HRPD 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]

Tuesday, May 26, 1998

• 1109

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.)): Let's begin. Let me take a minute just to explain to people what is going on this morning. This is also for the benefit of new members who haven't been through this process before.

In the estimates process that we've been looking at, what we're really talking about are sub-votes providing authority to expend certain amounts of money. There are a number of formal votes within the larger appropriation.

• 1110

It is within the power of the committee to reduce the amount of money in the various lines. We cannot add money.

What we have done is structured this in a way much the way we would do a bill. You have on your list the various votes. There are seven votes in total. The Reform Party has submitted, I believe, three amendments. It would be my intention to move through those votes formally.

The reason we're holding this meeting is that at the end of May, all of these votes are deemed to be automatically passed if we have not formally dealt with them. In the past that's what's happened: we've just let it go. But out of respect for the members of the committee who have taken the time to put forward many motions, I agreed to make sure we had one meeting to deal with these votes before the hammer came down, if you like.

So what I intend to do is call the various line item votes, and we will get the process under way. Okay?

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé.

Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): I would like to make a comment. This morning, I was attending a meeting where people had come to testify about a review of the Employment Insurance Act. However, this was not an official meeting. We had prepared a motion, but, for lack of time, we were unable to submit it to the steering committee for preliminary study. Although I do agree that we can study the votes, given the large cuts that are proposed and as people are complaining about cuts in employment insurance, I think it would have been better to hear from those who have to live with the consequences of this before adopting these votes. This might not have influenced us to the point of voting for an increase credits—as this cannot be done—but at least we could have proposed some kind of restructuring. I'm making this comment so that you might assess this option at the next steering committee meeting.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Dubé.

In response to that, I note that we had a specific meeting on the UI report that was tabled at the House at Christmastime, plus we had the minister in at some length on the estimates of the department, plus we had an estimates meeting specifically on the UI account.

I know Monsieur Crête and Mr. Nault had agreed to meet to see if they could come to some kind of agreement on having further meetings and reporting to the House specifically on the unemployment insurance fund. I have not been informed of the results of any meeting of that sort. I am anticipating hearing back from them with some recommendation on that.

For the information of other members, you won't have received this yet, but Monsieur Crête has submitted a motion. It's not a motion related to the estimates; it's a procedural motion about us holding a day of hearings. As is our practice, that motion will go first to the steering committee and then will come back to the general committee for approval. I would anticipate dealing with that as quickly as I can.

I don't think anybody wishes to undercut the importance of that particular issue, but we have spent a considerable amount of time on it to date, and Monsieur Crête and Monsieur Dubé were also involved in that—the other Monsieur Dubé.

Now I will move through this carefully but expeditiously, so if you have any questions along the way about the process, please indicate to me that you'd like to stop.

Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, and 35 are the ones referred to. This is contained in the agenda for today.

We have an indication from Madame Ablonczy of a motion to amend vote 1, so I will call that amending motion first. We'll deal with that and then we'll move on to vote 1.

• 1115

Madam Ablonczy.

HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Corporate Services Program

Vote 1—Program expenditures ...... $82,636,000

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The motion that I brought forward is in the package. It's pretty straightforward. I move that vote 1, which deals with funding for corporate service programs and program expenditures for Human Resources Development Canada in the amount of $82,636,000 be reduced by $1 million, which would bring our vote for those program expenditures to $81,636,000.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to bring before members of the committee my reasoning for bringing this amendment forward. The Auditor General of Canada put out a document about a month ago, April 16. According to the Auditor General, one of the suggested questions we should ask in committee is, could the benefits be delivered in a more cost-effective manner? So it's legitimate, appropriate, and indeed I think responsible of us to ask, as a committee overseeing this department and its expenditures, whether HRD services be delivered more efficiently.

I would like to argue before this committee that in fact the programs and the corporate services of this department could in fact be delivered more cost-efficiently. The reason I say that is because the department engaged in what is somewhat humorously known as “March madness”. That is, just before the end of the fiscal year, this department engaged in some very heavy increased spending. Of course, that's generally done in order to use up any unspent funds.

Just to give a few specifics, Mr. Chairman, but not to exhaust the committee, the following increases occurred from February to March: travel expenses, 48%; advertising, 65%; publishing and printing, 95%; training, 78%; professional services, 47%; hospitality, 70%; special services, 103%; supplies, 88%; and machinery and equipment, 220%.

Mr. Chairman, It seems to me that it would be reasonable for this committee to conclude therefore that the department's program expenditures were not prudently managed and that in fact the department could and should have operated with less funds than it did.

What I'm suggesting to the committee is that by way of holding the department accountable to a very modest degree, we should simply reduce the amount of the estimates by $1 million. That's $1 million out of $83 million, so it's a very gentle reminder to the department that we do not approve of this sort of wholesale spending of unspent funds at the end and that we do recognize that the department should and could operate more prudently throughout the year. I would urge this committee to give that very gentle and very modest reminder to the department.

I think it's responsible of us to do so. I think it's not in the best interests of Parliament or the country to just sort of rubber-stamp these estimates without any kind of fiscal responsibility being urged on the departments. I think this is a very fair and reasonable step for this committee to take. I urge members to support this motion I have brought forward.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you Mrs. Ablonczy. Are there any comments?

All in favour?

Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Can we have a recorded division?

The Chairman: A recorded division has been asked for.

• 1120

The Clerk of the Committee: We're voting that vote 1 for Human Resources Development Canada in the amount of $82,636,000 be reduced by $1 million to $81,636,000.

(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 3)

(Vote 1 agreed to on division)

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé: I would like to state that although it might seem contradictory for us to oppose the amendment moved by the Reform Party as well as the adoption of the votes, given all the poverty that exists and a whole set of social conditions that must be improved, the Bloc Québécois deems these votes to be insufficient. There are the reasons why it is voting in this way. As they cannot be increased—

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Dubé. I will just issue a caution, though. It's out of respect for you as a former member of this committee that I allowed you to make that comment after the vote. In future, if you wish to make a comment, I would ask that you do it before we take the vote, when I call for other comments after the introduction of the motion.

I have grouped the next votes. Because there were no amending motions, I'm assuming that we can deal with votes 5, 10, 15, 20 and 35 as a vote. Do I have your permission to do that?

Mr. Dale Johnston: On condition, Mr. Chairman, that I can speak to some of those votes.

The Chairman: Yes. What we will do is I will call votes 5, 10, 15, 20 and 35. Those are what we're dealing with now.

Human Resources Investment and Insurance Program

Vote 5—Operating expenditures ...... $131,745,000

Vote 10—Grants and contributions ...... $1,018,347,000

Labour Program

Vote 15—Program expenditures ...... $44,795,000

Income Security Program

Vote 20—Program expenditures ...... $76,806,000

Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety

Vote 35—Program expenditures ...... $1,022,000

The Chairman: Is there any comment? Mr. Johnston.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Regarding vote 15, on page 3-21, under grants and contributions, it shows for 1997-98 a figure of $2.7 million. In 1998-99 it jumps to $3.9 million—a $1.2 million increase.

When we asked in the committee—and it's really unfortunate that we don't have someone here from the department to straighten out this misunderstanding—in responding to a question by Mr. Kenney, Mr. Rainville and Mr. MacAulay talked about a $400,000 reduction in that line, where in fact there is a $1.2 million increase.

Surely there's a mistake somewhere there, Mr. Chairman, and I would absolutely like to have that explained to me. Either there is a $1.2 million increase in the budget for 1998-99, which carries through to 1999-2000 and then again to 2000-01— Yet it is being sold, if you will, by the department as a $400,000 reduction. You don't have to be too good at arithmetic to realize that none of that adds up. Under the circumstances, I just don't think this vote should be accepted in any way today, with this cloud of uncertainty around it.

The Chairman: Shall votes 5, 10, 15, 20 and 35 carry?

• 1125

Mr. Dale Johnston: No.

The Chairman: On division?

Mr. Dale Johnston: We will pass all but 15 on division, Mr. Chairman, but I'd like to see a recorded division on 15. This is a huge discrepancy here, and I think—

The Chairman: I appreciate the point you're making, Mr. Johnston, and I will offer another additional response to it, although I would like to get through the mechanics of the voting.

So, having agreed to group them, you're asking me to take them apart now and have a recorded vote on vote 15. In the interest of getting it done, I'm quite prepared to do that.

Mr. Dale Johnston: I realize this is kind of a departure from what we agreed to.

The Chairman: That's okay. In the spirit of cooperation that exists in this committee—

Mr. Dale Johnston: I would like to say, though, if I had received a sufficient explanation of this discrepancy, grouping them would be fine, but in the light of what's here, I think we should treat that one separately.

(Votes 5, 10, 20, and 35 agreed to on division)

The Chairman: Mr. Johnston, we'll now deal with vote 15. Would you like to have a recorded vote?

Mr. Dale Johnston: Yes, I would please.

(Vote 15 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 5)

The Chairman: Mr. McCormick was not called.

Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, Lib.): I would like to abstain, thank you.

The Chairman: Vote 15 carries. However, Mr. Johnston, now that we've dispensed with the formality of that, I would like to ask the clerk to write a letter to the department over my signature, requesting an explanation of the discrepancy you've identified. I recall the discussion you had, so I will undertake to get you that information in some form.

Now we will deal with vote 25, and we have a motion to amend vote 25, submitted by Mr. Johnston. Mr. Johnston would you please introduce your amending motion.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My motion is to reduce the amount of expenditure in vote 25 by $400,000. The reason for that is we have seen a reduction in staff in the CLRB. This is the area that relates to the old Canada Labour Relations Board, or the Canadian Industrial Relations Board that will be created after Bill C-19 passes. We are told that salary savings should occur from reductions in staff on page 10, table 2.2, which indicates some $520,000 in reduction. But the reduction is only shown as $124,000. So the difference between the two is approximately $400,000, which we feel would more accurately reflect the spending requirements of the CIRB.

I know we had some talk, at the last meeting when we had witnesses, about a need to have the budgets more accurately reflect the needs of the committee, and we don't want to short the committee to the point where they can't do their job, yet we don't want to see them funding a surplus. These are public funds. We're not supposed to work a cushion into our budgets. So I believe a reduction of $400,000 would more accurately reflect the needs and spending requirements of the board.

• 1130

The Chairman: Is there any further comment?

Mr. Anders.

Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Chairman, if I remember correctly, just so it can be brought to everybody's attention, when we had the chair of the Canada Labour Relations Board testify before us here as a witness in committee, he himself said he would have a difficult time justifying why there was this cushion, as Mr. Johnston has pointed out. He himself said he would like to look into it and said he saw problems with the way the numbers stacked up. So hopefully, in the spirit of bi-partisanship, Mr. Chairman, the concerns and the intentions of the chair of the Canada Labour Relations Board can be taken into account here.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Anders.

Mr. Dubé.

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé: Mr. Chairman, I will abstain from voting on this matter because I did not hear the debate and I would not want to vote without knowing the facts.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Dubé.

Mr. McCormick.

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

In regard to what's been said, I'm sure the chair would take into account the fact that there may be more money there than would be necessary. I don't doubt at all that the chair would look at this money and place it in reserve or not use it. I just wanted to put that on the record. I do have faith in the chair as to what will happen with the money—what will be used and what won't be.

Thank you.

The Chairman: You're referring to the chair of the CLRB, not the chair of this committee—

Mr. Larry McCormick: Yes.

The Chairman: —who of course would deal with the money very responsibly.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Just for the record, I understand the chair of this committee makes big bucks too, but that's another story.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. McCormick.

I will call the vote on Mr. Johnston's motion to amend vote 25. Would you like a recorded vote, Mr. Johnston?

Mr. Dale Johnston: Yes.

The Clerk: The motion by Mr. Johnston is that vote 25, in the amount of $7,728,000, be reduced by $400,000.

(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 3)

The Chairman: The motion on vote 25 is defeated. However, Mr. Johnston, I would note that you came closer this time.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Well, I'll take heart in that.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chairman: I now call vote 25.

(Vote 25 agreed to on division)

The Chairman: That takes us to vote 30, and again, Mr. Johnston has an amending motion for vote 30.

Mr. Johnston, would you like to introduce it?

Mr. Dale Johnston: Mr. Chairman, vote 30 deals with the Canadian Artists and Producers Professional Relations Tribunal. In committee, the executive director of that organization said:

The numbers that are shown under the columns that say “Planned 1998-99, 1999-2000, 2000-2001”, were numbers approved when the tribunal was first established. The numbers that you have under the column that says “Forecast 1997-98” are actually much closer to the real spending of the tribunal. So although it looks like an enormous increase between 1997-98 and 1998-99, it's because those 1998-99 numbers were actually approved probably three years ago by Treasury Board. We would not expect actually to reach those spending levels in 1998-99, so we'll be reporting back to the House next year on what our actuals are for 1998-99.

• 1135

Well, it would appear to me that the executive director feels the budget projections are inflated, and since Treasury Board has done nothing to adjust these figures, I think the most logical plan would be to reduce those estimates, known as the CAPPRT estimates, back to the original 1997-98 levels.

I move that we reduce the vote by $325,000.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Johnston.

Is there any further comment?

Mr. Anders, then Mr. Dubé.

Mr. Rob Anders: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Once again, this is just another example— I remember vividly having the executive director testify before us. They said they weren't using the full budget that had been allocated by Treasury Board on their behalf. If that's the case and they're not using it—they said they wouldn't use it—once again, I'm going to have to side with the people who are in the know and in the trenches on this. If we can actually reduce the estimates here or reduce the potential expenditure, with their permission, I think we should take the opportunity, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Anders.

Mr. Dubé.

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé: For the same reasons that I just mentioned, I will abstain.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Dubé.

Is there any further comment?

Madam Bradshaw.

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw (Moncton, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, the executive director also stated that they weren't up and running yet. So this year we need to give them room to manoeuvre.

The Chairman: Thank you, Madam Bradshaw.

Mr. Johnston, would you like a recorded vote on this?

Mr. Dale Johnston: Yes, please.

The Chairman: The clerk will call a recorded vote.

The Clerk: This is a motion by Mr. Johnston to reduce vote 30, which is $1,528,000, by the amount of $325,000.

(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 3)

(Vote 30 agreed to on division)

The Chairman: Shall I report the votes to the House?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Now let me make a couple of other comments before we adjourn.

First, I would like to note that I believe this is the first time this committee has completed the estimates process and reported to the House in some time. So I thank all the members for that. It's been a good piece of work in this past period of time.

I particularly thank Mr. Johnston. I think it was at his insistence that we had them before us in a timely fashion, which allowed us to get to this point. I think the two issues, Mr. Johnston, in particular that you raised that came out of the testimony of the tribunals are items that we should flag for the subsequent year's review, given the discussion that did take place. I do recall, particularly on the first one, a definite indication that it was a surplus. But they were uncertain and unwilling to have it reduced at that point because they weren't certain what the overall operations were going to be. But I think it's a question that's worthwhile coming back to in a subsequent review.

For the information of members, on Thursday, at 11 a.m. sharp, we are meeting with the full board of the National Council on Welfare. There was some confusion over this because at the earlier meeting it was indicated by members of the Reform Party that they were unable to be in attendance at that meeting, so we had subsequently agreed to move it to Tuesday.

In discussion with the National Council on Welfare, it was pointed out to me that one of the reasons they wanted to meet on that Thursday was that their entire board is in town. So we have agreed to go ahead with the meeting on Thursday. The Reform Party will not be present at that meeting but not because—

The Clerk: There will be one member.

The Chairman: Oh, there will be one member?

The Clerk: Not one of those, but—

The Chairman: Regardless, neither Mrs. Ablonczy nor Mr. Johnston nor Mr. Anders, who are the stalwarts on this committee, will be present because of reasons beyond their control.

• 1140

So we've agreed to have a separate meeting between them and members of the National Council of Welfare so that they can have the discussion they want. But it needs to be pointed out, and I will do so again on Thursday morning, that their lack of attendance does not reflect a lack of interest in that particular subject.

For the information of members, we are in discussion right now about the holding of a round table, not for report, simply for information, on June 11, which is a Thursday, from 9 a.m. until 1 p.m., on the issue of readiness for school.

There's an awful lot of discussion going on around the country about all those questions about family getting kids prepared, prenatal care, etc., right through to the time they enter school. So we are in discussion now about having a round table again to receive some information from the people who are working in this area, but there would not be an intention to report that information of the House given the shortness of time at the conclusion of that.

Ms. Davies.

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): First of all, on Thursday's meeting, I'm going to be at a conference, so I won't be able to be here for the full time, although I really don't want to miss it. But I'm going to come for a short period of time, and then I have to go back to a conference.

On the other discussion you raised about readiness for school, I'd like to find out if we could get some information for that meeting about where the national children's agenda is at or whether it's anywhere. There was some discussion about it last fall. We've heard nothing about it. I saw one document that laid out a draft framework. So given that we're having this discussion on June 11, I would like to see that we could have some information that would tell us where things are at in terms of discussions between the federal, provincial, and territorial governments.

The Chairman: Good question.

Madam Bradshaw.

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry too. I'm leaving Thursday for New Brunswick, so I will miss the National Council of Welfare board. I was on that twice. Please tell the group I had to be in Moncton Thursday night, so I'm sorry.

The Chairman: I don't think you have a national convention taking place, so I may not be able to give the same assurances I'm going to give for the Reform Party.

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: The other thing is, in terms of what you're speaking about for school readiness and a round table on the HRDC committee, one of the things that's been concerning me sitting on the committee and having the experts come in— I always ask about youth at risk. I ask if they've ever done a study of youth at risk in the labour market for youth at risk and what is being done within the federal system for youth at risk.

I feel it would be very important for us on the HRDC committee to have a better understanding and have the foresight to see where we're at with children, because it does affect our unemployed drastically with the youth at risk. When you look at the people who are seasonal workers, or out of work and looking for work and on the system very often, it is our youth at risk.

For me, the two fall into the one. It would be very important for us, I believe, to look at this issue.

The Chairman: Perhaps what I could do is ask the researchers to circulate a document to you as early as I possibly can, as early as they can produce it. If you have any questions about the list of witnesses or some additions or discussion on that, please take that directly to the researchers, and we will attempt to cover you on that.

Mr. Dubé, do you wish to speak on this issue about the round table with children and youth or do you wish to raise an additional question?

Mr. Antoine Dubé: No, autre chose.

The Chairman: Then I'll take Mr. Wilfert.

Mr. Wilfert, you're on this question?

Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to say, while you're looking at circulation, that one of the national organizations that's been at the forefront of youth at risk from a recreational standpoint, and should be one of the witnesses, in my view, would be the Canadian Parks/Recreation Association. So I'd ask that they be notified.

The Chairman: Thank you. We'll take that under advisement.

Madam Davies.

Ms. Libby Davies: Can we make suggestions for witnesses?

The Chairman: Absolutely.

Ms. Libby Davies: Maybe I could talk to the staff afterwards then.

The Chairman: I think there has been a bit of a proposal developed about how the round table might go. We'll get that into your hands as quickly as we can so that you can have this discussion.

Ms. Libby Davies: Do you have a list already of people you are going to invite?

The Chairman: There are some suggested names, but it's not complete. So it makes sense to get that to you right away.

Thank you.

• 1145

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé.

Mr. Antoine Dubé: Mr. Chairman, this morning I am replacing for Paul Crête, who is our spokesman in this committee. As the motion was not tabled within the proper time frame and as it was transferred to the steering committee, I would like to know when it is going to meet.

[English]

The Chairman: Because you're here on behalf of Mr. Crête, what I will undertake to do, Mr. Dubé, is meet with Mr. Crête this afternoon, perhaps at the conclusion of Question Period, and I will attempt to contact Mr. Nault. The last information I had at the committee here was that the two of them were going to meet on this particular topic. I will speak to them this afternoon. If there is no resolution to this at that point, then I will call a steering committee meeting, possibly as early as Thursday morning prior to the meeting, but I will have to canvas members for that. We will deal with it as expeditiously as we can.

Thank you.

[Translation]

Is that all?

[English]

Thank you everybody. That was expeditiously done and we'll see you next week—no, see you on Thursday.

The meeting is adjourned.