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 5, 1998

• 1035

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.)): Good morning.

To get us started, I would like to welcome our Italian counterparts. I would first like to introduce, for the benefit of our members, Marida Bolognesi, who is the chair of the committee in Italy. Perhaps I could ask you to introduce your members. Then I'll let you know who is here from our side. Then we can start a discussion.

Ms. Marida Bolognesi (Member of Parliament; President, Committee on Social Affairs, Chamber of Representatives of the Italian Parliament (Interpretation)): I would like to thank the chairman and the members for their welcome today.

I would like to introduce my colleagues, who are members of the committee on social affairs: Piergiorgio Massidda, Guiseppe Fioroni, Maria Burani Procaccini, Vasco Giannotti, and Maura Cossutta. They are all members of the Italian Parliament. Also, Annibale Ferrari and Paola Perrelli are officers of the chamber of deputies, and Mr. Alessandro Gaudiano is from the Italian embassy.

The Chairman: Welcome to Canada.

I suspect that you have some sense of how we are organized.

We have here members from the government. Mr. Nick Discepola is a compatriot. Would that be fair, Nick? Larry McCormick and Janko Peric are both from the government. From our loyal, faithful, and very supportive official opposition, we have Mr. Dale Johnston. From the third party in the House, we have Mr. Antoine Dubé. Mr. Dubé and Mr. Johnston have been long-serving members of this committee. Mr. McCormick has also served for a long time.

This committee has responsibility for the Department of Human Resources Development. It's the largest-spending envelope in our government. It covers everything from child care and child poverty through to seniors benefits and pensions.

Coming in the door right now, we have the late-arriving but always-wanted Mrs. Bradshaw from Moncton, who is a new member in the House this term, but a very experienced advocate in the area of crime and child poverty.

Claudette, for your information, this is the Italian delegation. The majority of them are all members of the Italian Parliament and are on the social policy committee there.

So welcome. Are there particular questions that we could answer for you?

• 1040

Ms. Marida Bolognesi (Interpretation): More than asking questions, I would like to explain the way our committee works, perhaps. Our committee in Italy has competence in the areas of child care, care for the elderly, social assistance, but also the whole issue of health care. We handle this together on the same committee.

We're very interested in your work, particularly in the areas of care for the elderly and child care.

Another characteristic is that this committee has a particularly limited number of members, but our committees tend to be much larger, have many more members. I would like to know if you find this facilitates your work on the issues and if you deal also with labour and employment issues.

The Chairman: I should also mention that Mr. Charles Hubbard is here. He's a long-serving member of the House of Commons from the great province of New Brunswick, to the east of us.

Yes, I should have mentioned in my introduction that this committee is also responsible for labour, and we have a special responsibility for disabled persons.

Mr. Johnston is the critic in the Reform Party for labour, and we have just finished a piece of legislation that the government proposed and Mr. Johnston eagerly supported.

We are about to engage in our estimates with you this morning. At the conclusion of this meeting, the Minister of Labour will be coming before the committee and we will begin the process of going through the estimates and the spending of the department, category by category.

Mr. Johnston.

Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): In case the estimates aren't readily translatable, what we're going to be doing now is asking the minister to justify the spending of his department. He'll be coming before us today to answer questions as to the administration of his spending.

Ms. Marida Bolognesi (Interpretation): The bill you're going to be dealing with, is that a parliamentary initiative or a government bill?

The Chairman: The bill we just passed was a government bill. It was put forward by the government.

The rules governing these committees were changed after 1993 so that a standing committee responsible for a department handles all facets of the department's activities. The department's planning documents are reviewed by the committee and any legislation arising from the House is reviewed by the committee, as are the spending estimates, the order in council appointments, and the annual reports.

Over and above that, the committee can initiate work on its own, and we are in the midst of a look at how our labour legislation and our social safety net relative to work have to change in order to meet the challenges of modernization, really.

Ms. Marida Bolognesi (Interpretation): Does the committee have legislative autonomy or does it have to refer back to the House of Commons?

• 1045

The Chairman: Legislation has to be passed by the House of Commons. The committee can modify....

It takes a lot of words in Italian to say a few words in English, right?

A voice: Yes, it takes five minutes to

[Inaudible—Editor].

Ms. Marida Bolognesi (Interpretation): Therefore you intervene your debate only on government initiatives.

The Chairman: The committee responds to orders from the House. If the House introduces a bill, it will be referred to the committee if it's within the area of responsibility of the department the committee is responsible for.

Ms. Marida Bolognesi (Interpretation): I'll ask a really precise question. This discussion of the bill today can modify the existing legislation, and these changes begin and are made here, or is there another forum to which they pass?

The Chairman: Once the bill has been passed by this committee, it is then reported back to the House for subsequent debate and passage.

Ms. Marida Bolognesi (Interpretation): I want to understand if this was always the process or if there was a possibility of passing the law directly in the committee.

The Chairman: No. Our process traditionally has been three readings of a bill, the first reading being introduction in the House of Commons. Then in the old system there would be debate and passage in principle, the first passage being simply the permission to introduce the bill in the House of Commons. The second passage was approval in principle and then referral to committee for clause-by-clause review. Once the committee dealt with it, it would come back to the House of Commons for a third debate and passage, and then it would be referred to the Senate.

We changed the rules to allow a bill to be referred to committee after first reading, at the discretion of the government, if the government wishes the committee to study the issue and generate a legislative solution. A referral after first reading means the committee has much wider latitude than in a referral after second reading.

Mr. Johnston, would you like to jump in?

Mr. Dale Johnston: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think perhaps they are asking if it's possible for an initiative to come from anywhere but the government. But because in this situation the government has a clear majority, practically all of the legislation we consider comes from the government.

I understand in the Italian House you have a coalition, and that is a completely different scenario from what we have. I assumed that you asked if there is any other way legislation can get to this point. Technically there is: it could come from the opposition motions. But because of the majority on the government side, the likelihood of that being accepted is very small.

An hon. member: They turn their back on good legislation.

An hon. member: Good point.

• 1050

Ms. Marida Bolognesi (Interpretation): I think I understand. We have a coalition government. There is a majority. The government presents many bills, but there are also discussions of parliamentary initiatives that may come from either the majority or the opposition. In fact, we recently approved a new parliamentary regulation for the chamber of deputies that envisages the need to reserve part of the committees' working time to initiatives or bills that come from the opposition.

I didn't mention it before, but here we have with us Maria Burani Procaccini and other members of the opposition. We also have other majority members besides me.

The Chairman: Nick.

Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, Lib.):

[Editor's Note: Member speaks in Italian]

For my English-speaking colleagues—

The Chairman: We've heard you before, so you can go whichever way you want.

An hon. member: Yes, go ahead. Speak in Italian.

Mr. Nick Discepola (Interpretation): Mr. Johnston explained the operation of Parliament, which is very similar to yours, but I must say that in reality, of all the bills presented by parliamentarians, only one bill that wasn't a government initiative actually was successful.

Therefore, when you say that the opposition can bring in their own bills, that's true.... We have about four hours of private members' bills a week, so it's approximately the same way as yours. Nonetheless, it's the government that decides.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Dubé.

Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): One of the characteristics of this Parliament is that members speak both official languages. Since I come from Quebec, I speak French. I understand English, but listening to you this morning I realized that I would find it even easier to understand Italian.

I don't have any questions. I would simply like to tell you about the work of this committee and about one responsibility in the area of human resources that is shared, in the federal system, between the federal government and the provinces. A recent administrative agreement allows for a portion of employment insurance funds to be used for active measures that are now directly administrated by the province of Quebec. The same holds true in a certain number of other provinces, Manitoba being one, I believe.

• 1055

I would like to mention another feature, and that will be the last one because I don't want to take up too much time. Quebec has its own Labour Code, except in those areas that come under federal jurisdiction.

That was the small francophone and Quebec contribution that I wanted to make. I wish you an excellent stay here.

Thank you very much.

[English]

The Chairman: Are there areas or questions you're dealing with right now in your chamber?

Ms. Marida Bolognesi (Interpretation): At this particular moment we have a number of reform projects. It's a time of great change right now, especially the whole area of welfare system reform, and health care reform in particular. That doesn't concern this committee, but we're trying to modify our health care system.

Our meetings here are particularly interesting because we're also in a phase of constitutional reform in Italy. In this principle of greater power to the provinces, to the regions, it's important to understand how you can maintain decision-making autonomy in some areas, health care in particular, and still possibly guarantee, with a territory like Italy, which socially and geographically is very different, uniform services throughout the country with regard to social services.

You have two separate committees—one that handles social affairs and one that handles health. We are trying to integrate. A big issue for us is trying to integrate social services and health services.

We're also dealing a lot with the issue of child rights and child care. This is also based on the idea of transferring to the regions and to municipalities, promoting transfer payments to the regions that promote services for children and protect general children's rights.

What else are we working on? Obviously, one of the big issues on which we feel we can go into greater depth when we meet our counterparts in the provinces is the issue of social assistance services. We hear of the experiences of a network of services, and we want to go look more in depth at this type of organization of the system.

The Chairman: Larry, do you want to say something?

Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, Lib.): Yes.

Welcome to our committee.

I'm looking to learn from you here. On our HRD committee we deal with some very important legislation. After the legislation is introduced, we have witnesses. In the previous four years we've had almost hundreds of groups of witnesses. Of course, many committees travel on the road; Canada is so large. Also, realistically, we have a smaller majority now, so sometimes the committees stay here and we've started to use videoconferencing.

• 1100

So I was curious about this. When you have legislation, do you bring witnesses in or do you travel?

Ms. Marida Bolognesi (Interpretation): It's a very interesting question, because it brings out the idea that legislation has to be made in consideration of society and certain groups, especially large reforms and bills. We go into a complex inquiry phase, especially with concern to health reform and social assistance reform.

In this kind of inquiry phase we have hearings with all those who will be involved in the legislation, who will be affected by it—professional associations, union organizations, or citizen groups that come to the hearings and follow the project. This happens also for bills that are not government initiatives.

We're studying now two parliamentary initiatives, bills presented by single individual members. One concerns the organ transplant system. Also, we've begun the inquiry process or the hearing process with patients' associations, with persons who, from an ethical point of view...physicians' associations, physicians' unions. Occasionally, according to the subject and depending on the issues, in this hearing process we sometimes go into the municipalities, we sometimes make on-site visits. Once the bill is passed we also try to follow it through to see the effects.

For example, during our budget session, which deals with the distribution of resources, if there are modifications or cuts that are made to the regions, because our health care system is very regional, sometimes the committee goes to follow up certain issues that might have arisen. This is all part of the inquiry system, the hearing system that we go through for bills.

The Chairman: These parliamentary bills that you're referring to, are they generated within the committee? Do they originate within the committee?

Ms. Marida Bolognesi (Interpretation): Yes. Groups or individual members present bills on various issues. The committee plans its work two or three months down the road.

• 1105

The government bills are fast-tracked obviously, but in our calendar we try to find a balance for consideration of parliamentary individual member bills such as artificial insemination, things like that. The issue of the health care reform is a parliamentary initiative. The government will have its say and it will present its own ideas, but it's a parliamentary initiative.

When we plan our schedule, the chairman and the other members try to reach a balance on what we will consider to guarantee the opposition parties' rights. In a system that is tendentially bipolar, we feel it is appropriate that we find a way to guarantee that there is a balance between the two contributions, but also there must be a balance between the government and Parliament.

The powers of Parliament are very important to us. So the contribution from the opposition and the majority parties has to be equally balanced to build something.

The Chairman: Nick, I'll come to you in one second. I just want to make sure we're talking about the same thing, though.

Let's take your health care reform as an example. Are you generating an actual piece of legislation or are you generating a report with recommendations to the House so that the government will create legislation?

Ms. Marida Bolognesi (Interpretation): As concerns health care reform that we're studying currently, that has a government origin, but we have modified it. We've modified the government's proposals on our own initiative.

As concerns other bills, laws are generated by parliamentary initiative. A bill, let's say, for a certain area of health care—for example, what I was mentioning before about artificial insemination, but also in certain professional sectors—is a parliamentary initiative, comes from the Parliament and becomes law. It becomes a law of the Republic of Italy.

Ms. Maria Burani Procaccini (Member of Parliament Forza Italia, Committee on Social Affairs, Chamber of Representatives of the Italian Parliament (Interpretation)): There are fourteen bills combined in one.

Mr. Piergiorgio Massidda (Member of Parliament, Forza Italia, Committee on Social Affairs, Chamber of Representatives of the Italian Parliament (Interpretation)): Perhaps to clarify....

Ms. Marida Bolognesi (Interpretation): Our committee doesn't present to the chamber directions or reports; it presents the text of the legislation, the articles of the legislation. That is what then is approved. We can, for example, also draft a part of the legislation in committee.

If there's agreement among groups on a certain bill, the bill doesn't have to go to the chamber. It can become law in committee with the articles and the text and everything. This is much more difficult because it requires a broad consensus. Various groups have to come to an agreement on the fact. The groups also have to agree that this bill will not go to the chamber, that it will be approved in committee. There has to be a large consensus on that.

• 1110

The Chairman: A simple 50 plus 1, or the majority of the committee?

Ms. Marida Bolognesi (interpretation): It's all groups or four-fifths. It's very high.

The Chairman: Nick.

Mr. Nick Discepola (Interpretation): I would like to have you talk more about the changes to the constitution. I would like to give you a personal answer. It isn't the position of my government; it's personal. I'm sure there are many members around this table who wouldn't agree with me.

We divided the responsibilities. The provinces were more suitable for certain responsibilities. My advice to you if you want to reform your health care system is to negotiate with the regions and the provinces four or five national norms or standards. We have them here. There are five criteria.

If the provinces don't respect those criteria, the federal government doesn't make the transfer payments. For education there are no norms, there are no national standards, so a student from one province can't go to university in another province, necessarily. My personal advice is to see what norms and standards you want to apply nationally, and after that you can change the constitution. Don't wait to do it until afterwards, because it will be too late.

The Chairman: Mr. Discepola has done a first-class job of presenting one side of the argument. Just so you understand the regional nature, we'll go to the other side of the argument.

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé: Of course. My colleague and I come from the same province, Quebec, but you understand that he is a member of the Liberal majority.

Since Quebec is french-speaking and given the situation of the french language in North America, we insist on education remaining a provincial responsibility. We would, however, have no objection to national standards or norms for the other provinces, outside of Quebec.

But the party in power is not prepared, for the time being, to recognize our specific character. I will not add anything to that right now because I simply wanted to respond to my colleague. I do not want to drag you into our internal disagreements.

• 1115

[English]

Ms. Marida Bolognesi (Interpretation): We have had a similar kind of dialectic, as well.

[Translation]

Mr. Nick Discepola: I would add that in the health care system Quebec fully respects the national criteria.

[English]

Ms. Marida Bolognesi (Interpretation): Otherwise you don't get any money.

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé: We don't have any problem with health because when you're sick, it doesn't matter whether you speak French or English.

[English]

Ms. Marida Bolognesi (Interpretation): In fact, social services have to respond to other criteria; however, we have a similar dialectic on powers. It's a very heated debate in Italy at the moment, also in terms of the majority, what powers go to the regions, what powers are.... Therefore it's normal for us to have this kind of dialectic and dialogue.

The Chairman: You have managed to put your finger squarely on the most sensitive issue that confronts this country.

As an observation, when we talk about services to people, how you help a poor person gain support, how you operate a community health system, there's usually remarkable agreement. There's usually a great deal of agreement in the committee from all sides, but that agreement falls apart when you start to talk about who's in control of it.

Does your constitution allow you to have central control of education and health care, which you then delegate to the region, or do you have the same kind of conflict as to where control exists in a region?

Ms. Marida Bolognesi (Interpretation): No, health care—

Mr. Annibale Ferrari (Official, Chamber of Representatives of the Italian Parliament):

[Editor's Note: Witness speaks in Italian.]

Ms. Marida Bolognesi (Interpretation): You see, dialogue and dialectic are no problem.

Let's say that powers in health care are already decentralized, regional. However, certain directions and control are central, and we're currently modifying some points in our committee on the organization of the system. We just concluded our work on this before leaving for Canada, and next week when we get back to Italy, the bill for reform goes to the chamber. So we'll be discussing it in June.

That bill also envisages the integration of municipalities and other changes, but it remains the national direction through a national health plan that the regions respect, even though, in turn, the regions prepare regional health plans based on the needs in their areas. Then there are many other changes, but the constitution envisages a modification of the health ministry, and also to delegate powers, to give powers, and also to define better the roles of research institutes that work together with the health department in its monitoring of the health system as it works throughout the country.

• 1120

The difficult issue I think we all share is accountability and to be able to verify the quality of the services and to reach some kind of health objectives. Our old health law, the former health law, was developed in a phase when the principal objective was economic recovery, so the goal was also to cut and to save.

Today we're trying to rebalance that, because perhaps we're emerging from an organizational phase and a recovery phase. So we're aiming at the quality of service. We're trying to rebalance the fact that in some areas of Italy health services are not as good as they should be. We have places in Italy where there are excellent health services, but in other parts of the country it doesn't come up to the standard.

We still have the problem of controlling our spending, but it is also important for us to respond to needs that have changed.

For example, health care in Italy is very centred on hospital services; it's a generalized problem. Because care for the elderly and things like that require different types of services, such as home care, we're also trying to shift our resources that were primarily hospital outside of hospitals into the territories.

Mr. Piergiorgio Massidda: We are speaking about Italy. We have spoken about the provinces and federal, but we don't understand the power or the administration of the towns—if they have power or not, or is it only central, because maybe it is not central from the state but maybe central for the federation.

The Chairman: It's interesting. I was shaking my head—first, just to explain that—because it's remarkable to me how similar the issues are. The issue in health care we're dealing with right now is how we get resources away from acute care in the hospitals and into the communities. It is the identical concern here.

On this question about the towns, cities and municipalities are the creation of provincial governments, so the lines of authority are quite clear. It's not so clear between the federal government and the provincial governments.

But I rather like the description you gave of the Italian relationship, and perhaps this committee should go to Italy to study it.

Mr. Johnston, you could make a motion to that effect.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Yes, I think I will.

The Chairman: Claudette, did you have a comment you want to make?

[Translation]

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw (Moncton, Lib.): First, I would like to welcome you to Canada.

• 1125

I think it is very important for countries to have a dialogue. I'm just back from Bangladesh and China where I have met many politicians. I am very happy to meet with you also.

Besides health issues we also talked about youth delinquency and criminality in Canada. We noted that many young criminals come from poor and under-privileged families. One priority for the Liberal government is to adopt crime prevention measures and to set-up programs for children up to the age of six.

I have been very involved in that area and I was wondering if your committee, in Italy, has worked on the issue of crime prevention amongst youth, and in particular with children up to the age of six. This is my first question.

I have also been very surprised during my travels in Asia to see that in many countries education is not free and poor families cannot send their children to school. I would like to know if school is free in Italy for all children, rich and poor.

[English]

Ms. Marida Bolognesi (Interpretation): On your very important question, which we have also been working on as a committee, it concerns protection of children's rights and work on prevention. In Italy we also have the very real problem of youth delinquency. We have just in fact passed legislation, which I was referring to before, through which the central government transfers moneys to large cities to begin preventive projects for children at risk, which involve school inspections, youth delinquency, family support, supports for families in difficult situations.

This bill already has its implementing decrees and can already be activated in large metropolitan centres. It has already been enacted in large urban centres in the north and in the south that have this problem in particular. In our two budget sessions we allocated finances for this.

Another initiative, this time a parliamentary initiative, created a committee of the two chambers, of the senate and the chamber of deputies, to supervise and monitor the implementation of the New York agreement on children's rights.

Therefore we have these two instruments: a law that supports policies for children and a monitoring body. With both laws and with action, we are trying to enact forms of prevention to the problems you were referring to.

• 1130

I must say that presently the government in Italy has had a lot of attention from the minister for social solidarity, who also proposed series of actions, of steps—not laws, but procedures to support.

As regards education, our education system is divided by the committee from primary education to university, a section apart, in which we're involved right now to pass from a centralized state organization to municipal and provincial authorities. This is in order to favour a good spread throughout the territory because of the phenomenon of truancy and of the difficulties in finding work after having graduated. We've seen it there—difficult issues, issues that create problems for youth. We're currently discussing how to devolve state moneys to municipalities and provinces.

There's a discussion between the majority party and the opposition, for example, on scholastic credits or, as some of us say—Mr. Massidda and I—on bonuses to be given to families in order for them to choose their children's schools.

The Chairman: Just before I recess, I'll do two things. As I mentioned earlier, we are now going to go into a study of the estimates of expenditures for the Department of Labour. Our Minister of Labour, the Honourable Lawrence MacAulay, has just come into the room.

Lawrence, this is the HRD committee from Italy.

Let me thank all of you. It's been very interesting. I hope you will have a wonderful visit here. You are of course welcome to stay and see the great respect that everybody has for ministers of our government.

Ms. Marida Bolognesi (Interpretation): We would like to thank you for this meeting here today. It was very interesting to us, because even though our systems are organized very differently, there are very great similarities in issues. I think we can continue our discussion when you come to Italy.

The Chairman: Done. Thank you. We'll suspend for a few minutes.

• 1134

• 1137

The Chairman: Let's resume. We're back after a brief pause.

We are now beginning formally the consideration of estimates of the Department of Labour and the Department of Human Resources Development. We're responding to an order of reference of the House of February 26, 1998, that the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1999, Human Resources Development votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 and 35, be referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Pursuant to Standing Order 81(7), this is in consideration of the 1998-99 estimates, part III, Report on Plans and Priorities, Human Resources Development Canada, sessional paper number 8520-361-116, laid upon the table on Wednesday, March 26, 1998.

We are on vote 15.

I read that interesting and intriguing bit of information at the insistence of the clerk.

Welcome, Mr. Minister. As is our practice, I'm pleased that you circulated the notes for your address. I would invite you to begin, I suspect there'll be a few congratulatory questions once we move into that phase.

Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. It's a pleasure to be here today to discuss some of the major objectives for the coming year.

Before I start, though, I would like to introduce some of my staff who are here with me today from Human Resources Development Canada: Ian Green, associate deputy minister; Serge Rainville, assistant deputy minister, finance and administration services; Warren Edmondson, director general, federal mediation and conciliation service, and also acting assistant deputy minister of labour; and Gerry Blanchard, director general of program operations, labour. My officials will be pleased to provide further clarification if required.

• 1140

Today I want to talk to you about some of the directions we are taking so that Canadians can participate productively in our workplace, society, and economy. These are certainly interesting times to be the Minister of Labour, especially since the workplace is changing so much. I will now summarize some of the specific ways the labour program is adapting to these changing circumstances.

One of our major priorities is the comprehensive review of the Canada Labour Code. Changes to part I of the code, or Bill C-19, are now before Parliament. This bill makes substantial changes to the part of the code that governs industrial relations.

We have thoroughly consulted with both labour and employer groups through an independent labour relations task force. That task force was chaired by Mr. Andrew Sims. Bill C-19 modernizes the code and improves the collective bargaining process for federally regulated industries. These amendments are a balanced package of changes. They will encourage positive labour-management relations and provide for more effective and efficient administration of the code by a new representational Industrial Relations Board.

We are also moving ahead with our review of part II and part III. I will take each in turn, starting with part II.

Discussions began in the early 1990s regarding the changes to part II so it better reflects the evolving work environment and complements occupational health and safety rules in other jurisdictions. These changes will give us more flexibility to deliver programs and develop regulations that are consistent with government policies.

A committee has been working on part II since 1994. This committee is made up of representatives from labour, industry, and government. It has reviewed 200 proposals and has reached consensus on most of them. We should be seeing legislation in the House quite soon.

We are also reviewing part III, which covers minimum labour standards. This review has two major objectives. First, we're going to modernize the code so it will be more efficient, thereby allowing us to better serve our clients. Second, we're examining the effect of emerging trends in the changing workplace.

Within this context, five specific issues are being reviewed: workplace harassment, education leave and skill upgrading in the workplace, policies that support workers attending to family responsibilities, further protection of working conditions for home workers, and further protection for underage workers.

We're still working on this. The labour standards client consultation committee met in November 1996 to suggest issues for discussion. Consultations with employer and employee groups will proceed over the coming year.

As you can imagine, the revision of the Canada Labour Code is a major undertaking. But the labour program has been active in other areas too. I just want to touch on a few of them, including employment equity and international labour issues.

First I want to talk to you about the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act. As you know, this act makes certain requirements of every construction contract with the Government of Canada. Specifically, contractors must pay fair wages as defined in the act and they must have specific hours of work and overtime standards. The labour program enforces this legislation. Currently we're looking into new wage schedules.

Last year, labour program officials met with construction contractors and unions in Alberta to gather some firsthand information. The Alberta pilot project had mixed results. The two sides agreed on just a few of the wage rates and disagreed about the usefulness of wage schedules and of the legislation itself. Both sides also pointed out some problems with the current act.

• 1145

Based on that consultation, it appears the issue is more complex than a simple redrafting of the wage schedules, and requires more study. This being said, we are committed to fair wages for construction workers on federal worksites.

I would like to move on now to employment equity and pay equity. The labour program helps federally regulated private sector employers comply with the legal requirements in this area. I'd like to discuss employment equity and pay equity separately, as they are governed by separate legislative schemes.

As you are no doubt aware, employment equity is about ensuring fair representation of the workplace, while pay equity is about equal pay for work of equal value.

Since the Employment Equity Act came into force in 1986, the overall labour market representation of people from the four designated groups has increased. These are women, persons with disabilities, members of visible minorities, and aboriginal peoples. However, many of these people are still concentrated in lower-paying jobs. Clearly, more needs to be done, especially for aboriginal peoples and people with disabilities. They have not fared as well as the other groups, and we will be increasing our efforts to address the situation.

For example, my colleague Minister Pettigrew has spearheaded the development of a national strategy to assist persons with disabilities. I look forward to working closely with him on this very important initiative, to ensure increased integration of persons with disabilities in the labour market.

Many people have the mistaken idea that employment equity means filling quotas, or that it forces us to hire unqualified people. That is a myth. Employment equity means that we are getting rid of the unfair barriers that prevent qualified people from getting jobs and promotions. Employment equity is truly a commitment to merit.

You may recall that recently there were two decisions in the Federal Court dealing with equal pay. I want to clarify that employment equity is not affected by these two recent decisions. Nevertheless, they have created some uncertainty for pay equity. There is an ongoing commitment, however, to promote equal pay.

These are some of my activities as Minister of Labour. As you can see, my mandate includes promoting a stable industrial relations climate, as well as a safe, equitable and productive workplace within the federal jurisdiction. The availability of workplace information supports this mandate.

However, my responsibilities extend beyond our borders as well, so I'd like to talk about international labour issues, specifically child labour.

The International Labour Organization is proposing new instruments to address the more severe forms of child labour, such as forced labour, the sex trade, drug trafficking and so forth. We are actively helping the ILO to develop these instruments, and we are talking to Canadian stakeholders to help us with our position for the international labour conference this June, where we will be discussing the matter in more detail.

At that conference, the ILO will also probably adopt a declaration on fundamental workers' rights. This will be in large part because Canada insisted on adding the item to the agenda. It is particularly fitting as we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in which the labour program is a proud participant.

We have also been ensuring that labour is part of our international agreements, whether it's the MAI or the Canada-Chile Agreement on Labour Cooperation. Furthermore, we will ensure labour issues are addressed when we negotiate the free trade area of the Americas.

This, in broad strokes, is a summary of our major priorities for the coming year. Of course, there are a number of areas that I cannot touch. I suspect there will be a few questions, and I would be very pleased to try to respond.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee.

• 1150

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Minister.

After that presentation, it's difficult to see where questions could come from, but let's find out.

Mr. Johnston.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Mr. Minister, for your very brief brief.

On page 24 of your comments, you mentioned that at the conference, the ILO will be voting on the adoption of the Declaration on Fundamental Workers' Rights. As you point out, this is an initiative taken by Canada, and I wonder if it would be possible that we could get a draft of the Declaration on Fundamental Workers' Rights for our perusal.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Yes, I would very much suspect you could get the draft of it, Dale.

An hon. member: Will these all be public documents?

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Yes, they'll all be public documents.

The Chairman: If I could just interject, Mr. Minister, perhaps you could have it sent to the clerk, and we'll circulate copies to all members. It would be our pleasure.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: It will be done.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Thank you very much.

Mr. Minister, you no doubt are aware that there may be some work disruptions in Canadian National Railway. It seems like NAV CANADA is having some problems reaching an agreement, and there's the possibility of a work stoppage at the port of Halifax. What is your ministry doing in anticipation of work stoppages in these areas this summer?

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: In any of the areas, whatever area it would be, what happens is that if they ask for a conciliation officer, then I supply one.

At NAV CANADA they're still in negotiations, and should they request a conciliation officer, I suspect it would be provided for them; it would be. We always work with whatever group is under our jurisdiction and provide whatever assistance possible with a conciliation officer.

If there's anything, Warren, who is our director general, would certainly deal with all of those.

Mr. Warren Edmondson (Director General, Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service; Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Labour, Department of Human Resources Development): With respect to those three specific cases, if I can bring you up to speed as to where they are in the collective bargaining process, the Canadian National Railway has fundamentally settled all of its agreements. They've either been signed or they are out for ratification, with one exception, and that is the agreement that's currently being negotiated with the CAW. Those negotiations are presently, and have been for a few months, in conciliation and are reaching a fairly important stage, but as of this moment, the conciliation officer is still seized with the dispute, so there is certainly no imminent threat of a work stoppage in that dispute.

NAV CANADA, as the minister has indicated, has a number of bargaining units. One of them is currently in conciliation. That's the bargaining unit represented by the Public Service Alliance of Canada, and that's a group of office workers.

The other bargaining unit that we may be reading about in the newspapers is a group represented by the Canadian Air Traffic Control Association. They had a tentative agreement. That agreement went out for ratification and was, I understand, rejected by the union's membership. At this point in time we have not yet received a notice of dispute. In other words, that dispute is not in conciliation, and again, I would suggest that any possibility of a work stoppage at NAV CANADA is not imminent.

The third one I believe you mentioned was—

Mr. Dale Johnston: The port of Halifax.

Mr. Warren Edmondson: The port of Halifax. That's the longshore bargaining unit. They have been in direct bargaining for some time. We've had a conciliation officer in that dispute. The officer has reported out. The minister is obviously now at the stage where he must decide whether or not to take any further action in that dispute. Of course, should mediation be useful in those disputes, it would be customary that the minister would consider a request for mediation by the parties to provide assistance to avoid a work stoppage.

• 1155

I think fundamentally, Mr. Johnston, that's where those three disputes are at this moment.

Mr. Dale Johnston: I certainly hope that the air traffic controllers can get things straightened out there.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: So do I, Dale.

Mr. Dale Johnston: I recognize this is speculation, but if, on the other hand, the provisions in Bill C-19 are going to effect a potential work stoppage at CN perhaps—in that there are provisions in CN for a partial ban on replacement workers—would that clause of Bill C-19 prohibit Canadian National from using managerial staff to operate the railway?

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: No, they can use replacement workers as long as replacement workers are not used to break the union, or perceived to. Now they're under the old code...yes, until Bill C-19 becomes law.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Of course, we're assuming that Bill C-19 is going to make it through the House.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Yes, you're right. That's how it would be. They would be allowed to use replacement workers.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Okay.

The Chairman: We'll do one round with each party and then we'll come back. There's lots of time. I'll make sure you all get in.

Mr. Dubé.

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé: I have two types of concerns. First, there is the matter of employment equity. I am very happy to hear you say that you intend to propose a bill that would cover private sector companies that come under federal jurisdiction, particularly in the area of transport.

What concerns me somewhat—and that will be my first question—is how can your government be credible and impose legislation on the private sector without having settled the problem of that legislative measure with its own employees. It has been going on for several months, even years, and it still isn't settled.

In terms of strategy—maybe you don't have to reveal your strategy to me, but I have the right to try and question you on it—, wouldn't it be better to wait for that to be settled before making those requirements on the private sector, and thereby improve your credibility?

[English]

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Of course, I would like to do anything that will improve my credibility, I can assure you. As you know, that's not under my jurisdiction. You are talking on part II and part III, and that will be down the road a while.

Of course, as you clearly indicated, this other issue has been on the burner for a long time too, but I'm very hopeful that will.... As you know...indeed I'm speaking out of my authority, but there is an offer on the table and we hope we will be able to reach a settlement, and I'm very hopeful we will.

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé: I have a short supplementary before I go on to the international scene. If it isn't settled quickly, do you intend to present your proposal without waiting for a settlement?

[English]

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: With part II, it would be quite a number of months before that would be coming to the House, anyway. I can't speculate on when this other issue would be settled, because it's not under my jurisdiction. I'm proceeding on what's my authority to proceed on and what other people's authority is. I let them deal with that and respond to it too.

• 1200

But no, we will be working and consulting with labour and management, and government officials will be present.

It takes many months and years to come up with changes to any part of a legislation that takes as much consultation as the Canada Labour Code. As you would realize, to come to some kind of consensus when you're dealing with three different groups is not always that easy. It's like Bill C-19: nobody agrees with everything, but most people agree it should happen.

That is my view, from my short term as Minister of Labour. How I see it is you come up with the best compromise possible, and that's what we will do with part II and part III.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé: In another area now, Mr. Minister, you mentioned the World Conference on Labour that will take place in June. One of my colleagues made a scene because he was worried about the situation, about the negative effects of globalization, particularly on jobs. Wouldn't it be time for you, as Labour Minister, to publicly come out in favour of globalization in the area of labour standards and market rules? We should insist on having certain labour conditions in all countries, particularly basic standards regarding child labour and, beyond that, on matters of work safety and others also, maybe. I would like to hear you on that. Do you intend to insist on those issues in Canada's name and try to influence other countries to improve working conditions at the international level?

[English]

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: As you're aware, this government and this country have always tried to have a consultation process. When we do, as with the free trade agreement or any other agreement, such as the Canada-Chile agreement, there are always provisions within these agreements with the strongest language possible in order to make sure labour standards are upheld and to make sure we do not promote activity on the backs of child labour or in fact any other labour.

This country has worked for many years, as you are fully aware, to make sure the labour standards are front and foremost in any agreement we make with the Americans, with Chile, etc. When we go to the ILO, as you're aware, we are.... In fact, I was able to give them $0.5 million from my program in order to help them put regulations in place. Well, “regulation” is not the exact word, but whatever, it was on technical points on the child labour issue.

I was very pleased to do that, because we're all against excessive abuse in child labour. We're not opposed to child labour or children working, but abusive child labour is what we do oppose. As you know, in Quebec, if you're in an agricultural area, you likely dug potatoes when you were 10 or 12 years old. You probably at some point were a paper boy. We're not opposed to that. But excessive abuse we very much oppose, and as I said, this country not only opposes it with words; we oppose it with dollars.

I was very pleased to be able to do that.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

I'll now go to Mr. Power.

Mr. Charlie Power (St. John's West, PC): Thank you.

I have a question on the whole business of trade agreements with the Americas and our North American Agreement on Labour Cooperation. We have these agreements on labour cooperation, but it seems that since this government has become such a free trader in both the North American and South American context and in the world as well, human rights have often fallen by the wayside in our great desire to do more trade.

• 1205

Would it be an improvement if you could take some of our labour cooperation agreements and actually include them in the free trade and economic trade agreements?

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Well, Charlie, as you're aware, any time the Prime Minister travels, he and this country and this government always have been promoting.

What you have to do is work with countries. I don't think you can create laws; laws will not be abided by. What we have done with the free trade agreement or any other pending agreement we made with the Americas, or Canada-Chile, as mentioned previously, we used the strongest language possible in order to make sure our standards are well understood in terms of the advantages of them around the world. We have promoted this for years. We've been a leader. I think it's certainly done something for labour issues worldwide.

I think when you have conferences you indicate what a country we have and what a great country Canada is and how we treat labour and labour standards. That promotes worldwide what an advantage it is to in fact have high standards.

Mr. Charlie Power: I agree with the motherhood statement. I guess my point is that sometimes you see in this country that trade takes on such a high priority that sometimes labour standards are pushed by the wayside.

My thought is that some of the Canada Labour Code and labour agreements, if they were integrated into the free trade arrangements themselves, might be either better followed or have more importance.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: But, Charlie, that's if you could pass laws into everything that everybody would abide by or agree to sign, but what we have done over the years is promote, and it has worked.

Mr. Charlie Power: I guess my argument, Minister, is that from a Canadian—

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: I know what you're saying, but the truth is we don't have a wall here either and we have to deal with everybody else.

Mr. Charlie Power: I'm not saying we should pass laws that govern all of the Americas. I'm saying that we should pass laws that serve Canadians and Canadian companies who do trade with the Americas. Basically, as for our labour codes and standards that we want for Canadians and Canadian companies, would they not be more influential and maybe a little bit easier to put into practice if they were part of free trade agreements rather than side agreements on labour?

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: With the free trade agreement, we do have a side agreement on labour. I understand what you're saying. I know what you promote, and I agree with what you promote, but I don't think it's fair to underestimate what this country has done in educating the world and in fact what our labour standards are.

Mr. Charlie Power: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Power.

Mr. Wilfert.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Minister, I wonder if you could provide some more information to the committee with regard to the issue of fair wages for construction workers on federal work sites.

You indicated a pilot project in Alberta. Judging by your comments, there were mixed reviews, if not negative reviews. I wondered about where the department intends to go from here and also about the timetable. What have you learned from that project in Alberta that might assist in creating a better situation for that particular issue?

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Well, Bryon, as you are aware, we did have a pilot project in Alberta. We hoped that they would be able to sit down and come up with a fair wage and a way to put this process in place.

Obviously that did not happen, but I don't think there's anybody in this country who would disagree-I would hope not—with our paying a fair wage. You can agree or disagree, but there's a law that indicates you must. Even though the wage schedules are not posted, there is still a law that we must abide by. We are committed to this, but as I said, it's a big task. I can't just decide that I will publish schedules, because there would be hell to pay for everybody, notably myself.

I'm evaluating the situation. It's a much bigger situation than I really thought it was at the start. As you delve into this, you find out in fact what is involved, and there's a lot involved in order to be coming up with this.

• 1210

I talked with a lot of my provincial counterparts across the country who, again, agree that people should be paid a fair wage, but if you're asking me did I get the magic solution as of yet, no, I did not; and if I'm seeking it, yes, I am. It will take some time, but I want to do it and I want to do it right.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Mr. Minister, are you looking at other approaches, then, in terms of trying to establish that magic solution?

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: That's correct. I'm looking for an approach. Things have changed since those were published quite a number of years ago, so I'm looking for a more effective way and something that will work from British Columbia right across the country. And I'm not there yet. It's certainly something that I hear a good bit about.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: You mentioned, Mr. Minister, something with regard to the International Labour Organization and the conference later this year. Could you elaborate for us as to the specifics of the position of the Canadian government on this issue?

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: On which part of it?

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: The position on child labour.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: As I indicated previously, we're not opposed to child labour.

Another problem I have—and Warren, you're a great asset—is that I had a cataract operation and I can't see with my glasses on or off.

As you are aware, I was able to give $500,000 in order to help the ILO come up with some strategic planning. We do not oppose child labour; we oppose the excessive abuse of child labour, and the sex trade and these types of things. The approach this country has taken is that it has tried to indicate what takes place in this country. It's looked at as one of the best countries in the world, and when the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is signed, then quite simply, if you don't abide by the declaration—I don't know the exact term—you probably will not belong to the ILO. So in fact there is some muscle coming into it, but it takes time.

Of course, we must consult with the provinces. They have some say in what goes on in this country, as you might realize.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Can I ask one more just as a follow-up to that, Mr. Minister, just so I understand this? When I first heard it and my colleague here the same.... You had indicated that you are not opposed to child labour.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: I dug potatoes when I was 12 years old myself with a basket, and it didn't hurt me very much. I don't think it ever hurts anybody to work. But as for the abuse of child labour.... We don't oppose young boys and girls having paper routes, that they work—

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: It's the context.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: —but you don't abuse that either. It has to be right, and we must ask if it interferes with their schooling or whatever. There are limits to—

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: So it's the specific context.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: That's correct.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: I must add that of course this country has always taken a very strong position on the abuse of child labour.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Kenney.

Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Yes, thank you, Minister, for your presentation. I just have some specific questions related to the estimates.

The spending estimates for the labour program show an increase of $1.2 million this year over last in the grants and contributions category. Can you tell us what the reason for this increase is, or what the grants are for and who is eligible to receive them?

• 1215

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Jason, grants and contributions are different. For one, grants and contributions are in different categories. For a grant you apply, and if you're granted the grant, then it's normally a small sum of money, $2,000 or $3,000, whereas the contributions are probably a program you apply for and it's evaluated closely and with more money involved. The only thing that would happen, I suspect, is there would be more contributions that qualified for the program.

Mr. Jason Kenney: What are principal programs under the grant and contribution categories?

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: We have Serge Rainville with us, and perhaps he could respond.

Mr. Warren Edmondson: I can perhaps speak to one of them.

The major contribution program we have is called the labour-management partnerships program. This program constitutes $1.6 million, the same amount this year as we had last year. The objective of the contribution program is to encourage labour-management cooperation and better labour-management relations through the development of cooperative projects.

These are funding programs that many major corporations in Canada have taken advantage of with their unions. For example, a year ago or so we had a major work stoppage here in the Ottawa-Hull area involving OC Transpo and its Amalgamated Transit Union workers. We managed to convince them to work together in a number of ways. Following the establishment of these joint labour-management committees, they agreed to develop a program whereby they would explore better ways of operating and scheduling more efficiently, using technology and looking, for example, at the airline systems and the railway systems, believe it or not, to see whether there were efficiencies there in savings that could be generated, and productivity improvements. And we put some money forward to help fund that initiative. It was part of that program.

The partners in those programs are required to sign agreements, and they are accountable for funding, which is handed out in incremental amounts, with the final payment being made upon their fulfilling the terms of the contract.

Mr. Jason Kenney: These are not repayable contributions?

Mr. Warren Edmondson: Those are not repayable contributions. If you would like, we could get you an example of some of the kinds of contributions that we support and have been supporting over the years.

Recently the minister announced one to help a group of health care workers find ways with their unions to expand the level of service, for example, to their regional community. There are a number of different varieties of programs that this LMPP supports, but the important thing to note is that it really requires a joint initiative of both labour and management, and a cooperative agreement signed by both parties for which they are accountable.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: I think it's important to note that the ILO $500,000 would be also part of the figure you are asking for, but—

The Chairman: Could I interject for one second, Mr. Minister. Mr. Kenney, could you give me the page reference that you're on. I've been searching for it myself.

Mr. Jason Kenney: Page 3-21, “Grants and Contributions”.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: I also participated and viewed some of what takes places when you get union and management together, like the health workers. That program I was able to see firsthand, and it's quite a thing to see groups getting together and trying to figure out just exactly, without having a labour strike, how they were going to work and perform as many duties with fewer dollars—and it can be done. I think all sides agreed in this specific area that, yes, it could be done.

With that, of course, you end up spending overall a lot fewer federal dollars and you accomplish a lot more. In fact, we hope to come up with possibly even a pilot project to be used in other areas where there would be pending difficulties in ways that you can...in fact, that's what everybody's trying to do—more with less.

Jason, you've given us a heavy one on numbers, so I wonder if you'd let Serge, if the chairman doesn't cut me right off—

• 1220

The Chairman: Mr. Kenney is anxious to enlarge upon the question. Perhaps we could let him do that, then Serge could respond.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: That's fine.

Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Edmondson said that if the parties that receive these grants or contributions sign a contract they are accountable for the disbursement of these funds. My question is whether or not this accountability includes the overseeing by the Auditor General in the disbursement of funds by the other parties.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: I would totally expect the Auditor General would have total access to every cent that would be spent and what happened. It's certainly an opportunity to criticize, so he decided that he could evaluate any government spending, and this is certainly government spending.

Mr. Jason Kenney: The agreement does not preclude the Auditor General from going into the books of these other agencies to analyse their disbursement of these public funds.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Yes, he can—

Mr. Jason Kenney: You were going to ask Mr. Rainville—

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Serge, have you some more detail?

Mr. Serge Rainville (Assistant Deputy Minister, Financial Administrative Services, Department of Human Resources Development): You wanted to know the difference between the $2.7 million and the $3.9 million, which is a $1.2 million increase. The increase was $500,000 for CIDA and $683,000 for the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety.

Mr. Jason Kenney: So the CIDA funding would have been for overseas programs, labour training programs.

Mr. Serge Rainville: The CIDA one was for the International Labour Organisation. It was for statistical information and monitoring for a specific program on the child labour project.

Mr. Jason Kenney: The operating budget for fiscal years 1999, 2000 and 2001 shows a decline in plan spending. Can you explain how and where these reductions will be achieved?

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: One place it will be achieved, without the benefit of the notes, is in the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety in Hamilton. That will be self-sufficient in the year 2000 or 2001. We're reducing funding there on an ongoing basis.

Is there anything else, Serge?

Mr. Serge Rainville: We're talking about a $400,000 reduction.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: That will fairly well cover it.

Mr. Serge Rainville: That's exactly it.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Of course, that training centre is also supported by every province and territory.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. McCormick is next.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Mr. Minister and the witnesses, for being here. Sitting on the labour arm of HRD, we certainly don't need to sit any more on Sundays as we did in the last four years. We don't need any more breakdowns. You people will have it all in good hands, I'm sure.

I've always been in support of granting special status to grain, when necessary, in regard to other commodities. Of course, there have been some concerns about a provision in Bill C-19 in the movement of grain at port. Headlines were made around the world by another country about longshoremen and some disastrous consequences there. People must be coming along now and asking, are you only out to get the longshore people here, or why?

I just thought I would give you an opportunity to clarify that. Why are we extending that premise to grain at the port? I think we should.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Thank you, Larry, for giving me this opportunity. Of course, the problem on the west coast was if you had a disruption with the longshoremen, the trigger to activate Parliament in order to make sure the labour dispute was settled was not the dispute between labour and management. Most times it was because of the third party, grain, because the grain was not moving. That involves our world trade in grain, and it's ongoing because the grain has to move.

That is why proposed section 87.7 is in Bill C-19, simply in order to make sure that the collective bargaining system works and that there's not a trigger mechanism put in place in order to make sure, because of a third party or a commodity...that the collective bargaining system is allowed to proceed on its own. Of course, also, this will be re-evaluated in 1999 to resolve any problems, but the attempt is to make sure that we have a strong collective bargaining process.

• 1225

Mr. Larry McCormick: Mr. Minister, I was walking from Centre Block to West Block in September or October and met one of our hard-working staff from this committee, who has been with it for at least three years. We were probably looking at each other just to see what hat we were wearing and where we were from—

The Chairman: Everyone's going to try to figure out who it is, Larry.

Mr. Larry McCormick: All our staff on HRD had gone through phenomenal trials during the previous four years. That member looked at me and said, “Oh yes, the committee from hell”, referring to the time on the SSR when we did hear more than 600 witnesses here in Ottawa. Actually, I think I attended hearings in 27 cities in 35 days in 10 provinces, 2 territories and the eastern Arctic.

The Chairman: Is that regarding labour regulations for members?

Mr. Larry McCormick: We should have that, Mr. Chairman. I remember once they slapped someone's hand for having a sandwich after working 14 hours—

The Chairman: Thank you, Larry.

Mr. Larry McCormick: —at a CBC reception.

Mr. Minister, at that time there was an advisory group on working time and distribution of work. They were established during the time of the social security review, and they had a number of recommendations. I don't think there's a lot of opportunity for these recommendations to be enacted within a federal jurisdiction, but I thought I'd give you again the opportunity to see whether your department was able to look at whether we could make use of this to create more jobs when there is a real level of unemployment.... In rural Canada, especially, I'm concerned.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: I'll let Warren answer that. It's the Donner report you're talking about, I believe.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Thank you.

Mr. Warren Edmondson: The Donner report, or the report on hours of work, was an interesting study. It was obviously one of those areas that touched upon one of the ways in which jobs could possibly be created; that is, through the restriction on overtime.

Some of you will recall the collective agreement that the CAW negotiated with Chrysler a number of years ago, whereby they put a cap on the number of hours of overtime that people would work, in order to try to get the third shift working. That was one of the issues that gave rise to a lot of interest in a study such as the Donner report.

I think one of the advantages of the Donner report and studies like that is the question of raising public awareness of these issues and the opportunities that exist for companies and unions to look at creative options to addressing problems in the workplace. While the Donner report is there and available for the parties, I am sure that when we get into a more comprehensive review of issues like part III of the Labour Code, the labour standards provisions, parties will once again address some of the issues that were raised in the Donner report.

We as a department and the officials continually monitor changes in workplace activity and changes in the nature of work that have resulted particularly from globalization and increased competitiveness, and they are significant in the last number of years. We would expect that through the extensive consultation process we have on part III of the Labour Code, as we get into it, these issues will show themselves again, and the minister may have some options before him at that time to address some of these current workplace issues.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. McCormick.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: I would like to say, too, that when you have a report like the Donner report and others, it would also display to management and the union that sometimes these changes pay for management and are much better for the employee too, so you can have, sometimes, an agreement that perhaps this should happen.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Minister. We will now continue this love-in by going to Mr. Anders.

Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Minister, I'm wonder, will the taxpayers of Canada be billed for any kind of severance package or golden handshake for Mr. Ted Weatherill, and if so, how much will Mr. Weatherill receive?

• 1230

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: A pleasant subject, but whatever.... I can tell you that Mr. Weatherill will receive no more than his just due.

Mr. Rob Anders: What would he be due, justly?

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: He is due one week a year of severance, I believe. I think that gave him eight weeks, and the taxpayers of Canada would be responsible for that eight-week cheque.

Mr. Rob Anders: So you're saying today that there is nothing else besides eight weeks' severance?

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Nothing else, no, but he was due that.

Mr. Rob Anders: Fair enough; just asking the question.

I have a follow-up with regard to the Canada Labour Relations Board. I'm wondering why there was no effort to bring spending problems at the board under control, when an internal HRD audit of December 1996 on “travel and professional services contracting at the CLRB” condemned the board's travel policies and called into question the board's contracting of professional services. I'm wondering why we had to wait this long.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Well, as minister, I didn't wait very long. I understand that there was some—

Mr. Rob Anders: You've been the minister since 1995, right?

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: No, no. Just a few months.

Mr. Rob Anders: Fair enough.

The Chairman: You're just a youngster in this portfolio.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Just a youngster, learning the ropes.

Mr. Rob Anders: Actually, I did know that. I apologize.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: The chair is also quasi-judicial. It's not easy, and it wasn't an easy move to make, as you're both well aware. I wasn't long on the scene when I saw what was taking place, and I moved as fast as I could in order to rectify the situation. I think it sent a fairly clear message. And now, as you're aware, there will be a new board and it will be equally represented by labour and management, and I suspect there'll be no excess spending.

Mr. Rob Anders: My apologies on the 1995 comment.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: No problem.

Mr. Rob Anders: I just keep in mind that there were previous labour ministers who had ample opportunity to go after this problem, and it wasn't done then.

The Chairman: It was this minister who fixed it.

Mr. Rob Anders: And kudos to him.

Another problem I'm wondering if this minister is going to fix is that the same report in December 1996 on travel and professional services, etc., uncovered that there were contracts.... Actually, I'll read it. Another problem uncovered as a result of the audit was that funds for contracts were “not committed prior to contract signing”. Instead, funds were allocated “as invoices are received”.

That was a problem that was happening then—contracts that were literally done up as invoices were coming in, and there was no sense of their having been vetted beforehand or any due process with that. I'm wondering if that problem is still going on, or what the department has done and what you've done to fix that.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Rob, actually, what you're telling me is that this was all within the board itself, though, right? It was the chair authorizing perhaps a contract to travel. Is that what you're referring to? They would have the right to do that. Of course, when I was made aware of the situation, that's when I rectified the situation.

Again, there is and will be a chair of the new board, and he will have responsibilities, too, to watch the expenditures. I suspect there would be travel and other things that would require a contract, and that will not stop. But under my jurisdiction, I will certainly be keeping an eye, and it has to be proper.

Mr. Rob Anders: I take it to mean, Mr. Minister, that you feel that now there's a new chair of the new board appointed by you, we won't have any of these types of problems with pay or with compensation for travel or any of those things. Are we getting that guarantee from you here today, since that new chair's going to be in place, that there aren't going to be any problems? If right now your allegation is that you don't need to make structural changes to the board, that merely putting in a new person appointed by you is good as gold, then I'm—

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Rob, I just want to reassure you that there were major structural arrangements made—major structural arrangements. But the only thing that didn't change, and I'm sure you know this too, is that the chair is a quasi-judicial appointee, and he has responsibilities. His responsibility is to make sure that funding is spent in a proper manner.

Now, I can't guarantee that anybody will or will not, but certainly this type of thing will be monitored, has been monitored by me, and I'm sure down the road it will be. But I would never want to leave the impression that this is something that happens very often.

• 1235

Mr. Ian Green (Senior Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Human Resources Development): As the minister said, heads of agencies basically are accountable and ultimately have to be prepared to justify their expenses, but in addition to the changes the minister is talking about in terms of the board, the Secretary of the Treasury Board has also reminded all agency heads of their responsibility and those of their senior financial officers.

An order in council has been issued, as I understand it, directing agencies to develop policies using the Treasury Board policies as benchmarks; and where in fact agencies have travel practices or policies that differ from those of the Treasury Board, they are instructed to provide that information to Parliament. So there have been other changes as well, in terms of trying to tighten up the practices as they relate to expenditures of the agencies.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Quite simply, Rob, this means that if somebody sent in an inappropriate bill that was beyond the guidelines, it will be certainly be picked up, I would suspect, very quickly.

Mr. Rob Anders: I'm hoping that the Treasury Board guidelines don't allow for contracts to be signed and drawn up as invoices come in, rather than the other way around.

But I'll move on, still with the Canada Labour Relations Board, and I'm wondering whether or not there is actually serious consideration being given to giving the Canadian Artists and Producers Professional Relations Tribunal the ability to merge with the Canada Labour Relations Board.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: As perhaps you're aware, we did look at that and we're still looking at it, but it's not something that's right at.... When the legislation passes there will be a board put in place, but you're right, it's something that's being reviewed.

Mr. Rob Anders: When you're looking at it and when you're reviewing, are we walking down the path toward doing that, or tending not to?

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: It would be inappropriate, Rob, for me to say that we were or were not. What I certainly attempt to do to the best of my ability is operate as efficiently as possible with these trial boards, and that's why we're in fact, as you're aware, reviewing this.

But I'd like to ask Warren if he could add something to it.

The Chairman: Actually, Mr. Anders, I'll let you take one more question, then.

Mr. Rob Anders: I'll get this one in and I have some others that I could ask, but this will be the last one. It's with regard to page 3-24 of the Human Resources Development Canada estimates for 1998-99, and there it refers to employment equity as an activity or priority of the government. It also refers to, under “Expected Results”: “Improve the computerized recording system that employers use to report information under the Act”.

I'm wondering how much cost there is involved with that computerized reporting system that employers have to comply with under the employment equity provisions?

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: I would certainly have to refer this to Serge. Or Gerry, do you know the answer?

Mr. Gerry Blanchard (Director General, Operations, Department of Human Resources Development): Basically I don't think we're looking at a major cost here. It's trying to organize a system whereby the systems that the employers already have can be more compatible with ours, and to make it easier and cheaper for employers to be able to communicate the results.

Right now we have a process where reports come in, for example, on a yearly basis. We have to hire a bunch of people in the summertime to do a lot of this stuff manually. We're hoping that by changing our system...and I think we were looking at about a $25,000 cost to analyse and recommend the changes required by the system. We're looking at trying to change that so we're more compatible with what the employers can feed in now.

For an employer, I would imagine it's a very minor change to their systems to try to connect to us. Most people are already automated. So we're not looking at major costs here, either for ourselves or for the employers.

Mr. Rob Anders: How much does the system overall cost, the computer system in total?

Mr. Gerry Blanchard: It's part of our overall system so I don't have a figure right off the top of my head. I can take the question and get a specific answer.

The Chairman: You could take the question and return the answer to the clerk, and we'll circulate it to the members of the committee.

Thank you, Mr. Anders.

• 1240

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: I'll just read you a small statement by the banks: “We think employment equity not only has had a positive impact on the way organizations manage their workforce, but also it has proven to be good for our own business.” It's simply good business. That's what happens sometimes. Both business and management and labour sometimes, when you do this thing, realize that the benefit is really twofold.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Hubbard.

Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And good morning or maybe good afternoon to the minister and his staff. I'm not like Mr. McCormick. I'm only pinch-hitting here today for somebody else. But there are a couple of points I'd like to make.

First of all, Mr. Minister, I was very pleased to hear that your department is being a watchdog on the trade arrangements that are being made around the world, and especially those here in the Americas, because it's an issue that has a long-standing effect upon the future of our country and our labour force. I think that as the Canadian government you must be very much aware of the difficulties that labour groups have in other countries, both in terms of age groups, in terms of sex, and also in terms of remuneration for their work.

I don't want to put you on the spot with this, but probably as a member I would like to note your efforts also in terms of aboriginals and in terms of people with disabilities. I know my own office has had some difficulty, Mr. Chairman, in trying to access information on behalf of some people with disabilities in terms of how and what programs were available. If members, probably this committee or even members generally, had some specific information in terms of programs, in terms of how they worked, where they would apply, what the considerations were, I think it would be a great benefit to us as we deal with our constituents in our offices. And, Mr. Chairman, I would request that as a part-time or a pinch-hitting member of this committee.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Charlie, as a pinch-hitter, you'll get it. We could send it to the clerk and she will make sure that everybody receives it.

Also, you mentioned the labour standards. They are very important indeed, and as you're aware, this country, as I indicated previously, has been a leader in this field. Sometimes what happens, or I suspect what happens, is that other countries in the end find out the value of proper labour standards. It's like the banks with pay equity and many other things. Sometimes on labour standards it can be just that people don't realize, or perhaps they're cutting off their nose to spite their face. It's like the banks; it became more profitable to have the proper approach.

As you're well aware, Charlie, in all our trade agreements, either as a side agreement or in the language or whatever we can do in this country, we make sure that the labour standards are promoted as loud and as strong as possible. That is in fact probably the only way you can really sell the great values of this country and the great standards of this country around the world, because again when people, in the end, realize for themselves that it is in fact profitable in the long run to do it, they do it.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Minister. And thank you, Mr. Hubbard. As a pinch-hitting member, you also remind us of one of the responsibilities of this committee, which is for persons with disabilities. I appreciate your raising the issue.

Back to Mr. Johnston.

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

Mr. Minister, are you in possession of the conciliation report on the dispute at the port of Halifax?

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: I'm in possession of it and reviewing it.

Mr. Dale Johnston: When do you plan to release that report?

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: I couldn't give you the day, Dale, but I have legally up to 15 days. I received it just a few days ago and we are reviewing it.

Mr. Dale Johnston: So we can expect it within a fortnight.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Yes, you can expect it shortly. That's right.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Okay, a 15-day period.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: That's within that period of time.

• 1245

Mr. Dale Johnston: Yes. Now, is it seven days after the tabling of that conciliation report that we may see some action at the port of Halifax?

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Well, there's a seven-day period. We'll review it, and I have a decision to make, but of course we have this legislation on the books. In whichever case, I have a decision to make at the end of the 15-day period or less.

Mr. Dale Johnston: That's seven days' notice.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Then, yes, when I give notice, you're absolutely right. That's if I give notice. Looking at the way the situation is, you can evaluate that pretty well yourself. Then they have seven full days. That's the countdown period.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Right.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: That's when you actually see a lot of action taking place.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Yes, right.

Okay, I'd like to shift gears and talk about the so-called millennium bug. What has the department done so far to address the perceived problem of the year 2000? How much do you plan to spend in that regard and where could we find that in your budget?

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: In the labour program at HRDC, we are progressing very well. We expect to be ready when the new millennium arrives. Indeed, it's a very important issue and a good question. Perhaps Ian can help with this.

Mr. Ian Green: May I add something? Serge, you can help me out because I know you're quite familiar with this.

The top priority of our systems group that provides support across the department, including the labour programs branch, is in fact dealing with what some call the Y2K problem. At the moment, our plan is basically to have all of what we call mission-critical systems under control a year beforehand. Warren reminds me that there are three in the labour branch.

Mr. Serge Rainville: Yes.

Mr. Ian Green: I think about 47% of our mission-critical systems have been reviewed in terms of the bug and possible problems. We are looking at an overall expenditure for the department probably in the order of $170 million—it's somewhere in that ballpark in terms of the cost—to actually do all of the testing to ensure that the systems are ready for 2000.

Serge, is that right?

Mr. Serge Rainville: Yes, specifically on the labour branch, I can say we have made excellent progress in responding to the Y2K problem. I have 24 labour software systems, of which three are mission critical and will be addressed by October 1998. The remaining 21 systems that are not mission critical will be ready well in advance of December 1999.

Of concern at the moment is labour's OSH laboratory scientific equipment spectrometers. There's approximately $700,000 worth of hardware. Embedded chips will be tested and verified shortly.

We are also looking at legal implications of labour's regulatory responsibilities vis-à-vis Y2K, and are commencing a review. As an example, was this looked at with respect to liability and negligence? Were we aware of the problem and the obligation to warn? Did we go far enough? Currently, Labour clients are being informed of the expected Y2K regulatory-related requirements in parts II and III of the code on workplace equity.

Mr. Dale Johnston: You said that three of the systems are mission critical. Could you explain exactly what that means?

Mr. Serge Rainville: Yes, I'll let my colleague who is in charge of the programs in labour tell you exactly what those three systems are.

Mr. Gerry Blanchard: When we talk about mission-critical systems, they're the ones that are related to the actual delivery of our programs vis-à-vis our clients. They're not necessarily internal. For example, there's the equipment used by our mobile labour affairs officers.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Would that be the minimum amount of operations that it requires to run the administrative end of the business?

Mr. Gerry Blanchard: Yes, and the legislative enforcement end, basically.

• 1250

Mr. Dale Johnston: I see. Do you have a contingency plan? Do you have any back-up in case you discover that the actions you've taken to that date actually did not do the job? Do you have a back-up?

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Dale, we're testing some of it beforehand anyhow. We are doing that, unless there's more.

Mr. Serge Rainville: For each of those mission-critical areas we have a specific contingency plan. So we know. At this point, most of the mission-critical systems we have in the department, including those three in labour, are going so well that we didn't have to go too deep into our contingency plan. But if we were to notice that we will face major problems, we would start developing the contingency plan more in depth .

Mr. Gerry Blanchard: Our systems are relatively new. This mobile LAO concept is new, so we weren't dealing with very old equipment to begin with.

The Chairman: Or very large systems.

Mr. Dale Johnston: The $170 million you quoted, is that specific to the labour department or is that HRD overall?

Mr. Ian Green: It's the whole department.

Mr. Dale Johnston: I hoped it was.

Mr. Serge Rainville: That's over a period of three years.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Yes. So that really does not show up in figure 6 here at all. This entire thing would be in the estimates we would be looking at when the HRD minister arrives here. Is that correct?

Mr. Ian Green: Yes.

Mr. Dale Johnston: We hear people say that you don't want to be in an airplane celebrating New Year's Eve in 1999. What are we doing to monitor what industry is doing to deal with the Y2K bug? I think we have some responsibility certainly in the parts of the code that we haven't addressed yet through legislation and amendments for dealing with occupational injury and safety in the workplace and so forth. What are we doing to monitor what industry is doing to make sure there isn't a crash in Y2K?

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: We want to make sure, of course, that our systems are compatible. This is mostly under the Minister of Industry, but now we're part of it.

Mr. Gerry Blanchard: In the areas, for example, mostly of safety and health and that, you may have monitoring systems of the environment that won't work as well as they should.

Right now we have our legal people looking at the actual obligations we may have, but I suspect that our initial obligation is going to be to ensure through the communications of our clients that they are aware they have a responsibility for this. Workplace safety is the responsibility of the parties that are there and the employers, so we will naturally look at that.

There are areas in fire prevention services that we are reminding departments of if they're involved in that. Our fire protection services, which deals with Treasury Board, has already outlined what needs to be checked. We're assisting people in the types of things that we can see might need to be looked at closely.

But right now I think it's more a question of sharing information and reminding people of their obligations. The responsibility for the workplace safety of people in a particular company is the responsibility of that company.

Mr. Dale Johnston: So when you say you're assisting companies, you're doing it with information rather than—

Mr. Gerry Blanchard: Yes. For example, we might be familiar with certain monitoring equipment and know that it might be affected by this because of our involvement with the Canadian Standards Association and some of the work we do. We have engineers who monitor workplace developments and all that. As they become aware of this thing, we would share that information with people.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Has industry given the department any indication of what it's going to cost them in order to prepare for Y2K?

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: I would say not.

Mr. Gerry Blanchard: No.

Mr. Ian Green: No. We have no idea.

Mr. Dale Johnston: I'd certainly be interested to know just what this preparation is going to cost industry as well as what it's going to cost government.

• 1255

Certainly there are two schools of thought. Some people say it's not nearly the problem it's been made out to be, and then of course there are others who say it's even worse than it's been touted. So—

The Chairman: The latter group are usually consultants.

Mr. Dale Johnston: And a consultant is somebody who's a long way from home.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: When you figure that for HRDC and labour it's $154 million, there's a lot of money.

The Chairman: It's a good chance to upgrade your system.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: But when you have to do them all at once in the whole world, it is....

Mr. Dale Johnston: That's good for me.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Johnston, I appreciate your raising those questions on Y2K. In an article in the paper on the weekend, it was suggested that since the brain is a computer, perhaps you'll get reset and you'll get younger.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. We appreciate the promptness, the timeliness, and the openness with which you answered questions.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Thank you.

Mr. Dale Johnston: There's always the possibility that your computer will say you haven't been born yet and you'll be gone like that.

The Chairman: We're adjourned until 3.30 p.m., at which time we'll reconvene to have the same little love-in with the Minister of HRD.