to the issue of managing grants and contributions, you'll recall that the audit for the grants and contributions program was on the work plan of the audit bureau for 1998-99. I think it's fair to say that our own internal report on TAGS, followed by the Auditor General's report on TAGS, indicated to us that there were areas that needed attention in terms of management.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Yes, right.

Yesterday in the House the minister stated that a total of nine grants were under police investigation. Would the deputy inform this body which grants they are investigating, how much money is involved for each of them, how many of these investigations have been concluded, and how many now are before the courts?

The Chair: Madam Deputy, I know you have given us some of that information. Is that the sort of thing that might better be tabled, or do you want to speak to it?

Ms. Claire Morris: Well, Mr. Chairman, I want to make it clear that I'm really not at liberty to speak about the details of any investigations. Investigations are underway, and in order not to compromise those investigations I have no comment to make.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Okay. I just—

The Chair: Just a moment. You gave us some statistics before. Are they the same statistics that Elsie Wayne just mentioned?

Ms. Claire Morris: Yes. The statistics are as the minister referred to them in the House yesterday. We are aware of seven RCMP investigations and two local police investigations.

The Chair: Is there a point of order?

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Chairman, it should be clearly stated that these investigations are not all currently before the courts. Even if there is a police investigation, that does not prevent us from obtaining the information we require. There has to be a distinction here. As long as it's not before a court, the deputy minister's answer appears to me to be unacceptable.

[English]

The Chair: I understand the point of order. It is a point of order, Deputy. Do you want to comment on the point about police investigations?

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

The Chair: Yes?

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I would like to submit to the committee that the very investigation of any issue by any police may in fact require secrecy to ensure effective investigation.

The Chair: Okay, Rey. By the way, I have my opinions on this matter, as you do.

Deputy.

Ms. Claire Morris: I—

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Mr. Chairman, please, could she not just tell us how many have been concluded? That's all. How many are still there? That's not interference with anything.

The Chair: Deputy, we're in your hands. You explain your position whichever way you wish. You've heard the points that have been made here.

Ms. Claire Morris: My understanding is all of them are currently active investigations, which is why we can't speak to them.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Okay.

I just have another short question. You mentioned summer jobs to one of my colleagues from the government side. My understanding was that with the TJF and the CJF programs, the grants are supposed to create sustainable employment. Am I correct on this, or do short-term jobs, such as summer jobs, qualify for these programs?

Ms. Claire Morris: Mr. Chairman, I'm happy to clarify that point. TJF and CJF represent only 5% of that total pie that Mr. Good went through with you. Youth programs are another part. When they looked at the total grants and contributions, they included youth programs, they included aboriginal programs, and they included the TJF-CJF. So they're totally different programs.

• 1220

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Okay, this is my final question. I know the deputy, because she comes from New Brunswick. I would like her to assure us that politics no longer will play a role in where these jobs go, that it will fall to policies and it will not be political. Because I have to say that this has really hurt.

Mr. Larry McCormick: There's been more money put into the ridings of the opposition than into the ridings of the Liberals.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Let me say this to you: there was no money put into mine except for two occasions.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Or mine, my friend.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: And let me tell you this—

An hon. member: Or mine.

The Chair: Colleagues, please.

Elsie, make your point.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: I'm going to make my point. The minister in Frank McKenna's and Camille Thériault's ridings, for the love of God, got $18 million to $20 million!

An hon. member: It all went to Alberta and B.C.

The Chair: I thought that was provincial.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Yes, that is provincial, and Bill Ferguson would be recommending them, God love him. But I'm going to tell you, I want the politics out of it, because the politics have been in it right from day one.

The Chair: Okay, Elsie, your time has expired. If we can move on, we have John Godfrey, Paul Crête, Judy Sgro, and Bryon Wilfert.

Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): Gee, that was kind of fun. I don't know....

I have two questions.

An hon. member: It's like a dysfunctional family.

Mr. John Godfrey: Yes, this is the dysfunctional family hard at work.

My first question relates to something that Diane Ablonczy asked. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but when you look back at historical projects, do you have two lists? Because under the access to information process, you might have asked one set of questions that would yield one set of information, whereas if you were not asking that same set of questions, but a more complete set, for example, you would produce different information, with both being equally true in response to questions. I'm seeing nodding.

The Chair: Nodding doesn't work on radio.

Mr. John Godfrey: No, look, I just want to understand these things so that the historical part isn't at stake. You get the information to the question you ask, right?

My second question has to do with the famous pockets. I think we look forward to getting the information about how MPs and others were told about the pocket exception or whatever it is. I'd be interested in the pockets. I come from an affluent riding that has—

An hon. member: Deep pockets.

Mr. John Godfrey: Well, I'd be interested in that too, but that's not—

The Chair: If the question takes three or four minutes, the answer can only take three seconds.

Mr. John Godfrey: Even in a riding like mine, which is very affluent, let's say one of my 26 neighbourhoods has a high unemployment rate. It doesn't matter that it's adjacent to jobs, it has a certain kind of sociological mix that would merit our attention. Was it envisaged that the Transitional Jobs Fund could be of any assistance to that kind of a pocket? I mean, right in the middle of a relatively affluent part, there's a poor neighbourhood that has certain characteristics. Or is it really more driven to factories and that kind of thing?

Ms. Claire Morris: Just very quickly in response to your first set of observations, you're absolutely right. The minister was very clear about that as well in terms of saying that depending on the questions asked at a given point in time, you would get one set of information. What we're trying to say with the current list that's been prepared is that the program has now been put to bed since April 1999. This information is as full as we can make it, so it speaks very much to your point.

On the issue of pockets, Mr. Good might want to further elaborate, but it was very much the intent that this would address areas of high unemployment across the country. As I read out in terms of the brochure that we'll forward to your attention, it was to include pockets of unemployment within areas that, if you perhaps just looked at the boundaries, would be better off. It was meant to have that flexibility in order to address those areas.

The Chair: Thank you.

Paul Crête, Judy Sgro, Bryon Wilfert, John Williams, and Rey Pagtakhan.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Chairman, I would like the deputy minister to tell us whether there are any projects under the aegis of the TJF or the CJF which were authorized without getting previous authorization from the provincial government.

The Chair: All right.

• 1225

Mr. Paul Crête: I have a second question to ask you. Are you able to produce a statement on how the Minister's discretionary budget was used for the seven grants programs since April 1, 1997? I think that is the date when the internal audit began, but I want to be sure. Therefore, is it possible for you to produce, for each of these programs, the list of projects that were authorized through the Minister's discretionary budget? In other words, let us take the Summer Career Placements Program, for example, which has budgets in each riding and a discretionary budget. I don't want you to tell me that the amount was eventually earmarked for my riding, because I know that. What I would like is a list of projects that were authorized through the discretionary fund for each of the riding budgets.

Ms. Claire Morris: Mr. Chairman, in response to the first question, the agreement of the province side is necessary. As far as I know, it has always been obtained for the projects that were approved.

With respect to the Discretionary Fund, we do not have that information here today, but we are going to see if it is available.

Mr. Paul Crête: Are you going to give it to us?

Ms. Claire Morris: Yes.

Mr. Paul Crête: On the first question, you say that to the best of your knowledge, no projects have been authorized without prior approval by the provincial government. Is that based on information from the entire department, or is it based on your personal knowledge? I want to know what the department knows about it. Have projects under the TJA or the CJF been authorized without prior approval from the province?

Ms. Claire Morris: The province is always consulted for each project and...

Mr. Paul Crête: My question is not whether it was consulted. My question is whether there were times when projects went ahead without having obtained prior authorization from the province. I do not want to know if the province was consulted. I want to know if, in every case, you have the approval from the province before the project gets the go-ahead.

Ms. Claire Morris: You are talking about the support of the province.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Good.

Mr. David Good: Mr. Chairman, it's my understanding that all projects in the TJF and the CJF that have been approved have also had the approval of the provinces.

The Chair: Okay, if we could, we will proceed with Judy Sgro, Bryon Wilfert, John Williams, Rey Pagtakhan, and Elsie Wayne, and something very brief again from Paul Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Point of order. I would like him to repeat the answer because the translation was not...

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Paul Crête: Could he repeat his response slowly? The translation was not adequate.

[English]

The Chair: That's a very important point.

David, please respond briefly.

Mr. David Good: It's my understanding that all the projects under TJF and CJF that have been approved have also had the approval of the provinces in which they've taken place.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Agreement was obtained before hand, prior to the authorization.

Mr. David Good: Yes.

[English]

The Chair: Okay, thank you.

Judy Sgro.

Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Do we get two minutes? Is that what I have?

The Chair: Three.

Ms. Judy Sgro: I have three. You're very generous. I'll meet with the staff afterwards and get the rest of my questions answered. Thank you.

Under the part II that we're talking about, did I understand you to say that 45% of the $3.3 billion was administered under part II of the program?

Mr. David Good: Could you repeat the question? My apologies.

Ms. Judy Sgro: In the part II delivery of these programs that I'm reading about, did I understand you to say that 45% of the $3.3 billion was applied under part II?

A voice: No.

Ms. Judy Sgro: Okay, then how much money is spent on part II of the programs that you're talking about here? You made a reference to that.

The Chair: Say exactly where it is, Judy, just while David is thinking.

Ms. Judy Sgro: It's at the bottom of page 3. You were talking about the delivery of different programs in your report.

The Chair: This is in the presentation, colleagues. It's in the notes for the deputy's presentation, on page 3 in the English version, in the second-last paragraph. It begins, “In the 2000-2001 fiscal year....” I can read it if you wish, or perhaps Judy could.

• 1230

Ms. Judy Sgro: Of the $3.3 billion that was given out in grants and contributions, how much of that required the provincial governments' and this country's approval before it went ahead?

Ms. Claire Morris: I think it's important, Mr. Chairman, to distinguish between the labour market agreements, where in fact there has been complete devolution to those provinces I named of all of the EI part II benefits, and the program we were just discussing where provincial support is sought, and that is TJF and CJF. David may correct me on this, but that's the only program that formally seeks the province's support of a project before it goes ahead. Clearly, in the case of labour market development agreements, where it's complete devolution, there is a very formal agreement with the province. Where there is co-management, as there is in a couple of provinces, then you have joint planning with regard to the delivery of part II benefits. So there are different arrangements and different programs, but this one was specifically with regard to TJF and CJF.

The Chair: What is your next question?

Ms. Judy Sgro: Is it 45% of the $3.3 billion? That's what I was trying to make sure I understood. It's 45% of all EI part II programs.

A voice: They are not included in the $3.3 billion.

Ms. Judy Sgro: They are not part of the $3.3 billion, then.

Ms. Claire Morris: Projects funded under EI part II amount to $2 billion.

Ms. Judy Sgro: Okay. On the TJF and CJF programs, how was that processed? It's coming from the community that applies for some funding for a program. They have to have provincial support letters. How does that happen? Is it being initiated by a community group that has support from the provincial government and then the federal government?

Mr. David Good: In a nutshell, the projects come from the community and from sponsors in the community and in the private sector, and before the funds are disbursed each project requires provincial approval. So before any funds are disbursed by the federal government, we require a letter of approval from the province.

Ms. Judy Sgro: Was that something that was missing in the administrative issues the audit uncovered, or was there always the letter of support from the provincial government?

Mr. David Good: In my understanding, in all cases a letter of approval from the province was received before funds for the project were disbursed.

Ms. Judy Sgro: I have one last question. You mention in this report that the provinces developed their own administrative system and no longer follow the HRDC system that was in place previously in some of the provinces under part II. Did you have any ability to review how they were going to administer any of those programs?

Ms. Claire Morris: Mr. Chairman, because Mr. Ferguson represents a region where there was complete devolution of the part II benefits to the province and where a tremendous amount of work was done in concert with the province, it might be helpful to have Mr. Ferguson comment on how that happened.

The Chair: Colleagues, given that Bill Ferguson has come all this way to represent the regions, I think we'll raise the time limit a bit.

Bill Ferguson.

Mr. Bill Ferguson (Director General, New Brunswick Region, Department of Human Resources Development Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In terms of New Brunswick, we have a formal agreement with the province. We do have a steering committee of deputies and myself who meet on a regular basis and review where the programs are being delivered and what kinds of results we are accomplishing. So it's an ongoing process with the province. We also have working committees between the province and ourselves in terms of looking at the programs that were devolved.

Ms. Judy Sgro: I'll go back to the deputy.

Did you have any jurisdiction? Did they ask for your approval of their administrative program? And are you satisfied that the provinces are administering their program from their end?

• 1235

Ms. Claire Morris: Mr. Chairman, the provinces that were ready to move and take advantage of the offer to devolve these programs to the provincial level were, I think, as concerned as we were that the program delivery would continue in a smooth and uninterrupted way. Having been in New Brunswick at the time the transfer was made, I know that there was a great taking advantage of all of the expertise and information at the federal level so that in fact the system would continue to work as smoothly as possible.

The Chair: I want to wind this up before my system collapses around me.

The question left floating, I think, is how much do you know about the way these provinces administer these programs? Perhaps we can leave that and come back to it or whatever.

We're going to keep it moving. Next is Bryon Wilfert, followed by John Williams, Rey Pagtakhan, Elsie Wayne, and Paul Crête.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Mr. Chairman, through you to the deputy minister, under section 33 of the Financial Administration Act it sets out that a recipient has to satisfy certain eligibility criteria in order to receive grants and contributions. It seems very straightforward and very clear.

The six-point action plan is so obvious, I don't know why we would not have had that in place beforehand. But then we read about the audit, and we see significant administration and management problems. How 15% of the 459 got money without applications from a sponsor is interesting. For 72% of the 280 there was no cashflow forecast.

I go back to my point earlier. In the 1990s Employment and Immigration Canada formed a task force, and it made recommendations about monitoring. We had one in 1994. I'm very interested in solutions, but I'm still perplexed as to how we could wind up in a situation where there were clear signals about monitoring.

Part of it may be due to third parties, and maybe you can expand on this and provide information to us. Is the problem in particular because of the lack of direct control, whether it be because of devolution to the provinces or in terms of third parties, so that we did not have the same kinds of checks we should have had?

The Chair: We need a short answer to that long question.

Ms. Claire Morris: Mr. Chairman, I think the point is well taken with regard to third parties. There are varying capacities out there. When you look at the range of third parties we deal with, they range all the way from very sophisticated organizations to very lean non-profit organizations that are delivering programs for the disabled or for youth at risk, and they have a varying capacity internally with regard to their own administrative infrastructure. There's no doubt about it, the farther you move away from direct control.... But that's a very sort of philosophical point with regard to your wanting to use community agencies, third parties, and people who are close to the delivery level as partners in service delivery.

The Chair: Next is John Williams. John, your amount of time is brief.

Mr. John Williams: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Through you, I'd like to ask the deputy to table the 1991 and 1994 draft audit. Is that possible?

Ms. Claire Morris: Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. We can provide that to you.

Mr. John Williams: Mr. Chair, I'd also like the deputy to table the legislative and regulatory authority the department has to authorize the payment of funds to a program, the Transitional Jobs Fund, that expired in 1996 and that appears, by what Mr. Good said, to have been funded in 1997 and 1998 and perhaps even in 1999 and ongoing, including the references in the estimates and the plans and priorities documents. Can that be done?

Ms. Claire Morris: I believe, Mr. Chairman, we've already made public the terms and conditions of both TJF and CJF—

Mr. John Williams: No, I didn't ask—

The Chair: Let her answer.

Mr. John Williams: I asked for the regulatory—

The Chair: Claire Morris.

Ms. Claire Morris: I was simply going to say I believe we've already made public the terms and conditions approved by Treasury Board for both TJF and CJF, but we'll endeavour to provide that additional information.

The Chair: And the committee will be grateful.

Mr. John Williams: That would include the information in the estimates and in the plans and priorities, because it should be recognized in there too, I would imagine.

This is my third and last question. In response to Mr. McCormick's question, the deputy laid out a kind of two-step process when files have been flagged as having some peculiarities that need further investigation. Am I correct that you laid out a two-step process?

Ms. Claire Morris: Yes.

Mr. John Williams: And if the two-step process finds that there is potential fraud, you then refer it to the police?

• 1240

Ms. Claire Morris: I believe what I covered was our own internal review of the file in a regular monitoring visit. If that indicated concerns, we would do a more intensive audit, which might lead to a forensic audit, which might in turn, should there be any serious evidence present, lead to a referral to the police.

Mr. John Williams: How many—

The Chair: Rey Pagtakhan.

Mr. John Williams: Mr. Chair.

The Chair: No, John, listen—

Mr. John Williams: Mr. Chairman, I just—

The Chair: Nobody gets more time than everyone else.

Mr. John Williams: In response to that question, I need to know how many forensic audits are going on at this time.

Ms. Claire Morris: We have one forensic audit.

Mr. John Williams: In addition to the nine that are currently referred to the police.

The Chair: Rey Pagtakhan, then Elsie Wayne and Paul Crête.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Mr. Chair, through you, may I request that Mr. John Williams, for the Reform Party, table to the committee the so-called information obtained under the Access to Information Act? The reason for that, Mr. Chairman, is this. Were we able to make a comparative analysis of a potential or apparent discrepancy?

I am in a difficulty because I have not seen the data to which they were referring. If they will be so kind as to table that data, then I will request that the department look into the list released and make a comparative analysis if indeed there is a discrepancy. If there is a discrepancy then I would like, in the third column, a rationale for that discrepancy. Then we will be guided intelligently as to the issue that is being raised.

A voice: We probably could take a week.

The Chair: John Williams, briefly.

Mr. John Williams: I'll talk to Mrs. Ablonczy and I'm quite sure she'll make it available.

The Chair: Okay. We will take it under advisement.

Rey Pagtakhan.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: The second point is in terms of your presentation, Ms. Morris. On page 3, in the second-to-last paragraph, you say that “...45% of all EI Part II program spending—largely grants and contributions that we used to be responsible for”. You also say that under the existing federal-provincial agreements, the provinces are fully accountable for results.

The Chair: Colleagues, this is the same paragraph we referred to before in the notes of the deputy's presentation.

An hon. member: Yes, but it's an interesting one.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: So when they give you a copy of the results achieved, obviously as part of accountability, you will view that against the anticipated results. Is that being done by the department, the anticipated and the actual at the conclusion of the project?

Ms. Claire Morris: Mr. Chairman, in fact there are ongoing evaluations taking place with respect to the LMDAs, but also on an annual basis, through the employment assessment and monitoring report, we deal with that information as well. That report is due to be available in the next couple of months. It will have a chapter that relates to that as well.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: My last question, Mr. Chair, also relates to the federal-provincial agreement. Most of these agreements are referred to as grants and contributions. We know that grants require no auditing, but does the agreement at least require that at the end of the year, an audited statement on any specific project be made available from the provincial government to the federal government? If that is not part of the agreement, is it a good thing to require in the future?

Ms. Claire Morris: The provinces, much as we are, are subject to their audit function as well, their Auditor General's review in their own jurisdiction, along with the kind of evaluation that's underway and the assessment and monitoring report. We're confident that we have a fairly good sense of the results we're gaining in those programs.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Accountability of results is one thing. We have discussed that. I am now referring to whether an audited statement of financial expenditures against the amount given to these projects is provided to the provincial government. It is part of our federation. It is of interest to me to know if in fact those federal-provincial agreements carry with them a requirement for an audited financial statement coming from the provincial government. We trust provincial governments, so they have nothing to fear, but as part of an extra assurance, we would like to get a financial statement. Is that a part of the agreements now?

Ms. Claire Morris: Yes, Mr. Chairman, that is part of the agreement, the provision for the audited statement from the province.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: And that is being complied with?

Ms. Claire Morris: Yes, it is.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Thank you so much.

• 1245

The Chair: I'm going to go on. Elsie Wayne and Paul Crête are next. John Williams I think has a very short intervention. Is that what—

Mr. John Williams: One question.

The Chair: Then you'll be last. So then it's Bonnie Brown.

Mr. John Williams: Then I have ten questions, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Yes.

Elsie, please.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: My question is for Bill Ferguson. I wouldn't want Bill to come all the way up from God's country and not have a question put to him.

Bill, can you just explain to this committee how you and your department could recommend and endorse the Atlantic Furniture Manufacturing Company's request for $750,000 and then do nothing? As you know and I know, nothing happened. If you did the review, how could you possibly sign that off, recommend up here to Ottawa that everything's A-okay and it was worth $750,000, and they didn't do anything?

Mr. Bill Ferguson: Mr. Chairman, whenever I get a request I look for whether the economic development agency has reviewed the business plan of the organization. Have they made any comments in terms of whether this is a good project? Is it feasible? Are there any issues with regard to that? I also look for the statement by the province where there is concurrence for a project and they have also had their analysis done with regard to this project. I look also for the consultation with the MP.

I look at what kinds of jobs are being created, when they were created, where they would be created, what the cost is for jobs, all of those things. At that point, having all of this information, I then make a recommendation.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: You were talking about consultation with the MP. There were two grants given in my riding and there was absolutely no consultation with Elsie Wayne whatsoever. All I got was a document on my desk that I was supposed to sign. No one ever called me. No one ever talked to me. So, Bill, I have to tell you that I question that one.

Mr. Bill Ferguson: Well, I'll verify it.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Okay. Yes, sir.

The Chair: Paul Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: I have two short questions. First, could you give us, as soon as possible, the list of all projects authorized under the Canada Jobs Fund where the regional unemployment rate was not over 12%? I am talking about all projects that were authorized, throughout Canada, where the unemployment rate was not above 12%.

I have a second question. We have to produce an interim report by April 15. Could you give us, by April 1st, an interim update of the audit that you are currently conducting throughout the department, and more specifically, a complete update on the Canada Jobs Fund?

I will repeat my question for you, because you may not have heard the first part. We have to produce an interim report by April 15. I would like, by April 1, for us to have an interim update of the audit that you are conducting within the department so that we can go from the internal audit, where there were 450 cases, to an interim update of what you have uncovered for the entire department. We would need that by April 1, in order to incorporate it into our interim report of April 15. Can you do that and include a complete a report on the CJF?

Ms. Claire Morris: Mr. Chairman, as you know, as part of the action plan we are asking the regions to conclude their review of the files for March 30. So it would be difficult for us to provide you with a complete report for April 1, but we will give you what we have. We are monitoring it on a daily basis, and we will give you the most complete information that we have.

Mr. Paul Crête: I am prepared...

Ms. Claire Morris: The date we had was 30 April.

Mr. Paul Crête: Okay; I wouldn't mind having a draft update.

Ms. Claire Morris: We can do that for you.

Mr. Paul Crête: I do not need the final version.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: What was the answer to the other question?

The Chair: Yes, I'm sorry.

Ms. Claire Morris: The other question dealt with the list of projects in the areas of the country...

Mr. Paul Crête: What projects were accepted under the Transitional Jobs Fund in areas where the unemployment rate was below 12%, in other words projects that you had to accept under other criteria?

Ms. Claire Morris: You were talking about small pockets within the regions.

• 1250

Mr. Paul Crête: I want the list of projects that were accepted where the unemployment rate was below 12%, by electoral riding.

Ms. Claire Morris: Yes, we will give you that, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Paul Crête: Please do it as soon as possible. We are very interested in that.

Ms. Claire Morris: Mr. Chairman, I would like to take a moment to correct an answer that we gave Mr. Crête earlier on. It dealt with the issue of provincial approval. It seems that in some cases, provincial approval is received after the minister's approval, but no money is paid out prior to receiving provincial approval.

Mr. Paul Crête: Okay, thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Shall we go now? It's Bonnie Brown, Judy Sgro, and then John Williams. That's the last.

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

I've had some new thoughts at this meeting based upon the interventions of my colleagues from Acadie—Bathurst and Saint John, and because I have the person here from New Brunswick I think it would be advantageous.... I didn't realize how enthusiastic members of the opposition were about these programs until today. It was hard to read that in the House. Yet I hear tremendous enthusiasm out of the two members from the province of New Brunswick about the funds that flow into that province.

Thinking in terms of economic development, which is of interest to municipalities across the country, I know that one of the problems economic development officers have is what I call “attracting capital”—money for buildings, money for equipment, money for salaries. With those two things in mind, I'm wondering about this provincial approval being one of our criteria. If I'm the economic development officer of the Province of New Brunswick, for example, and I see an application come before me that's going to bring in let's say $200,000 of government money and maybe $300,000 of private sector money, I feel like I'd have to be crazy to say don't do this, I don't approve of it, because I'd have a half a million dollars of economic activity.

So what kind of value is provincial approval if in fact the province isn't kicking in any money? Why would we even use it?

We see in the news today that the most important thing to the premier is the quick flow of money to the provinces with no strings attached. That's in a different field, but thinking about what I heard on the news in the last couple of days, and hearing what I've heard from my colleagues from New Brunswick, that's making me question the whole idea of provincial approval. Provincial approval combined with provincial money I think is a big endorsation, because they're not just saying it's a good idea, but we want to be in on it and here's our cash. I'm only talking about those projects, and I'd like to know what is the percentage of those projects—you can take one province if you want to give me this information, just pick one—into which the province is not putting one red cent. I would question the value of that approval.

The Chair: I have a point of order—if it truly is a point of order. Is it a point of order?

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Yes, it's a point of order. It's to clarify something for Bonnie. The Liberal government that was in power—

The Chair: That's not a point of order. Witnesses, deputy or—

Ms. Claire Morris: Just as a general point, I don't have the statistics off the top of my head with respect to the number of projects that are approved by the province without a financial contribution, but there are a number of them where in fact the province is a partner in the project.

Ms. Bonnie Brown: I'd like to know the percentages at least.

Ms. Claire Morris: We'll endeavour to get you that information for the committee, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Bonnie, please.

Ms. Bonnie Brown: I'm finished.

The Chair: Fine. Judy Sgro, then John Williams.

Ms. Judy Sgro: I have a question for the deputy.

As a new member, I want to know, if I get a letter across my desk, what it means when I sign it. If I've heard of nothing else and I get a letter of recommendation from your department on a grant and I sign it, that means I approve of the disbursement of the funds to that particular company, does it not?

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: That's right. It sure does.

Ms. Claire Morris: Yes, it does.

Ms. Judy Sgro: And if you didn't get it, would you call the member to ask why you didn't? I guess you always get them signed.

Ms. Claire Morris: In dealing with an application, the application or the project wouldn't be approved and the money wouldn't flow unless we had the provincial concurrence.

• 1255

Ms. Judy Sgro: But it is up to us as members of Parliament. I assume then that we are the monitor of these things. If we're putting our signature on, it means we're putting the blessing on those things, so we should make sure we do our work to check on it. Right?

Ms. Claire Morris: Yes.

Ms. Judy Sgro: Before I sign one, I want to make sure.

The Chair: Larry McCormick.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I wanted to go back to Ms. Morris—through you, Mr. Chair. Perhaps this information would be available, or perhaps it's not. In regard to the nine programs and whatever that were announced in the House that are under investigation, I'm not asking for any information about them, but can I find out when these programs were started, when the initial start of the programs was, when they were approved?

Ms. Claire Morris: When the individual projects were approved—

Mr. Larry McCormick: Yes.

Ms. Claire Morris: —or the programs under which the projects...?

Mr. Larry McCormick: Perhaps both, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Claire Morris: We'll endeavour to get you that general information.

Mr. Larry McCormick: I appreciate that—if it's possible. Thank you.

The Chair: John Williams and then Rey Pagtakhan, and that is the end.

Mr. John Williams: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: I appreciate Raymonde Folco's patience today. Thank you very much.

John.

Mr. John Williams: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, I would like to ask the deputy—

Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Were you going to give me the right to speak, Mr. Chair?

The Chair: No. I was expressing my approval of the fact that you're so patient when you didn't speak.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: I did have a little question, as it turns out.

The Chair: Then you are the second-last. It's John Williams now.

Mr. John Williams: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question to the deputy is that you outlined a process of first of all identifying files that have problems, followed by checking, followed by a forensic audit, and if these show that they require police investigation then you turn it over to the police. You said there was one in the forensic audit program at the moment. How many are being checked out because they look suspicious?

Ms. Claire Morris: As I indicated, Mr. Chairman, we have a complete review of all of our active files going on.

Mr. John Williams: No. I asked you a specific question. You said when the review identifies a problem that is suspicious, then it gets checked, and if it still looks suspicious based on the affirmation of the information, it goes for forensic audit, and if it still looks bad then you refer it to the police. My question is how many are being reviewed a second time because the first review indicated that they are suspicious?

Ms. Claire Morris: I don't have that information with me here, Mr. Chairman—

Mr. John Williams: Can you table it?

Ms. Claire Morris: —but as part of that interim report we've agreed to provide you with in terms of the status of the active review, we'll ensure that this information is there.

The Chair: As I said before, we would appreciate that.

Mr. John Williams: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you.

Sorry, I'm losing track of myself here. It's Raymonde Folco's first turn and then Rey Pagtakhan and that's the last.

[Translation]

Ms. Raymonde Folco: My question deals with something that was discussed earlier on with respect to the co-operation of the provinces in the approval of a project. You said earlier on that provincial approval was necessary prior to any money being paid out.

First of all, are all provinces included in this type of approval, including Quebec? Secondly, how was this approval received? Is it received for all amounts that are presented, or are they given a list of projects with the amounts?

Thirdly, have you ever received any negative responses from a province? I imagine you have. When you receive a negative response, what is the next step? Do you drop the project? Do you seek out additional information? What happens in technical terms?

Ms. Claire Morris: Mr. Chairman, I can use Quebec as an example. First of all, I would like to clarify that we only seek to obtain provincial approval under the two job creation programs. In the case of Quebec, it comes to us via a letter signed by the minister. Normally, the letter deals with each project individually. The provincial minister acknowledges having been informed that such and such a project has been set up under a job creation program and authorizes the support of the province of Quebec.

• 1300

When the province does not grant its support—I admit that I have not yet seen such a situation, but it is possible, in the history of the program, that there have been situations where a project has not been approved—we advise the promoter that the project has not been approved by the province and that it cannot be carried out. I imagine that in some cases, the promoter will try to make an extra effort to try to overcome the province's objections, but if that is unsuccessful, the project is not carried out.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: According to what you are telling me, a province rarely refuses to approve a project that you are presenting.

Ms. Claire Morris: As far as I know, it is rare, Mr. Chairman, but I would like to check the facts and send you a list of the number of projects where provincial approval was not obtained, if we have such a report.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Perhaps the situation is different for my colleagues, but I am obviously most particularly interested in Quebec.

[English]

The Chair: Rey Pagtakhan.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Mr. Chair, since we have passed the hour, I would just like to express my appreciation and gratitude to the witnesses.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear.

The Chair: If I can, then, I'd like to thank the witnesses—Claire Morris, David Good, Alan Winberg, and Bill Ferguson. Bill, as we've said, we appreciate you coming all this way; the regional dimension was very useful to us. You have the transcripts, so you will know that we would greatly appreciate, as I mentioned, the various items as quickly as humanly possible.

To my colleagues, I would say this. First of all, continue to provide the witness lists as quickly as we can. Secondly, at our next meeting the witness is James K. Martin, who is the internal auditor. I would like to suggest that I think it might be useful if someone such as Alan Winberg could be present at that meeting as well. I understand that the main witness is the internal auditor, but I would leave that in your hands.

That meeting will be a week next Tuesday, colleagues, if that's okay. I will adjourn the meeting until a week Tuesday, when our witness will be the internal auditor, James K. Martin.

And we have a small point from Paul Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Do we have any idea who our next witness will be? I am thinking, for example, of the Auditor General, because there is a link between internal audits, and the Auditor General. It would be good if they did not appear too far apart. If possible, I would like us to invite them to appear one after the other.

[English]

The Chair: It is a good point. And by the way, I have not yet read this file. I was trying to get my mind around the information we have.

Bonnie Brown.

Ms. Bonnie Brown: I think we should wait to see what comes out of that next meeting and decide at the end of it who we want to see next.

The Chair: But we have advised.... Paul.

Ms. Bonnie Brown: Would you agree?

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Perhaps we should notify the Auditor General that he might be invited to appear Thursday or the following Tuesday so that he can make a note of it.

[English]

The Chair: Paul, I have advised all the witnesses who are on our list that they should be available as soon as possible. I've also explained that, for example, we didn't know how long this particular stage would take and so on.

Colleagues, the meeting is adjourned until a week Tuesday, 11 o'clock.