HRPD Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT AND THE STATUS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DES RESSOURCES HUMAINES ET DE LA CONDITION DES PERSONNES HANDICAPÉES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, October 28, 1997

• 0910

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.)): Welcome to meeting number four.

We have with us today our first witnesses in this Parliament from the department to help us along our plan of getting fully cognizant of the structures, problems, and issues that face this department.

Before we begin, Ms. Brown.

Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move a motion of procedure that I think will eliminate the kind of wrangling we got into at the last meeting. I believe you've been handed a copy of that motion.

Essentially, it suggests that there be 24 hours notice of any motion before the committee; or, in extreme circumstances, a motion could be put if there was unanimous consent among the members. Barring unanimous consent, it would require 24 hours notice before a motion is put before the committee.

The Chairman: Does everybody have a copy of it?

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): Surely there must be a French version of the motion somewhere.

[English]

The Chairman: No, there is not.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: In the current context, I think it is merely very difficult to debate the motion if we don't have a French version. Since a one-week period was requested for the motion, and since we have known the reason for the motion for a few days now, I would ask that the motion be reserved until we have a French version of it.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Nault.

Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora—Rainy River, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I find it quite interesting that Mr. Crête would even have the gall to talk about this this morning, considering that last week he presented a motion on the fly without a copy, not in English, French, or in Latin. We just had to guess based on what he was saying to us, and it was presented that way.

That's the motion and we have every intention of voting on it this morning.

The Chairman: Ms. Bennett.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): I feel very strongly, having been placed on two committees that will be meeting at the same time, that in order for me to judge which committee I should be at and which committee I should be an alternate to, it is imperative I know when there will be motions on the floor.

The Chairman: Ms. Davies.

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Chairman, first of all, I have a couple of questions. I think that the motion should be presented in both official languages. I think that's very important where there is a motion and obviously it's being presented as a procedural matter for the future procedure of the committee.

I'd like to know if this is the usual kind of procedure for standing committees of the House. Where does one draw the line between motions that arise out of the debate? I'd like to ask the Liberal members, will they characterize those kinds of motions as something that requires notice?

Remembering the debate at the last committee meeting, it seems to me that the motion arose out of the discussion. We were having a discussion about the work plan of this committee. We were having a discussion about the priorities of the committee and the motion arose out of that discussion.

So I'd like clarification as to whether what's really being proposed here is that any motion that comes out of debate is now going to have to have 24 hours, or actually as it reads it's really the meeting prior to, so it's more than 24 hours. It's 48 hours or more. Is that what's basically being suggested here? I'd like clarification on that.

Secondly, as a new member of the committee, frankly, I'm really surprised at how this procedural wrangling is developing. If members of the committee cannot respond to a motion that comes up during debate and be able to think about it and to take it into debate and to vote on it, I wonder what we're doing here. It's a regular part of committee work to debate motions, particularly when they pertain to the subject in front of the committee. So I don't think it's unusual at all. It's something that is part of our work.

• 0915

The Chairman: I'll go to Ms. Brown, and then back to Monsieur Bachand and Monsieur Crête.

Ms. Bonnie Brown: I'm not sure about rules, Mr. Chairman, but with all the committees I have been on—and it may just have been a convention or a matter of courtesy—if a motion was going to be presented, we were usually given notice of motion at one meeting, the content of the motion either then or between the meetings, and would know that the vote would be called at the following meeting. The clause about unanimous consent is meant to respond to Ms. Davies' concerns about motions that might arise from debate.

As a general rule, any kind of a motion would require notice of motion at the meeting before, with the vote to be taken at the following meeting. Some of this is based upon the idea of being on two committees—as many of us are. We have to know when there's going to be just testimony at a meeting, or debate and voting. If there's going to be voting, obviously one has to be there. Sometimes it will just be testimony, and then another committee at which there might be voting would get your attendance. It's very difficult to be a responsible member when you have two committees that overlap. This way, we will all know ahead of time if the Liberals want to present a motion or if the opposition members want to present a motion. We can then make our judgments about our presence.

The Chairman: Monsieur Bachand—and welcome, by the way.

[Translation]

Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): I have the pleasure of replacing Mr. Dubé.

I'd like to just provide some information and say that the same request was made by the government party. I think all committees ask for at least 24 hours. I am a member of the Public Accounts Committee, which is a very interesting committee, and the same request was made there. We discussed the matter. This seems to be coming from the government.

I would therefore suggest that the motion be presented in French, and I think it is important that we become accustomed to presenting things in both official languages. I would ask you to check, Mr. Chairman, with the chairman or the clerk, Mr. Fournier, of the Public Accounts Committee, to see whether there is a rule that allows a committee chair to decide whether or not a motion will be debated on the same day it is received.

The rules governing the operation of committees allow for the chair to make decisions based on the agenda and the context of the motion. I do not have the Standing Orders with me, but I would suggest you check into this. In this way, Mr. Chairman, you will have the latitude you need, because it could happen that a motion might be tabled on the same day or even during a meeting, because there is a debate going on in Parliament. The motion could be urgent, and in this case it would be up to the chairman to make a ruling.

[English]

The Chairman: Monsieur Nault, you haven't been heard on this question, have you?

Mr. Robert Nault: Could I not just move that we put the question? We've had enough discussion.

The Chairman: I indicated to Mr. Crête that I would give him an opportunity to speak one more time on this.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête.

Mr. Paul Crête: I notice Mr. Nault's contempt regarding the French language. I will take it upon myself personally to ensure that everyone knows that this individual, who has francophone ancestors, behaves in this way on the subject.

I would also like to emphasize that we need to define the rules that determine the urgency of a motion, if we intend to pass a motion of this type. Mr. Bachand suggested that we check into the chair's power in this regard. I think that is a good idea.

I would also like a discussion to determine what the standing orders provide at the moment regarding urgent motions. I think that if we were to pass a motion such as the one before us, we would have to know how we are going to proceed with urgent motions. I need some information on that before I can vote on the motion, because I would like to be sure that we are not locking ourselves into a process that will hamper the effectiveness of our political work.

• 0920

I understand that we want to avoid situations that would lead to filibustering. However, I challenge the other argument to the effect that we can't be in two places at one time and that we therefore must decide which motions are the most important. I think hearing from witnesses is just as important as debating motions. There are not two levels of importance, and it is up to each party to take the necessary steps to have people at each committee meeting. We face this problem just as much as you do, on the government side, and I don't think this argument is relevant.

I would also like to hear a description of the precedents in this committee and how these issues were handled in the past. If we need an in-depth discussion to determine how to proceed, perhaps it would be better to start by settling this issue. Perhaps the reaction we have seen this morning may be in keeping with some instructions from the government, but it may also be a response to certain things that were done by committee members in previous weeks. I think the solution lies in knowing what the appropriate procedure is. I don't think we can accept what has been proposed, because it would prohibit us from intervening on the spur of the moment.

Just look at what is going on here. We have Bill C-2 on the Canada Pension Plan, which has been referred to the Finance Committee. As the Human Resources Development Committee, we might want to attend a meeting of that committee. If we had passed a motion such as the one before us, the results would have locked us into a corner.

There could even be situations where all committee members would agree, and yet, in spite of that, the desired result would not be obtained. I therefore think it is very premature to pass a motion of this type until we know what we will do about urgent motions and how this question was handled in the past.

I repeat that I think that tabling the motion in English only this morning shows contempt. I think it's unacceptable on the part of the government.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Crête.

I note, Mr. Nault, your calling of the question. However, Mr. Johnston has not had an opportunity to speak and we've not yet heard from his party. I'd like to give him the opportunity to do so. Then I wish to make two comments.

Mr. Johnston.

Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Although Paul made some of my points, I note that the government has a majority on the committee. Although I'm sure the parliamentary secretary was not pleased with the results of the vote last week, and this is probably a direct reaction to that, the fact is, the government does have the majority on the committee. To present a motion like this is restricting the committee's ability to function democratically.

There are times when perhaps even the government will want to put forward motions that the oppositions can support, and timeliness will be a factor. I think this is unnecessary. If the parliamentary secretary wants to ensure that motions that he finds uncomfortable, or embarrassing or whatever to the governing party, don't pass, the obligation is on him to maintain that his people are here. I think that's basically what it's all about.

I don't intend to support this motion, Mr. Chairman. I think it's completely unnecessary, and restrictive on the committee.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Johnston.

I'm going to cut off debate at this point. I'm going to make two comments—

Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): I haven't spoken.

The Chairman: But your party has spoken, sir.

I'm going to call the question, but I'm going to make two suggestions. The first concerns Mr. Crête's comments about the lack of a text in both official languages.

I'm informed by the clerk that the Standing Orders allow— One of the reasons we have interpretation is to allow exactly that kind of activity. It is quite in order for a member to present a motion in either of the two official languages. It's not restrictive to both.

• 0925

But the issue here— And I'm prepared to take a reference of this topic back to the steering committee to discuss it to see if we can find another way to do this. I'm going to call the question, but if we want to re-discuss this in steering committee—

What I find very difficult— and we had the situation today. We have four people at the end of the table who are here to present testimony, not engage in procedural wranglings. Unless we have some controls on the days when witnesses are available—that's the date I'm concerned about—then I think it's an abuse of our guests to spend all this time doing this.

On days when we're hearing testimony, I want to come in, sit down, take the testimony, and then, if we want to fight when we're dealing with the substance of things and passing questions, great; let's have the motions and the debate then. But let's try to separate those two activities so that we don't force a lot of people to waste an enormous amount of time on the business of this committee.

I'm going to call the question, but I will refer the topic to the steering committee.

You will recall, Mr. Crête, the question was called by your party the last time we discussed this.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. If in fact the interpretation is there for some purpose, we need to hear the entire motion in French so that I can understand it correctly.

I also think that one of the good compromises we could have reached would have been to agree that no motion could be moved until we had heard from the witnesses. After the questioning, and after hearing from the witnesses, who would not have rushed, then we could deal with the motions. I think that would have been much simpler and better.

[English]

The Chairman: You weren't given that option in the last meeting, as I recall.

Now, would the mover of the motion—

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: We had not moved the motion either, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: Ms. Brown, would you like to read the motion, please.

Ms. Bonnie Brown: I'd be happy to, Mr. Chairman.

Whereas proper scheduling and a clear agenda are vital in order for the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development to perform its tasks;

whereas motions without notice reduce the time available for hearing witnesses and considering agenda items previously approved by the Committee; and

whereas all Members of this Committee are agreed on the importance of devoting as much time as possible to hearing testimony from witnesses and considering the issues before the Committee;

be it hereby resolved that with the passage of this motion:

(1) any motion proposed by a Member of the Committee will be deemed out of order, unless notice of that motion was provided at the previous meeting of the Committee;

(2) section (1) above does not apply where a Member of the Committee seeks and receives unanimous consent to put a motion to the Committee.

The Chairman: Mr. Johnston, you requested a recorded vote?

Mr. Dale Johnston: Yes, I did.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Chairman?

[English]

The Chairman: Point of order?

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Since the motion had not been read previously, and since I was just able to understand what it meant, I think we might consider beginning the debate. I would like to move an amendment to the first two words of the motion. Rather than stating "at the previous meeting", we could say "one hour before the meeting". I would like to move that amendment.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay. We have an amendment proposed by Mr. Crête that the term “at the previous” be struck out and replaced by “one hour before the”.

Is that correct, Mr. Crête?

Mr. Paul Crête: To the chairman.

The Chairman: I think we understand the intention of the motion.

Mr. Johnston, do you want a recorded vote on Mr. Crête's amendment as proposed?

Mr. Dale Johnston: Sure.

(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 5)

(Motion agreed to: yeas 7; nays 6)

• 0930

Mr. André Bachand: May I make a small comment?

The Chairman: Yes, sir. As you are a guest at this meeting, you are welcome to make a small comment.

[Translation]

Mr. André Bachand: I must tell you that I am very disappointed and surprised that we did not debate this motion. In its generosity, the government could have taken into account the importance of the motion and tabled it today for later discussion. They moved it at the last minute. The government is going to be bound by this decision. I think it is rather disgusting, particularly since the motion was tabled just before a break week. We need time to study a motion.

I am very disappointed. However, I am not sure that the motion is in order. Mr. Chairman, I would like you to check whether the motion is in keeping with the rules governing committee proceedings. I say that constructively, because we had the same discussion on the Public Accounts Committee where, as I said before, we were given the latitude we needed.

Mr. Chairman, I find it distressing that the government did not even allow us to look at the intention of the motion, and attempted to slip it through this morning. That is very disappointing, and a rather poor start for the work of this committee. Unfortunately, I am only a guest here this morning.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you very much for that comment. As I indicated to the members of the steering committee, we may discuss this issue again at the steering committee.

Without any further discussion, I would like to get to the reason we are here.

I would like to welcome the associate deputy minister of the Department of Human Resources Development, Mr. Ian Green. Mr. Gordon McFee is the director of policy and legislation development. Mr. John Knubley is the director general of social policy of strategic policy. Ms. Lucille Ferland is the acting director of strategic resource management and accountability.

Mr. Green, I assume that you have prepared your notes and you are going to lead the show, sir.

Mr. Ian Green (Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Human Resources Development): My pleasure.

I should note just in starting that I've been asked today to provide an overview of the department and its management team. I believe this is the first, Mr. Chairman, of a number of meetings that you're going to have in which departmental staff will come to address the committee on a range of issues.

I understand, for example, that on Thursday you're going to get more specific in terms of income security programs, employment insurance, and the human resources investment branch. So I'm going to go over them fairly lightly today and set the context that has been asked for in the departmental presentations.

All members should have a presentation deck entitled “Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities”.

[Translation]

In French, I think it is entitled "Comité permanent du Développement des ressources humaines et de la condition des personnes handicapées".

• 0935

We have the text in both languages.

[English]

I hope all members have that. In addition, members of the committee should also have an organizational chart entitled “Human Resources Development Canada”. I'm assuming, Mr. Chairman, that silence is consent and that everybody has those documents, because I'll refer to them as we go through it.

I'd like to start the presentation deck with slide two, which lays out the department's objectives.

[Translation]

I should say at the outset that the department's objectives are very clear.

The first is to help Canadians prepare for, find and keep work, thereby promoting economic growth and adjustment.

The second objective is to assist Canadians in their efforts to provide security for themselves and their families, thereby preventing or reducing poverty among Canadians.

The third objective is to promote a fair, safe, healthy, stable and productive work environment for all Canadians.

[English]

Those are the three basic objectives the department attempts to pursue.

Slide three takes us back in history for a moment. The department, as I think many of you will know, was created in 1993. In effect, it was put together from what was generally described as the social programs of five former federal departments: employment insurance programs from Employment and Immigration; programs and services of Labour Canada—in fact, the entire department became part of the new department; social development, income security, and cost-share programs from Health and Welfare, which was in fact the department I came from to join the department; transfers from post-secondary education, student loans, and social development programs from Secretary of State, which gives us a strong learning focus in terms of the department; and a small program, literacy programs, from Multiculturalism and Citizenship.

Turning to slide four, I'd like to describe briefly, as I've said, the department's major programs in four key areas, beginning with employment insurance.

The employment insurance program is responsible for the administration and delivery of EI benefits and the reduction of abuse and fraud in the system. Under the EI program there three types of benefits that are available to claimants.

There are regular benefits that are paid to applicants who lose their jobs, cannot find work, or have paid into the EI account and have worked a minimum number of hours of work. The minimum depends, obviously, on where the applicant lives, and is determined by the unemployment rate in the particular region in which the client lives. Claimants must be in Canada and available for work in order to receive regular benefits.

Special benefits, maternity, parental and sickness benefits fall under the general category of special benefits. Maternity benefits are payable to natural mothers in the period surrounding the birth of the child. Parental benefits are payable to both natural and adoptive parents. In order to be eligible for special benefits, claimants must have worked 700 hours in the last 52 weeks.

Active employment benefits and support measures include assistance in getting back to work, self-help services at our local offices—which are called human resource centres—return-to-work action plans, financial assistance while you prepare for work, and also the transition jobs funds.

Our second major program area, income security programs, is described briefly in slide five. These programs aim to promote and strengthen income security by delivering programs to targeted groups: seniors; persons with disabilities; survivors. I hope no one asks me about migrants because that's a new one to me, but we'll hopefully fix that one up when we come back to the committee.

The old age security, or OAS program, is available on application to anyone over 65 who meets residence requirements. The guaranteed income supplement is paid to recipients of the OAS who have little or no other income, and the spouse's allowance is designed to recognize difficulties faced by couples living on the pension of only one spouse, as well as by many widowed persons.

The Canada Pension Plan, the second major program, is a contributory earnings-related social insurance program consisting of retirement, disability, and survivor benefits. Retirement benefits are paid to CPP contributors who have substantially or completely ceased working and are at least 60. Contributors 65 or older may receive benefits regardless of employment status. Disability benefits are paid to people who have contributed to CPP and who are disabled according to CPP rules. Benefits are also paid to dependent children. Survivor benefits are paid to survivors of contributors, both to spouses and children.

Slide six describes our third main program area, which is the human resources investment program. It covers a wide range of programs dealing with investment in people. It includes labour market services, which include labour market information and career development and exchange tools.

• 0940

Under social development I would include the vocational rehabilitation of disabled persons program, a cost-share program with provinces that deals with services to disabled Canadians. We also have a national adoption desk, which facilitates activities between governments in terms of adoptions.

We have learning and literacy interests, which include the Canada student loans program, a major program that will be well known to a number of committee members, impacting on in excess of 350,000 Canadian students. We have an international mobility and higher education program. We have a National Literacy Secretariat and we have a small office of learning technology.

We also promote human resource partnerships, including occupational and career information, and sectoral partnerships. Some 22 sectors now have sectoral councils. We do sector studies and we do strategic human resources analysis with a number of different partners.

Youth initiatives, which are an important part of this sector, include the youth employment strategy, which provides young people with information services and support through youth information fairs, a youth information line, a youth resources network, and a youth link publication. Youth Service Canada works to assist at-risk youth who need help in becoming self-reliant. Our youth internship program and the student summer job action have created about 100,000 work experiences for youth in order to assist them in getting over the no experience barrier.

We also have an aboriginal relations office, which is responsible for negotiating and overseeing regional bilateral agreements with first nations.

Slide seven describes the fourth major program of the department, the labour program, through the administration of the Canada Labour Code, which applies to the federally regulated private sector, including international or interprovincial transportation industries like air and rail, telecommunications, and banks.

The program oversees part I of the Labour Code, which is labour relations provisions of the act, governing rules for collective bargaining, and assistance in the settlement of disputes provided by the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service; part II, which is occupational safety and health provisions for the prevention of accidents and injuries, including workplace inspections; and part III, which covers labour standards which relate to measures to establish and protect employees' rights to fair and equitable conditions of employment. This branch also administers the new Employment Equity Act.

The federal workers' compensation program administers the Government Employees Compensation Act, which provides employment injury benefits to employees of the federal public service and most crown agencies.

Before I turn to slide eight, which very briefly lays out the financing, could we turn to the organigram, Mr. Chairman? I feel part of my duty today is to familiarize the committee with the department and the personnel in the department. I'm going to go through the organigram fairly quickly because it will give you a sense of how the department is organized and I think help members in terms of future presentations. Does everybody have it?

To state the obvious, the department is headed by a minister, Mr. Pettigrew. There is one other minister in the department, the Minister of Labour, Mr. MacAulay. There is the Secretary of State for Children and Youth, the Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew, and there's the parliamentary secretary to Mr. Pettigrew, Mr. Nault, who's with us today. There's also the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Labour, Brenda Chamberlain.

The actual department itself, in terms of public service personnel, is headed by Deputy Minister and Chairperson Mr. Cappe, an associate deputy minister, and a vice-chairperson, myself. The reason we go by two titles, both deputy minister and chairperson, is that the departmental legislation provides not only for the administration of the department, but also for the operation of the Employment Insurance Commission, which is responsible for regulations and operations with respect to the employment insurance system. Mr. Cappe acts as the chairperson of the commission, and I substitute as the vice-chair when he's not there.

If you move to the left on the chart, you'll see we have two commissioners as part of the structure, Fernand Boudreau representing workers and Mr. Peter Doyle representing employers.

The commission meets about once a month to basically oversee the operations and regulations that are necessary to the operation of the employment insurance system.

We have a director general of ministerial and corporate affairs, Dave Cogliati. Mr. Cogliati is essentially responsible for coordinating all the activities between the department and the minister, but also between the department and Parliament. It's Mr. Cogliati's group that will frequently be involved in terms of organizing our appearances before these kinds of committees.

• 0945

To the right of the deputy minister box, we have senior general counsel Claire Beckton, who performs the functions of general legal counsel for the department.

We also have a senior deputy minister for service delivery. Given the importance of service delivery in our department, and the fact that we run—and I'll come to this a little bit later—some 300-plus points of service across the country, it was deemed important to have an individual whose primary responsibility was to focus on those kinds of issues.

In the next block, we have a series of assistant deputy ministers and directors general. They report directly to the deputy ministers, and each of them is responsible for a major headquarters branch.

We have an assistant deputy minister for employment insurance, Norine Smith.

Just below that, we have an executive director of international affairs, Stewart Goodings. We have a significant number of dealings with other countries and other departments. They are responsible not only for coordinating those relationships, but also for trying to in fact promote opportunities to export some of the expertise the department has and to look for opportunities to sell Canada's expertise in terms of labour market programming and other areas abroad.

We have an assistant deputy minister for the labour branch, Nicole Senécal.

We have a senior assistant deputy minister for the legislative review, Michael McDermott. He was responsible for Bill C-66, the Canada Labour Code amendments that did not make it through the last Parliament. He's now responsible for looking at the successor legislation.

We also have in that same block Serge Rainville, assistant deputy minister of income security programs. Those are the programs I mentioned earlier—OAS, GIS, and programs such as that.

On the right-hand side, we have a director general of communications, Monique Collette. Her position reports directly to the deputy, partly in recognition of the importance that communications has for the department in terms of informing Canadians about our programs.

We also have an assistant deputy minister of human resources, Monique Plante. As are most assistant deputy ministers for human resources, she is responsible for basic issues like pay and benefits, staffing, etc. Increasingly, however, she is getting into issues of how we can try to promote an organization that is focused on learning that is as continuous as possible. There is therefore a great deal more activity in that area than was previously the case.

We have an assistant deputy minister of systems, David McNaughton. Systems are obviously crucial to our department. Like most organizations, we're wrestling with changes in technology. I'll mention later that we have about 6,000 kiosks already, so systems are increasingly important in terms of our capacity to deliver.

Marcel Nouvet is our assistant deputy minister of financial and administrative services. He is in effect our senior financial officer, and is responsible for our financial and administrative systems.

We have an assistant deputy minister of human resources investment branch. That's the branch I just described. It encompasses labour market programming, social development, learning. He has an enormous range of programs. As a consequence, he has an associate executive head, or a number two if you will, who will be known to many of these members around the table. Martha Nixon was previously the DG responsible for learning and literacy.

We also have an assistant deputy minister of strategic policy, Mr. Lahey. He is responsible for leading all of the major policy files in terms of the department. Again, given the pressures of that function, he also has an associate executive head, Mark Goldenberg, who is very active in the labour market negotiations, and who would again be known to a number of members.

That is, in effect, what I would call the headquarters side of the operation.

In each of the provinces, we have a regional structure, we have a regional headquarters, and then a series of human resource centres. They range in numbers, depending on the size of the province and the nature of the client groups we're dealing with. These regional structures are extremely important. We have the large majority of our staff out in our regions. We're a highly decentralized department in terms of how we operate. And I should just note that in the case of Alberta—the ones on the extreme right-hand side—the director general there is also responsible for the Northwest Territories, and the director general in British Columbia is also responsible for the Yukon.

In a nutshell, Mr. Chairman, that is our personnel and management structure in terms of the department. You will be seeing many of these individuals in the coming weeks, but I thought it would be helpful to give you that and to leave this with you so that you have a sense of who we are when we come and visit.

Are there any questions about the organizational structure organigram? I sort of raced through it.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Crête.

Mr. Paul Crête: Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Green. I have a specific question about your organization chart.

• 0950

The agreements on manpower will result in significant staff movements. What will be the real impact on staff transfers, and how would that be reflected on the organization chart? Are there some services that will disappear completely?

I have another question about the organization chart. Where will services such as the Youth Employment Strategy and services to persons with disabilities go, and given that they are the only services, together with the insurance program and other similar programs, that will remain in Quebec? How will you be able to combine activities of this type on the organization chart after these changes occur?

[English]

Mr. Ian Green: The transfers of active measures for labour market programming to the provinces could involve up to 2,600 staff members if we sign devolution agreements with each province.

[Translation]

Did I understand the question correctly? Are you talking about transfers?

Mr. Paul Crête: Yes. However, in the interpretation, I did not hear how many positions would be affected.

Mr. Ian Green: If we were to sign a devolution agreement with each province—

Mr. Paul Crête: I would like a more current sketch of the situation.

[English]

Mr. Ian Green: It could be up to 2,600 staff across the entire department. Since we've signed devolutionary deals with Quebec, Alberta, New Brunswick and they are the ones that are moving ahead, we're probably looking at—and I can get you the exact figure—something in the order of about 1,300 staff members who are actually subject to those agreements.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: So you are talking about 1,300 staff members. But earlier you mentioned the figure of 2,600.

[English]

Mr. Ian Green: That's if we had devolutionary agreements with all provinces. So up to about 2,600 staff members are potentially affected. Some 1,300 staff members are currently involved in discussions that are leading to their transfers to provinces at this point. Most of those staff members are in the regions, because obviously that's where the program delivery was done. There are some at headquarters, but the number is much smaller.

In terms of the second part of your question, as to what will happen generally to labour market programming, we will still have an ongoing interest in terms of labour market programming around issues like labour market information. The federal government still has a number of programs in the area of disabled persons and youth. They will continue to be the responsibility of the Human Resources Investment Branch, which is where they are located now. They will continue to be located there.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: More specifically, my question was about the model that will be introduced in the very near future. In the Quebec region, for example, I think that rather than 28 Canada Human Resources Centres, there may be only two to four left in one or two years.

The Insurance program will become very important. Can you guarantee that the staff of the 28 Canada Human Resources Centres in the Quebec region will remain there? The staff of the Youth Employment Strategy and services for persons with disabilities is quite small, despite the importance of the objectives of these programs. I am using the word "region" as it is used by Human Resources Development Canada. Could it be a couple of years before these changes occur?

[English]

Mr. Ian Green: We are discussing with the regions the resources they need to operate and implement youth programs and programs for disabled persons. We will not only have to look at the nature of the resources we have in terms of delivering them, but we may also have to look at partnerships and a variety of innovative ways in terms of how we're going to deliver them. On balance, we're going to seek to make sure we have the resources necessary to delivery those programs.

• 0955

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: As far as I can see, you do not have a specific answer for me today.

Mr. Ian Green: Well, I am not sure I understand the specific meaning of your question.

Mr. Paul Crête: I can repeat it.

Mr. Ian Green: Yes.

Mr. Paul Crête: I would like to know whether in a region such as the Lower Saint Lawrence, where there is a Canada Human Resources Centre, people in the insurance program will be affected. Some, who work in the Youth Employment Strategy, programs for people with disabilities, and, possibly, other programs such as the seniors program, will be affected. Over the next few years, will these employees continue to come under Human Resources Development Canada, Lower Saint Lawrence section? And will this be true throughout Quebec and Canada?

Mr. Ian Green: If I understand your question, I think that they will remain attached to the department. We look after the people we are responsible for in accordance with the programs that we manage. I don't see the difference.

Mr. Paul Crête: Is there not a danger that—

One last question. For example, is there not reason to fear that staffs will be grouped in a single centre for Quebec, or in another centre for the Maritimes, and that in these regions, there will no longer be any officials attached to these programs once the manpower agreement becomes operational?

[English]

Mr. Ian Green: There's no question that the agreements are going to involve a number of people who've been involved in active measures being transferred to the provinces. In looking at how we're going to be responsible for youth programs and disabled persons programs, we're keenly aware of the fact that we're going to have to make sure that we have the necessary resources to deliver them. Whether they're organized exactly the way active measures programs were before is a matter each region is going to have to look at. We may also have to look at how we do it in partnerships with other players, which we've done previously in terms of our programs, and which I think is a good thing. On balance, we will have the resources necessary to deliver the programs.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Green.

We have Ms. Davies on the question of the departmental structure, and Mr. Green has more to go here— Ms. Davies.

Ms. Libby Davies: I have a couple of questions.

First of all, with regard to Canada student loans, I hope you like to get feedback. Of all the cases I've dealt with, some of the most difficult are the Canada student loans. One of the difficulties is really finding the appropriate people within the department who can take up concerns from an MP's office. I wanted to ask you in terms of this chart, and then locally, where does that fit in? Where does the responsibility lie? I don't see a direct person here. Could you elaborate on that?

Mr. Ian Green: The student loans program is within the Human Resources Investment Branch. When you see the box there with David Good and Martha Nixon, that is the sector or the branch within the department that's responsible for this program. Obviously, we have a lot of clients who want to contact us directly and through their members of Parliament. I'd be pleased to put Martha Nixon, who spends a lot of time on this file, in contact with you. She can talk to you very specifically about the group we have that is in fact responsible for dealing essentially with requests from students or members of Parliament in terms of their particular files.

Ms. Libby Davies: Is that reflected in the regional structure as well?

Mr. Ian Green: No.

Ms. Libby Davies: I think that's where the problem is. It's really hard to get information at the local level. I've had just tons of feedback on that from students who get very frustrated. We found it difficult as well.

Mr. Ian Green: We run a centralized student loans program. We've worked very hard with our human resource centres to make sure they have the information and know where to refer people. I don't claim we're perfect, and obviously we need to solve the problem, but we've worked very hard in trying to make sure that people know where to refer student loan clients.

Ms. Libby Davies: The second question has to do with this issue of devolution. I don't know whether we will be able to address it at another committee, whether it's going to be part of another briefing, Mr. Chairman, or whether it's something that we basically just will deal with today. But I would like to get more information for the committee about exactly what is being devolved in terms of this structure, what programs.

• 1000

I know that for the devolution in British Columbia currently there are discussions under way. But again, there's been some confusing information about what services are going to go, as well as information that some will be privatized. So there's not a sense of what we'll be left with in this structure. I wonder if you could give us that information today, or is it part of a later briefing? I know there are more to come.

Mr. Ian Green: The short answer is it's probably part of a later briefing, and I will make sure that my colleague, Mr. Good, who I think is going to be here on Thursday, can address this for you.

Ms. Libby Davies: Okay.

Mr. Ian Green: We have a co-management deal with British Columbia. We're en route to discussing a so-called devolutionary agreement with them. Much within the offer that we've made to the provinces sketches a framework within which provinces can establish the design and delivery of the programming.

Some of the questions you're asking about ultimately have to be answered by the province, but Mr. Good can give you a status report in terms of where we are. I'll ask him to do that.

Ms. Libby Davies: Okay. Thank you.

The Chairman: Perhaps we could go back, Mr. Green, to finish your presentation and then members can pick up on their questions.

Mr. Ian Green: Slide eight talks about the department's expenditures. As the slide notes, we are responsible for over half of federal program spending. Based on the main estimates for 1997-98, our corporate services budget—corporate services, by the way, basically includes all of those functions that are necessary to support the operation of the department: financial and administrative services, human resources, etc.—amounts to over $300 million. The human resources investment and insurance areas, between them, account for $3 billion. The labour branch operates on a budget of about $143 million. Income security—this is primarily the old age security, GIS, and spousal allowance programs—has a budget in excess of $22 billion. This gives us a total departmental budget, less revenues credited to the vote, of about $24.8 billion—somewhere in the area of $25 billion.

In addition to that, there are two specified purpose accounts, as they're called: one for the employment insurance program, which in the mains was at $14.5 billion, and another for the Canada Pension Plan, which was at $17.7 billion. This gives us a total consolidated departmental budget of $57 billion.

We are obviously very conscious of the fact that that puts a tremendous responsibility on us in terms of our financial controls and how we operate these programs. We spend a lot of time focusing on those issues.

On slide nine, we have a workforce of approximately 22,000 people; this is in terms of full-time equivalents. Again, in the mains of 1997-98, we have about 2,800 in corporate services; we have 15,000 in the human resources investment and insurance areas, most of those delivering the employment insurance program; we have approximately 670 people in the labour branch; and we have 3,000 people delivering the income security programs, for a total population of slightly under 22,000.

In terms of the breakdown by province, which is slide 10, you can see that as I mentioned earlier, we have less than 4,000 at headquarters and over 17,000 in the regions. This is simply to underline the fact that this is a highly decentralized department. There's a great deal of emphasis on service delivery, and obviously you can see the distribution of staff generally reflects the population of the regions they're operating in.

As for slide 11, I will go through these fairly quickly, but they're important to note in the sense that there are a number of examples of the quality of service we provide to Canadians, and it gives you some sense of the scope of the activities of the department.

In 1996 we handled 3.1 million EI claims, including over 160,000 sickness benefits and 160,000 maternity, parental, and adoption benefits. We handled over 2.2 million applications for income security programs; benefits were provided to 4.5 million Canadians. We helped Canadians fill 600,000 job vacancies through our labour market information and our summer student programs. We held over 200,000 employment counselling sessions, although these will obviously be affected by the devolution of the labour market programs I spoke about. We assisted some 396,000 clients through our active measures. There were some 80,000 youth employment interventions. Some 340,000 students got Canada student loans. We provided services in 322 labour disputes. There were over 6,000 health and safety inspections and there were over 6,000 labour standard inspections.

• 1005

We use this frequently to remind our staff not only of the scope we have, but of the range of interactions we have with Canadians, and to underline again how important client service is to the operation of our department.

[Translation]

Slide 13 provides a brief description of our service delivery network. The network is made up of more than 300 points of service that are called Human Resources Centres of Canada.

I must also point out that staff reductions and resource savings from the 1995 budget have been largely realized by the department.

The use of kiosks, Internet and partnership arrangements have helped improve accessibility. We currently have more than 6,000 kiosks in use.

Labour market agreements add asymmetry, but HRDC will maintain a strong physical presence even in those provinces where employment programming has been transferred.

[English]

Our points of service, as I've just mentioned, have gone down significantly in the last few years. There were over 400, almost 450 not that long ago; we are now down to around 324, headed to about 308 by the time we're finished.

On slide 14, a number of changes were implemented in the last mandate. A number of these had major impacts on the department. We had the issue of EI reform, including the transitional jobs fund. These reforms, as many of you will know, were based on moving to an hour-based system, first-dollar coverage, and the phase-in of a family income supplement. These reforms had a major impact on the department, both from a policy program perspective and from a delivery perspective.

We have labour agreements with eight provinces and we continue discussions with Ontario, Saskatchewan, and the two territories. The social union process was an important process where we started discussions with provinces to develop a more cooperative model for preserving and modernizing the social union. This led to a fair amount of work on the national child benefit, programs for persons with disabilities, and a general framework for social policy reform.

The national child benefit is an important area that we worked on in terms of providing support to low-income families. This is an area we will continue to work on as a priority in the department.

Employment equity legislation, which was recently introduced, is a priority for the department.

The end of the last mandate saw the beginning of reinvestment in a number of priority areas dealing with youth, children, and persons with disabilities: youth in the form of the youth employment strategy; children in the sense of the 1997 budget I've just mentioned, announcing the Canada child tax benefit; and persons with disabilities in the announcement of the opportunities fund.

Slides 15, 16, 17, and 18 basically deal with the Speech from the Throne and how it affects the department. I don't intend to go through them—I want to leave some time for questions—but they lay out and underline the areas that are a priority focus for the department. They tend to reflect in some ways the ones I've just described to you as we continue to build on them in this Parliament.

That's the department in a nutshell.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Green.

I'll take questions now, beginning with Mr. Anders.

Mr. Rob Anders: Looking at page 3 of the briefing notes, it talks about the departmental summary in part II of the estimates. I'm noticing there, under the main estimates for 1996-97 and 1997-98, two areas of particular interest to me right now. Under human resources investments in the insurance program, it has grants and contributions one year being $1.2 billion and another year being $1.4 billion, or in excess of those. Then looking down toward the labour program, grants and contributions as well, once again it shows over $5 million, close to $6 million, in 1996-97, and then no figure available or no grants in 1997-98.

• 1010

Mr. Ian Green: Can I just ask you to roll back for a second? I just got the sheet handed to me. I'm sorry; I didn't have it. I want to make sure I follow.

Mr. Rob Anders: Okay. It's line 10, under human resources investments. It shows there respectively over $1.2 billion and then $1.4 billion in the 1997-98 year in grants and contributions. I was wondering if you could comment in some more detail on those, and also possibly provide some written material on that. Can you do that to provide some more specificity in terms of what grants and contributions are being handed out?

The Chairman: Mr. Green, while you're looking at that, I don't want to cut off any potential answer here, but Mr. Anders, just for your information, we have proposed to deal with departmental estimates somewhat later in our agenda, at a time when the department will come forth prepared to answer these questions.

Mr. Rob Anders: Well, I'm eager to know, though.

The Chairman: Well, yes, but in fairness to Mr. Green, we didn't ask him to come prepared for those questions. Given that they're very able, I suspect he can give you some kind of response, but I just wanted to note that he'd have another shot at this.

Mr. Ian Green: Based on a pretty quick jump here, I think these encompass the costs of operating the student loans program, the youth programming we have, the disabled persons programming—in effect all of the major areas that make up the human resources investment branch expenditures. I think that's what those cover.

Mr. Rob Anders: So I take it we'll have a chance to discuss that some more at the estimates time. Is it possible to get some more detail on that, though?

Mr. Ian Green: Yes, sure. I can give you the breakdown by programs for that branch, but I think you'll find it's $600 million for operating the student loans program and $270 million for youth programs, and when you add them all up, that's the ballpark you're in. But I'll make sure I get the information for you.

Mr. Rob Anders: Terrific; thank you.

Under the labour program, I notice it's a total of about $6 million in 1996-97. I'm wondering, since that's a smaller number, what you can recall in terms of grants and contributions and where they went.

Mr. Ian Green: There is a small program in the labour branch that encourages cooperation between management and labour, and it funds a range of innovative programs that are designed to support cooperation and improvement in the workplace between those two groups. Again, I can get you information on that program, but that's in effect what that's about.

Mr. Rob Anders: Okay. And I also notice there's been a drastic change between 1996-97 and 1997-98. I'm not opposed to the changes, but I'm just noticing there's been an elimination there. Is that correct?

Mr. Ian Green: Yes. I'll have to check what happened there. I'll have to refresh my memory in terms of that program.

Mr. Rob Anders: Okay.

Ms. Lucille Ferland (Acting Director, Strategic Resource Management and Accountability, Department of Human Resources Development): I'd like to add something.

Mr. Rob Anders: Yes, please.

Ms. Lucille Ferland: It's just a technical treatment, because the grants and contributions of the labour program fall below the $5 million ceiling, so it's now integrated within one vote. That's the reason you see that little dash for that line.

Mr. Rob Anders: I see.

Ms. Lucille Ferland: It's a purely technical reason.

Mr. Rob Anders: A technicality, okay.

The Chairman: Are there other questions? Ms. Brown.

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

Thank you, Mr. Green, for this overview. A couple of things puzzle me on it. First, I noticed that income security programs are the largest chunk of your budget. They're listed on slide five as major programs: old age security and Canada Pension Plan. But I notice at the back, when you talk about what has been accomplished in slide 14 and then about what you're looking at for the future from the Speech from the Throne, nowhere is old age security or Canada Pension Plan mentioned.

I'm also aware of the fact that the finance department is holding hearings on CPP, and I'm wondering how your department, which has such a huge stake in these two income security programs— Why in fact are we not hearing that testimony and processing that legislation? In other words, how did the finance department get hold of your major program? And can we expect that we will continue to hold onto the seniors benefit discussion as opposed to old age security?

• 1015

Mr. Ian Green: Far be it from me to answer all those questions—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Ian Green: —but the reason it's at the front and not on the list at the back is that the list at the back is essentially about those programs that went through fairly major changes in the last mandate of the last Parliament, which was not the case to the same extent for OAS or CPP programs, the reforms of which potentially lie ahead.

It was essentially meant to be a descriptive list of areas in which we had fairly major program changes last time.

Ms. Bonnie Brown: I understand that. Slide 14 is what's done, the major reforms finished, and slide 15 is what you see coming up.

Mr. Ian Green: Yes.

Ms. Bonnie Brown: Where are the seniors benefit and the CPP? They're in neither place.

Mr. Ian Green: I'm sorry. I just see slide 14 as major changes implemented in the last mandate.

Ms. Bonnie Brown: Yes, I understand that.

Mr. Ian Green: Okay.

Ms. Bonnie Brown: And then the Speech from the Throne sort of implies that this is what you see coming up.

Mr. Ian Green: Okay. That's a fair point. Obviously the department that has been responsible for the delivery of the CPP and the seniors benefit has a keen interest in where they're going.

Not only traditionally, but in the CPP legislation in fact the Minister of Finance is responsible for the financial aspects, for the fiscal aspects of the legislation, and in fact federal and provincial Ministers of Finance had the lead in discussing the reforms.

Ms. Bonnie Brown: So that has some logic to it. What about the seniors benefit?

Mr. Ian Green: With regard to the seniors benefit, given the extremely important nature of the program and the impact its reform is going to have not only on seniors but also on government accounts into the future, the Minister of Finance has always had a keen interest. The Minister of Human Resources has one as well, and the two ministers in fact are discussing how best to sort of share responsibility for that file into the future.

Ms. Bonnie Brown: Thank you.

On the labour market training hand-off that we're sort of in the middle of, what I don't understand is this. A normal person would think that if a government is spending—let's just take a round figure—$1 million in a certain province on labour market training and the central government decides to hand it off to the provinces, the province says it would love to have it because it is going to be integrated with the education system and all that sort of stuff. So the province signs on and the $1 million is handed over.

I'm from Ontario. In the case of Ontario—whose education system I think is excellent and will be able to absorb these things—it seems to be hesitant about signing. In the meantime, the labour market training programs that we have been running are being contracted everywhere, in whatever town or city you're in. Money that used to be there isn't there now. So now when Ontario finally signs—which I assume they will do—will we hand over to Ontario the money we used to spend on labour market training, or will we hand over the ever-reducing amount?

In other words, there are big gaps in labour market training today in Ontario. There's a shrinkage in programs, whether you talk to the people at the community colleges who deliver them or whether you talk to the people who delivered them for special groups like women trying to get off welfare, for example, or whatever it was. The number of programs in the budget is shrinking and all of us who are members of Parliament are seeing that programs we used to refer people to just aren't there any more.

So if Ontario finally agrees to take it over, are we going to give Ontario this lesser amount of money that we are now spending on labour market training with this reduced activity, or can the province, if it signs, expect to get the amount of money that we used to spend?

• 1020

Mr. Ian Green: The short answer is that there is an envelope of money that is available for labour market programming nationally, which has been established as the basis for the department's activities and in fact has been projected out over the next five years. That's the amount of money we have, irrespective of whether we negotiate a labour market agreement or not with a particular province.

In the case of Ontario, we have a budget for active measures that we deploy in Ontario, and if we were to sign an agreement that would provide to Ontario the responsibility to design and deliver those labour market programs, they would get the same amount of money that we would have had.

Ms. Bonnie Brown: They would get the current amount?

Mr. Ian Green: They get the current amount—the projected budgetary amount that we have for active measures at the moment.

Ms. Bonnie Brown: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Brown. Mr. Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: On slide number 8, you indicate that employment insurance costs in the Main Estimates are 14,555 billion dollars. I would like you to tell us, as of today and based on the information you have, what your forecasts are, whether it be employment insurance costs or incoming funds, current amounts and forecasts for December 31, 1997 and March 31, 1998.

Mr. Ian Green: I do not have the numbers here today, but I can look into it and get back to you.

Mr. Paul Crête: You do not know how much money is expected to be in the employment-insurance fund today, on December 31, 1997, or on March 31, 1998? You have no idea how much money will come in on those dates?

Mr. Gordon McFee (Director, Policy and Legislation Development, Department of Human Resources Development): The person in charge of these forecasts is not here today, and unfortunately, I am not personally aware of the estimates. If they exist, we will look into them.

Mr. Paul Crête: Would it be possible to obtain the estimates for the start of the next meeting, because I would like an update on the Employment Insurance surplus for this year and for previous years. Although I am not an actuary, I am willing to bet that it will be roughly 13 billion dollars by December 31, 1997.

Mr. Gordon McFee: If you are talking about the surplus, I believe the figure is roughly 12 billion dollars by the end of 1997.

Mr. Paul Crête: That amount was in the forecasts on April 1, when the budget was brought down. But I am asking you for an up-date today, because that it what interests me. In light of economic growth and the significant reduction in the number of people eligible for employment insurance, I would like to know how you have revised your forecasts, as of today, given the reality we will face at the end of the fiscal year, and if possible, on December 31. If you do not have the information for that day, can you tell me what the balance in the employment insurance account will be by the end of the fiscal year, based on your revised forecasts?

Mr. Gordon McFee: Yes, there is no problem with that. As I just said, I gave the most recent figure I have. It is quite possible that there have been changes since then; we can find that information easily.

Mr. Ian Green: I will ask Norine Smith to provide us with that information for the meeting on Thursday morning.

Mr. Gordon McFee: I will be here Thursday.

Mr. Paul Crête: I am a bit surprised that no one can give us that number. Since you talk about roughly $14 billion in expenditures, you surely must have estimated the amount of money coming in when those forecasts were made. So you must have almost monthly statements on the employment insurance fund. I don't understand. My girlfriend checks my expense account once a month, and we are only talking about a couple of thousand dollars. In this case, we are talking about several billion dollars and you cannot even give me the current account balance.

Mr. Gordon McFee: I believe we have just told you what the balance of the employment insurance fund is to the best of our ability, but I made a commitment to verify the exact amount. It is possible that I may have made a mistake, but I do not think that the amount could have varied by $4 to 5 billion in a few months.

Mr. Paul Crête: I hope that my question has been clearly noted. I would like to know the employment insurance fund balance expected on December 31, 1997, and on March 31, 1998, based on your current estimates.

Mr. Gordon McFee: Yes. Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: Perhaps we could have your girlfriend come to the committee, Mr. Crête.

Thank you.

• 1025

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: I have another short question.

You say on page 13 of your report:

Labour market agreements with provinces add asymmetry, but HRDC will maintain a strong physical presence even in those provinces where employment programming has been transferred.

Can you expand on the words "but HRDC will maintain a strong physical presence"? That goes back to my initial question. I assume that as with the cost estimates you can provide us with a more detailed explanation of what there will be at HRDC.

For example, once the agreement is operational, what responsibilities will HRDC have at the Quebec level?

[English]

Mr. Ian Green: We will continue to have your human resource centres. Those human resource centres will continue to be responsible for income security programs. They will also be responsible for part one of employment insurance. That is in fact the bulk of our staff and the bulk of our expenditures, so we will continue to have, we think, very active human resource centres across those programs. In addition, those human resource centres will have ongoing responsibility for a range of labour market programs and the other programs I mentioned in my previous answer to you in terms of youth, disabled persons, and aboriginals.

While I don't claim that in all cases every location we have won't change, certainly our human resource centres—the ones where we operate to a significant degree income security and employment insurance programs—will continue to operate and will continue to be very active, and that's what the point underlines to us.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: But do you see the number of employment centres staying at 28, as indicated on March 31, 1998, or do you think that in a year's time, there will be less than 20, 15 or 10 employment centres? After one year of operation, how many employment centres do you think there will be? Since we are elected for four-year terms, you should have some ideas on that.

[English]

Mr. Ian Green: I would not want to speculate without talking to our regional executive head in Quebec, Mr. André Gladu. I can talk to him and come back to you with an answer on that, but I wouldn't want to make up an answer now without talking to André.

[Translation]

I have to consult our Director General in Quebec, André Gladu. I will look into it and give you an answer.

Mr. Paul Crête: Okay. Do you think you can have those answers for us for Thursday?

Mr. Ian Green: I will do my best.

Mr. Paul Crête: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Crête.

[English]

Mr. Anders.

Mr. Rob Anders: Just out of curiosity, does the department intend to quantify the size of EI account surplus that is necessary to maintain premium rate stability over the business cycle?

Mr. Ian Green: Not at this meeting.

The minister, in consultation with the Minister of Finance, is going to have to make a decision on the premium fairly shortly. They will have to make that decision on the premium based on their interpretation of the legislation, which obviously says that you need sufficient reserve to ensure the fund operates in the context of the business cycle. The two ministers will basically have to make that determination in the context of the legislation.

I do not have a number, though, that I would put on the table that would sort of represent what an appropriate reading would be. That will be up to the ministers to decide when they set the premium rate.

Mr. Rob Anders: I am not necessarily even referring to the premium rate, whether it's increasing, decreasing, staying the same, etc. But in terms of how much money you have to maintain as a surplus, there have been no departmental calculation in terms of what you need to maintain it over the business cycle?

Mr. Gordon McFee: It is an ongoing process of comparing the status of the EI account, if you like, and then how much money flows in and flows out of the EI account with the overall government picture, because they're all together in the same huge pot. It's a developing file, so there's not a static number one can give.

Bill C-12, which set up this stuff, provided for a period of up to about the year 2000 as the kind of economic cycle it had in mind. I don't know that there would be an exact figure right now as to how much ought to be in it. That's a matter of discussion and most likely a matter of disagreement when it's announced.

• 1030

Mr. Rob Anders: Okay.

In terms of income contingent student loan repayments, are you discussing that with the provinces, or is that one of the options you're considering at all?

Mr. Ian Green: We are discussing income-related repayments, which is different from what many people consider to be an income-contingent repayment proposal. We are discussing income-related repayment proposals with the Province of Ontario. We have also raised it with the Council of Ministers of Education Canada and the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada. So we are pursuing, not only with Ontario but with a number of other players, the possibility of looking at an IRR approach as one option in a range of possible reforms we could look at in terms of the student loans program.

Mr. Rob Anders: How would you tie that in? Would you use a social insurance number? What would the student have to provide?

Mr. Ian Green: I'd have to check. I don't know the details. It's a bit early in terms of looking at an IRR to tell you precisely what kind of identification would be required. We obviously have a lot of experience in operating the current student loans program, doing needs assessment and requiring information from students. I can, if you want, check that and tell you what sort of information is required, but we're not to the point where we've decided on that level of detail in looking at an IRR approach.

Mr. Rob Anders: Okay.

One of the last questions I have is on the Atlantic Groundfish Strategy. The number of participants eligible for TAGS was 51% higher than expected. There was a difference in the data that was available to HRDC, obviously, since it thought only 26,000 or so would be able to qualify, when it was around 40,000, and about 52,000 actually applied. The DFO figures showed substantially higher numbers of people who would have qualified or would have been included in that program. I'm wondering why there was a difference between the DFO's data and that of the HRDC.

Mr. Ian Green: I'm sorry, I don't know the answer to that. One of the things I can tell you is the minister has recently announced the appointment of Eugene Harrigan, who is our associate regional head in Ontario, to undertake a study of the impact of the wind-down of the TAGS program on individuals and communities in the Atlantic region. I'm sure Gene is looking at the various estimates and calculations that went into the TAGS program. That's one of the areas we'll look at with DFO as we think through what the wind-down of TAGS means in terms of the Atlantic region.

I can try to get you a specific answer, but I don't have one today for you on the differences in the estimates.

Mr. Rob Anders: I have one last question about what Eugene Harrigan is looking into. The Government of Newfoundland has already done its own study. NCARP and some of the previous Tory programs that were done on this have been looked at. What exactly will his review entail? What will he be looking at that's new, above and beyond what's already been done?

Mr. Ian Green: He will be talking to a number of the key players interested in TAGS, such as provincial governments, business, unions, etc. He will be building on some of the information some of those players have. But at the end of the day, his key responsibility is to look at the effect of a wind-down of TAGS on individuals, communities, and provinces and make sure Mr. Pettigrew and other ministers have a base of information they need to decide on the next steps and develop an effective future direction for programming that will impact on people in the Atlantic region.

Mr. Rob Anders: In a sense then he will be talking to people the previous people haven't talked to.

Mr. Ian Green: No, I think he will pull together a wide range of information that in some cases already exists, and he doesn't have a lot of time to do it. He has until December to provide the minister with that information.

Mr. Rob Anders: All right.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Anders. Is NCARP a freshwater fishing program?

Mr. Rob Anders: It is the Northern Cod Adjustment and Recovery Program.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Ms. Davies.

Ms. Libby Davies: Going to slide 14, which is the Speech from the Throne and things that are coming up on the agenda, we heard quite a lot about improving access to post-secondary education. Shortly after that there was also the announcement about the Millennium Fund, which talks about some kind of scholarship program that will begin in 2000.

• 1035

I guess one of the concerns I have is when you talk about the income-related repayments and say that it's different from the income-contingent repayment loans. I think the issue is this: whatever these options are that are being looked at, what are they designed for? Are they designed to mitigate the fact that there have been massive cutbacks in post-secondary education, or are they really designed to relieve the debt load for students, as opposed to just changing the method of repayment?

You said that you're looking at income-related repayments with the Province of Ontario and also the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada. Could you tell us what other options are being looked at? Also, what is the principle really? Is the principle to actually reduce the debt load, or is it really just to change how those repayments are done? For instance, will it be a deferral system? Will there be some kind of a discussion paper that clearly outlines what these different options are and what the principles are around them?

Again, I think there's a lot of apprehension out in the post-secondary education world, particularly for students who have a lot of anxiety about an increasing debt load. They wonder whether or not all of this debate is just simply to change the way they owe the bank or the government, as opposed to what I think is the essence of the matter if we do believe in improving accessibility, which is to reduce the debt load.

Mr. Ian Green: Around the issue of student loans, there are probably three tracks that need to be focused on. The first track is to make sure that people have savings they can use in terms of accessing learning. The government focused on this, for example, in the last budget in the changes to the registered education savings plans, RESPs.

This is not a way to avoid the question. I'm just saying that I think there are several tracks of which you have to be conscious.

The second track involves assistance while people are actually in a learning institution. This includes, for example, along the lines of the last budget, changes to the tuition tax credit.

The third area is the one you're talking about, which is how to help people manage their debt.

Some programs have already been announced. There are grants for students with dependants. We know they are among the neediest of students when we look at their needs in terms of the operation of the current program. There's the extension of interest relief to 30 months. These are designed very specifically to help individuals manage student debt.

When we talk about an income-related repayment scheme, the last budget—there's been an ongoing discussion about this—spoke about the possibility that one of the tracks that could be looked at, in addition to the existing tracks that are available to people to repay student loans, could well be looking at whether or not you would relate repayment to income. A lot of people feel that in looking at that, you're obviously going to have to look at the issue of debt management as well, because for some individuals, the debt they will be carrying, even if you relate it to income, will be very difficult for them.

So one of the options you could look at in terms of income-related repayments, for example, is the kind of loan forgiveness or debt reduction you want to put in place. There's a range of options one could look at. The AUCC has put out an option only just recently in terms of ongoing interest relief and the possibility of some loan forgiveness at let's say the fifth year in a repayment cycle.

I believe those options are all on the table and under discussion at the moment as different parties and the government look at what they can do in terms of responding to the debt management issue.

So I just want to underline the fact that I think several tracks are in play here. One of the most important is debt management. There's a fair amount of thinking going on in terms of those options, but obviously it's a bit premature for me to lay them out today.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Green. Thank you, Ms. Davies.

For the information of members, I'm sorry, I thought we were going to 11 o'clock, but we did indicate that it should be a 90-minute period. So we will adjourn, but before I do, I wish to make two statements.

First, note that you all received the supply notice. This will have an impact on how much time we have available. This came with your interim part III that will be in your office. It just indicates that if we're going to deal with interim supply, we have to move more expeditiously.

• 1040

I also have a notice of motion from Monsieur Crête. That notice was to be provided at the preceding meeting. In accordance with the motion that was passed today, I have received notice. The text will be circulated to members.

Finally, I have agreement from members to attend a steering committee meeting in this room at 8.30 a.m. Thursday. We will postpone testimony until 9.30 a.m. so we can have the steering committee deal with the results of that in a meeting and get on to witnesses.

Finally, Mr. Green, Mr. Knubley, Mr. McFee, and Ms. Ferland, thank you very much.

The meeting is adjourned.