HUMA 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, February 17, 2000

• 1120

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Colleagues, the meeting is now officially in session. I apologize for the delay. It's my fault as chair. I am concerned that there are no members of the Reform Party here. The first items on our agenda are motions. You can see the subject matter of the day is motions. The first motions are Reform motions.

What I would like to suggest is that I might go to something at the very end, minor procedural things. We have phoned the Reform office. Diane Ablonczy's office believes she's on her way here.

I would like a motion to provide a small snack for our March 1 meeting with the delegation from Sweden.

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

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: By the way, the meeting with the group from Sweden is not going to interfere with our normal meetings. It's on a Wednesday.

At the very end of the previous meeting—and some members had left—I mentioned the fact that our very important Subcommittee on Children and Youth at Risk, which was supposed to report to us this week, needs an extension. There was sort of general agreement that they could have an extension. We've now had 48 hours' notice. I would like a formal motion from the chair of our Subcommittee on Children and Youth at Risk to that effect.

Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): Mr. Chair, I move that the Subcommittee on Children and Youth at Risk be given an extension to report back to the committee until 2 March, which is a Thursday, when we would normally be meeting. The reason is, when the big committee asked us to do a work plan, it was to do so having seen the work plan of the big committee. Since we haven't been able to see the work plan of the big committee, we cannot align our activities.

We were supposed to present our report by 17 February, which is today. We couldn't do it, because we didn't know what this committee would be doing. I hope by the end of today we'll have a better sense, so I'm trying to call a meeting for next week for the subcommittee to make a work plan. So I would ask for an extension.

The Chair: You've heard the motion, and the date would be 2 March.

Mr. John Godfrey: Yes.

The Chair: That's an important part of it.

Christiane Gagnon.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Chairman, as a member of this committee, I'm somewhat disappointed that we have to wait for Paul Martin to table his budget before we can establish the costs associated with our action plan. I would have liked to see the committee vote on this plan before the Martin budget is handed down on the 28th of this month.

Mr. John Godfrey: I move that the sub-committee meet for the first time next Wednesday to draw up its own action plan in connection with the one to be drawn up today by the full committee. I'm not waiting for the budget, only for this committee to begin its proceedings. That's why we haven't had a meeting until today.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: We were waiting for you.

[English]

The Chair: John, I think you did submit an action plan in December.

Mr. John Godfrey: We submitted an interim plan with regard to the upcoming budget. The real challenge will be to carry on the work of the subcommittee both before and after the budget. But we will have something for you as of next Wednesday, after we've found out what this committee is doing.

The Chair: Okay.

We have a motion before us to extend the work of our Subcommittee on Children and Youth at Risk until 2 March, pending an action plan, which they will present to us.

(Motion agreed to)

Mr. John Godfrey: Thank you.

The Chair: We look forward to that.

Colleagues, this brings us to the agenda we have before us. We've had a little discussion beforehand. We have phoned on two or three occasions the Reform office and the office of the mover of the first motion, for example, and we understand some Reform members are coming. I would welcome now some suggestions as to how we proceed.

Paul Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): I move that we start by considering motions 4, 5 and 6.

[English]

The Chair: Bonnie Brown.

Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.): Mr. Chair, that would be inviting somebody to come in a vacuum. It seems to me whether the mover is here or not, we have to deal with this. This is the first motion we've received. I don't know why we don't deal with it. It creates the framework around all the other motions, motions 4, 5, and 6. Without a framework, what would we be inviting these people to talk about?

• 1125

The Chair: Although I'm very wary of it, I have to say I have been advised that it's quite proper. On these motions, we received full notice. The members concerned are not present, but I've been advised that it's quite proper for us—although I must say I feel awkward with it—to proceed with them as they stand.

Is the general view around the table that we should do so? As your chair, I'm wary of it, but it is quite legal.

I propose, then, that we move to the first item, which is the motion of Diane Ablonczy—you see it before you there—that the committee study and report to the House, and so on. That motion is on the table. I welcome discussion.

Paul Crête will speak to that, and then Bryon Wilfert.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: I'm sorry the Reform members aren't here to debate their motion. However, on the substantive issue, I think its entirely appropriate for us to review the Transitional Jobs Fund in its entirety, to report to the House and to invite, among others, the Minister of Human Resources Development to appear before our committee once again to discuss these applications. For several weeks now, we've been hearing all kinds of contradictory statements about this matter and it hasn't been easy getting information. It's important that some light be shed on this matter, as much for the government party as for the opposition parties.

I find this to be an interesting motion because it sets a time limit, namely April 15 at the latest. This would give us a reasonable amount of time to conduct this study. I think it's an interesting resolution, one that should be viewed as a priority for this committee, given that this issue has been on the table for more than a month already.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. Jean Dubé, and then Bryon Wilfert.

Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Looking at the first item of business, motion 1, a motion by the Reform Party, we all know that this department has been under severe scrutiny over the past few weeks. Canadians certainly want to know what's going on with this department, and members on the government side as well.

I think it's an important notice of motion. It certainly would help clear up for constituents of 301 ridings throughout this country whatever is in there.

Byron, you yourself know you don't have all the information on this matter.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): On a point of personal privilege, how long have you known me?

Mr. Jean Dubé: Long enough.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: It's Bryon.

Mr. Jean Dubé: Bryon, sorry. I don't know why I said that.

You yourself know we're looking for a lot of answers to our questions. We want to clear this up. We want to fix the problem more than anything else. We want to make sure that taxpayers' money is well invested here. I think the only way we can do that is partly through this committee, and I think we have to be transparent to Canadians. We have to get information at this level.

So I would wholeheartedly support this motion, and I would encourage all members to do so as well.

The Chair: We're going to go to Bryon Wilfert, but Maurice Vellacott has now arrived.

Maurice, we're proceeding with the first motion, which is in Diane Ablonczy's name. I think you heard the end of the very first intervention on it, which was Paul Crête. You heard all of the second intervention, which was Jean Dubé. We're now going to Bryon Wilfert. If you wish, you are next, and then Rey Pagtakhan. If you do not wish, we can go to Rey Pagtakhan and then to you.

Bryon Wilfert.

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

My friend Mr. Dubé, I couldn't agree with you more in terms of transparency and so on, but I want to go further.

Mr. Chairman, I am proposing, if it's in order, an amendment to the motion that's on the table—that the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “House” and inserting the following: “no later than June 15, 2000, grants and contributions by the Department of Human Resources Development.” There are seven program areas.

• 1130

The Chair: Can I ask, for the point of view of translation, would you read beginning with your point about where the—

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: I move the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “House” and inserting the following therefor: “no later than June 15, 2000, grants and contributions by the Department of Human Resources Development”.

Given the fact, Mr. Chairman, that there are seven program areas, rather than restricting it, I agree with my friend, as I say, in terms of transparency and openness, and I think it would be appropriate that we do so. Therefore I put my amendment on the table.

The Chair: I would now, even though it's an amendment, give Maurice Vellacott the floor, and then I have John Godfrey.

Maurice, if you wish, and then Paul Crête again.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): Yes, I would comment in reference to that and then on the motion. Yes.

The amendment or the proposed amendment substantially changes the nature of this. I'm not sure that it does fit as an amendment. I guess you, as the chair, obviously would have to rule on that. That is such a substantial change from the more narrowed focus here, but I do agree with the nature of that maybe as a separate motion.

The Chair: It's Rey Pagtakhan, John Godfrey, and then Paul Crête.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I just note, with respect to that amendment issue that I believe you have to rule on, that I don't think it's a valid one. You may need some time, and I'll carry on.

The Chair: I have a point of order that I'll take while I'm listening.

Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): On the same point of order, Mr. Chair, for the chair to be able to say that this is fundamentally changing the notion of the original motion is to say that the Transitional Jobs Fund and the Canada Jobs Fund are not part of the grants and contribution fund. If they are part of the grants and contribution fund, then it does not change the fundamental aspect of the motion.

The Chair: Does anyone else want to speak to this point?

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: And therefore the amendment is in order.

The Chair: Paul Crête on this point and then you'll be back again.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Could the mover of the motion, Mr. Wilfert, tell me if the Transitional Jobs Fund is formally part of his motion? I want us to be clear on this.

[English]

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Yes.

The Chair: I don't need any more at the moment on this. If you would give me just a moment, I think I'll suspend the meeting very briefly. Is that appropriate?

Maurice Vellacott, on this point.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Yes, you need to give me some background in terms of citations or whatever, but when you would change something like a date or whatever, I disagree with what Dr. Pagtakhan said, because this is specifically a narrowed kind of a focus on it. It's not a denial of the fact of the bigger. I would agree in fact with Mr. Wilfert putting that forward as a broader motion. I would agree with that. I will be supportive of that, but I think here the intent of this clearly is just a narrowed sector, because it's a pretty humongous task to be taking on as a committee and examining all that, digesting all that.

The Chair: I'm going to consider that point. Would you consider then withdrawing the first motion?

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: No, I think we're wanting a specific study, a look at this and then you could branch it out into the other areas as well.

The Chair: Okay.

Paul Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Perhaps it was the interpretation, or simply that I wasn't paying attention, but has the reference to the date been removed? Could someone re-read the motion? Is any date in particular mentioned?

[English]

The Chair: The date you gave forward, Bryon, is... Could you, before I suspend the meeting briefly so I can look at the technicalities of this, repeat it again very slowly, Bryon, if you would?

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Yes. It's that the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “House” and inserting the following therefor: “no later than June 15, 2000, grants and contributions by the Department of Human Resources Development”.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Is that fine with you?

Mr. Paul Crête: Yes.

[English]

The Chair: I'm going to suspend the meeting briefly.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: As I see it, in order for the motion to be reasonable, it should require that the committee wrap up before June 15, otherwise time will be a factor.

[English]

The Chair: That's debating the amendment. I don't want to do that.

I suspend the meeting for just two or three minutes, if you don't mind.

• 1134

• 1136

The Chair: Colleagues, can we resume the meeting?

I would rule that first of all the matter of date is not a substantial change. Also, as the amendment includes the Transitional Jobs Fund, the amendment before us is appropriate.

We are now debating the amendment. I have a list; I'm going to go to Jean Dubé, then Rey Pagtakhan, then Paul Crête. That's on this one topic.

Mr. Jean Dubé: I need to clear something up as far as the date goes, Bryon. You're saying June 15. Am I correct?

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Yes, that's correct.

Mr. Jean Dubé: There's going to be a lot of information. This is a big department and there are a lot of programs. When are we rising for the summer?

The Chair: June 23, I believe.

Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): It's usually before June 24.

Mr. Jean Dubé: I'm a little worried that we won't have enough time to go through all this documentation. It's a big department and there are a lot of programs here. If we want to do a good job with it, I have a hard time with the date. Maybe we can take a look at it in concert with everybody else.

The Chair: Okay.

Bryon, we'll come back to you. It's Rey Pagtakhan, Paul Crête, and then Maurice Vellacott.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Mr. Chair, I support the amendment for the reason that it is more inclusive. When you study a specific activity, a specific goal, it is far better to study it in the context of the whole or we can lose the very importance of the particular specific program. Our judgment as to whether it is good or not, whether it is meritorious or not, will depend on our study of the whole. Are there duplications? On that point, in terms of widening the scope of the study, I certainly support the amendment.

To the point of date, Mr. Chair, it is more realistic to have more time. I don't think we should be preoccupied really as to whether the House rises or not. This Parliament continues beyond June 15, beyond the summer recess break. It is only a recess break and the committee is ongoing, Mr. Chair.

On those two points, I would ask the colleagues to support the amendment.

The Chair: I have a long list on this topic and I'm going to keep moving through it.

Paul Crête, Maurice Vellacott, John Godfrey, Raymonde Folco. I'm going to come back to the mover last.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: It's an interesting amendment, but I would like the date to be clearly stated, so that we can achieve our stated objective. If necessary, I will move a subamendment. Can I do that?

[English]

The Chair: I'm sorry, Paul; before we have that we would have to vote on this amendment.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: No, I want to move a subamendment to the original amendment. First, we have to vote on the subamendment.

[English]

Ms. Bonnie Brown: Amendment to an amendment. The subamendment must come first. You're right.

The Chair: Again, I'm advised that we have to vote on the amendment before us before I can consider—

Ms. Bonnie Brown: Then we can amend the amendment.

The Chair: Yes. In other words, we'd pass it, right?

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Chairman, this is the Morin Code 101. We have a motion on the table, as well as an amendment, to which I have moved a subamendment, or in other words, an amendment to an amendment. Its essential that we consider the subamendment first, and then the amendment, and then finally the main motion. Otherwise, I don't think we're clear on basic procedure.

[English]

The Chair: Paul, can I ask you what the subamendment is?

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: I don't have the final version of the amendment, but I would add to the part of the text that says we will review all programs by June 15 "with the exception of the Transitional Jobs Fund, our study of which must be completed by April 15". That's my subamendment. The main motion called for the committee to examine the Transitional Jobs Fund by April 15 at the latest. You agreed to an amendment to extend this review to all programs. I don't have a problem with that, but I'm proposing that in the case of the Transitional Jobs Fund, we set a deadline other than June 15. The House will have recessed by June 15. You know full well that if our study drags on until June 15, our report won't be ready until the fall. That's the gist of this proposed amendment.

• 1140

Therefore, I wish to move this subamendment, and I would like you to rule on its admissibility. If you tell me the subamendment is out of order, then I will be forced to appeal your ruling.

[English]

The Chair: I have been advised again by the clerks here that the amendment has to be passed before we deal with that, unless it can be a friendly amendment.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: If I might, Mr. Chairman, I was going to propose a friendly amendment in response to my colleague across the way to move it to June 1, therefore allaying any concern with regard to when the House may adjourn.

I might say, Mr. Chairman, if I might be permitted, that in fact, to alleviate my colleague over here, we might request that we have some interim reports. Given the fact that the seven programs are administered by one department, I would suggest that interim reports may be appropriate, of course once we get into the details of the work plan itself. I would make a friendly amendment on my own amendment to make it June 1 to deal with that issue. Then I would suggest to my colleague here that we may look at some report.

The Chair: I have a list, and John, you're on it. I'd be grateful if you would all think of that while we're going on. I'm faced with this dilemma and I have the clerk's advice.

I'm going to go to Maurice Vellacott—

Mr. John Godfrey: I have a point of order.

The Chair: A point of order.

Mr. John Godfrey: The point of order is simply this. If we want to work cooperatively, may I suggest that as potential friendly amendments come forward, we stockpile them? I view what Paul has done as a potentially friendly amendment. Can we do it that way? At a certain point, having heard the range of possible friendly amendments, we then come up with something. Some of them may be in contradiction and some of them may massage the others. You see, his amendment comes forward before we can even—

The Chair: Okay.

I'm going to go through the list. Maurice Vellacott then Raymonde Folco.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I just want to say I appreciate Bryon's move there. I was looking at my calendar here, and it looks like that last week from June 12 to 16 is almost optional. Bryon, from my point of view that's a good thing. It moves it up a week or two at least, beyond the point when we'd possibly be out of here.

In reference to this other thing, I think it's a major, gargantuan task, so if we get a piece... But the whole thing, I agree with that intent and I would agree also with the friendly amendment to say let's get the TJF material by whatever April date he suggested and then give the folks at HRD more time. By the beginning of June, as Bryon suggested, they can get the whole of it to us if they can.

The Chair: Raymonde Folco and then Rey Pagtakhan.

[Translation]

Ms. Raymonde Folco: I think many of us are thinking the same thing. Mr. Wilfert has already broached the subject on my mind. I think it's important for the Canadian public that this committee focus on the long term. It is equally important, however, that it be able to present informative reports to Canadians.

If the committee could agree on the order in which it will examine different programs and present reports as the review proceeds, then it could not only review all grants and contributions, but keep the public informed as well, in as timely a manner as possible.

[English]

The Chair: Rey Pagtakhan.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Mr. Chair, I'm in a dilemma. I wanted to speak to the substance of the subamendment. Procedurally I will submit to the chair with all respect that the subamendment is in order unless the clerk of the committee could show us a specific provision in the terms of reference that in fact it is not allowed. If it is, then I will defer to the rules of procedure. My understanding is that it is an allowable subamendment motion. If that is the case, then we can be debating the substance of the subamendment.

Having saying that, Mr. Chair, the suggestion of Mr. Godfrey and the others about discussing it before a formal subamendment is also a practice of many committees to arrive at a consensus.

I will stop at that point, because I do not know whether I can now debate the substance of the subamendment.

• 1145

The Chair: Rey, I try not to operate this committee on technicalities. It's my sincere hope that this discussion is going to come up with something that is acceptable to most people.

Bonnie Brown, then John Godfrey, and Bryon Wilfert last.

Ms. Bonnie Brown: I'm going to talk about it in the context it's been presented. I like Mr. Wilfert's amendment and I like Mr. Dubé's suggestion that the fifteenth is too risky, and therefore I think the first is very good.

On Mr. Crête's subamendment I have a little bit of a problem, because I would like to remind everybody that the whole study that was done and presented to us, which has turned out to bring us problems, was about administration. The administration of the grants and contributions files in so many cases is done by all the same people. So you take 320 offices across the country, and it could be the same staff people administering youth employment and labour market, which includes transitional and Canada Jobs Fund.

So if we're actually studying the administration and where the administration problems are, I don't see how we can do one program first, followed by another program, followed by another program, because the administration of these programs is interrelated.

I agree with what my colleague from Montreal said as well, because it could be possible to do some interim reports. But I don't think we could do these programs separately—in other words, say we're going to do Canada Jobs Fund first—because what we'll be doing is going through the problems with the administration of that and then repeating the story with every other program, such as labour programs, aboriginal programs, learning and literacy programs, youth employment programs, because they're administered by the same people, and it's the administration that is the subject of the audit.

So while I agree that we could put out some interim reports, I don't think they can be focused on one thing or another, because of the integration of the administration of those programs. That's the problem I have with that.

The Chair: John Godfrey and then Paul Crête, and if we can wind this up, I'm going to go back to the mover of the amendment.

But if I might say now, and I've read this here as carefully as I can,

[Translation]

that maybe for the first time, Paul Crête is right.

[English]

So it's John Godfrey and then Paul Crête.

Mr. John Godfrey: The problem we have is that the problem of administration is more widespread than simply about transitional jobs. Of the 37 cases being studied now, only five are Transitional Jobs Fund problems. So it's a bad-news scene from our point of view, because it's actually covering seven programs, not just part of one program. So logically, if we're trying to deal with the administrative difficulties, then we have to do all seven.

Secondly, it suggests there is a generic problem of administration that covers all seven areas, so to try to disentangle one of them before you disentangle the others seems to me illogical.

Finally, just by way of trying to help Bryon out with his friendly amendments, it may well be that we can do both. We can advance the date to 1 June, but we could also allow for the possibility, as our work proceeds, of this being a first report or an interim report, if it turns out there is more work to be done. So you get the advantage of a report that comes out before Parliament rises.

The Chair: Okay. Let's move on. Paul Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: First of all, I'm very happy to see that everyone doesn't think this is simply a problem of $251.48. I feel better.

Mr. John Godfrey: Fifty-one cents.

Mr. Paul Crête: I'm sorry, I was mistaken. It's fifty-one cents.

A member: Right.

Mr. Paul Crête: Having said this, I listened to Ms. Brown's arguments and it's obvious to me that the Transitional Jobs Fund and its successor warrant closer scrutiny. It's true that the internal audit uncovered certain administrative problems, resulting in the perception that the Transitional Jobs Fund and the Canada Jobs Fund needed to be looked at more closely. If we give ourselves only one deadline, namely June 1, to report on all of these programs, we won't be able to get the job done, especially since we haven't adopted the following resolutions. Does this mean that we will be meeting with the former minister, and will that meeting be next fall, or after the next election, if he's still an MP? I don't know. We need to decide all of this. That's why I feel it's important to set a deadline for completing our review of the Transitional Jobs Fund and that this deadline be April 15, so that we are compelled to table a report.

• 1150

Some have argued that the committee can present an interim report on the Transitional Jobs Fund and another on all of the other programs by the beginning of June. I think that would be entirely appropriate, because right now, Canadians are asking themselves a number of questions.

[English]

The Chair: What I'd like to do, if it's okay, is hear now the amendment in its new form. When we've heard that, I will ask if we still need the subamendment. If we do, I will call the subamendment, then I will call the amendment.

Bryon, this is to wrap up where we are with the amendment, if you would.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that, as I indicated, the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “House” and inserting the following therefor:

no later than June 1, 2000, grants and contributions by the Department of Human Resources Development.

In terms of comments by Mr. Crête, Madame Folco, and others, if we pass the amendment and then the main motion, we are looking then at the specifics, the how-to, of what we're going to then be doing. I would suggest respectfully we can then decide how we want to manage that. That would be quite appropriate.

The Chair: Okay.

Paul Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: If we could include in Mr. Wilfert's motion a few words about interim reports, then I would be willing to withdraw my subamendment, because the end result would be similar. It would be too risky to do so after we had adopted the motion. We would be better off including the reference to interim reports immediately in our motion.

I want to be very clear on this. If the motion calls for the committee to present an interim report by April 15 on all matters that we have reviewed up until then, then we could look at that. I don't know if members understand what I'm saying. If it was a question of presenting an interim report on the overall review by April 15, then I would reiterate my subamendment because then, we would have a notice for a report on the Transitional Jobs Fund by April 15, and a notice for a final report on June 1.

[English]

The Chair: Colleagues, I have four people again. My instinct is to go back and hear what Bryon Wilfert has to say, but I'm in your hands. We can discuss this forever if you like.

Bonnie Brown.

An hon. member: It sounds as if we may.

Ms. Bonnie Brown: The addition of interim reports, as suggested by Mr. Crête, is quite acceptable. But I don't want him to tell me three weeks from now that we promised to do an interim report on TJF-CJF, because I'm not agreeing to that. Interim report on whatever we—

The Chair: I did not hear him say that. I did not hear him say that.

[Translation]

Mr. John Godfrey: On all programs.

[English]

The Chair: Yes, okay.

Ms. Bonnie Brown: I think that's what he meant.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: I can answer because it's important. That's why I was saying...

[English]

The Chair: Listen—

Ms. Bonnie Brown: It's important, because—

The Chair: I'm going to go to Judy Sgro, because her hand has been up for a long time, and then I'm going to go to Jean Dubé.

Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): Peter, I beg your indulgence while I try to understand what we're looking for. I'm glad we're all looking for the same thing, which is the whole issue of uncovering anything that has to be clarified in some of these situations. But is everything being bumped now? The committee must have already had some work on the table before this thing came up. I'm going to ask a couple of questions, if you can clarify that for me. Did the committee not already have a certain amount of work?

The Chair: I tried to comment on that the last time. It is my sincere hope that we conduct a very in-depth series of hearings on this matter. But it's also my sincere hope...

I had worked with the researchers at considerable length as to how we would proceed, particularly with one of our folks. I know, Judy, you're new, but the idea was the workforce of the 21st century and inclusion, which tried to cover the area of disabilities and the areas of work we do.

It's my sincere hope that we're moving now towards getting a plan for this work, and then we will sit and discuss in parallel a plan that we and our two subcommittees—we have two subcommittees—can carry on to do the important work this committee is doing. That's where I'm at.

Jean Dubé, if you don't mind. Or do you, Judy?

Ms. Judy Sgro: No, I haven't finished.

• 1155

The Chair: Oh, I'm sorry. Please go ahead.

Ms. Judy Sgro: The other question is, what are we asking for? Are we talking about the issues of administration or are we talking about the value of these programs in the reports that have to come back? What are they addressing? I understand that this issue is our administration. Is this what we're asking the staff to report back on? Where are the administration flaws in the process? Or are we asking staff to report back on value?

The Chair: Judy, we're not simply asking the staff to report back. We are setting out a series of public hearings on all of those matters, really.

Next I have Jean Dubé, Rey Pagtakhan, and Paul Crête.

I'm sorry, Maurice. I missed you there.

Mr. Jean Dubé: I agree with what Judy is saying—that we have an agenda—but I think we also have a duty after the events of the past couple of weeks. Canadians are looking at us right now and looking for answers, and I think we have to respond.

On to the amendment, I'm trying to marry both of them here, both Bryon's and Paul's. Raymonde Folco mentioned interim reports. I think it's an excellent recommendation. I think it gives us that leeway to work and to build into the big picture. So I really don't see a problem with what Paul is asking as far as the whole picture is concerned, an interim report on April 15, I think it was—I didn't get the date—and included in that report, TJF would be there, not—

An hon. member: As one of the factors.

Mr. Jean Dubé: Yes, as one of the factors; I think that's what Paul means as well, that in all of these reports—

The Chair: Okay. I think that's...

So it's Rey Pagtakhan, Paul Crête, then Maurice Vellacott. I apologize to Maurice; I bumped him.

Maurice, I have sub-lists here on different—

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Mr. Chair, with respect to the issue of interim reports, I agree in principle, but I do not like to tie the hands of the committee so that it is very restrictive. My idea on the issue would be an interim report on any aspect of the study that the committee deems—

An hon. member: Yes.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: —has been completed and is timely. In other words, let it be the decision of the committee. Let us not prejudge what we will see. What we are trying to do here is... We are making a prejudgment of what we will see. That is my difficulty about an interim report on a specific aspect of a comprehensive study. That is not the way I operate. So as for the suggestion of Jean earlier, an interim report, it's yes, the suggestion of Ms. Bonnie Brown...

I would like, if you'd like it to be put there, an interim report on any aspect of the study, from time to time—with no specific date but from time to time. It could be earlier than April 15 or it could be tomorrow, when completed and deemed timely by the committee.

The Chair: I think the mover of the amendment is considering that, because we're trying to get to some conclusion here without going through and simply voting.

Maurice Vellacott, who has been very patient.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: It's just maybe more of a—

The Chair: Oh, no. I'm extremely sorry, Maurice, but I've done it again.

It's Paul Crête and then Maurice Vellacott. I have three lists here, the subamendment, the amendment, and the other.

Go on.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: If I understood Ms. Brown correctly, then I'll go along with that. Rather than pass a subamendment dealing specifically with the Transitional Jobs Fund, the committee would agree to presenting an interim report by April 15 on all issues deemed relevant and to presenting a final report by June 1. If that's what Ms. Brown is proposing and if everyone agrees, then I'll support the motion.

[English]

The Chair: Maurice Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Maybe it's more of a question than a view, Mr. Chair, as well, to get some understanding of what we mean by this. To my mind, the way it seems to work best—male psyche or what—is that we deal with... I'm not sure what Bonnie is suggesting in terms of some broad umbrella. I understand that administration is an issue, with all the problems that are financial; there are some problems there. But it would seem to me that to handle area by area, the TJF, the disabilities program... There were seven programs in total, is that not what we have?

The Chair: I believe—

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Is it seven, Bonnie?

The Chair: —it's seven.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: So would it not make some sense to... You have some broad rubric that you're going to be examining all of those under, but the problems may be greater in one area than another. The disability, it's mostly money, to the provinces, and maybe there are issues that are a little different that would arise there.

That's why I was suggesting this. I'm not sure what your thought was, but why would we not deal with TJF and deal with millennium fund—

The Chair: I will come back to the mover of the amendment. I truly want to cut this off, but I have Larry McCormick, Judi Longfield, and Bryon Wilfert, and then, as long as the amendment does not require a subamendment, I'm going to call the amendment.

• 1200

Larry McCormick, then Judi Longfield.

Maurice, I appreciate your patience.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Mr. Chair, this is off the topic, but I'm not sure that the chair addressed fully Judy's concern as to whether we have to shelve all the other projects or not. I'm just wondering at this time. We're talking about all these deadlines and all of this information, which Canadians want, and I do too. I think we all agree on that. But can we work on a twin track? I just wasn't sure that you had—

The Chair: Colleagues, I've been asked for information here. The answer is yes, we can work on a twin track. We are, in effect, three standing committees. I believe that certainly our two subcommittees can carry on with business as directed by this group, and I also believe that we can conduct this in-depth set of hearings and carry on with the important work of the standing committee at the same time.

I'm going to Judi Longfield.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, do we have a work plan? I wasn't under the assumption—

The Chair: Colleagues, to my deep regret, we do not. There is some material being circulated. If we could get beyond these motions, I would propose that we meet as a committee to discuss the plans for this and how we execute the intent of this motion and our plans on the important issues of disabilities and so on.

I'm going to Judi Longfield, then to Bryon Wilfert, who will speak briefly, and then we'll move his motion. Judi Longfield.

Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): I'm going to suggest a friendly motion that incorporates Mr. Crête's, that does everything it says:

That the committee study the report and report to the House no later than June 1, 2000, grants and contributions by the Department of Natural Resources, with interim reports as required.

The Chair: The Department of Natural Resources...

Mrs. Judi Longfield: I'm sorry—Human Resources.

The Chair: Judi, we have an amendment before us.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: No, but I'm just saying to just add to that “with interim reports as required”. I think that addresses Mr. Crête. It doesn't preclude what else we could be doing. The interim report could be on any number of things. I think we must have the flexibility. I don't want to box us in. The interim report could be done maybe a week and a half from now.

The Chair: Okay, hang on a minute.

If we're speaking to the amendment, let's hear the amendment as it stands at this moment. I'm hearing it because, if not, I'm going to call the subamendment.

Do you want me to try to read it?

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleagues' comments. I had already agreed to include the interim report—

Mrs. Judi Longfield: That's right.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: —and I had agreed to June 1, so in fact, the amendment as it stands includes an interim report after June 1. We went through that, Human Resources, blah, blah, and then we agreed to the—

The Chair: May I read the motion? This is the one I think I have. May I do this, Paul? It is:

That the committee study and report to the House no later than June 1, 2000, grants and contributions by the Department of Human Resources Development, providing that an interim report be tabled by April 15, 2000.

Some hon. members: No.

The Chair: Don't say no; that's what I have, okay?

An hon. member: “From time to time”—give him that one.

The Chair: Please give me the amendment so Paul can listen to it.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: I was going to suggest that after “Department” we say “and that interim reports be provided from time to time as deemed appropriate by the committee”. So there could be more than one interim report; there could be several interim reports.

The Chair: Paul Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: In that case, I insist that for the interim report, we add the words "by April 15 at the latest". This would allow us to present our report earlier, if that's what we wanted, and would also give us a deadline for the interim report, to avoid any arguments about the date one month down the road.

[English]

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Mr. Chairman, I would agree to April 15. I would suggest that maybe we call the question—

The Chair: As phrased here.

Colleagues, first of all I have to get rid of the subamendment.

[Translation]

How's that, Paul?

[English]

Is it necessary to have the subamendment?

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Could you repeat the amendment one last time?

[English]

The Chair: Yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: I want to be certain that I understand properly.

[English]

The Chair: This, colleagues, now is the amendment we have before us. I'm reading it in order that we can determine whether we need the subamendment. That's the only reason. It is:

That the committee study and report to the House no later than June 1, 2000, grants and contributions by the Department of Human Resources Development Canada, providing that an interim report be tabled by April 15, 2000.

• 1205

[Translation]

Is that alright with you, Paul?

Mr. Paul Crête: Yes.

[English]

The Chair: Okay.

Colleagues, I'm calling this amendment. We have the amendment. Those in favour of the amendment—

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: No, Mr. Chair, we have to debate the amendment now.

Some hon. members: No.

The Chair: We've debated the amendment.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: On a point of order—

The Chair: Those against the amendment—

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I would like to move an amendment, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Again, those against the amendment—

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Mr. Chair, I have a point of order. To this point there has not been a substantive debate on this conceived amendment.

The Chair: Rey, my sincere impression has been that this is what we've been debating this last while.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Mr. Chair, I would like to move an amendment, whether it is voted down or not.

The Chair: A subamendment?

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Yes, a subamendment, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Paul Crête, on this point.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: It was my understanding that Mr. Pagtakhan wanted to move another amendment. If that's the case, then we need to vote first on Mr. Wilfert's amendment and then decide whether we need to entertain another amendment motion.

[English]

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: No, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Rey Pagtakhan.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Mr. Crête has read my mind wrongly.

On a point of order, I'd like to move an amendment to the amendment. I would like to make a subamendment, a very simple one.

An hon. member: Go ahead.

The Chair: The point is, Rey, I had called the vote.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: But I raised a point of order, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: You raised the point of order after I called the vote.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: No, Mr. Chair, you had not called a debate on the amendment.

The Chair: Rey, in my view we had been debating the amendment.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: No, it was an informal debate on that one.

Mr. Jean Dubé: He called the vote.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: No, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Colleagues, I—

An hon. member: Why don't you find out what he wants?

The Chair: Rey, could you explain to me in friendly terms what this is?

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Yes. In friendly terms, Mr. Chair, I do not like the reference to April 15. I could not, in good conscience, say we will finish an interim report on April 15, 2000. I do not like to prejudge.

The Chair: Rey, we just went through that. That's what we were discussing.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: But that is my view. I have difficulty with that. From time to time we don't complete it, and it can be earlier or it can be later. It cannot be a fictitious time.

The Chair: Look, Rey, I would urge you to vote against it, then, as it is, and move an amendment to the main motion. Right, Rey?

So the vote has been called. You can move an amendment to the main motion as amended, if you wish.

Colleagues, I call the amendment. Those in favour? Those against? I see none against.

(Amendment agreed to)

The Chair: We are now moving to the motion as amended.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Mr. Chair, I'd like to speak to this.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I'd just like to caution the committee that by putting a restrictive date on an appointment of April 15, it may be so restrictive that we may be forced to produce an interim report at any cost. We do not know. We are prejudging our decision at this point, that we can finish something complete, final, and with complete substance at that date. That is my difficulty, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Paul Crête and Bryon Wilfert.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: I would just like to remind the committee that we had a gentleman's or gentlewoman's agreement about this whole situation. We had come to an agreement. If Mr. Pagtakhan wishes to move a subamendment to strike this date, then I think we should vote on this. However, I thought the committee members had a deal. All we have to do is defeat Mr. Pagtakhan's motion.

[English]

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Ms. Sgro has given me a friendly argument that is very persuasive.

The Chair: Again, as long as colleagues agree. I hate using technical procedures—friendly something.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Madam Sgro has just reminded me that since this is interim, perhaps it would be acceptable. I defer to that.

The Chair: Okay. I would now call the main motion as amended.

Ms. Bonnie Brown: On a point of order, when you called the vote on the amendment, I don't think you know whether it passed or not, because you looked over there and at that end of the table.

The Chair: No, I looked—

Ms. Bonnie Brown: Well, how did I vote, for or against?

The Chair: You voted...

Ms. Bonnie Brown: I didn't vote. I didn't raise my hand because you weren't looking at me.

The Chair: I said I saw none against, so the motion carried. But you abstained?

Ms. Bonnie Brown: No, I didn't abstain. You said “Those in favour? Those against?”

The Chair: No, when I asked “Those against?”, I said that I saw none against.

Ms. Bonnie Brown: In any case—

The Chair: If there were none against, the motion must have passed.

Ms. Bonnie Brown: —as a point of order, when it comes to voting on anything, I'm asking that this piece of it, even though you are a fast talker, be a little bit slower so that we're sure of how people are voting.

• 1210

The Chair: Okay. Very good. But it was the second or third time I called it.

Those in favour of the motion as amended?

An hon. member: And look at all of us.

The Chair: I'm looking, I'm looking.

Those against? I see none against.

(Motion as amended agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

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

The Chair: Can we proceed to the second motion? Maurice, this is yours.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: We're doing the committee...

The Chair: No, we're doing television. Oh, that's Diane Ablonczy again, a Reform motion.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I'll do it on her behalf.

The question on this, then, is whether it can maybe be dealt with in terms of our executive committee—

The Chair: Maurice, my personal suggestion is that it's too important to be dealt with by executive committee. I think we should meet as a committee to discuss it.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Okay. I'm talking about the work plan we would use within committee in terms of specifically how we approach this study.

The Chair: By the way, we have some motions that relate to that, which we're going to deal with now. I would urge that we meet, as soon as we can, to discuss our work plan.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Right.

The Chair: Now, I would like to point out to you, with respect to the televising one, that I think it's unnecessary, Maurice. The committee has the power to be televised. I have done everything I can to get us on television. I will continue to do so. If you want to pass that, it seems to me redundant, that's all. But it's up to you.

An hon. member: Let's do this so that they're happy.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: It simply says “as it deems appropriate” so that we can make that decision from time to time.

The Chair: We do, and we can. That's all I'm saying. We can vote on it if you wish.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Let's do it, yes.

The Chair: We'll vote on the question with respect to televising the proceedings of the committee.

Those in favour? Those against? Nobody's against being on television.

(Motion agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: We then come to your own motion, Maurice, with respect to the Clerk of the Privy Council.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: This is basically a a follow-through or pursuant to the first one. I can't see why... We'd want to be calling in, obviously, a number of witnesses here, so here's one specific suggestion—the Clerk of the Privy Council.

I have a letter in hand, which I can table with the committee, that says, in effect, he is quite prepared and willing to come in.

(Motion agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: We now come to Paul Crête's motion with respect to the Minister for International Trade. Paul Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: I'm well aware of all of the precedents. I realize that as a rule, the minister responsible is the person who testifies, but there are precedents, the details of which I will spare you because you have all read in the newspapers about persons voluntarily giving evidence because they considered it relevant. I think that's the case here. The motion calls, not for the committee to compel, but rather to invite the Minister of International Trade, Mr. Pierre Pettigrew, to appear before the committee.

We're inviting him to appear and he will provide us with the answers he deems relevant. But at least the committee will have invited the person who I feel is best able, politically speaking, to talk to us about this internal audit, given that these events transpired when Mr. Pettigrew was the minister. I even think that this would be fair to the current minister, and I say that especially for the benefit of the government members.

Many issues and programs were on the table during that period in time. In my opinion, it would be very remiss of the committee to choose not to invite Mr. Pettigrew to appear.

[English]

The Chair: This motion is perfectly in order, and I'm quite willing to call it. The technicality, though, is that if he were called, he would not be able to talk about his previous duties before the committee. But that's the technicality, and I understood the point about volunteering information.

Maurice Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Is there a difference, Mr. Speaker, in terms of the subtle distinction I think I detect between “inviting” here and “sending for”, as in the other case? What, from a committee point of view, is the difference? One is more direct.

The Chair: There are three stages of an exercise. The first one is to invite; the next one is to more strongly invite; and the last one is to pass a motion in the House of Commons.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Subpoena.

The Chair: Not to subpoena but to go to the House of Commons and ask the House of Commons to require someone to appear.

• 1215

The Clerk of the Committee: But you cannot summon ministers.

The Chair: No. It says here that we cannot submit ministers, anyway. We can offer it.

By the way, this is a perfectly legal motion. I'm going to call it in a moment.

Jean Dubé.

Mr. Jean Dubé: There is a precedent in committee. When the Right Honourable Joe Clark was a minister, he was invited by the committee of his previous department, and he attended.

The Chair: I am not ruling this motion out on technical grounds.

Mr. Jean Dubé: It's only an invitation.

The Chair: With regard to the motion of Paul Crête that we have before us, those in favour of the motion.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Chairman, I would like a recorded vote on the motion.

[English]

(Motion negatived: nays 8; yeas 5)

The Chair: We will now consider Jean Dubé's motion with regard to the President of the Treasury Board.

[Translation]

Go ahead, Jean.

[English]

Mr. Jean Dubé: On my motion, number 5, the reason I wanted to call the President of the Treasury Board is because there are regulations in place when it comes to the disbursement of taxpayers' money. I would certainly like to question if the regulations have been followed. It's very simple.

The Chair: Is there any further discussion on this motion? I'm quite willing to call it.

Paul Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: There are other things to consider. The day after Mr. Chrétien said the problem wasn't serious, Ms. Robillard stated the exact opposite. Her office even went so far as to send a letter to five other departments inquiring about the seriousness of the problem. Therefore, I think it's appropriate to invite her to testify.

[English]

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: I would like a recorded vote.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 13; nays 0)

The Chair: We will now proceed to Jean Dubé's motion with regard to the Prime Minister of Canada. Jean.

Mr. Jean Dubé: It would be nice if the Right Honourable Jean Chrétien would appear before us. He has had some things to say on this matter. He has been up in the House of Commons as well. He could come before us and clear up what he knew and when he knew it. I would encourage us to invite the Right Honourable Jean Chrétien to come before this committee.

The Chair: Rey Pagtakhan.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Mr. Chair, I think what we have just demonstrated is that we are following the conventions of the House. We disagreed with inviting Mr. Pettigrew because it would breach parliamentary convention. We approved inviting Ms. Robillard. Of course, as the member has said, the Prime Minister has been fully accountable in the House of Commons, the biggest House of this whole Parliament, during question period. I think it has been more than adequately served. So I speak against the motion.

• 1220

The Chair: Maurice Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: In reference to exactly what Dr. Pagtakhan has said, that's the whole point. If there are no qualms to responding in the House, then a committee setting of this sort, where you can have a more direct, less hostile atmosphere sometimes, would certainly be an appropriate place.

He has the purview of the whole of the government in hand, and I don't see why there would be a problem in having him come forward for that reason. He has not, because of supposed... Further to our previous portfolio as of Pettigrew, there would not be the precedent to decline on that basis. So I don't see an objection to him coming to this committee and responding as he chooses.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Crête.

Mr. Paul Crête: I think the Prime Minister should be invited to appear, since he appointed the two ministers to the Human Resources Development portfolio. He is one of the few people who can speak to us about the interim period, that is the period between the two terms. One program in particular has been talked about and there have been many allegations concerning the Prime Minister's riding. I think he stands to gain as much as we do from appearing before the committee to shed some light on this matter. This government is quite fond of clarity and I think some clarity is in order, as far as this matter is concerned.

[English]

The Chair: I now call Jean Dubé's motion.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Roll call.

(Motion negatived: nays 8; yeas 5)

The Chair: Can we proceed now? We don't have a representative of the NDP here, and we've discussed the matter before.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: I'd be more than happy to move it.

The Chair: The motion with respect to the Auditor General is moved by Bryon Wilfert.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: I'd like a call of the roll.

The Chair: This is with respect to the invitation to the Auditor General of Canada.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 13; nays 0—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: We have postponed the Auditor General on the matter of the social insurance numbers now for two weeks. I know it's another matter, but just keep in your minds that we've asked him to come for that, and now we've asked him to come for this.

Maurice Vellacott, it's your motion with respect to the Information Commissioner, John Reid.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Right. The Information Commissioner has made comments to the effect that some of the paring back of the civil service has been a possible cause for this. For that reason I think it would be good to have him in to give us some further perspective.

The Chair: There is a motion before you.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: I'd like a call of the roll, please.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 13; nays 0—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: Perhaps, Maurice, you could speak for Diane Ablonczy. This is the motion with respect to the director general of the internal audit bureau, James Martin.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: It pretty much speaks for itself.

An hon. member: It's fine.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Roll call again.

• 1225

(Motion agreed to: yeas 13; nays 0—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: If we could proceed, then, Maurice, this one is yours. This is the motion with regard to the invitation to the assistant to the Minister of International Trade.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Mr. Fergus was in a position where he actually had been working in this whole area. He handled special situations and so on. Again, it's simple common sense. He's not the minister, but he was under his employ as an assistant. I don't know if he works for him at the present time, but he had information with regard to how some of the more difficult pockets, if you will, and those kinds of situations were handled. For that reason we would put his name forward.

The Chair: I now call this motion. You have it before you.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I'd like a recorded vote.

(Motion negatived: yeas 5; nays 8—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: We'll now proceed to Maurice Vellacott's next motion, which is with regard to a 12-column list.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: This is simply an extension of the goodwill offer the minister made in committee last week where she did in fact say to us—she repeated it in the House as well, and I accept that for the present—it's more an issue of your defining what categories you want the information under. We would accommodate in view of that, and that's our best way to respond, because we can bring it up under a variety of ways.

This is just being specific. I don't think it's a momentous task because of the fact that there are seven or eight columns of information already available. This is just attaching a few others. If it's blocked out for reasons of privacy, they can respond and say they can't provide that one. This would be my present submission. If for reasons of privacy or confidentiality they cannot provide all these 12 columns, then they can respond on that basis. But my query with regard to her offer is simply to follow up and ask for the TJF list. It's a small piece. Eight columns or more have already been provided at various points. I'm asking for all of these to be brought together, instead of having to track it by several different lists.

The Chair: Bonnie Brown.

Ms. Bonnie Brown: I see that this focuses again on the Transitional Jobs Fund. I recall that we've just passed a motion that expanded both the breadth of our study and the length of time we're willing to dedicate to it. In my view, this is part of how we're going to do our study, which I think is the subject of a future meeting. I don't want to restrict myself to either the TJF or this particular set of points, because I think the broader discussion about how we're going to go about what it is we're going to decide to do will probably happen next Tuesday, if the chair's description is accurate.

There also are problems with this list. For example, in numbers 8 and 9 there's a lack of precision. In numbers 10 and 11 there are privacy issues.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: In numbers 8 and 9—

The Chair: Maurice, I'll come to back to you, and then I'll go to Paul Crête.

Ms. Bonnie Brown: The other problem is that before we decide how we're going to do our study, I'm sure the Reform Party would want to know how much what it is we're going to do is going to cost. In other words, every time we call for information we are using staff time, so we have to know what we're going to do with the information before we ask people to take time off to do it.

So my feeling is that because this is a methodology question and the subject of methodology is going to be discussed next Tuesday, I would ask the mover not to not get rid of it but to pull it back for today and ask the clerk to present it on Tuesday. We'd be happy with that.

• 1230

The Chair: Maurice Vellacott, then Paul Crête.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I have a quick question.

I believe, Bonnie, and I guess in my heart and spirit here that I think it looks better if the committee... I will, if this is not approved, be offering this as an access to information request. They may delay in terms of time and they may white out, block out, stuff and so on, but for that reason I think it'd be better that we all have it, because if I get it by access to information, I will share it with who I choose to. If you come and ask me, I may give it to you.

For that reason, I don't see the problem in asking as a committee. I think we all look better—the government side and the opposition members—if we all have that commonly, because I will be making an access to information request along that line, so we'd just have the material in hand to all do our jobs as committee members. I'm not sure that—

Ms. Bonnie Brown: He's defining our job for us.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: —items 8 and 9 simply—

Ms. Bonnie Brown: I don't want him to define—

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: It's direct, full-time jobs, Bonnie. Is my statement there... I don't know what's non-specific about that. It's direct. Because the jobs... sometimes in the columns you're not sure whether they're full-time or not, and I'm just saying “direct, full-time jobs”, and whether the companies... Some of these we've been told by the minister, and they provide lists of companies that have gone bankrupt. So that information is available, and I don't see how they would deny access to it, being that they have already provided those lists of names of defunct or defaulted companies.

The Chair: Paul Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Getting back to what Ms. Brown was saying, obviously, I don't expect the government to be forced into the position of doing anything illegal. We never expect that of a government. If certain information is protected under access to information legislation, for example, because it's personal or something, then we will indicate "unavailable" on the small chart. I think we're going to need that information and I think its preferable to request it immediately to give the department time to produce it. This whole matters seems to have caused quite a stir. That's why I think this request is very relevant and will allow us to move forward. By the time we hold our first meeting, we may already have the list in hand, which would allow us to proceed more quickly.

[English]

The Chair: I'll come back to Bonnie Brown at the end. On the list I have Judi Longfield, Jean Dubé, and Rey Pagtakhan.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: I don't have a problem with asking to get this information, but in listening to what Mrs. Brown has to say, I think there's some merit in discussing this more thoroughly on Tuesday. I don't want to have to vote against it, but if it's going to come up today, I'm going to. I would like to discuss it on Tuesday. I think there may actually be other things that we would like to add to this.

Maurice, I just think in the spirit of... I'm willing to discuss it—

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I won't be here.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: You won't be here on Tuesday... Well, as I say, if I'm forced to vote today, I'm going to vote against it, but it's not my wish.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: If we do, I'll just submit my access to information request.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: I would prefer... In spirit here, I think we all want to get to the bottom of what's happened and we all want as much information as we possibly can.

An hon. member: The right information.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: As I say, I think there are things that I'd actually like to add to this, and if Tuesday you can't do it—

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Do you want to amend it?

Mrs. Judi Longfield: If we set aside a time, like I say, I'd be more inclined to support it if I had a little more time to talk about it.

The Chair: Jean Dubé, Rey Pagtakhan, and then Bonnie Brown.

Mr. Jean Dubé: At the last meeting at Centre Block, when we had the minister in as a witness, with David Good, the assistant deputy minister, under what I think was your question, Maurice, when asked if they could produce a list like this, they said no problem, all you have to do is request it. They believed then that they could produce it.

If there are things they can't share with us because of privacy, we're comfortable with that, but I think the answer of David Good that day was that all we had to do was ask and they would probably do it for us.

The Chair: Rey Pagtakhan.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Mr. Chair, when you have an objective, which we have passed under motion 1, the next thing is to decide the methodology on how you achieve the objective. But you do not approach a research design, a study design, a search for something, with only, potentially, one leg, or with one tool that may be incomplete. That very approach is dangerous in design because then you may prematurely, in fact, make tentative conclusions that are not proven by the entire study of the whole objective.

So my suggestion, really, is to see the whole design and methodology that the committee may deem appropriate using our collective wisdom—and this may be part of the whole thing. But I am not persuaded at this point that this is the only approach to achieve the objective. On that notion, when babies are born premature, they suffer a lot of risks.

• 1235

The Chair: I have to go to Bonnie Brown and then I am going to call the motion, unless Maurice wants to add something.

Excuse me. I'm sorry, but I've missed Bryon Wilfert—it's my own writing. Bryon Wilfert, then Bonnie Brown.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: I didn't know you became a doctor.

The Chair: Well, listen, I am a doctor, but a very cheap one.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: I can see that.

An hon. member: More expensive—

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Mr. Chairman, I think we have demonstrated today very clearly a desire on all sides to work very cooperatively and to deal with this issue.

I would suggest, with great respect to my colleague, that although he may not be here on Tuesday we had indicated that we would be willing, rather than having the steering committee looking at the framework of the study, to have all members involved. Again, in terms of the spirit of being open, I think we should all be involved rather than having a select few—and our New Democratic colleagues aren't here. So again, I think it's important that we try to be working in the same direction.

We're not precluding—at least I'm not—that this is part of it, but in relation to what my colleague has just said, I think we want to look at the framework and we want to see what kinds of objectives and other things we want to have in there. We don't even know... In terms of the terms of reference, we're building, and I think this would be one. We're not deferring it forever. We're simply deferring it to the planning committee or the group so that we can then see where that fits in.

So we have to believe... If you're not here, though, I'm sure your other colleagues will be able to—not as eloquently as you—assist in making sure that we get this dealt with.

The Chair: Bonnie, do you need to add anything? I'm going to go back to Maurice last.

Ms. Bonnie Brown: I think my colleagues have explained it well. I think Maurice doesn't realize it, but this motion is suggesting that this is going to be the focus of the study; it kind of excludes the ideas that other people might want to bring forward.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: No.

Ms. Bonnie Brown: I think what people want to do is listen to all of the ideas of all of the members to try to create that team spirit we've had in the past, so that everybody's wishes about what should be looked at will be considered on Tuesday under the ideas of terms of reference and strategies to achieve our goals. This is one piece of a puzzle, and to pass it today would make it seem like this is the only thing, the most important thing.

I think if you were patient you would see either this or some version of it, maybe without the parts that, as Paul alluded to, we might not be able to get. I think people are just looking for the cooperative style as opposed to somebody driving the agenda.

The Chair: Maurice.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Just simply knowing a little about “dissertations”, the methodology here of this whole thing, of what we're going do and how we're going to approach this, doesn't run counter in terms of getting at this research, as any researcher would want to do. It doesn't run counter to anything; it's just, as suggested, a piece of the puzzle, a small part of it. Because there's such a significant on-ramp to get information from HRD—it's a long backup because of the flood of access to information requests—if we get our request in as a committee now instead of delaying by a week or whatever, I think it's better.

I also want to offer to the members opposite that I do believe it would look better in a team spirit, if you will, instead of coming as an access to information request from an opposition member. There's a little different tone to that. If we as a committee... It's admittedly not all that we need; it's not even a piece of it—

The Chair: Maurice.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: But for that reason, then, I think for the committee to request it would be better, because if this is blocked in committee today I don't think it has a good look, and I will be proceeding on access to information anyhow, whether at the end of this week or the beginning of next week, because I think—

Ms. Bonnie Brown: The chair has—

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: —it may be insufficient, but certainly—

The Chair: I'm going to call the motion.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Mr. Chair, I would like to move that the motion be deferred.

An hon. member: Until Tuesday.

The Chair: By the way, I can accept a motion to defer, but only if there is a timeframe.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Until Tuesday.

The Chair: Okay. I have a motion to defer until Tuesday. Those in favour of the motion to defer?

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: A recorded vote.

The Chair: A recorded vote.

Until Tuesday—by the way, I can only accept a motion to defer if there's a timeline.

• 1240

(Motion agreed to: yeas 8; nays 4)

The Chair: We will proceed to the last motion on the agenda.

As you can see, Maurice, it's a Reform motion. I wonder if you would speak to that.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: It's fairly basic. There's nothing too profound about it. It's requesting that the Minister of Labour appear before the committee at the earliest opportunity, but no later than February 29, to address the performance reports.

This is not out of order. It's a customary thing, and we're just asking that it be done at this time.

The Chair: Judi Longfield.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: The Minister of Labour would be delighted to come, but February 29 is problematic. She has travel plans that have been scheduled for quite some time and cannot make this date. She'll come at her earliest convenience.

The Chair: Excuse me, but can I comment on that, as chair? The February 29 date, if it occupied one of our regular meetings, would take one of two or three meetings we have between now and then.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Mr. Chair, she can't come. She can't come prior to that date.

The Chair: Judi, I was making the other point, that it will take one away.

Paul Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: I wish to move an amendment calling for the words "not later than February 29, 2000" to be deleted. The motion would then read as follows:

That the Minister of Labour be requested to appear before the Committee at the earliest opportunity to address the Performance Reports of the Department...

[English]

The Chair: Do you understand that, colleagues? The friendly amendment is that we delete the date and say “as soon as possible”.

Is that right?

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Just “at the earliest opportunity”, which is right there.

The Chair: Colleagues, it's a friendly amendment.

The motion is before you now. The date, February 29, 2000, is deleted, and it says simply “at the earliest opportunity”.

Maurice Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: You seem to know the minister's schedule. How about March 15? I would propose a subamendment—

The Chair: Maurice, I would repeat what I have just said. If we are going to deal with the matters before us in the next few weeks, I am not absolutely convinced that a labour topic, particularly to deal with the performance reports, is appropriate in the next two or three weeks.

I have to say, Judi, I don't mind what the minister's schedule is. We have to devote ourselves to this issue. As it's stated, “at the earliest opportunity”, I think that includes the earliest opportunity for us as well.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: As in January 2001, or what?

The Chair: No, Maurice, I'm not being evasive here. I'm serious.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: No, I know. That's why I'm suggesting we set a date.

The Chair: We have two meetings next week, two the week after, and then it's a break.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Right. Suggest a date, then.

The Chair: Can we leave it at that? I'm going to call the motion.

Bryon Wilfert.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Last time, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vellacott's colleague, Dale, and all my colleagues on the other side agreed, when there was a specific date to have the Minister of Human Resources Development, and she agreed to come, it could be at some future date when deemed appropriate. I would suggest that it's similar here and that we do the same.

I would point out to you, Mr. Chairman, that the government side has adopted eight of the opposition motions. I am very sad to see that in the one case where we thought Tuesday was an extremely reasonable request...

Just for the record, I want to say that there cannot be all give on one side and all take on the other. If we are going to move together on this issue, which we all deem is appropriate, it is really not a good signal to somehow suggest that we should only—

The Chair: Okay. Let me—

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, in the spirit of what we did before, that we say “at her convenience”.

The Chair: I'm going to call the motion as amended in a friendly fashion, which is “at the earliest opportunity”.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: On the record.

The Chair: Okay.

Rey Pagtakhan.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: On a matter of procedure, Mr. Chair, a formal amendment to the motion has not been moved. I therefore so move the amendment that we delete the words “but not later than February 29, 2000”.

The Chair: We are now, colleagues, voting on the amendment as phrased by Rey Pagtakhan.

Do you still want a roll call on this?

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: No, just read it, I guess.

The Clerk: Do you want me to read it, Mr. Chair?

The Chair: Yes, please.

The Clerk: The amendment would delete “at the earliest opportunity” so that the motion would read:

That the Minister of Labour be requested to appear before the Committee at the earliest opportunity to address the Performance Reports of the Department of Labour-HRD for the fiscal year 1999-2000.

• 1245

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: With regard to the relevance of the performance reports, which were from last fall, if we delay it to either next fall or for too long, I guess I'm just querying whether it becomes less relevant to even be considering it. It's too many months removed from the performance reports of last fall.

The Chair: Judi Longfield.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Listen, she wants to come and she will come. She'll come at her earliest convenience. After we've done our work plan and we've blocked it out, if you're not satisfied with when we have her in then I would suggest we make another motion, at which time you could call for a specific date.

So I can't give you a date of March 15 or 20. I know she can't come now. I know she wants to come, and she'll make every opportunity to do so. On Tuesday we're discussing our work plan. If it doesn't seem to fit in the timeframe either you or Dale had in mind, then I think I would support that motion.

Does that help?

The Chair: We're voting on the amendment as indicated by Rey Pagtakhan.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Motion as amended agreed to)

The Chair: Colleagues, that brings us to the end of our agenda. I hope I have your agreement that between now and Tuesday the chair will produce material—and I hope the researchers will be able to do this—to give us an idea of how we now proceed to plan this exercise.

The chair will also “reproduce”, if that's the right word—you already have it—notes on our general work plan. On Tuesday, if it's possible, we'll try to consider both things at once.

So Tuesday's meeting is not a steering committee meeting but a public meeting to plan what we will be doing with respect to this item and what we and our subcommittees will be doing until the end of the year. Is that okay?

Maurice Vellacott, briefly.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Just to wrap up some unfinished business from last week, Mr. Chair, you mentioned that you would be getting back to us—or at least that was my impression—

The Chair: Colleagues, order.

Go ahead.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I tabled this with you. To my understanding, the committee can call for all papers, certain citations in respect to that, and remarks. Previously, you gave the impression that because these witnesses were under “oaths of confidentiality” they could not respond directly to questions.

Now, I gathered from your comment last time that you were agreed that you maybe had temporarily, in the quickness of things, erred in judgment there. I simply want some type of formal response or answer to that.

The Chair: Colleagues, we considered this last time. With respect to public servants as witnesses, I would quote from the same article I think Maurice quoted from.

Two related obstacles stand in the way of compelling a public servant to answer a question. One is the concept of crown privilege and the other is the concept of ministerial responsibility. Crown privilege encompasses the confidential advice officials provide to their ministers. And I'm not being awkward. We're going to be calling public servants. But when they are here, I am going to be drawing your attention to this.

The obligation of a witness to answer all questions put by the committee must be balanced against the role that public servants play in providing confidential advice to their ministers. The role of a public servant has traditionally been viewed in relation to the implementation and administration of government policy rather than the determination of what policy should be. Consequently, public servants have been—and it doesn't mean they always are—excused from commenting on policy decisions made by the government.

That was the point, Maurice, I was trying to make. It's in here.

That's not, by the way, to prevent us from bringing them. They can be here. But when the time comes and they make a decision not to answer, I'm going to rule on that basis, because there are two balancing rights. One is our right to know and the other is their right to provide confidential information to their minister.

• 1250

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Fair enough. I guess we cannot pre-empt or prejudge, as a chair or any one of us, if the nature of a question is something they cannot respond to.

The Chair: When the times comes you will pose the question and I will make a ruling on it if I have to.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: In some instances they may judge that this is something they've had confidential discussions on and decline to answer.

The Chair: We're in a hypothetical. When I've heard a question, I will rule on it to the best of my ability.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: In some cases you may tell them to go ahead and they may decline anyway.

The Chair: Yes, that's right.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: And that's their right.

The Chair: That's right.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: That's my point.

The Chair: Bear in mind that they can still refuse, though.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Exactly. I hear you.

The Chair: They can say they believe this is a part of crown privilege.

Colleagues, we adjourn now until our regular meeting time, which is 11 a.m. on Tuesday, when we will consider plans for the activities of our three committees between now and the end of the year.