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]

Tuesday, February 29, 2000

• 1114

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Colleagues, could we begin? You have the agenda. The order of the day is future business. These are matters we tried to consider last week, to lay out our plans for the public hearings on HRDC.

• 1115

Before we proceed to the items on the agenda, I'd like to mention two or three things. One of them is—and this is just notice for you—that I and the chair of the finance committee have been asked whether we could set up a joint subcommittee, between finance and our own committee, on the matter of economic dependencies. This is the idea of studying possible economic-dependent relationships that might be established and to look at the social and financial implications of that.

I'm mentioning it now, and I don't know much more than I've just said, but I've tried to be as upfront as I could. I wanted you to know we may well be asked to consider such a joint subcommittee.

Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, Lib.): Mr. Chair, I believe the minister mentioned this in one of her preambles. I think the topic is very much in the news as well as in the House, and I've already heard from some people in the riding who are looking forward to that. So when that opportunity becomes available, and I trust it will—

The Chair: I wanted just to give you notice. I heard about it recently.

The second thing is that tomorrow—you've all received a notice—we have an extra meeting, which is with our colleagues from Sweden. I would be grateful if as many members as possible came, out of courtesy to our guests.

I think it could be a very interesting meeting. There'll be a social dimension to it, but it will be a participatory meeting. We'll be able to discuss with them what they do, and they will be able to discuss with us what we do. So I would urge you all to attend. The time is 3:30 p.m. tomorrow. That's after question period.

Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): Where?

The Clerk of the Committee: Room 371, West Block.

The Chair: Room 371, West Block. The notice is already in your offices.

You know we passed a motion. There will be delicious refreshments, and I will be up all night preparing them, right?

The last preamble—and on this I crave your indulgence—has to do with our subcommittee on children and youth at risk. John Godfrey, I'd be grateful if you'd explain the situation very briefly.

Mr. John Godfrey: Well, as you recall, we were asked to report back by March 2 about our intentions, and the subcommittee met last week. Originally there'd been a concern that we might be overlapping with the work of the main committee, so we held off in extending the mandate. It's now clear that the work of the main committee's going to be taken up with other things. Therefore, our committee has requested that we be given permission to extend our work until the end of this calendar year to examine three things, the first of which we will do on March 15, which is to look at the report on the best policy mix for Canada's children, from Judith Maxwell's group, the Canadian Policy Research Networks.

The other two subjects we wish to undertake are looking, first of all—and not necessarily in this sequence—at the study of work and family, which was outlined in the Speech from the Throne this fall, particularly in the context of the federal government. You'll see a report in front of you. Second, in light of the finance minister's reference to this yesterday, is the whole issue of early childhood development services, about which we're trying to reach an agreement with the provinces by December of this year. Therefore, I think it makes sense for the work of the subcommittee to go at least until December of this year to study in detail some of the elements of what might be in such an agreement.

The Chair: If I could comment, in terms of the way we're proceeding on this general HRDC matter, it looks to me as though we're going to have relatively limited time as a main committee to deal with some of these matters. I understand we have to first of all receive the report, which you have before you—the first report—and I assume John moves that.

Mr. John Godfrey: I so move.

(Motion agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: Now, John's motion is that the subcommittee's mandate be extended to the end of the calendar year.

(Motion agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: If we could proceed to the agenda of the main meeting, you'll see now that we have one, two, three...

Paul Crête.

• 1120

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I don't consider the issue of future business to be resolved. I'd like to know if any meetings are scheduled with Mr. Mel Cappe, Ms. Robillard and the other persons mentioned. We passed some resolutions two weeks ago and it's important that we determine our timetable before we go on to consider notices of motion under "other business". Can someone tell me if indeed we'll be meeting soon with responsible officials from Human Resources Development Canada?

[English]

The Chair: My understanding, Paul, is that we're still at the stage of adopting one or another of these motions that lay out our objectives. The objective is these inquiries.

We haven't got to the position yet of being able to call these witnesses. I have a list of the witnesses we've agreed we will be calling. What I don't have is a plan. Three of the four motions before us here, as I understand it, deal with that plan. If we could pass one of these motions, we could then proceed to invite the witnesses that the committee has said we should invite. Is that okay?

So it's my sincere hope today that we pass a plan quickly and we start inviting people to appear before the committee. Is that okay?

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Chairman, I wouldn't want the meeting to conclude today without our having adopted a single motion and without deciding on a timetable for hearing from witnesses.

Regardless of which motion we pass, we're obviously going to come back to this issue. I'd like to know if Mr. Mel Cappe can appear either next Tuesday or Thursday, when the House resumes sitting. I'd like to have this information before we move to adopt the motions. It could be useful.

Where do matters stand on this front? Have these individuals been notified? Have we discussed available dates? If we discuss motions for two hours and the meeting ends without our having decided on any firm dates for future meetings, then everything will be delayed until after the break. I think it would be too late then.

[English]

The Chair: Rey Pagtakhan, and then Bryon Wilfert.

Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's precisely for that reason, or one of the reasons—and I share the concerns of Mr. Crête—that I thought we should move with order, not with a motion coming every now and then. If the committee would be so pleased to adopt the motion that I suggested, in direct answer to Mr. Crête's concern—which I share—then we will be able to go directly to your question.

At the same time, if we answer your question now before we know which motion will be adopted, we will be back to a particular circular situation, where we do not know where we begin or where we will end.

So my suggestion, Paul, is consider my motion, and if it is adopted, then we can go to the specific question that you raised about when we will hear the witnesses, how we should do it. It is a five-point plan outlined by the research staff. I thought it was a very thorough plan. And if we can agree on that, I think we will advance our agenda.

The Chair: Bryon Wilfert.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): I concur.

The Chair: Okay.

Maurice, if this first motion is yours, I put it here—these are in the order in which they were received. All obviously had 48 hours' notice, but the first one was left over from earlier discussions.

I'd be glad to put it aside, or to call it right now if you wish. Is it still necessary?

Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): I think it is. A volume of information has come, but we're looking at one specific program area here, not the whole grants contributions, but TJF and just under these categories. They've already provided it in bits and pieces—about eight of those categories.

If in fact they have a problem, Mr. Chair, with one or two of these categories, as Bonnie suggested the other day—access to information or privacy issues—then fine, they can decline that, and we'll go with the other eleven categories. That's my point.

The Chair: Is there anything else? Rey.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Yes. I think the question, Maurice, is really moot at this time. We have a comprehensive table. We have not had a chance to look at it at this point. I suggest to you that if you withdrew your motion it would be in order, because it is really moot. Most of the concerns, if not all of them, have been answered.

• 1125

If you would like to move another specific motion in the future, asking for a specific concern, you can do that, but to have a shotgun motion—most of which has been answered already—is very hard for me to support.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I would respond to that. This is very narrow, so I'm not even sure... Are you telling me, Rey, that the other information that is released is in these 12 categories for the TJF?

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I would assume so.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: No, it's not. That would be my concern—and to get it more readily and manageably for each of us.

The Chair: We have a motion before us. Those in favour of this motion, please indicate.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Recorded vote, please.

(Motion negatived: nays 9; yeas 5)

The Chair: Can we proceed to Diane Ablonczy's motion?

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): I spoke to this last time, Mr. Chairman. I see that the parliamentary secretary has put in a motion deleting part of my objective, so I assume that's what the majority on the committee will be voting for. I don't think we need to waste a lot of time trying to get my motion in. I would simply point out that I find it quite indefensible to delete “a study of the value for money”. I would have thought that would be a key concern of this committee.

A voice: That's right.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: The fact that the government isn't willing to look at that is quite surprising—or maybe not surprising, but certainly indefensible. I don't see any point in beating a dead horse. I think the Liberals have their marching orders and there's not a whole lot of point in arguing about it.

The Chair: Rey Pagtakhan, then Bryon Wilfert.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Mr. Chairman, I think the member has alluded to marching orders. No marching orders have been given to anyone, to my knowledge. I have not been given any marching orders, number one—

An hon. member: Me either.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: And number two, to say that the position of the government is indefensible is speculative. There's no evidence for that statement, Mr. Chairman.

Thirdly, to prejudge which motion the committee will decide is an insult to the intelligence of the members of this committee and to the independence of this committee. Mr. Chairman, I resent that kind of argument, so let us move to the motion.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I bet you're right, Diane.

A recorded vote, please.

The Chair: Once again, it's a recorded vote. This is Diane's motion. We've had ten days to look at this thing.

(Motion negatived: nays 9; yeas 5—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: The motion is defeated. Can we move to the next motion?

Some hon. members: Yes.

The Chair: This is Bonnie Brown's motion. Those in favour of the motion, so indicate.

An hon. member: A recorded vote, please.

• 1130

(Motion negatived: nays 10; yeas 3—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: The motion is defeated.

We move to Rey Pagtakhan's motion, which is on the reverse side of your agenda.

Mr. Jean Dubé: Accountability and transparency, that's what I like about your motion—something the government's lacking.

The Chair: I'm going to call this motion we have before us.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: No, Mr. Chairman. I have something I'd like to say. May I proceed?

The Chairman: Certainly.

Mr. Paul Crête: If we were to adopt this motion, would this mean that we couldn't hear from these witnesses until after the entire situation had been examined? If that's the case, we won't hear from the witnesses until sometime around May 15. Are we thinking about hearing from the main players in this drama at the outset? Is there some connection here? It's important to know before we vote. We're being asked to go along with this broad agenda that has been set: presentations on general grants and contributions and on program areas, a review of the documentation and audit findings as well as of the six-point action plan and draft interim report. At what point in the process will we be hearing from the witnesses? If this means that Mr. Cappe won't be putting in an appearance for another month, then this is unacceptable, as far as I'm concerned.

[English]

The Chair: I'll comment first and then I'll go to Rey Pagtakhan, because of course it is his motion.

The plan is a general outline of how we work, followed by the list of the witnesses we've agreed to call. My understanding is that we still have to fit those witnesses into the plan, Paul.

Rey Pagtakhan.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Yes. Just to allay any apprehension, that is why I used the word “framework”. In other words, once we adopt the motion, we have five points, A to E, including the reporting of this interim stage. In those five points, we can then use our collective wisdom and decide how we proceed once we have adopted this as a framework. That will come after we have adopted the motion.

The Chair: And we are going to have time at this meeting to discuss that matter.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: It does not preclude when we hear the witnesses.

The Chair: Maurice Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: For one, I do believe that somewhere in here we need to get this thing, and if Rey can assure me that we're going—verbally or by word put that in here—to be getting something of value, determining or making some assessment in respect to that, I think that's a good kind of topic to engage on this whole thing.

Is it value for money? I see that we're talking about possibly some other ways of doing things or whatever here, but I'm not sure if that's covering it as it should. This is an assumption that these are wonderful programs and that we should carry them on just as we always have. I think we should be engaging in a discussion of whether there's value for it.

I also, secondly, can't understand why we would want to spend a whole lot of time on the six-point action plan if in fact the Auditor General is recommending this thing and so on. It's not an issue of whether it's a good thing to be going on with, but will it be actually implemented? That would be more the issue, and we can't determine that now anyhow. It would be more of a a review four months from now or six months from now or something like that, but to be just discussing hypotheticals here, when it appears by all accounts, and normal people would say this is a good thing to go with... We need to know whether that'll be implemented and we'll only find that out in a review afterward, a quarterly kind of update thing.

The Chair: The motion is before us. It is Rey Pagtakhan's motion.

Do you want to speak to it again, Rey, briefly?

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Yes. With respect to the measurable value, it is inherent in any study of this sort that when you look at each of the points raised in this outline, the point will be addressed as one of many. That is the beauty of this framework, because there are so many interplaying factors—measure, objectivity, accountability, the worth of the program—and they will all be included in this outline of the study, as I see it, adopted by the Library of Parliament.

Maybe we can ask the research staff on that point.

The Chair: If I may comment, because I just did, the Auditor General is conducting a value-for-money audit of these matters and he is one of the people on our witness list.

Seriously, I think all of these are matters... The staff has prepared this for members of all parties. It is an outline. It gives us a pattern to work to and it's up to us to fill it in, focus it, and emphasize whatever we can.

I'm going to call Rey Pagtakhan's motion.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: A recorded vote, please.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: I have a question, Mr. Chair. Does this mean that we have no stated purpose for our study, no objective?

A voice: There's nothing here for that.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Excuse me, Mr. Chair—

The Chair: Rey Pagtakhan, as it's his motion.

• 1135

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: The study itself is our objective. Obviously, even when we look at the previous motion to study the goals, which was defeated, that will be encompassed in this framework of the study, Mr. Chair. But there are so many things, and if I wanted to state them one by one I could. There is more than one goal, Mr. Chairman. When we study something, we have a goal. Our goal, as deemed by the motion previous—to do a study is the very goal itself.

The Chair: Diane Ablonczy.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: It begs logic to say that study for the purpose of study is a legitimate goal. Surely we're not suggesting that, Mr. Pagtakhan.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I'm not.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: I simply point out that unless we have a goal or objective in this study, we're simply going to shuffle a bunch of paper.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: We have a schedule here.

The Chair: I know I had Maurice first, and then Judi Longfield.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I see this as a schedule. With great appreciation for the work our research people do, this is more a schedule and it's not of the nature of stating out some goals and objectives and so on. So again, I do object to assuming that this is some vague and nebulous kind of objective or goal. It's not that. It's a schedule of things we are going to be doing and having people called in for.

The Chair: Judi Longfield.

Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): I think if you read the body of the plan the objectives are there—the funding mechanism, what are grants and contributions, and what are the guidelines under which these funds are disbursed. I can go through it. Under the six-point action plan, is the plan comprehensive? Are points missing? Do any of the plan's elements need to be strengthened? I think our goals are there to respond to the questions and the very legitimate questions that are there. I think that's our goal, to get to the bottom and get these questions answered. So I think it's there.

The Chair: Colleagues, I'm going to call Bryon Wilfert, but I would like to call this motion. For once—and I very rarely agree with Paul Crête—I think we should get on to the matter of the real design and how we're going to work on this thing. And as long as we're debating the plan or whatever it is, we're not going to get to that. I'm in your hands, of course. We'll hear from Bryon Wilfert, hopefully the last speaker.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Mr. Chairman, I would concur with the fact that the objectives are fairly clearly stated in the outline. The fact is I think our objective should be collectively that we want to make sure the right tools are in place to make sure this situation doesn't happen in the future. Presumably the outline gives us that opportunity and then we pick up on Mr. Crête's comment and we will then add to this.

This is simply an outline. It is not the definitive statement. Obviously we're going to then apply the witnesses where we think it is appropriate. We have a clear timeline here. I asked for the motion to be adopted the other week. I think we're really spinning our wheels. Let's just approve it and get on with it.

The Chair: Maurice Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: If he would be willing to state that as the overall rubric, then that's the whole point of it. What you talk about so this doesn't happen again would be your overall rubric for the—

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: That's right there in the fact. Unfortunately, you give a bit of a short shrift to the six-point action plan, because in fact that—and maybe there's something we can add to that—clearly is extremely important to make sure we don't have this happen in the future. I think that's fairly explicit in the package.

The Chair: Colleagues, I'm going to call the motion, if I might.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 12; nays 2—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: Colleagues, in the light of the plan we have before us—I think everyone has a copy of the researcher's note on this—if we could look at it now in practical terms, the way the thing is laid out here, it seems to me, anyway... I'm on page two, the suggested outline for a study of HRDC grants and contributions. Bearing in mind the number of meetings and this sort of thing that we have, the idea is to begin with some sort of overview and explanation of grants and contributions in general.

• 1140

I would suggest to you that we have one meeting before the break, we then have the break, and then we can carry on every Tuesday and every Thursday. I would suggest we have a first meeting, which is this briefing, and then discuss which witnesses we call after the break.

Paul Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Chairman, I agree that we should devote one meeting to general explanations, but after the parliamentary break, I'd like us to meet every working day to hear from witnesses. We have to table an interim report by April 15. When we return from our break, it will already be March 13. If we want to have something meaningful to say in this report, we will need to complete most of our study by April 15. We need to meet with the Minister, with Mr. Mel Cappe and with Mr. Denis Desautels before we table our interim report.

[English]

The Chair: Do you have a point of order?

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: There's also Mr. Reid and Mr. James K. Martin. As part of our general analysis, we should hear from Mr. Martin as soon as possible, possibly even Thursday, given that he is the Director of the Internal Audit Bureau. I think it's absolutely critical that we pick up the pace. If we limit ourselves to only two meetings per week after the break, then we will be hard pressed to table an interim report of any substance by April 15.

[English]

The Chair: I have a point of order and then Jean Dubé.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: This may be stretching my point of order, but the fact of the matter is that we have someone over there who is suggesting we meet every day who can't get to the meeting when it starts at 11 o'clock. Mr. Chair, across the way we've sat here at more than one meeting when there have been one or two members of the opposition sitting over there. If it's that important, if they get here at 11 o'clock we could get a lot of business done.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: A point of order.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: You can produce all the committee attendance records you want and you will see that no government member has as good a record as I have. I'd like the member to apologize for that statement. As for when we should begin, I'd say that anytime the opposition is represented and we have a quorum is fine with me. The rest, Madam, is none of your concern.

[English]

The Chair: Let's proceed with this discussion. I have Jean Dubé and then Libby Davies.

Mr. Jean Dubé: On this point of order, on Monsieur Crête's request, we've wasted two meetings already. Last week I spoke to you about that.

The Chair: Yes, that's right.

Mr. Jean Dubé: Why are we wasting time?

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: We have voted on all of the motions.

[English]

Mr. Jean Dubé: We went through some motions here. We may as well leave and waste this meeting. Is that what you want? Let's hear it out here. Let's hear what people have to say here.

The Chair: Let's get on the speakers list.

Mr. Jean Dubé: We wasted two meetings last week. That's pretty clear.

The Chair: No fault of the committee.

Mr. Jean Dubé: Because of the votes. It wasn't our doing. It was votes in the House of Commons. We have a scandal at HRDC and we want to get answers to it. We want to call in witnesses. We have a timeline, Judi, from three meetings past. We have an agenda.

How are we going to get to do it? How are we going to get to the bottom of what's going on here? We can meet more than twice a week. This is an important issue. Taxpayers want to know what went on here. How do we do that?

Paul has a great suggestion here. Let's talk about it.

The Chair: It's Libby Davies now. But my interpretation was Paul didn't mean every day; he meant every meeting.

Mr. Paul Crête: No, no, no.

The Chair: Every day?

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: When we resume sitting, for five days.

The Chairman: I'm sorry.

Mr. Paul Crête: I am open to any other suggestion that would allow us to have more than two meetings a week.

[English]

The Chair: Libby Davies.

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): As we continue with this issue and study, I want to know how we're going to line up the witnesses, because I have some suggestions for witnesses.

I think it's very important that we hear witnesses from a variety of sources. If there's a genuine belief from the whole committee that we want to hear different viewpoints about what's happened in HRDC and what's happening with the audit and so on, I think it's really important that we pay attention to a number of different key witnesses. So I have a couple of names to suggest, and I'd like to know when we're going to deal with that.

The Chair: I'll come back to that.

I have Bryon Wilfert and then Judy Sgro.

• 1145

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Mr. Chairman, we adopted a work plan to which we now want to put witnesses. But in my view, we also adopted a work plan that said there are a number of meetings available, and so on, two a week. As we're going along, if there's some extraordinary reason we need extra meetings, so be it. But the fact is, in the work plan it did say so many meetings would be reserved for x and so many for the main work of the committee. So I would suggest to you, with all due respect, there's no desire on this side to hold up the process. Maybe if we would cut the political rhetoric and get on with the job, we'd get—

Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Bravo.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Let's get on with it.

The Chair: Judy Sgro.

Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): Mr. Chair, just to clarify here, I think we all want to move on with this particular project, because with the material that keeps being sent to me, I'm seeing more and more about all these great items this committee intends to deal with. I want to deal with this, but there are all those other items we want to deal with as well.

Are we not talking about HRDC administration? Isn't it administration issues the audit referred to that we want to deal with, which is administration? So why would we need to get broader at this particular time? Isn't our task to deal with the administration problems that were raised and what we're going to do to correct them and ensure they don't happen again, and we can move on to a different process? Is that not what we're doing?

The Chair: If I can interject—

Ms. Judy Sgro: It's a question to the chair.

The Chair: If it is a question to me, we are deciding that now. We have this plan, and we're deciding what we're going to do.

Ms. Judy Sgro: We adopted a plan; we know where we're going.

The Chair: So that's the answer. We're now filling in the details.

For example, if I might say, I think we have some consensus around here that Thursday's meeting should, as Paul said, deal with the generalities. Let's get down to what our grants are going to be so we fully understand what they are.

What we're debating now is what we do when we come back, and given Paul's suggestion, how we do it. That's what we're doing. To be honest, I think we're getting there. You may not, but I do.

Rey Pagtakhan.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Since we've just adopted the outline of the study prepared by the research staff, we now have five points. Now we are debating sequence and priorities. Before we go through that, may I suggest that we let the committee hear from the research staff how they envision the timeframe for each of the points so at least we will know the timeframe? Sometimes we get very preoccupied with sequence when we know if we can hear a timeframe... Can we hear from the research staff?

The Chair: It's a bit like Judy's point. I tend to the view that when we're getting to the matter of inviting witnesses and the order in which they're being invited, that is simply a matter for us, really. I think we have to deal with it. We can't have the staff say to us that we should invite Mel Cappe—

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: No, Mr. Chair, that is not my point. You missed my point.

The Chair: I'm just explaining.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: My point is, I would like to hear from the research staff, plus a piece of information. When you have A, B, C, D, and E, from his point of view, how much time does he envision would be needed to study A, B, C, and D as outlined? Is he able to tell us? If he's not able to tell us, so be it.

The Chair: Okay.

Gentlemen.

Mr. Kevin Kerr (Committee Researcher): You've asked a fairly difficult question, because much depends on how detailed a study the committee wants to undertake. Even in the first section, under part A, it's quite possible to hold ten meetings on that. So it's very difficult for staff to identify a specific number of meetings. I think that's something the committee has to decide.

If you decide to have say two meetings on section A and realize that's not enough, it's very easy to schedule another or another.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Mr. Chair, for letter B, I'd like to hear it.

The Chair: That's all right. You have the floor. Go ahead.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: For letter B...

Mr. Kevin Kerr: It's a few meetings, or one or two meetings. You can deal with the methodological issues in a meeting; you can deal with audit results in a meeting.

The Chair: If I can make a point, Rey, we don't necessarily need to think in terms of having these witnesses one by one. It would be quite possible to design a meeting at which we had two of them, or even three of them, and we would get their different views.

I'm going to go to Jean Dubé.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Mr. Chair, I have just one last point so that I can complete my thoughts.

• 1150

The Chair: As long as it is the last one, Rey, go ahead.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: If we were to have a minimum of one meeting, at least on A, B, and C, or A and B, would we then be guided thereafter on how much more we need?

Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Chair, on a point of order, I'm sorry to interrupt, but it seems to me we're discussing something that should be discussed in subcommittee, and I feel very frustrated. I don't know whether other people around this table are as frustrated as I am, but I feel we're spending a lot of time discussing how we're going to do this, when in fact it is not up to the full committee to do this but it's up to the subcommittee, and we're not spending enough time discussing the contents. I have an increasing level of frustration on this, and I would strongly suggest that this be reported to the subcommittee, which has been created especially for this purpose.

The Chair: Colleagues and Raymonde, to me this is a very important matter. I think we all agree on that. I have tried to keep it that the meetings are in public, not in camera. Typically, our steering committee meets in camera. I think it's more important that we try to deal with it now.

Now, if I can, I'm going to go to Jean Dubé, and then John Godfrey.

Mr. Jean Dubé: Mr. Chair, I think there's a willingness here to move this thing ahead. I think we all want to do it. Let's get with it and call the first witness.

The Chair: John Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey: This would be a bit of a follow-up question. This is to the researchers, because it does relate to what you just said.

I want to ask the researchers, if you take the A, B, C, D, and E, and then you read against that the witness list, witnesses A and B, could you give us a bit of a sense, without making any political judgments, where logically you think, for example, our A list would go? Would we see most of them under the A witness list against the A topic? Where do you see them coming in?

Mr. William R. Young (Committee Researcher): The A sub-topic would be headquarters staff from HRD, regional staff from HRD, the comptrollership people at Treasury Board Secretariat, for example. Your A witness list would start with probably B or C.

Mr. John Godfrey: Okay, so in other words, we would be armed with a kind of general framework so we have some information to use. When we meet the witnesses, we would be in a better position to be more—well, not critical, but—

The Chair: I'm going to try to wind this up. Paul Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: We aren't attending an introductory course on HRDC. We've been serving on this committee for some time now. To assess paragraph A, for example, we need to hear from Mr. Mel Cappe. To look at the documentation and the audit findings, we need to hear from James K. Martin, the Director of the Internal Audit Bureau. Finally, we need to meet immediately with the Auditor General, Mr. Denis Desautels. I think we're ready to hear from these witnesses as soon as possible. I don't think we need to have someone explain to us once agin how the department's programs work. We've already had the necessary briefings.

[English]

The Chair: Okay, colleagues, can I suggest this? If we can agree that the meeting on Thursday is going to be this general briefing, that we're going to call in officials, we would see whether these are HRDC officials from headquarters or from the region, or both. But as we have only two days' notice, we could agree to that. That's one.

Secondly, we have a list of witnesses here, which you're all discussing, but Libby implied that maybe there are others we could call. I would suggest to you that by say the Wednesday of the break, or something like that, if you have lists of witnesses that you think we should call, you would let us have them, because—Libby, am I understanding you right?—the committee would need some idea of who those people are. So we would have those by then.

Might I suggest that we now try to determine a witness or witnesses for the first meeting when we come back, and then leave it? If I could give you an example, if we find on Thursday that we all agree that we need more generalities, we would need more time for generalities. If we call one witness and then we decide we need that witness to come back, we would need to call them back. Could we just get to that point?

• 1155

Then, by the way, when the researchers have the other lists of witnesses, if there are such people, they might be able to sketch out something that would help us decide how we proceed after the first Tuesday back.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Chairman, have you finished...

[English]

The Chair: Well, the only thing I was going to say is that it strikes me that one way to go, if we do the generalities, would be to go to the internal audit first. I have not seen that indicated in here. We might have the internal auditor on the Tuesday, but that's only my suggestion.

Go ahead.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: You're suggesting that we have a general briefing on the overall situation next Thursday and that, after we return from the break, that is on the Tuesday, we focus on the internal audit. I'd also like us to meet with Mr. Mel Cappe early on that same week.

We could hear from Mr. Cappe on Tuesday and from audit officials on Thursday, or vice versa. That could be arranged quickly, but it's important that the Auditor General testify immediately after we have met with the internal audit director so that we can draw some conclusions from this internal audit process, find out whether it can be expanded to cover the entire department and find out where Mr. Desautels is in his analysis. That's an important step.

The other important step is to hear from the various players themselves, players like Mr. Cappe. If we could hear from the internal audit director at our first meeting, and from Mr. Cappe at our second meeting, that would be fine with me.

[English]

The Chair: Again there's a question of whether people are available and so on. By the way, we meet on Thursday this week so we can discuss these matters, I hope briefly, again on Thursday. For the moment we have the consideration of grants and contributions and HRDC officials on Thursday.

When we come back, I would suggest that we agree, because I think it's simpler, Paul... His name is James Martin. We can arrange that now, and I'm sure he'll be able to come. Can we leave it at least until this Thursday to discuss what happens at the second meeting after we come back?

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Then we'd schedule a meeting with Mr. Martin right after we return from our break?

The Chairman: That's right.

Mr. Paul Crête: Fine. And what about our second meeting?

The Chairman: We'll have to wait and see.

Mr. Paul Crête: We could agree right now that it would be an appropriate time to hear from Mr. Cappe.

[English]

The Chair: I hear that. My suggestion is that if the researchers could think a bit between now and this Thursday and if we could consider, we might consider establishing that Thursday meeting that day as well, the next witness, if I might. My hope is that by the first Tuesday back, we would have a sequence of witnesses that we could discuss and accept. Is that okay, colleagues?

This gets us started. We have this Thursday to discuss this matter again. While we have the witnesses there we can discuss this matter. The first Tuesday back we go to the internal audit. We have the transcript of Paul's suggestions and other people's suggestions as to how we proceed from that point. I think it might be clearer after Thursday's meeting, when we have a sense of the generalities.

Libby Davies—you heard my point about calling—

Ms. Libby Davies: Yes. I think we should get in the suggestion for other witnesses fairly quickly. If we're going to line up meetings after the break, I think we need to have an indication of how many different people we're looking at. I would be prepared to put forward the names I've thought of by the next meeting and if other people are prepared to do that too, at least then we'd have an initial idea. It doesn't necessarily have to foreclose it, but at least we'd have an idea of how to then plan the subsequent meetings.

The Chair: Colleagues, I'm in your hands. I suggested next week because I thought perhaps you might need longer, but could we have names of suggested witnesses by this Thursday's meeting?

Rey Pagtakhan.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I think we should adopt an agreement that we submit the list of witnesses as soon as possible.

Mr. John Godfrey: First wave.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: But let it not be the deadline.

The Chair: Okay, I accept that.

Libby, you heard that.

Ms. Libby Davies: Yes.

The Chair: The idea is it would be open-ended.

Ms. Libby Davies: Yes.

The Chair: Let's put it this way. If you want your witnesses to be considered, the earlier we get their names the better. I agree with that.

Maurice Vellacott.

• 1200

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I do concur that this may be an acceptable way to proceed. I would also suggest for the record that we follow up on the internal audit people by having somebody who has done an audit from the outside. The Ekos people have done audits with respect to HRDC programming. I would make that suggestion; that would be appropriate.

The Chair: You are giving a rationale and Paul has already given one. We could envisage the witnesses coming in all sorts of sequences, but I think Thursday it may be clearer to us. We have the transcripts of these meetings, and everything we do is based on the transcripts. We have that on the record.

Colleagues, I'm going to adjourn this meeting. On Thursday we meet again at the regular time. We will have HRDC officials giving a briefing with respect to grants and contributions in general. Our present consideration is that we call the internal auditor for the first Tuesday we come back. You are asked to provide your names of witnesses for the first wave by Thursday, and others as soon as you possibly can.

Jean Dubé.

Mr. Jean Dubé: Before you adjourn, in the first meeting when we get back, you're calling James Martin.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Jean Dubé: That would be the Tuesday. On the Thursday, would you be going to another witness in section A?

The Chair: That is up to the committee, but my assumption is yes.

Mr. Jean Dubé: So we can start working on it now, to see their schedule as well, to make sure that—

The Chair: No. We have already advised the people who have been called, but we'll advise them. We'll do our best, yes.

Mr. Jean Dubé: Okay.

The Chair: Rey Pagtakhan has the very last thing.

Before people go, I just want to say don't forget the meeting tomorrow. I urge you. We have these guests from Sweden, and I think it's very important when parliamentarians come that they get a good reception.

Rey Pagtakhan.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: When we invite the HRDC officials, can we tell them in advance to address in their presentations at the minimum the five points under A?

The Chair: Yes.

Colleagues, the meeting is adjourned. You will have briefing notes for Wednesday, for tomorrow's meeting.