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, October 21, 1997

• 1112

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.)): Let us come to order.

I apologize for being late. I don't like to start these meetings late. Let it be a lesson to new members that after four years I still can't find my way around Ottawa.

The steering committee met at nine this morning and discussed a whole bunch of procedural items. I'd like to go through them fairly expeditiously, if I may, so we can begin a discussion of a work plan and such.

First, for the information of members—and it was in your briefing books—there is an award that's given to people in the disabled community that is derived from the coins that are put in the centennial flame. It amounts to about $1200 a year. We have to select the recipient.

It was decided at the steering committee that what we would do is circulate an information sheet to all members of the committee on the various eligible nominees, applicants, or whatever. Along with that would come a sheet that would allow you to assign one, two, three, or four points to them, and at a meeting next week we would simply collect that and report on it. We'll put it numerically because it's a very simple process, and we'll select the recipient so we can get on with that. We're delayed with this year's award.

The second thing was a motion—we have a draft of the motion. Members will recall from the founding meeting that Mrs. Ablonczy had put forward a motion that résumés be circulated with all order in council appointments. It was laid over because there was a concern raised about the numbers of them. What we've done is reach a compromise, basically, accepting the intent of that motion but saying that information on order in council appointments, the fact of them, will be circulated to all members. If members wish résumés, they will simply request that information from the clerk and we will see that the information is provided. It just changes the intent. We're not doing them all; we're just doing ones upon request. It's a reverse onus.

• 1115

The motion Mr. Johnston is about to move is that whenever an order in council appointment or a certificate of nomination of appointment is referred to the committee, the clerk shall, upon request from any member, obtain and circulate to each member of the committee a copy of the requested CV. Do you move that, Mr. Johnston?

Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): So moved.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: The other thing is just for information. We passed a motion at the initial committee that we would ask for the use of Room 237-C for reasons of access because we now have the disabled attachment to it. We've been given consideration in that, and it looks like we're going to get it for most times. But we thought to reinforce our interests each one of the party critics and myself would write to our respective House leaders and whips just underscoring the motion we passed here and our interest in that. We have concurrence from all the other parties to do so. Hopefully that will be resolved. It would be a terrible thing today if we had anyone in their chair or on crutches trying to come here.

We'll go on to the work plan. You should have a copy or have access to a copy of our proposed work plan that the staff had worked up.

We have a bit of a newer-older kind of issue here in the sense that members who have been on the committee before are fairly familiar with the breadth of the committee and the various responsibilities this department takes on, but newer members are interested in getting some briefing. We had structured a briefing process here that covered in the first few meetings structural issues in the department, an overview of the department, and then some of the big program areas. It's also noted for the benefit of new members that the department will give private individual briefings on anything members of the committee are interested in. You can simply request that directly from the department.

When we laid out this work plan, which was done by our researchers, we looked at the size of this department because it is the largest spending envelope in government. It's enormous; we could sit in here receiving briefings forever. We're trying to effect some kind of balance. In the short term, subject to a discussion we're going to have after I finish this presentation, we're going to follow this work plan in its intention, which is structure first and then some discussion with interest groups around topical areas, which you will see laid out in here.

It was recommended at the steering committee that we compress the amount of time for the briefings because there is a lot of time given to structural issues, and that we invite the minister to come and meet with us before the next break, probably not next week but the week after. Once people have a sense of the structure of the department we'll have the minister in here to lay out issues that he thinks are topical and important.

We note that the Minister of Labour also relates to the committee, and I will have a discussion with the Minister of Labour to see about the timeliness of his agenda and whether it's appropriate to fit that briefing in now or leave it until afterwards.

There is just one final concern. In the latter part of this note, it's set up so that a member from the department will be speaking on a particular structural issue and then we'll bring in members of the community in round tables to sort of debate those issues a bit so that there's a sense or a flavour of the important issues. It was also suggested that we strengthen the panel representation on the student aid side because that's a critical issue we may be dealing with. That was adopted in principle, but subject to this caveat. If we get a reference from the House or a piece of legislation or something, this does not take precedence over that. We are still creatures of the House.

That, however, led us into another discussion. Before I get into that, let me just ask the clerk one thing.

• 1120

Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora—Rainy River, Lib.): Do we move that we accept the work plan?

The Chairman: Do we feel we need a motion to that effect?

Mr. Robert D. Nault: How do you want to proceed, Mr. Chairman?

The Chairman: I think I've got concurrence on everything I've said so far, right?

Mr. Dale Johnston: Except I think you're a little bit—

The Chairman: Oh, I'm sorry, yes. Thank you. I omitted another piece in talking about the work plan.

The other modification of the work plan is an invitation to the Auditor General to come. The Auditor General has made a couple of reports just recently on the department, so we may invite him to appear, make some comments, and get into some discussion with members about his view of the department.

Now there's another issue that I think we should deal with as a separate issue to this extent, Mr. Johnston. Mr. Johnston has requested that Mr. Weatherill, a specific individual within the department who has a specific structural responsibility in the department, be invited as part of the briefing process. Do I understand you right, Mr. Johnston?

The concern is that he is also under investigation because of some complaints or some concerns about an inappropriate kind of activity in his area of responsibility. That is under investigation by the Auditor General. The Auditor General apparently is going to report on that sometime in late November or early December.

I had first approached Mr. Johnston to ask whether we could we put off Mr. Weatherill's appearance until the Auditor General reported on his file. Mr. Johnston requested that he be invited as part of the structural briefing because his area of responsibility is an important and interesting one.

I'm concerned about being able to differentiate those two pieces of business. Maybe, Mr. Johnston, you'd like to make a specific motion around Mr. Weatherill. If you want to get into an investigation of the things that also are being investigated by the Auditor General, maybe it would make more sense to have that come forward as an independent motion. If it's appropriate for Mr. Weatherill to come in as part of the structural briefing, I don't think we have any difficulty with that.

Mr. Robert D. Nault: Yes, we do.

The Chairman: Do we?

Mr. Robert D. Nault: Mr. Chairman, the assistant deputy minister for labour, Madame Senécal, is coming as part of the briefing. She's the head of the department. Mr. Weatherill happens to be the chair of the Canada Labour Relations Board. The CLRB is the word for it now.

That's a very different, arm's-length animal. It's very different from the department and its structure. If Mr. Johnston were to make a motion relating to that specifically, that goes to the whole issue of hot-button issues, which we talked about this morning. If he wants to make a motion to that effect, having Mr. Weatherill come and talk about a specific issue about how that board does its work, that's one issue. But if he wants him to come to talk about his expense account, that's another. That's what I'm trying to find out.

The Chairman: Larry, did you want to speak to this?

Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, Lib.): I just wondered, Mr. Chair, whether we could give a moment to Mr. Johnston to just briefly tell me a little bit about Mr. Weatherill and what position he has with the CLRB. What is the CLRB? I should know.

The Chairman: I can try to do that. I'm trying to separate the issues. If we want to have a specific discussion on Mr. Weatherill and that, I'd like to do that separate from the work plan, because he's not contained within the work plan. Mr. Johnston is making the request that he be contained within the work plan, but our esteemed parliamentary secretary has raised a concern about that.

Now, Mr. Johnston, if you'd like to make a motion to that effect so we can dispense with that issue, then we can talk about the reason. You can also make a motion to have him called as a separate witness, which I think was your original motion. Right?

Mr. Dale Johnston: My intent is to have Mr. Weatherill called as a separate witness because he was a witness before our committee in the last House and he's still in charge of his budget. I think in the last House that was around $9 million. In relation to the main estimates, I think this committee might find it interesting to have him speak about that.

The Chairman: Would your intention be to have him questioned on things that are currently under review by the Auditor General also?

• 1125

Mr. Dale Johnston: I'd have to see exactly what area is under review.

The Chairman: Any question or comment?

Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph—Wellington, Lib.): On Mr. Nault's point, if we were to call Mr. Weatherill, it would have to be in terms of the work, rather than the investigation that is going on. That's not our purview here.

The Chairman: I don't know whether it's appropriate for the chair to state a preference, but my preference is that Mr. Weatherill be called after the Auditor General has reported and we have dealt with the substance of that report.

Can I deal with the work plan absent that? Subject to any motion you might make on the Mr. Weatherill issue, Mr. Johnston, is everybody satisfied with the rest of the work plan?

Mr. Dale Johnston: My motion would be to add Mr. Weatherill to the work plan as a witness.

The Chairman: Would you like to make that motion then?

Mr. Dale Johnston: So moved.

The Chairman: Is there any further discussion? All in favour of Mr. Johnston's motion? All opposed, if any? It's a close one, Dale.

Mr. Dale Johnston: I figured it might be. Maybe next time.

(Motion negatived)

The Chairman: Given that, is there concurrence in the work plan as proposed?

Remember now, we'll deal with this finally, because it has to be redrafted as a result of all the discussion that took place this morning. We'll come back with an amended version, but all I'm looking for is concurrence in a general direction.

Where is Monsieur Crête?

You can't have it on division on the work plan. It's your work plan.

Mr. Dale Johnston: What I can't understand is how we can have Mr. Weatherill here as a witness in the last House but suddenly it's not acceptable now. It's very strange.

The Chairman: I suspect I'll read about this, Mr. Johnston.

Mr. Dale Johnston: I doubt it.

The Chairman: I would like to put one caveat on it. I'm not at all opposed to having Mr. Weatherill here once the Auditor General has done his work. If it still is an issue that you want to bring forward at that point, I would entertain such a motion again.

The next piece of business that was discussed at some length at the committee was that this is sort of, again, a get-us-started kind of work plan. But as members who were in the last House will be aware, it's the prerogative of the committee to undertake the pieces of work that it chooses to undertake, in addition to whatever work comes from the government.

There was quite a lengthy discussion here that came out of a motion that Mr. Dubé will be bringing forward. He focuses on a particular issue, but it also provoked a much broader discussion of an issue area that I think a number of members of the committee were interested in. It's this whole area of employment, and whether or not this committee wants to undertake as a piece of work a larger study of the whole question of employment.

Mr. Nault, do you want to speak to that? Maybe you can introduce it on the one side, and we'll get into a bit of discussion on it before we move to the specific motion.

Mr. Robert D. Nault: Mr. Chairman, what I would like to see us do is to consider very carefully how we will work as a committee. Part of the discussion we had this morning focused around whether we take very specific hot-button issues that may be on people's minds, be it student loans and their debt level or the changes to EI and the effects they're having on the short term on individuals. That kind of debate is what we had this morning.

Our interest—and I speak from the government side—is to broaden that discussion to a much more sophisticated discussion as to how things are going in the country, to put in place some sort of framework or term of reference that will argue the conventional wisdom that's out there today, whether it be from the right, where the argument is that the market forces should be the only ones involved in job creation and government should get out of their face, or to the left, where there are a number of different suggestions on how best to create employment.

• 1130

We should look at that from the context of a number of different angles and put the work plan together, not just in the short term, but maybe in a two-year plan, so that we can focus on some of those important issues within it and make some sense of it in this total context. For example, as you know, all governments, both provincial and federal, have said that youth unemployment is one of their priorities. As a government we could certainly take on youth unemployment as to where we're at and where it's going and have the minister come in and tell us about it. That's part of the plan.

On the other hand, there are the other issues of structural unemployment, of employment that relates to people staying home and working from their homes, the phenomenon of part-time work, and the phenomenon of entrepreneurship, where more and more people are now getting into the workforce and creating their own businesses.

All these things are part of a structure that Canada has. And government fits into it. I would like us to put together a plan with the research staff that we can look at and debate, instead of getting into the more political arena of saying okay, here are specific motions that this side or that side or somebody else has put forward.

And I just want to make this point. In the natural resources committee, when I was the chair a number of years ago, we set up a couple of what we called expert panels, where we had round-table discussions with experts. We'd let them debate with each other, and we were also involved.

I like to listen to the economists and the other people out there, whether they're from the C.D. Howe Institute or the CLC or wherever, and hear them tell us why they think the way things are going is right or wrong. And we can then get involved in a more sophisticated manner.

That's sort of what we were talking about this morning. And I want to reiterate that I would like to see us do it that way and have the chair and the researchers come back with sort of a work plan as it relates to the big picture and the different pieces within it. Then we could prioritize, keeping in mind the fact that if we get a reference and/or legislation from the government, that of course takes precedence over everything.

Those are my comments to start the debate, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Are there any comments on that? Monsieur Dubé.

Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Sure, I'll comment.

Mr. Nault, you might be surprised that I agree with you in principle, but there are certain aspects.... I believe in long-term solutions as well, in creating employment and long-term employment. But the situation with respect to employment insurance and unemployed people in Atlantic Canada and throughout Canada, and in Quebec as well, is critical. This is why I brought it forward at the first meeting of our committee. I do feel it is urgent for us to bring that aspect of this department forward. We've been throwing band-aids at this problem for years and we don't have a solution. Unemployment rates are still high.

I agree with you that we have to create employment and get people out of this social safety net. This is what we want to do. But in the meantime, until we do that, you're talking about two years. What do these people who are affected right now do for two more years?

That's what my problem is today. We saw the effect of it during the last election. The people of Atlantic Canada actually cried out to you and said listen, it's hurting. This is the reason I'm bringing it forward. It's not legislation in any way; it's just a motion that we study what's going on with these reforms immediately.

I don't have to wait until somebody tells me in December that things are going like this or like that. I have my constituents who can tell me. I live it every day and I believe it's my responsibility and my obligation to bring this forward to this committee, because we are responsible. This committee is responsible for employment insurance, so where else do I bring it? I bring it here. I think I'm utilizing the right forum to do that, and I believe it's non-partisan.

I think we all have a soft heart as to what is going on for all Canadians, whether it's in Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia or Atlantic Canada. I agree that some provinces pay more than others, but they're sick and tired of wasting their money. They want solutions and it's up to us to find the solutions. This is what I'm recommending today in this motion.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Perhaps, for the benefit of the discussion, Mr. Dubé, you could read....

I should say that I'm trying in a way to separate two issues. Mr. Dubé brought forward a motion dealing with a problem in his area that he wants to have the committee talk about. There was also a lengthy discussion about the employment issue, which subsumes this, but maybe they should have everything on the table for the benefit of people.

• 1135

Mr. Jean Dubé: Would you like me to read the motion?

The Chairman: Just give people a chance to read through it.

Mr. Nault.

Mr. Robert D. Nault: Before we get to Mr. Dubé's motion, you had asked us to put on the table our suggestions and/or recommendations as to how we might want to proceed. I had done that and then Mr. Dubé of course went into his motion. So he has tied it in to the work plan or the potential scenario of the research staff, with yourself and in consultation with the representatives of the different parties, putting together some sort of plan on where we'd like to go and what the issues are within that plan. If we could, I'd like to discuss that separately from this motion, because they very much are different. They are two different ways of doing business within the committee.

Quite frankly, it would be pretty hard for me to vote in favour of a motion that chastises the government and the people within the government who implemented this piece of legislation last term, when I was one of the members who sat on that committee. That would be like admitting publicly that I agree that Bob Nault sat here and did a terrible job. I don't think we're prepared to do that. So even though this motion may have good intentions, it has some connotations to it that are unacceptable to me as a member of the government.

Having said that, I still think these kinds of issues are part and parcel of what we're talking about, and the number one issue that I want to bring forward is something for those who don't know about it. Under the EI Act now, as part of the legislation, there's an automatic review mechanism that is to be put into the House every year in order to make sure that the modifications and changes that we made are followed very closely. They're supposed to tell us just how things are going as they relate to a very fundamental restructuring of the EI system. As has been mentioned, that is going to be tabled in the House sometime in December.

So I find it somewhat premature to start having discussions and/or hearings on this subject matter when there's a report coming. You'd think we'd wait until the report comes out, and that we would then take the report, read it, and decide whether the report either says nothing or has great recommendations. We might then want to do hearings on the report itself. I would think that would be the way we would want to follow this. We have the cart before the horse here. We might want to reverse that.

So that would be the point I would like to make, but I still want to break the two discussions in half, because one is different from the other.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Nault. That's what I was struggling with. On the one hand, I think that discussion is worthy in and of itself. As soon as you start into it, though, you start into a debate when people might not have all the information.

Mr. Nault, perhaps it would make sense for you to move a motion.

An hon. member: We have a motion on the floor.

The Chairman: No, it's not at the present time. I asked him to circulate that for information. Unless there's some desire that we deal with that motion first.... It's immaterial to me.

Well then, Mr. Dubé, make your motion first.

Mr. Robert D. Nault: Let's put it on the floor, and then we'll have a discussion.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean Dubé: Here is my motion for the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Whereas the chief actuary of the Employment Insurance Account has recommended that a surplus of $12 billion to $15 billion dollars be accumulated in the account in order to ensure the stability of the program; and

Whereas projections show that at current rates, the Employment Insurance Account will attain a $12 billion dollar surplus by the end of 1997, and that according to the 1997 budget, the surplus will exceed $18 billion by the end of 1998-1999; and

Whereas recent changes to the Employment Insurance Program have severely impacted on the lives of many Canadians, and are a source of great concern, especially for those relying on seasonal work; and

Whereas the study of this subject matter falls within the mandate of the committee as identified in Standing Order 108(2);

• 1140

I move that the Committee undertake immediately to examine the changes to the Employment Insurance Program to determine their effects on Canadians and provide recommendations to the government on ways to make the Employment Insurance Program more equitable for all workers.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Dubé.

Are there any comments?

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): I'd like to speak in support of the motion.

We had quite an interesting discussion this morning at the steering committee about this motion and what might come from it. I think it's a very decent motion. I know the parliamentary secretary has somehow taken it as a huge criticism of the government, but the reality is that UI is a major program of the federal government. It has gone through a major change and there's no question there has been an impact, particularly on seasonal workers but also on other Canadians who are unemployed, in terms of how they can now receive benefits, whether they qualify and so on.

I believe—understanding as a new member what the mandate of this committee is—this is an entirely appropriate issue to bring up for review by this committee as a major piece of government legislation. Frankly, it was surprising this morning to hear the reaction that raising an issue like this was just playing politics. If that's the reaction every time something comes up, then I really don't know why I'm here. This is a legitimate issue.

If there are government members who have different opinions I'm perfectly willing to hear them and have a reasonable debate about what this committee should take on. I was surprised at our first meeting to have something in effect dismissed—because that's what it was—because it was playing politics.

It's an important issue. We should debate it and decide whether or not this committee wants to take it up or not. If it doesn't, which I think is likely, then we'll debate what we do take up. But to characterize it as just playing politics doesn't do justice to the severity, the importance and the genuine feeling that was brought forward in raising this issue from the concern that has been expressed to us by constituents right across the country.

The Chairman: Mr. McCormick.

Mr. Larry McCormick: I recognize you are very serious about this, and I'm sure you don't mean for us to just jump on this issue now and have another band-aid approach.

I think it is a duplicate of what the government has in the legislation to review it, and yet at the same time it's a very legitimate request. Since December is tomorrow, that type of thing, and we'll look at the review that will be presented to us in December, I'm not happy as an individual member to see the employment insurance account keep building forever. You'll hear many people talk about the CPP costs for employers and employees. I would hope that the EI cost will go down somewhat as the CPP cost goes up. There would be a duplication here because it's being reviewed now and will be presented to us in December. I think we should look at it at that time.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. McCormick. Ms. Guarnieri.

Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East, Lib.): Having listened to the interventions this morning, and recognizing the legitimacy of the motion before us to address some of the pressing concerns of the Atlantic, I am a bit confused about the comments by the parliamentary secretary. I wonder if I could seek clarification from him on how he intends to address these concerns in the future. I wouldn't want to leave the impression that members of the governing party are not concerned about addressing these most pressing problems.

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Guarnieri. I'll come to Mr. Nault in a moment. I have two other people on the list at this point. I'm going to try to compress the comments to get us out at 12 noon. Mr. Wilfert.

• 1145

Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, given the fact that we have a work plan that takes us to November 20, and given the fact that we also have a report coming from the government on this very issue in early December, as the parliamentary secretary has indicated, I agree with Mr. Dubé that this is an extremely important issue. I'm certainly prepared to discuss it.

I think the question then is that if we have a report coming in early December, and we've already adopted a work plan that's going to take us to November 20, I'd like to see what the report says. If the report isn't to our liking, I think we need to move very quickly on it. But I'm not sure how you would integrate your proposal at the time, when we've also adopted a position to take us through a fairly detailed work plan until the 20th.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Wilfert. Madame Bradshaw.

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw (Moncton, Lib.): Mr. Chair, Monsieur Dubé, I've been with these people every day of my life for thirty years, so I know exactly what it is you're talking about. I know the importance.

Having said that, the other two things that concern me the most—if they can concern me more than poverty and unemployment—is that we spend our money well, and that we spend our money in long term and not short term and band-aid any more. Having said this, I agree that we need to do it immediately, but there is a report being done.

The other things that we tend to do are reports and research, but then we don't use them—and I've been on the other side of that many times. So if there's a report being done and we're going to be getting it in December, let's see what's there, let's see if we can agree with the report, and build from that. But let's spend the money well and make sure that where we spend it is at long term. I think that's what they all want.

So I do agree with you that it is a priority, but let's do it well and wait to see what the report says.

The Chairman: Mr. Anders.

Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): I'd just like to say that I think the motion is fine the way it's worded. I know that in one of his critiques Mr. Nault said he seemed to feel it was critical of the government. I think it's actually pretty neutrally worded. I think it's kind of matter-of-fact in terms of some of the stats that are there, and I think it's obviously an issue that's of importance and worthy of debate.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Anders.

Mr. Nault, and then we'll call the question.

Mr. Robert D. Nault: Well, Mr. Chairman, I just want to make something quite clear to everyone. What we're having a discussion about here is not whether we think EI is important, because I think all of us who have high unemployment rates agree. I come from northern Ontario, where seasonal employment is probably as big an issue as it is in Atlantic Canada. I don't think that's the debate.

The debate we're talking about is whether we go right into a hot-button issue, try to do a quick hit on it, spend two to five months on it, and then come out with the impression—or have Canadians come out with the impression—that we've solved something or we've fixed something. I don't think that's a good way for the committee to start. I think the committee should have a good solid work plan. This is part of that.

We will deal with EI, because it's part of the whole issue of employment and the social security structure that we have in Canada. That's what I'm discussing. I'm not saying this is not an issue that's important, because it is, but maybe you're misinterpreting what I'm suggesting. I guess I'm suggesting a more comprehensive game plan for the committee over the long haul. It would suit us much better than trying to sort of pick motions that people all have an interest in. I mean, all of us around this table could take turns putting motions on the floor that are of interest to us, depending on where we live.

So I think we should best wait until we get the report based on the legislation. Then, based on the fact that we already have a significant work plan, as has been mentioned by Bryon already, we could then table this motion and revisit it once December comes.

The Chairman: I'm sorry, I said Mr. Nault would close, but I think one convention that should apply is that the mover gets a chance to close debate. Mr. Dubé, I'll give you a couple of minutes.

Mr. Jean Dubé: I agree, ladies and gentlemen, that we should not waste money, we should invest it. I said that in my opening statement, and I strongly believe in that.

I also know that the study will be out in December, but the days are very long for these people, every day that they live. I told you this morning that when constituents call me up at the office, this situation is urgent and critical. We'll get the report in December, we'll read it, we'll analyse it, and then we'll come out with recommendations. Now this is two months down, right? By the time we read it and bring recommendations, that's probably three or four months down.

• 1150

Believe me, if I didn't feel it was urgent I wouldn't bring it. I don't like to waste my time and I don't like to waste my constituents' time. I'm here to work for them, and to work for all of Canada, really. But I do feel that it is urgent that we deal with this right away and identify if there's something wrong with the reform. I'm not saying there is, but there seems to be a problem with it. It's up to us as a committee to identify and deal with it and not find band-aid solutions again.

We're looking for long-term solutions. There is nothing I would like better than that all my constituents be employed, and that's what we're after.

Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Dubé.

We will now vote on the motion as proposed by Mr. Dubé.

(Motion negatived)

Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain: Mr. Chairman, to query that, though, so I have a understanding—because I certainly hear what Mr. Dubé has said and I think we all do have a real concern that we have the right—we will be addressing that then in December. Is that what you're...?

The Chairman: There are two issues. The one is on the specific issue of reviewing what's wrong with EI. I think the argument is that it's being done and there will be a report. With the approval of this committee, I will write to the minister urging that the report be tabled before Christmas and be circulated to members of the committee as soon as it's available. I will undertake that on behalf of the committee.

Mr. Nault, might I ask you to comment on a process to perhaps address this issue also?

Mr. Robert D. Nault: I would like to move that we give the research, with you, the flexibility in the next couple of weeks to come up with a work plan that deals with the issue of employment from its more comprehensive standpoint, including these kinds of issues, of course, which are all built within the whole issue of employment and the safety net that workers who find themselves unemployed fall under.

I'd like to have that made a motion and passed, and then we can come and revisit that work plan and/or the terms of reference that relate to that at the next number of meetings, whenever you and our researchers, in discussion with the parties, are prepared to do that.

On the issue of the motion, as far as I'm concerned, it's defeated. If we bring it up again in a different context or when we have the report in front of us in December, that will be a time for debate based on the report itself.

Keep in mind that there's going to be a budget in February, and obviously EI is always an issue on the minds of the finance minister and the minister of human resources. There may be a number of changes made before we get to revisit that study, so I don't think it's appropriate for any of us to say the commitment we're making is that we will deal with this issue from this context. It may be done in a different way.

The Chairman: If I understand from what I wrote down on what you're moving, it's that the chair, with the able support of the researchers and in consultation with the members opposite, develop a work plan for addressing this larger question of employment. That would then come back before the committee for approval.

Mr. Robert D. Nault: You've done very well putting it into something that people can understand.

The Chairman: That's what you've moved?

Mr. Robert D. Nault: Yes, I moved that.

The Chairman: Is there any discussion?

Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a suggestion that perhaps the mover would consider.

Seeing as we have done something this morning that's called a work plan—and it's pretty specific, with dates and suggested speakers—could we at this stage not move to the work plan, but rather ask the researchers, thinking in terms of perhaps a two-year project, broken into five pieces, to come up with five topics we might wish to investigate, or maybe seven topics, and bring it back then as opposed to moving to the work stage? Do you see what I mean? Let's keep it more vague now and then we'll all have input into whether we like those topics.

• 1155

The Chairman: Yes. You're saying don't go to the level of detail on that sheet.

Ms. Bonnie Brown: That's right.

The Chairman: Yes. Believe me, for a two-year plan, I agree with that.

Monsieur Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary wether his motion means that in the coming months, or at least for a good length of time, the committee's priority should be to draft a fairly exhaustive report on the whole question of employment and formulate some recommendations for the government which it can then accept or reject; this would certainly help the government decide what to do. Is that the intent of his motion? If it is, perhaps the chairman and researchers could collect some ideas and make some suggestions to us.

Perhaps we should also make sure that all members' suggestions are heard so that you have all the necessary information before making the proposal, rather than reopening the debate on aspects that may have been forgotten.

The point of my intervention is to find out whether the Human Resources Development Committee wants to make employment a priority given everything that involves and the multitude of related issues, both for job seekers and for those already employed.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Robert D. Nault: He's asking indirectly what path I had been suggesting. Yes, very much so.

What I'm asking is that people recognize how frustrating it is to the unemployed that governments keep putting these band-aid solutions in place. It's not as simple as politicians portray it to the general public, that we can fix something.

If we take our time in putting this together and the terms of reference are appropriate, that may take us until the end of November. Then when we're ready to move, when we get the right people, the right witnesses, and we start off on the right frame, we can do some good work on behalf of the country and maybe resolve those issues that Mr. Dubé's talking about as they relate to some of these structural problems.

That's all I'm getting at. I'm not trying to delay. This is a five-year mandate. We can't disappear here. We have a good opportunity to do some good work. I think Mr. Crête and I are on the same wavelength here, by the sounds of what he said.

The Chairman: That would be a unique situation in this committee.

Mr. Robert D. Nault: Oh, no, the odd time we have.

The Chairman: Okay. Is there any further discussion on this? Can I call the question? All in favour? God, I feel a lot of love in this room—unanimity.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: Okay, we are adjourned, then, until Thursday morning at 10 o'clock, at which time we start the review of the Treasury Board.