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]

Thursday, November 20, 1997

• 0913

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.)): We'll call the meeting to order.

We'd like to welcome our witness today, the Honourable Lawrence MacAulay. Along with him we have Guy Tremblay, Mel Cappe, Gerry Blanchard, and Warren Edmondson. Welcome.

I understand, Mr. Minister, that you're under a serious time constraint this morning. Due to that and the happenings that have taken place in the last 24 hours, we're wondering if it would be all right with you if we just forgo the opening statement. We all have the notes for your address that were meant just for a general overview, I guess, and for different circumstances. But in light of what's happening, we're wondering if we could just forgo an opening statement, and go straight to the questions, if that would be all right with you.

The Honourable Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Labour, Lib.): I thank you very much. I'm very pleased to be here, Mr. Johnston, but I don't intend just to discuss the postal issue here.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): We haven't read this.

An hon. member: Have you read this?

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Yes, how can we...? I don't believe there's consensus for that, Mr. Chair.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Dale Johnston): Okay then, I throw that out as a suggestion, because we are under serious—

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: We're very pleased to answer questions—we don't mind at all—and I expect that the ones who are going to ask know that—

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Dale Johnston): Well, perhaps then, Mr. Minister, we could clarify just how much time you have with us this morning.

• 0915

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: I thought I was going to leave at 9.30, but I can't now for sure, because I was late getting here. I would like to be out at least at 9.40, if I could.

Anyhow, I would field questions, and I have my officials here. If you like, I can introduce them, or you can ask each one of them a question, or ask me, or whatever.

I would like to do the speech, but the truth is that it's about 15 minutes, and if we get right to the point, it might be better.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Dale Johnston): How would it be if we made a little compromise then, if you could just give us a five-minute opening statement? Then we'll go to five-minute rounds per party.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Certainly.

I'm pleased to join you today. It's the first opportunity to talk to the committee as Minister of Labour.

I know my senior officials briefed you a few weeks ago on the mission mandate and major initiatives of the labour program, and some of them are with me here today. If you allow, one thing I would like to do is introduce them. They are Mel Cappe, Deputy Minister; Guy Tremblay, Acting Assistant Deputy Minister of Finance; Gerry Blanchard, the Director General of Operations, Labour, also acting for the Assistant Deputy Minister of Labour, pretty well doing everything; Warren Edmondson, Director General of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, and I must say Warren is having an active time in the last 24 hours too; and Andrée Dubois, Director General of the Workplace Information Directorate.

I won't go on any further, because I have a speech here, but I think that introduces the officials, and we'll do our best to respond to your questions. I thank you for your consideration.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Dale Johnston): Thank you, Mr. Minister. I appreciate the fact that you have an extremely busy schedule, and we thank you for coming by today at all.

I'll start the round with my colleague from the Reform Party, please.

Mr. Jim Gouk (West Kootenay—Okanagan, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Minister, I heard your opening comment, that you didn't wish to discuss the post office this morning. That's very understandable. That's very disappointing, but very understandable. Maybe we could just explore the general policy of your department.

In the last Parliament we had a national rail strike, which of course was devastating to the economy. The government recognized that, and legislated them back to work. We had a port strike in my home province, in British Columbia, and of course that's very devastating. It had an impact all the way across Canada. The government saw that, and legislated those people back to work as well. We had a Canadian Airlines situation. The Minister of Labour intervened in that one as well.

I'd like to know if you could tell us what your policy is when there is labour disruption that is harmful to the economy of Canada. Exactly what is the policy of your department?

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: I thank you. The policy of the department is of course to adhere to part I of the Canada Labour Code. That is, of course, to seek out a collective agreement, and I don't need to go through the process.

I appointed a conciliation officer, and he attempted to bring the parties together. Then we appointed a conciliation commissioner, and we had little success there also. But now I am in the position.... Of course, as you're aware, they're on strike, but we also have—

Mr. Jim Gouk: Excuse me, are we talking about Canada Post now?

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Yes.

Mr. Jim Gouk: Okay, thank you.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: I'm just using this as an example.

Mr. Jim Gouk: Okay, I appreciate that.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: I could appoint a mediator, if they so desire, and that's with any dispute.

It's important to note, of course, that yes, we can pass back-to-work legislation. We can do a number of things. But the private sector also settles disputes without going to legislation, so we just have to be somewhat fair here.

Mr. Jim Gouk: Okay.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: So that's the attempt of my department: to be fair, and to be sure that labour and management both have a fair hearing.

Mr. Jim Gouk: Okay. I did ask a general question, of course, but given that you've responded specifically with regard to Canada Post, may I—

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: I used it as an example.

• 0920

Mr. Jim Gouk: Using Canada Post as an example, obviously this is high season for Canada Post. I used to own part of a business that had a high season where we made what seemed like a very high profit, but that had to carry us through a low season where we actually ran in the red. This is high season for Canada Post, which you used as an example. It's high season for people who are involved in direct marketing. It's very high season for charities—the Christmas Seal, the Canadian Lung Association—and a critical time for them.

Given that the loss to our economy is probably running in the hundreds of millions of dollars per day, in this particular example could you give us some idea how much money you think is appropriate that we lose before we move with legislation?

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Quite honestly, I have a responsibility in government and a concern for anybody who would lose money. I like to see people make money, but my responsibility is to adhere to the Canada Labour Code. That's what I must do in any dispute and that's what I'm doing in any dispute.

I possibly used the wrong example, and if you're going to continue on that's okay, but that's exactly what I must do in my responsibility.

Mr. Jim Gouk: Just to go back to my original topic, which was the national rail strike, the government didn't really wait on that one. Once CN was out it moved rather quickly. I guess it's all relative to the cost and the economy. That's why I asked what amount of loss to the economy you think is relevant enough to move on with legislation in any given situation.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: I don't want to dwell on the point of just my responsibility, but my responsibility is to report to you what I must do, and that's what I'm doing here. I must make sure we adhere to the Canada Labour Code, and in this instance and in labour disputes it's under part I. That's what I'm doing and that's what I must do.

Mr. Jim Gouk: Who writes the Canada Labour Code?

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: It's under my jurisdiction. I write the Canada Labour Code, but certainly not sitting down alone. As you know, a number of times there have been changes to the Canada Labour Code. We have introduced legislation to change part I. We will introduce legislation to change part II.

It's an ongoing process, but of course that process involves labour and management and it has over the years. It's like the Sims report. That was done in order to come up with.... I think the best scenario is you agree to disagree, in essence. Nobody agrees with everything, but you come up with a package that's acceptable to most and that's where we are.

Mr. Jim Gouk: You almost had me excited there for a moment when you said you were about to introduce legislation and then clarified your thoughts.

The Vice-Chair (Dale Johnston): Thank you, Mr. Gouk. Adhering to our five-minute rule, we will now go to the Bloc for a five-minute question.

[Translation]

Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Minister, we know that during the summer, your colleague, Mr. Gagliano, interfered freely in the matter, and unnecessarily we think, which gave Canada Post the idea that it had kind of an insurance policy in its negotiations with the union.

One can wonder right now if negotiations really took place. Yet, the stakes are very high. Canada Post wants 4,000 jobs abolished, at a time of high unemployment in Canada and in Quebec, and when they are making a profit.

Therefore, one would expect serious negotiations to go on. It's all the more important since the mediator, the conciliation commissioner recommends in his report that there be real negotiations and that the balance of power be given a full chance in this labour dispute.

In that context, can we hope that the government of Canada will not pass a bill forcing postal workers back to work and will let the parties negotiate freely? Can we expect, given the very high stakes, that the government will not interfere unnecessarily?

[English]

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Thank you very much. You indicated first the dollars involved in the profits of Canada Post. Whoever's involved under the federal jurisdiction, it's my responsibility to see that negotiations go well, not who has so many dollars or how much profit Canada Post makes. That is not part of my responsibility. But I think it's fair to say I have done my best to make sure, and I have made sure, that we adhered to the Canada Labour Code, part I, and that both labour and management had a fair opportunity to collective bargaining rights, which are their rights in this country. And of course now they are on strike and that is their right too. What I want to see happen here, and I will do anything to achieve this, as I indicated previously, is to make sure we do everything possible in order to bring about a collective agreement, including offering the services of my office or mediation services or whatever if so required.

• 0925

[Translation]

Mr. Yves Rocheleau: But if a bill was proposed, would you be part of that government decision as Minister of Labour?

[English]

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: As I've indicated many times since this started, what I want to see happen is a collective agreement. I have said or done nothing that will harm the negotiations.

To talk about legislation at this time will have a negative effect at the moment. What I want to see happen, and what I will do, is make sure that the parties have a fair opportunity to work toward a collective agreement. And, as I've indicated previously, I will make sure that if they require anything or any services from my office or myself that's under my jurisdiction, I will provide it for them.

[Translation]

Mr. Yves Rocheleau: But isn't that your duty as Minister of Labour, Mr. Minister? Aren't you supposed to guarantee that there can be fair and meaningful collective bargaining in the matter according to the spirit of the Labour Code and the recommendations of the commissioner's report? It is your responsibility. Can you assure me that you will do what is necessary so that the Labour Code will be adhered to, even in essence, and that there will be fair collective bargaining at Canada Post this year? And that the governmental hand of God won't swoop down on the bargaining process and have a particular impact on the union's position?

[English]

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: You're absolutely correct that they have to be fair, and I will make sure they are fair. And if they're not fair I can assure you that both parties in this dispute are well aware of what to do. If it's not fair they bring a petition to the CLRB. It's their option to do this if they feel they haven't been treated fairly. But it's obvious that I used that example at the start and this is where we're going to be.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Dale Johnston): This certainly is a topical subject.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: I must admit it's the topic of the day.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Dale Johnston): It absolutely is, and thank you.

I now go to the Liberal side. Mr. Wilfert has expressed interest in a question.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Minister, thank you for being here. You indicated that you would take action if so required. Certainly under section 105 of the code you can appoint a mediator, but I certainly would agree with you that it would be best if both parties could negotiate a collective agreement. Can you indicate to us, Mr. Minister, under what circumstances or factors you might be looking at where action would then be required?

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Thank you very much. What I've indicated previously is that I'm under the guidance of the Labour Code and that is exactly what I have done. I have indicated the process previously and that's the process I'm following.

What would happen here is if both of the parties requested mediation services, then I would provide them. That would be the only reason to do it, because then it would aid in bringing about a collective agreement and that's what I would do. But I will do nothing that will harm the negotiations, to the best of my ability.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: I would say the fact that both parties are still talking is a good sign. Mr. Minister, I think your good offices are available, but when people in the direct mail business are losing an estimated $40 million a day, there is obviously a lot of job loss and revenue loss at stake here.

• 0930

Hopefully the parties will be able to come to an agreement by the weekend, but if in fact talks break down, I guess that's when, under section 105, you may either impose a mediator or you may, as you say, go through the process. But you may then be forced to take action.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Yes. It would certainly have been ineffective to impose anything upon both parties when the strike was announced. Immediately following the announcement they indicated that they're going back to the table.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Absolutely.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: It looks to me like there's a genuine desire for an agreement. And you're absolutely right when you say it costs dollars. Strikes do cost dollars, but we put the collective bargaining process in place in this country for the betterment of management and labour and we must follow the law, which has served us well.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Dale Johnston): Ms. Bennett.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Minister, as a physician I'm obviously interested in occupational safety and health. I am aware that there are companies like VIA Rail that are putting in prevention programs like gyms and fitness centres such that we actually have a level of capability before somebody goes and injures his or her back.

I just wonder if you think there's anything that we as a government can do, whether it's rewarding the sectors that are actually putting prevention programs in...because, somehow, trying to fix people after they've hurt themselves and have been out of work for a long time or sending somebody out to work who just is not physically able to do the job, it seems a shame. When there are good models, is there something that we as a government could be doing to celebrate those models and to put in place programs that reward that?

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Thank you very much, doctor. I am one who certainly realizes the value of a gym. I need it bad.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: In fact, nobody would know better about a gym and the very big need to use it than I would—

Mr. Jim Gouk: You'll be seeing a lot of Jim.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: There are different types of Jims, and they're all pretty good in the end.

But yes, you're absolutely correct, and we are reviewing and will be.... In fact, there's legislation to come in on part II. And as for health and safety, labour and management of course both realize and understand that you must have a healthy environment, and they also realize that people are not required to work in places that are unsafe and that type of thing. This type of legislation has reduced the injury rate over the last number of years, but of course when there are any, there are too many.

Hopefully next year we will be bringing legislation into the House that will be dealing with this. It will go to committee, and right in this very spot, I imagine, there will be more discussion on these very issues. They are very important indeed, and as I indicated, I think both labour and management understand the vital need for a safe workplace and a healthy environment. It pays off for management.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: But it's the actual prevention programs, and whether it's nurses lifting patients or the back supports that waitresses use, there are obviously lots of things that government could be doing just in terms of information.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: You're absolutely correct. And really, this is the type of thing that hurts the economy. If you're hurt in a small way you have a negative effect on the economy. First, you must be paid in some way; and second, you're hurt, your own life is hurt. Again, we do want to have both parties, management and labour, who are both very interested in health and safety, to work with my department and come up with guidelines and legislation, as you indicated, that will in fact bring about a safer workplace and a healthier workplace. I would certainly push for that.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Dale Johnston): Very briefly, Ms. Bennett.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: I have a very brief question on safety in the workplace. Obviously smoking legislation has been a serious issue. I still think if the bars and restaurants of this country were a factory, people wouldn't be allowed to work in an environment that filled with smoke. As occupational health, in times of high unemployment people don't actually have a choice whether to work in what we feel is an unsafe environment.

• 0935

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: You're right; and many issues like that and others will be coming up.

Gerry, do you want to indicate anything on that?

Mr. Gerry J. Blanchard (Director General, Operations, Department of Human Resources Development): The bars and restaurants are basically under provincial legislation, which we can't really interfere with; but in federal work sites and federal jurisdiction certainly.... You just have to look at any federal building. The people are standing outside in the cold because they can't smoke inside any more. We've really made a lot of progress in cleaning up the air in the federal jurisdiction.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Of course it is provincial jurisdiction, but what is passed in the federal jurisdiction has a great tendency to leak into the provincial jurisdiction. That's why a lot of emphasis is put on what we do in the federal jurisdiction. People such as Gerry and many people we deal with come up with legislation. As you know, they stand outside the building and not in it; and that's for health reasons.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Dale Johnston): We'll go to a quick round over here. Did you have a question, Rob?

Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Yes, I do.

Clause 37 of Bill C-19 contains a proposed amendment to section 87.7 of the Canada Labour Code to provide for continued handling of grain during a labour work stoppage in ports such as Vancouver, but it provides no such protection for handling of other commodities, such as forestry products, petrochemicals, coal. I'm wondering whether or not you think that's a particular advantage for a given industry and whether or not that has political motivations to it and is unfair to those other industries.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Thank you very much for your question. It's something I've heard a lot about since I took over responsibility for labour.

Over the years why this has been presented this way is that Parliament has been called back quite a number of times, I believe six times, specifically to put people back to work, and it's because of the grain not being able to move. It's not fair to have the lever of the grain in order to take collective bargaining rights away from everybody in the country. I understand other commodities would like to be in this, but if you do that, eventually no collective bargaining will be left at all.

Grain was put in because it was used as the lever to bring Parliament into session, or if they are in session, to have them bring in legislation to put people back to work. That is why this provision was put into the bill.

Mr. Rob Anders: In other words, because you don't like being called back to Parliament, grain gets a special exemption and no other commodity does. Is that right?

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: I think that's slightly unfair, but I don't—

Mr. Rob Anders: But that's what you just said. You don't like being called an exception.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: I'm sorry if you didn't understand me, but what I was trying to tell you is that grain was used because if there was a strike in the ports or anywhere else because the grain didn't move...that is why Parliament—

Mr. Rob Anders: What about coal not moving?

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: —would be brought into session, or if it is in session, to move.... What we're trying to do is to prevent legislation having to be brought forth in order to put people back to work.

Mr. Rob Anders: You don't like being called back during the summer. Is that the problem?

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: I'll come back any time. If you wish to indicate that, you go ahead, but I'll come back at any time. It's most unfair for you to say it. I would come back at any time or do anything I'm required to do.

What I'm trying to say—and I don't know why you would want to indicate that to me—is I will come to Parliament when I'm required at any time, and I have. But what I don't want to do is to take collective bargaining rights away from the people of this country.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Dale Johnston): To the Bloc.

[Translation]

Mr. Yves Rocheleau: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The new version of Bill C-19 modifying the Canada Labour Code does not contain any anti-scab measures that would prevent the hiring of strike- breakers.

• 0940

How would the government justify that? We know that enormous pressure is brought to bear on the government. We also know that the government of Quebec has taken such measures in the past without a consensus because there will never be a consensus on such a crucial question. On the other hand, we know that labour disputes are less violent than they used to be and that they don't last as long, which is good for the economy.

Why does the Canadian government persist in not having anti- scab legislation?

[English]

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Quite simply, on the anti-scab legislation, people can be scabs or whatever else there can be if there is a disruption or a strike. Companies under the federal jurisdiction can call people in. If they do anything in order to have a negative effect on the union, or if they do something to help destroy the union or to disrupt the negotiations or whatever, then the union can apply to the CLRB. The CLRB has the right to indicate that the company cannot use replacement workers. If replacement workers are used and it does not affect the union or the negotiations, then the company is okay. If replacement workers are used and it can be proven that they are used in such a way as to destroy a union, the union can apply to the CLRB and the ruling would be that the company cannot continue to do so.

[Translation]

Mr. Yves Rocheleau: Because, if you will allow me, Mr. Chairman, this goes against the very definition of the balance of power. History has proven, in Canada and in Quebec, in the case of Ogilvie Mills, that if the labour dispute lasts months and months, the employees lose everything, all or their family heritage, including their wife, their children and their home. It has evident negative effects because there is no real balance of power if replacement workers can be hired. Anyway, Quebec gives us a very good example, very close to us, an example that we should maybe follow.

[English]

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Quite simply, as I indicated previously, replacement workers can be used if the intention is not to destroy or disrupt the union. That's simply what is in the bill, and that's the way it is.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Dale Johnston): Thank you, Mr. Minister.

With the committee's permission, Mr. Gouk has one single question, and then he has an appointment.

Mr. Jim Gouk: I have to leave, so it is quite short.

Yesterday I asked for an emergency debate on the postal situation—not a debate about legislating, but a debate in order to put all the issues on the floor so that we can all understand the impact; so that we can have input from all parties, government and other; and so that everyone can understand where we're going with this and can decide collectively what is the best action, and at what point. I am going to ask for that again today under Standing Order 52. Do you have an objection to engaging in a emergency debate on this issue so that we can have all the facts on the floor?

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Well, Jim, as you are aware, both parties are back at the table. What I don't want to see happen is something that will have a negative impact on the negotiations. What I want to see done is everything that can be done to give both parties the opportunity to come up with a collective agreement.

Mr. Jim Gouk: Can I take that as a no?

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: I guess, Jim, you can take it.... That's the situation.

Mr. Jim Gouk: Okay, thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Dale Johnston): Mr. Minister, we'll go to the government side.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: I should go. Thank you very much.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Dale Johnston): Thank you for appearing before us today, Mr. Minister. We'll look forward to another session with you later on. I hope things aren't so rushed at a later date.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Dale Johnston): We'll continue with the departmental officials if we have any questions from either side. Actually, I've pretty well dealt with this side of the table. From the government side, are there any questions for the departmental officials? Seeing none, I'll come back to the opposition side.

• 0945

Mr. Rob Anders: I'd like to strike out on a different thing with the second round of questioning. That is, I want to get the opinion here, or not necessarily just the opinion but the position of the department with regard to signed cards being used as a mechanism for certification.

Many provinces across this country and most or a lot of countries use a process whereby it has to be a secret ballot vote. With the Canada Labour Relations Board coming out against signed cards, saying that they're unreliable because of the situation where you had the Communications Workers of Canada versus the Communications Union of Canada, both claiming majority support with the use of signed cards in 1979, it's a example where there was a clear abuse of the card-signing system. I wonder where the department stands with that in regard to Bill C-19.

Mr. Mel Cappe (Deputy Minister, Department of Human Resources Development): Mr. Chairman, I would note that we're not keen on engaging in a real clause-by-clause analysis of the bill here, because I presume it will be discussed by the committee in another context. But to be as clear and open as we can, I've asked Debra Robinson, who's an officer in the department who has been responsible for Bill C-19, to come to the table in order to deal with Mr. Anders' question.

Mr. Rob Anders: Thank you.

Ms. Debra Robinson (Director, Legislative Review, Part I of the Canada Labour Code, Department of Human Resources Development): On that issue, I could say that the question of whether or not to include mandatory certification votes in the Canada Labour Code was an issue that was examined by the Sims task force. They concluded that the current card-based system should be retained, although the Canada Labour Relations Board has the authority in any case to hold a vote. That was the conclusion of the task force.

One of the problems that the task force identified with mandatory votes is the length of time it could take to hold such votes in the federal jurisdiction because of the nature of the bargaining units. They're often very large and spread out across the country. Or even if they are located in one place, many of the employees are not in the workplace.

For example, in the trucking sector, truckers may travel across the country and be absent from their work site for weeks on end, so it's very difficult to hold timely votes in the federal jurisdiction. But the Canada Labour Relations Board always has the authority to hold a vote in any case of application for certification.

Mr. Rob Anders: I wonder, then, if the Canada Labour Relations Board determined in one of their rulings that signed cards had problems with them because two unions both claimed majority support and if you're concerned about these votes being large and spread out, why secret mail ballots were not considered. They're used in the United Kingdom.

Ms. Debra Robinson: The board has often held votes by mail. But depending on the size of the bargaining unit, a vote by mail can take several months to conduct. Again, one of the problems is that some of these people are not at their work site for extended periods, so you have to provide sufficient time for them to receive the ballot and return it.

For example, in the air transport sector there are groups that are sent on assignments overseas and may be temporarily based overseas for several months. In order to give them the opportunity to vote by mail, once again you have to have sufficient time.

Mr. Rob Anders: I'm going to state something here and I want to get a response back. If time is the only consideration in votes, I think in a case of democracy it's “If it were done, it were done well.”

• 0950

We take months to hold a general election in this country because we want to make sure the results are fairly precise and that we get an accurate representation of what voters want. I think that's only fair when you look at the million workers who are affected by the Canada Labour Code. They should have a fair reflection of what they want in terms of certification.

Ms. Debra Robinson: I can only refer you to the Sims task force report. In that report, the task force basically said that the parties themselves, both labour and management, in the federal jurisdiction were very critical of the length of time it takes for certification applications to be dealt with by the current board. That was their main concern of the process.

It was the task force's conclusion that to speed up the process, the board should have some powers to adopt some expedited processes. They also concluded that there was no evidence that the card-based system was ineffective or inappropriate.

I can only refer you to what was in the task force report. This was a report whose recommendations were basically well received by both labour and management in the federal jurisdiction.

Mr. Rob Anders: I'll move on from that. This won't be a question with regard to Bill C-19. Obviously, the Sims task force ignored the Canada Labour Relations Board findings that they had in some of the other earlier card-signing instances.

With regard to fair wages and hours of work, I'm wondering how many complaints have been received over the last ten years with regard to this piece of legislation.

Mr. Gerry Blanchard: There haven't been too many complaints. I don't have the exact number. Most of the complaints we received related to the hours of work and that area versus complaints regarding wage rates exactly. If I had to take a guess, over the past year, we might have had probably in the area of 20 to 30 complaints. I could get specific figures for you if you need them.

Mr. Rob Anders: I would very much enjoy that.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Dale Johnston): Thank you, Mr. Anders. Any other questions?

Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I'll just say that I think all parties are hopeful that we'll get a negotiated settlement today with Canada Post. Obviously, the minister did have to go off to tend to this issue.

We all understand how important it is that we do have service. I think we also must understand that it's very important to get a negotiated settlement if there's there's a possibility of that.

I do want to say for the record that I know how hard the minister has been working on that. I think proof of that is the fact that the parties keep going back to the table. I think the minister should really be commended for that. So far he's done a heck of a job for us.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Dale Johnston): Any other questions?

Mr. Rob Anders: I have some further questions on the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act. Now that the pilot project on re-establishing the rates is under way, can you tell us what has changed over the last 10 years that would warrant the re-establishment of the schedules?

Mr. Gerry Blanchard: The pilot is not concluded yet. The parties involved in the pilot—this occurred in Alberta—have asked for an extension of time to gather more information.

The pilot is not about whether we should have an act for fair wages. Since we do have such an act and the decision has been made to reintroduce schedules, the pilot is for meeting the commitment that the previous minister made for involving the parties in the establishment of those schedules. That's what we have done.

The pilot project included quite a few organizations representing both union and management, and both non-union and unionized groups occurring in Alberta. We're waiting for the final results of that to see.

Our officials tell us that, at the very least, the information we've gathered to date is relevant, it's more information than we've had, and we'll be able to establish schedules.

Mr. Rob Anders: You allude to this in your response there. You said the decision to re-establish schedules had been made. I'm wondering why indeed that was the case. What changed in the last ten years to lead you to believe that those schedules had to be re-established?

Mr. Gerry Blanchard: Nothing has changed in the last ten years. The schedules were always there in the sense that, for example, if a regional director received a complaint pertaining to a wage rate, then there had to be an establishment of schedules. Different regions took different methods to take it.

• 0955

Every time we did that, parties indicated to us that one side or the other wasn't happy with the schedule or they weren't involved. So the decision was made that to try to reach the best schedules possible, we would involve the parties. The minister made an announcement to that effect, that he would make every effort to involve the parties, and that's what we have done. An invitation has gone out and the parties were involved in the actual establishment or in bringing forward the facts and figures that have to be considered for the fair wages.

But ever since the legislation has been there, the establishment of the schedule has been under the purview of the regional director in charge of the program in a particular region.

Mr. Rob Anders: What are the projected costs to the department and where are the additional funds going to come from? Will there be a reduction in other areas to compensate for these new costs? Where's the money coming from?

Mr. Gerry Blanchard: One of the things we're looking at with the project is exactly that element of it: what we could have done better and the costs involved. There are some costs, even though one might say the legislation is there and it's part of our normal business to be doing this type of thing. However, the more involvement we get from the parties and the more assistance we get in bringing forward information to establish the schedules, the less costly it will be, rather than trying to do it all ourselves. So in some ways the process could actually save us money. I would venture to think it would be cheaper to have a good system to gather up and establish schedules than to respond to complaints because of it.

Mr. Rob Anders: About $5 million was given out as grants and contributions within the department. What measurement do you use to assess the success or failure of these grants and contributions awarded by the department? What merit structure, if there is one, do you use to award these things?

Mr. Mel Cappe: A number of different programs are used for determining the recipients of grants and contributions, so it depends on the nature of the program. In the labour-management partnerships program, we focus on proposals that come from both management and labour, and there are terms and conditions around the program that identify the kinds of desired results that would identify a legitimate project. That's the one that has the greatest discretion around it, if you will. That's a contribution program, not a grant.

In the grants program, we give a couple of grants to organizations that have objectives comparable to the mandate of the department; it's a way of advancing that mandate. For instance, there's a $7,000 grant to Fire Prevention Canada for fire prevention work in local communities and in federal jurisdictions. So it's to aid them in their work, where their work and our work lines up.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Dale Johnston): I'm going to have to cut you off there, Rob.

To follow up on my colleague's question, you said that is a contributions program as opposed to a grant. Could you explain to me the difference between the two?

Mr. Mel Cappe: Yes. A grant is essentially an unconditional transfer to the recipient where, because of the nature of the organization or the nature of the work they're doing, the government says that advancing their work is consistent with what the government wants to accomplish and gives them the money without condition. In a contribution agreement, you put terms and conditions on the transfer that say the money has to be used for a particular purpose.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Dale Johnston): But surely in either case there must be some yardstick to measure either success or failure.

Mr. Mel Cappe: Indeed. In the contributions area, though, it's much more constrained, because the government's really predetermining what the money should be used for. So, for instance, we have $1.6 million in the labour-management partnerships program, and we give that to organizations that come in with proposals consistent with the terms and conditions set, which are to advance labour management issues in a particular area.

Using an example, the Canadian Industrial Relations Association received $8,000 out of that $1.6 million for the purpose of their annual conference, which brings management and labour together and advances their issues and ours. So in that sense it brings people together.

Do we have a measure of output, such as how much togetherness there is? No, we don't. But we do try to assess the extent to which these projects are consistent with the objectives of the program, which is bringing management and labour together to advance the interests of labour and management collectively.

• 1000

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Dale Johnston): I now go to Mr. Wilfert.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Could you assess for us the impact of the changes made to the Canada Labour Code in terms of applying the provincial minimum wage rates to federally regulated workers?

Mr. Gerry Blanchard: You are talking about the fact that we're using, the provincial.... I don't think it would change much. There would be very few workers in the federal jurisdiction who wouldn't have been earning that to begin with. Generally speaking, because of the nature of the work and the organizations, we in the federal jurisdiction are the highest unionized sector in Canada, so I don't think anybody would have noticed a difference.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Do you expect any changes in terms of applying the same process to industrial relations or occupational health and safety?

Mr. Mel Cappe: I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you suggesting that—

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: There has been a devolution here, and I am wondering whether that....

Mr. Mel Cappe: We haven't really devolved our responsibility in the Labour Code area. So insofar as our standards are consistent and harmonized with the provinces, that is desirable, but we still maintain the jurisdiction, so the code still applies. We work with provinces in a regular basis to try to align our standards to make it clearer and easier for people to comply with on both sides. But clearly we still exercise jurisdiction in the area.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: In regard to the comment on smoking, I was intrigued that you said it is a provincial jurisdiction, and I guess technically it is. But municipal governments are the ones, at least in the province of Ontario, who have passed them. If the province wants to bring in a mandatory, across the board—

Mr. Gerry Blanchard: I was referring to the question of safety and health, for example, in bars and restaurants for employees. That is provincial jurisdiction.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: You may have banned them smoking in the buildings, but maybe you should ban them 100 yards from the entrances, because you still walk through a cloud of smoke when you walk through the—

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Especially at the House of Commons.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: It is ridiculous.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Dale Johnston): Any other questions? Mr. Anders.

Mr. Rob Anders: In July you released a report on the changing workforce. I am wondering what the breakdown of the cost of the study was and whether or not we can be provided with the details of that before the House breaks for Christmas.

Mr. Mel Cappe: Just to be precise, I believe it was the collective reflection on the changing workplace. I don't have the numbers as such here, but we can certainly provide them through the chair to the committee.

Mr. Rob Anders: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Dale Johnston): Any other questions? Don't tell me we've run out of questions.

Mr. Mel Cappe: Mr. Chair, I'm sure you'll have more chances at us as the legislation comes to the House and parliamentary committees.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Dale Johnston): The circumstances today are rather unique, in that we had anticipated having the minister here for the day. It's not that there's anything wrong with departmental officials, but the minister I'm sure would have drawn a little better crowd. I'm certain you folks would understand that.

Mr. Mel Cappe: And we do. We're not competing with him.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Dale Johnston): Good. I'm sure he'll be pleased to hear that too.

Rob, did you have another question?

Mr. Rob Anders: With regard to Ted Weatherill, I asked the minister a question of a political nature in the House yesterday. The Auditor General, as I understand it, is going to be doing an investigation—indeed, devoting a full chapter—to the subject of Ted Weatherill and his $440,000 expense account and $148,000 on meals. I'm wondering if the department is considering or is agreeing to adopt the Auditor General's recommendations on him when that report is released in December—or will he indeed be fired by that time?

• 1005

Mr. Mel Cappe: Mr. Chair, I'm glad the member prefaced the comment by characterizing some elements of it as political, so I would defer to the minister. But frankly, I haven't heard what the Auditor General is saying. Until the report is available, I really wouldn't want to comment. I think it's fair to say the minister is concerned about propriety in these matters. And we have this delicate situation in which the CLRB is an arm's-length agency as well.

All of those will be factors that will be taken into account when the Auditor General's report is received. I guess it's very difficult to speculate on what the government would or wouldn't do in different scenarios, and I certainly won't engage in speculation.

Mr. Rob Anders: I'd just like to ask a couple of particular questions. Do you gentlemen expense some things when you have access to expense accounts?

Mr. Mel Cappe: I have an expense account. If I engage in business-related activities, I will from time to time charge a lunch or dinner. Certainly, as I've hosted visiting dignitaries and other colleagues from time to time, I have arranged for a meeting in the evening and have had a hospitality expense for it.

Mr. Rob Anders: Out of curiosity—and I address this question to each one of you—have any of you ever consumed seventeen glasses of wine between you and one other individual, or spent $733 on a meal for two people, you and one other?

Mr. Mel Cappe: No.

Mr. Rob Anders: Out of recollection, what's the closest you've probably ever come to that amount of money and alcohol consumed at one given sitting between you and another individual?

Mr. Mel Cappe: Again, I don't know the answer to that. It's not going to challenge your—

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Dale Johnston): Actually, I don't know that the question is even in order.

Mr. Rob Anders: Maybe not in order, but interesting, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Mr. Chairman, I don't know if the question is in order, but I think the intent of the thrust of the questioning is in order. If there aren't prescribed guidelines for it, regardless of whether it's at arm's length or not, as an agency, it should have them. It's unacceptable for anybody to be submitting bills of that nature regardless. There are standards that should be in place; if they're not, then they should be.

Mr. Mel Cappe: There are such standards that the Treasury Board puts in place for officials as opposed to order in council appointees. Those standards are met in our department. If they're not, they are accounted for by officials.

Again, I would only caution that I don't think you can replace good judgment with rules. I would note—and I would hope that Mr. Anders and Mr. Wilfert would agree—that in the end, what you really want from everyone who is responsible for a hospitality account is the exercise of good judgment, rather than having them simply following by rote some rule that some other official had set for them.

Having said that, in our department there certainly will be evening meetings where people will have the right to claim a dinner expense, and they won't if dinner is served, in which case we would put on a modest dinner rather than an elaborate dinner—but we do think the people need the fuel to go through the evening.

I guess I'm just cautioning the distinction between rules and judgment. When I entertain visiting dignitaries from abroad, I might actually go beyond what those guidelines are directing me to do. I'll use my judgment as to whether the individual warrants it or not, or if I want to represent Canada in a particular way or not. I'll take those factors into account.

• 1010

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Mr. Chairman, I would agree essentially, except for the fact that where there is not good judgment there need to be good rules.

Mr. Mel Cappe: I'm not going to argue with that one.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Dale Johnston): I think what both members are saying is that the Canadian people would like to see accountability regardless of what level it is. I certainly agree with Mr. Wilfert, if good judgment doesn't prevail then there should be some guidelines and some consequences to exceeding the guidelines. For instance, using your own Visa card instead of the government's....

Are there any other questions?

Mr. Rob Anders: The Canada Industrial Relations Board can order an employer to release to a union representative a list of the names and addresses of employees who work off-site, according to the amendments to the Canada Labour Code as proposed through Bill C-19. What I'm wondering is was any consideration given to obtaining the employees' consent in this? Right now the situation exists whereby an employee does not wish to be contacted by a labour union representative. The list will be forced from the employer, but without the employees' consent, and as a result they could have a union representative knocking on their door. I'm wondering whether or not consideration was given to the employees' consent in this matter.

Mr. Mel Cappe: Before I ask Ms. Robinson to respond, let me make a general comment to link it back to an earlier question by Mr. Anders. This is in some respects related to the changing nature of the workplace, where a lot of people are now working in their homes but nevertheless in an employee-employer relationship. As work environments change and work relationships change, the work we had done on the changing nature of the workplace was intended to try to assess whether the rules and regulations and indeed the legislation that we use to govern labour-management relations and worker-employer relations are adequate. This is one of those issues that comes out of that kind of work. You want to ensure fairness in the collective bargaining process, given the changing nature of the workplace.

Ms. Robinson can address the particular question on Bill C-19.

Ms. Debra Robinson: During the study of Bill C-66, the predecessor to this legislation, there were some concerns raised about the issue of protection of employee privacy and security. You'll notice that the provision has been rewritten to address some of the concerns that were raised during that study. The provision specifically requires the board to prescribe the nature of the communications, the hours, the times of day, etc. The most likely method of communication is going to be by mail. So I don't think the issue of having someone knocking on doors is contemplated in that sense, unless there were very highly specific circumstances where the board thought that would be appropriate.

The provision contains quite a few restraints on how the information could be used in the nature of communications and reflects in that way the recommendation that was in the Sims task force on that subject.

Mr. Rob Anders: I would like to note that it's whether the board thinks it's appropriate, not whether the employee thinks it's appropriate.

Another aspect I'd like to touch on is the ability of the Canada Industrial Relations Board, according to Bill C-19, to be able to certify a union without support from the majority of its employees. This was recently used in Ontario to certify a union at Wal-Mart. If memory serves me correctly, it was something like 153 votes against union certification to 41 votes in favour of union certification. Yet the union was certified due to the Ontario Labour Board's decision. I must say, in a situation like that and with examples like that I'm particularly wary of handing those types of powers, as are a lot of people, over to this new Canada Industrial Relations Board.

• 1015

With examples like that I can bet any money you're going to want to refer to the Sims task force on this. Did the Sims task force not take into account huge disparities, like this one at Wal-Mart and others that have existed in the past, where you've had a clear violation of majority consent and overruled that? Did they not take into account these powers?

Ms. Debra Robinson: The Sims task force did examine the issue and they did recommend it. Obviously, I don't think we can get into a debate about the Wal-Mart decision. It has been reviewed by the Ontario courts and upheld. This power to certify is used where employer unfair labour practices are determined to be so serious that the wishes of the employees could not be determined by holding a vote. It exists in other jurisdictions. It's not an unusual provision, but it is used in very few cases. It is a remedy that is there for extremely serious cases, where an employer may engage in unfair labour practices as a means of influencing employees not to express their views on union certification.

Mr. Rob Anders: In light of that, since the Ontario Labour Relations Board certified the United Steel Workers of America as a bargaining agent for workers in Wal-Mart in a store in Windsor when the vote was 151—I'm quoting precise numbers now—151 to 43 against union representation, do you therefore recognize that handing over these same types of powers to the Canada Industrial Relations Board could possibly result in the same types of results, where the stated will of workers in terms of a union representation vote could be deemed to be inappropriate by the Canada Industrial Relations Board and therefore be forced or be put into union certification where there was numerically a vote against union representation?

Ms. Debra Robinson: I'm not in a position to comment on the details of the Wal-Mart case.

Mr. Rob Anders: No, I'm asking you to comment on the ability of the Canada Industrial Relations Board to enact the same type of decision that the Ontario Labour Relations Board did with regard to Wal-Mart. In other words, the CIRB will have the same types of powers as did the Ontario Labour Relations Board to decide that a site is certified when a vote has indicated that union representation failed and the workers voted against it.

Ms. Debra Robinson: The provision in Bill C-19 would give similar powers to the Canada Industrial Relations Board, yes.

Mr. Rob Anders: I'm shocked, Mr. Chairman, but....

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Dale Johnston): I guess that would beg the question then: Is there going to be a similar provision for decertification of a union in cases where employees feel intimidated by the unions from speaking up? Perhaps they should have the option of being able to decertify the union. It's only fair. Rules for one should be rules for the other.

Mr. Wilfert.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Mr. Chairman, the right for workers to organize and to have union representation we all agree with, obviously, but I would have some concerns with the answer you gave my honourable friend over there as far as the issue of numbers are concerned. If we're going to give that kind of power, or if it's suggested that kind of power be given, I question the.... I'll have to read the decision as far as Wal-Mart is concerned, but I would have some fundamental questions as to the logic involved, the appropriateness involved.

Mr. Mel Cappe: Mr. Chairman, we came here prepared to talk about the estimates of the department and we've gotten right into the heart of Bill C-19. That's fine. We're obviously prepared to answer those questions.

• 1020

I think, though, when the committee studies the bill the nature of the decision around this question of certification is really whether there are extraordinary circumstances where you would want to see IRB make a decision that might, on the face of it, look like it was anti-democratic. I think that was where Mr. Anders was sort of pushing us.

It's very much like the earlier set of questions around what is democracy: should people be able to vote by mail, or should they be able to be organized outside the workplace, and things like that.

All of this is to say that there are circumstances that might arise where you want to use some judgment about whether the certification takes place or not. I think what we're really saying is there may be some circumstances where that is legitimate.

If I understood the import of Mr. Anders' question, would the committee be satisfied that those circumstances are adequately constrained or limited, so that you weren't giving them unfettered power to certify in all circumstances where there wasn't some support from the workers? I think that's a judgment the committee will have to come to.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Is this like good judgment, a good rule?

Mr. Mel Cappe: It's not inconsistent with that earlier comment I made. That's right.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Dale Johnston): Are there any other questions?

Mr. Cappe is quite right: we're here today to consider the main estimates, among other things. However, I guess we'll go whichever direction the members would like the questions to go.

Mr. Mel Cappe: Indeed.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Dale Johnston): Are there any other questions? Seeing none, I'd like to thank the departmental officials for their time today and for their frankness in their answers.

Using the prerogative of the chair, we will suspend until we get our next delegation before us.

• 1022

• 1104

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Dale Johnston): Order.

We have with us today some officials from the Department of Human Resources Development. I'll give them an opportunity to introduce themselves to the committee.

Thank you for coming today.

Ms. Martha Nixon (Associate Executive Head, Human Resources Investment Branch, Department of Human Resources Development): My name is Martha Nixon. I'm with the Human Resources Investment Branch, working as associate executive head.

Ms. Cathy Chapman (Director General, Office for Disability Issues, Human Resources Investment Branch, Department of Human Resources Development): Good morning. I'm Cathy Chapman. I'm the director of the Office for Disability Issues, also with the Human Resources Investment Branch.

Mr. John Knubley (Director General, Social Policy, Strategic Policy Branch, Department of Human Resources Development): I'm John Knubley, director general, social policy, in the Strategic Policy Branch.

Mr. Doug Taylor (Acting Director, Disability and Reconsiderations Division, Department of Human Resources Development): I'm Doug Taylor. I'm with the income security programs branch of the Canada Pension Plan disability program.

• 1105

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Dale Johnston): Good. Thank you very much.

We see that you have a presentation prepared for us. Maybe you could kind of give us the abbreviated version.

We apologize for the scarcity of members today, but with the happenings that are taking place, everybody has to be at other positions. Unfortunately that's the way it worked out. We had you scheduled here quite some time ago, and we had anticipated a better audience for you. We apologize for that.

However, if you could go through an abbreviated presentation, I think most people here are familiar with your department. After that, for areas where they would like a little more in depth, that will give more time for questioning. I'll continue with the meeting as long as there are questions to be asked.

Ms. Martha Nixon: Thank you very much.

If I may, I'll lead off. What we'd like to do is take you very briefly through the presentation and hopefully in that process give you a bit of a summary of the kinds of issues around disability we've been working on in HRDC very intensively over the past couple of years, but really trying to pick up, in a sense, from the Scott task force recommendation report and to report on the major areas of action in our department.

I have to say by way of introduction that the experience we lived through with Andy Scott and the task force members was for us a very special experience in the sense that we recognize that this represented the pulling together of many efforts over many years to try to get the issues squarely on the table, to get a clear definition of what the problems were, and then to design a blueprint for moving ahead.

I think it's fair to say that in our department Minister Pettigrew and our deputy minister have taken the issues that were outlined in the Scott report very seriously. There has been a lot of effort and a lot of work put into trying to delineate the areas we thought would be most fruitful to move forward on first. We hope that by the end of this conversation with you, you'll have a bit of a better sense of where we're headed and what we're trying to do.

The task force report clearly tried to outline and I think succeeded in outlining a role for the federal government in terms of the disability policy issues and program issues in the future. It gave us the basis for a very broad consultation, and in a sense a very different way of working on these issues, trying to involve and have participation from the disability community, the very heart of all of the things that have moved forward since.

There have been some news reports, I think, that we haven't acted on very many of the recommendations. There were 52 recommendations. By our count, there has been considerable action on about 70% of those recommendations. As we go through them, we can certainly try to show you that not all of them have come to fruition but there is movement and action in a large part of them.

A very major part of the effort we've put into it has been trying to work with the provinces. One of Mr. Scott's recommendation was that to form a foundation for moving forward, because so many of the problems and programs that affect people with disabilities are in both jurisdictions, it was very necessary to try to find a framework that was going to allow us to work much more collaboratively with the provinces. We'll talk to you about the social union initiative in some detail.

Moving then to the way we've looked at it since the new mandate of the current government, we've really been, in a sense, following two tracks: the first one being specific follow-up items to the Scott task force, and around that, trying to look at a very different way of working on disability issues; and secondly, at the social union exercise, which has allowed us to develop together with the provinces a vision paper, a framework to look at specifically the redesign of the vocational rehabilitation program for disabled persons and to look at harmonization issues in the area of the income security.

We could touch briefly on track one and the follow-up to the task force report. We have concentrated to a large extent on trying to assist Minister Pettigrew to exercise his role as lead minister for the government in this issue.

• 1110

In the immediate follow-up to the Scott task force there were a lot of discussions among key departments. Key ministers were meeting together with disability groups, and some of the product of that was actually in the 1997 budget. We were trying to address three of the themes in the report around tax measures. Seventy million dollars worth of tax measures were announced. In labour force transition, a new program was put in place, the opportunities fund, with $90 million over three years. We also looked very specifically at one of the major complaints from groups, which was that there had been a pulling away of support for these groups. We renewed our support for organizations and indeed tried to increase it, and we have been working with them to shape it in a way that suits them.

In a sense, we've put a lot of effort into looking at our own department. As a very large department with a huge distribution and delivery network, how can we put our own house in order before we start trying to push other departments? I think it's fair to say that we've taken this quite seriously.

We've had a senior effort at the management board of the department. On one particular occasion, the management board was sitting with members from the community having a very frank discussion about the kinds of things that they have found wrong with our department, about the kinds of problems they've had when they walk into our offices. We've asked each of our ADMs to pull together an action plan in terms of the responsibilities they have in their areas. And we've asked each of our regional directors general to have an action plan with respect to the disability people and to show momentum.

The issue comes back onto our management board agenda every second meeting. It's a regular item and people are required to update.

As well, we have been looking very seriously at an accountability framework. We know that if we can't show what we're doing and if we can't be accountable for the actions that we're taking, we will see no advancement in terms of being able to account for the kind of money and efforts that we're putting into this issue.

We can't say we've accomplished this yet, but we have had some very serious discussions around what an accountability framework should look like. We've been discussing with our justice colleagues whether it should be in the form of a “Canadians with Disabilities Act” or whether it should be an annual report to Parliament or an annual report of some kind.

We've also initiated an audit of our delivery service points, our points of service. Are they accessible enough? Are they up to standard? And we're trying to figure out through a pilot phase of an audit whether or not we are in fact as accessible as we hope we are.

As I mentioned earlier, we've also started the Opportunities Fund. We have over 220 projects across the country that are operational. There are 16 national projects. I think there is a very positive reaction to this attempt to put people with disabilities more into a place where they can access the labour market.

We've also spent a great deal of time discussing a new funding regime on two fronts with the groups that represent people with disabilities. How can we associate with their organizations and offer some support so that they can continue to exist and flourish and indeed be in a sense integrated with the kind of work we see as a human resources mandate? And how indeed can we also look at the kinds of projects and research they need to carry forward?

We've also expended a lot of effort on what we call our “community inclusion project”. We're working with the Canadian Association of Community Living in trying to integrate people with intellectual disabilities into the community. We have put $12 million into a new funding regime and we are still working very intensively with those groups to make sure that we're targeting this in the right way.

Again, there's a fairly major effort around VRDP and the refocusing of this. There was a confirmation that the $168 million level of funding would continue in this cost-shared program. There have been a lot of discussions with the provinces. John will go into that in a little more detail.

Again, we are trying to ensure that the program has an accountability measure attached to it which will allow Canadians to see what they're getting for the $168 million that the federal government is investing. And again, we're trying to orient that to employment.

We've also been working with an aboriginal reference group on disability issues and trying to make sure that the aboriginal issues that were underscored in the Scott task force do not get lost. We've had about three meetings of that group and have been trying to look at what their priorities are and at how they can assist us to make sure that we are in a sense trying to put a priority on the issues and problems they face.

• 1115

We will be funding a clearing house so aboriginal people will be able to access specifically issues around disability problems they have. We've been told this is one of the key issues they have: often they don't know where to find information to access help.

We're also in the process of trying to work on a policy vision paper specifically for the aboriginal group.

We've made an attempt to target disability funding in the youth programming we have, and there's a 4% target, which we think we're very well close to meeting in the youth money already in play across the country.

On other issues, we are trying to act as a coordinating point for developing government-wide initiatives and sitting with other federal government departments in trying to ensure that we have a coordinated approach as we go forward and that we're not killing the disability community with consultations on each front, across every department, on every issue. We haven't quite got there yet, but we are making attempts to ensure we're coordinated about that.

In terms of next steps, I think it's fair to say we will continue along the tracks we've established. We see there's probably still some defining of the opportunities fund and the program we'll work out over the next three years. We want to continue to ensure the funding regime works for the groups we're involved with. We have had consultation processes associated with every single thing we've been doing, including social union, VRDP, and the opportunities fund, and these people are very engaged as we design evaluation measures and accountability measures.

We are also looking to see if we can work our way towards a federal strategy that will bring all of the ministers together around a unified partnership on disability issues. Our minister is actively discussing that with other colleagues.

I'll turn now to the social union track and ask John Knubley to pick up the piece.

Mr. John Knubley: I was here on Tuesday, as you may recall. I set out broadly what was going on in terms of the social union, and Margaret Biggs addressed in particular what we're doing on the children's side.

You will recall that first ministers in June 1996 identified not only children as a priority but also persons with disabilities. It's also fair to say that the Scott task force, in recommendation 2, identified the importance of moving forward in collaboration with the provinces in developing a pan-Canadian approach to persons with disabilities. So the work with provinces is also consistent with the Scott task force.

In general we took a short- and long-term approach to issues in the area of disability. In the short term, we addressed VRDP and pursued some harmonization initiatives, particularly related to income support programs. In the longer term, we began by looking at an integrated income support program but moved at the end of the day to recognize that the first step should really be developing a vision or framework so we know how best to move forward with a pan-Canadian vision.

Turning to page 10, elaborating on the vision or framework, we had Sherri Torjman from the Caledon Institute to help the working group of officials develop a vision and framework for us. This was presented to ministers on October 7 for the first time. The vision is building on past experiences, including the Scott task force and Mainstream 1992.

The vision is set out here for you to review on the slide. It identifies four building blocks, not just income support. It includes income support, but in addition, it is an approach that focuses on citizenship, employment, and disability supports.

[Translation]

As I said on Tuesday, Quebec is not part of the council as such. However, it takes part in the process at the officials level.

[English]

In terms of the redesign of the VRDP, we've moved forward to set out a multilateral framework with the provinces that will allow for bilateral negotiations. It identifies that the focus should be on employability, and this is consistent with the Andy Scott task force. The multilateral framework also spells out a commitment to an accountability regime that is designed to ensure Canadians understand exactly what is being committed to in this area. We are moving forward to implementation by April 1, 1998. Bilateral negotiations are under way.

• 1120

On page 12 we set out the elements of the harmonization initiative we have been undertaking with the province. There it's focused on income support. Initiatives are being identified in three key areas: reducing barriers to work and income support programs; rehabilitation in the labour market and re-entry support; and a general streamlining and coordination of reassessment processes.

At the social services ministers' meeting in October it was agreed that all governments would pursue collectively as a goal the rapid reinstatement of income support for persons with disabilities if work efforts fail. The issue there, of course, is in trying to eliminate disincentives to work that exist in existing programs.

There are also a number of pilot projects under way and we are discussing them with the provinces. This is also consistent with recommendation 37 of the Andy Scott task force.

So on what we are doing with the provinces, I think this adds up to pursuing a broad collaborative approach, consistent with Andy Scott, with three elements, vision, VRDP, and harmonization, as the centre of discussion.

With those words I'll turn it back to Martha to conclude.

Ms. Martha Nixon: We have tried to cover very briefly the work we have engaged in. We haven't delved as deeply as we could if there were more time and interest. We feel we have put considerable effort into the work that has been on the table. There remains a huge amount still to do. We want to be sure we continue to push and keep momentum in our own department and the regional executive planning process to make sure we are able to stand and say we have put our house in order.

We see we have to continue to watch things such as the key program opportunity fund to be sure we know what we are accomplishing through that and to use the lessons we learn from that exercise to inform us as we move forward to look at the bigger blocks of funding, such as VRDP and the income support program, to see whether or not there is additional work to be done.

The work we have established with the provinces gives us a very firm and clear agenda on the disability front, and that allows us to make huge progress. We continue to see disability as a priority. We have tried to work very closely with the community and to ensure that as we develop these ideas and discuss our policy decisions and directions they are part of that process. To us that represents a fairly significant change in the way we do business.

I will leave it there and open for questions and any further detail you would like.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Dale Johnston): Thank you for that very concise overview.

I'll now open it up to questions. I'll start with the opposition side.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): The opposition is delighted. I have three questions, the first of which goes to Ms. Nixon who spoke first. You mentioned the importance of having assessment. As I have been a teacher many years, I know what that means and I know how difficult it can be.

When I was teaching, my students knew which measurement criteria I was going to use. Can you tell me if the different stakeholders, who apply your programs and know your criteria of course, have had a chance to discuss with you the merits of one criteria or another? In other words, have you benefited from the expertise of the stakeholders in order to have really meaningful assessment criteria?

Ms. Martha Nixon: I will try to tell you what the results will probably tell us in the end.

• 1125

It goes without saying that we tried to work in close consultation with the groups concerned with the results, in the case of the opportunities fund, for example.

We have had long discussions with the advisory group to obtain criteria that agree with the objectives of these groups. I don't have them here but I can assure you that we worked at it together.

The same holds true for VRDP. The new program was developed with the help of the groups. Therefore, I sincerely hope that the end results will meet the approval of the groups concerned.

As well, all along in our discussions, we looked for the best means of attaining good results. I do hope that the end results will demonstrate that to you.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Then I will follow the situation very closely.

My second question could go to Mr. Knubley. You mentioned that you work in close relationship with Quebec's officials. I am going to ask you a question that I should probably know the answer to but to be honest with you, I must admit that I don't know it.

A few months ago, there was an agreement between the government of Quebec and the government of Canada on everything that concerns active employment measures. Did this agreement in fact contain particular measures concerning the employability of people with disabilities or is it an aspect that was excluded from the agreement?

Mr. John Knubley: I'm not really an expert in the field.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I'm happy to hear that.

Mr. John Knubley: I must check with the Department before I give you an answer. However, I can tell you about another experience we had with the officials of Quebec concerning the Vocational Rehabilitation of Disabled Persons Program. In that case, Quebec's representatives worked closely with officials of the Department on the development of a negotiating framework in preparation of a bilateral agreement.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Good. In other words, it is a good example of partnership.

Mr. John Knubley: That's right.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Here's my third question. Where are we at with respect to tax credits for disabled persons? Of course, everyone knows that all Quebeckers and all Canadians must file a return. But, has there been any improvement regarding this?

I know that the definition of ”disabled person” can be very different for the government of Quebec, the government of Ontario or the government of Canada, for example. Of course, one may tend to adopt a downward definition so it costs less money, or a stricter definition. Has there been any progress since the Pagtakhan Report, published in 1995 I think? Can we say, presently, that the tax status of disabled persons is better than it used to be, let's say, at the beginning of the 1990s?

Ms. Martha Nixon: I will try to answer this question that would probably be better put to our colleagues of the Ministry of Finance.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I am sure of that. However, as money is the sinews of war, I would like to have an idea of how you see this. I imagine that you have given it some thought, even if you are not with the Ministry of Finance?

Ms. Martha Nixon: If I understand correctly, last year's budget included initiatives that will greatly improve the situation of the disabled. About 70 million dollars more were injected in the budget designed to help them. And if I understand correctly, some changes were made so that they are entitled to larger claims for medical expenses, and to a tax credit, probably, if they have a low income.

• 1130

I don't have all the information with me but I believe that if those changes do not correspond exactly to what Mr. Scott had requested, they really take into account the requests put forward in the Scott report.

If you want more details, you will probably have to ask my colleagues at the Ministry of Finance.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I am sure that they will be meeting us one of these days. Thank you.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Dale Johnston): Mrs. Chamberlain.

Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain: Mr. Chairman, the panel talked about community living, and I wanted to know whether they have had a decrease in the funding or an increase. Where do they stand?

Ms. Martha Nixon: We have our expert over here.

The funding is $3 million and we have held that $3 million—I think that's the correct answer—and we have been working with them as well in a sense to try to look at how we are sure we can evaluate what is going on there. We have agreed with the provinces and the community associations that there is a framework for evaluation that is very exciting.

We have asked the Roeher Institute actually to define for us a sort of five-element indicator of how we can assess whether they have actually succeeded in the community, whether we have met the objectives we were hoping to meet by that project. The Roeher Institute has done some ground-breaking work for us. We have a lot of the provinces and the community association groups on side with what we're doing there. I think there's a very positive feeling about that particular project.

Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain: When you say there's a new way of assessing, were you unhappy assessing them before, or did you never assess them?

Ms. Martha Nixon: I think there hadn't been an adequate assessment previously.

Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain: Are you aware of how many people are involved with that group?

Ms. Martha Nixon: This is Brian Chapman, who is the director of the employability social partnership group working with us.

Mr. Brian Chapman (Director, Employability and Social Partnerships, Human Resources Investment Branch, Department of Human Resources Development): Probably about 9,500 people.

Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain: You say 9,500 people, and they've never been assessed up to this point. Is that the case?

Mr. Brian Chapman: The assessment we're talking about comes in two ways. It's an assessment of a program approach, and we've just introduced a new stream around community living, based on community development principles, to assist persons with intellectual disabilities to integrate into communities and come out of institutions. There has never been a really accurate breakdown of this population. Some are still in their communities and have never been identified to us through any program means. Some have been institutionalized, so we have some numbers from provincial areas about the institutionalization.

We started out thinking we're dealing with about 10,000 people across the country, but this new process we're involved in involves all the provinces so far, all the associations for community living from each of the provinces across the country, and coordination with the Canadian Association for Community Living. We now have projects in hand for every province and territory across the country. We're in the process of funding those. An assessment and evaluation process is built into each one of those projects. We should have a better picture of the situation on that particular line within the next year.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Dale Johnston): Ms. Guarnieri.

Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East, Lib.): I would like to add my voice to that of the chair and apologize for the less than perfect attendance today. Unfortunately scheduling conflicts have short-changed us. I know the interest of members on this committee is great. I hope you will indulge us at a later date. I'm sure we'll have many questions for you at a later date.

• 1135

Of the 52 recommendations of the 1996 task force report, can you prioritize which recommendations have not been acted upon that you may believe are essential and give us any insights there as to why you're impeded in acting on them?

Ms. Martha Nixon: Yes, sure. It's fair to say the ones at the moment that are probably not being actively worked on are the fairly broad ones that were looking at issues that involved, say, taking into account disability issues across the whole policy framework of the government. It's an issue that in a sense almost has to start with the Privy Council Office, and because it's such a big overriding recommendation it's not something that has been in a sense picked up and activated at this point.

I think probably another one in that category is having a complete legislative review looked at where you have an oversight of all of the pieces of legislation and whether or not in the sense they would comply with the appropriate principles around equity and disability. Again, I think most of the ones we're not dealing with are very broadly based or are tax-related ones that at this time the Department of Finance does not appear to be actively looking at.

As I see it, there are those two kinds of categories of ones that are not being pursued in any way.

Ms. Albina Guarnieri: In regard to the idea you mentioned earlier of an annual report, if each department did a miniature survey according to perhaps set criteria, would that not be an effective way perhaps of dealing with what appears to be a mammoth undertaking?

Ms. Martha Nixon: Yes, I think part of our dilemma has been in a sense how you structure something and make it meaningful. You can put out annual reports that really don't tell you a whole lot. I think we have been talking to other departments about what would be realistic.

From our HRD point of view, and really that's where we need to be looking at it quite closely, I think it would be appropriate because we are spending a lot of money in the area of disability for us to simply, as the first step, report on what actually we're doing, whether it's in the area of CPP, the opportunity fund, the labour market area or other things in terms of just even access to our facilities.

I think we are very serious about trying to figure out how we do that in an effective way, and I don't think it should be that hard for other departments to indeed look at it. That would be, I think, a very first real step towards saying this is an issue that continues to be important to us and here's what we've done or haven't done.

Ms. Albina Guarnieri: Are you in any position to give us any insights into your talks with the provincial governments with respect to redesigning the program for vocational rehabilitation of disabled persons?

Ms. Martha Nixon: Mr. Knubley.

Mr. John Knubley: Yes, talks are proceeding. Up until now there's been focus on developing a multilateral framework and there has been general agreement that there will be a shift in focus to employability issues. We're just at the stage now where provinces will be negotiating with us on a bilateral basis. Those negotiations have started with a couple of provinces; Ontario is one of those and I think Nova Scotia is another. So they're on track.

Ms. Albina Guarnieri: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Dale Johnston): Are there any other questions?

I have one I think you may want to enlarge on. One would look at this program and say disabled people are disabled people and probably the only criteria you need to look at are the severity and duration and so forth of their disability. But on page 7 you seem to have broken this into categories: aboriginal, for instance, and youth, just to mention those two. Could you give us some rationale as to why these were categorized like that?

• 1140

Ms. Martha Nixon: I don't think it is so much that we've tried to categorize them, but we are trying to look at, in a sense, being sure that the programs we currently have in place are being used as ones where you can have a disability focus, as well as looking at the general population. We know, for instance, that aboriginal people with disabilities represent a particular problem, because there has been, I think, very little access to mainstream programs and to probably an acceptance or recognition that there were some particular problems within that community.

It's in a sense trying to be sure that our aboriginal programming currently reflects disability as a priority and that within the money we have available for youth programming this particular part of the youth population is not left out. So it was felt useful to target particularly within the youth programming to make sure that some of our programs do in fact get aimed in that direction.

Indeed, one of the very successful programs we've had on the youth front is the internship program, where we've been working with Wal-Mart and the Canadian Council on Rehabilitation and Work. They have had a great deal of success bringing young people with disabilities into training programs specifically targeted at this group and then having them work as Wal-Mart representatives, and having huge success with keeping people on, making sure they actually have permanent jobs when they're finished or that they're placed somewhere else. There's been a very big commitment by that company and the CCRW to make that work.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Dale Johnston): So then it's because of the uniqueness to these particular individuals. Is there some budget consideration too?

Ms. Martha Nixon: Within the youth programs, we have targeted 4%, which is the number of disabled youth you find within the general youth population.

Within the aboriginal programming, we haven't made a specific target, but we are trying to ensure particularly that we get programs, for instance, in the opportunities fund, that we will have projects for people with disabilities and that we can do that as a priority.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Dale Johnston): Are there any other questions? Seeing none, I will adjourn the meeting.

To reinforce what Ms. Guarnieri said, the percentage of attendance here does not necessarily reflect the interest. I am sure the interest is very high on this. Thank you for coming.

The meeting is adjourned.