[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, May 30, 1995
.1543 
[English]
The Chairman: Good afternoon everyone, and welcome to our witnesses from the Department of Human Resources Development.
This afternoon we are continuing the committee's review of the department's estimates. We are going to conclude that review this afternoon with an examination of the income security programs component of the human resources development department's estimates for 1995-96.
We have as our witnesses this afternoon Mr. Dennis Kealey, the project manager of ISP Redesign; Mr. Wayne Ganim, the acting director general of program delivery services; and Mr. Rodney Hagglund, the directeur des politiques, Politiques et Législation de la sécurité de revenue; and finally, we have again David Good, the assistant deputy minister of financial and administrative services for the department.
Mr. Good, would you like to lead off on behalf of your colleagues?
Mr. David A. Good (Assistant Deputy Minister, Financial and Administrative Services, Department of Human Resources Development): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I don't have a lengthy opening statement. I simply want to put on the record that Monique Plante, the assistant deputy minister responsible for income security programs, is ill today and unable to be here. Dennis Kealey, who as you indicated is a project director for ISP Redesign, is the acting assistant deputy minister for income security programs, and he's with us today.
.1545
I should also indicate, just to situate the IS program and the expenditures in the broader context of the $65 billion total expenditures for the department, that what the committee will be looking at this afternoon will be about $38 billion in expenditures, which is the amount for the income security programs - the OAS and the GIS program - about $21.4 billion, plus the $16.8 billion for the Canada Pension Plan. So that sets out a broad context for the overall expenditures.
The Chairman: Thank you very much for that opening remark. Do any of your colleagues have any opening words?
Before turning it over to the members of the committee, I might also remind committee members that in the envelope for income security programs, operating expenditures is a votable item, vote number 25, and the rest are statutory programs that are administered by the department.
So perhaps I'll begin the questioning, in the usual manner, with Madam Lalonde.
Mrs. Lalonde (Mercier): What is number 25?
The Chairman: Income security programs.
[Translation]
It relates to income security programs.
Mrs. Lalonde: Is it the one for 110 million dollars?
[English]
The Chairman: When we're talking about vote number 25, that's $110,710,000; that's the vote we're talking about.
Just to get us in the groove, as it were, perhaps you could just give us an outline. We know what the main programs are, but perhaps you could give us a brief overview of what the $110,710,000 is about and guide us quickly through the documents. I know this is not part of your script, but we're trying to get all of our members focused on the issue at hand.
Mr. Wayne Ganim (Acting Director General, Program Delivery Services, Department of Human Resources Development): In the French document, if you go to pages 4-26 and 4-27 - and I don't know what it is in the English document, but it is around there - you will get a detailed breakdown of the operating budgets of the program, in terms of its various components.
The Chairman: The profile of program resources and details of personnel requirements?
Mr. Ganim: That's right, yes. It's on page 4-25 of the English version.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: Is that what we'll be voting on?
The Chairman: Yes. The remainder is statutory. Of course it doesn't prevent you from asking questions about the statutory expenditures for the purpose of clarification.
Mrs. Lalonde: First of all I'd like to point out that I was here at 3:30 and if I don't have enough time, since the delay is due to my charming Liberal colleagues, I'll assume that they'll be willing to extend me more time.
In Saint-Hyacinthe, the office that dealt with matters relating to old age pensions was shut down. People now have to dial a 1-800 number but there's nothing at the end of the line. When I was contacted at the end of the afternoon, I made an attempt myself to telephone the department. I was put on hold by an answering machine and given some soothing music to listen to, probably Mozart. I listened for five minutes but the music did not soothe my savage breast. I think it's ridiculous.
.1550
As far as services are concerned, I don't know where they are to be found in the 110 million dollars, but we're very worried about the level of service. This was mentioned in relation to Bill C-54 and we repeat it here because it is a matter of the utmost importance. There is of course the matter of cost audits, but the quality of service provided to people is extremely important.
Because of software problems people found themselves without income, not only in the case of the supplement but also for the pensions themselves. It was supposed to be corrected but this was not done. A number of members of Parliament have even issued cheques to people who are destitute. I don't know whether this is the case in the remainder of Canada but it's certainly true for Quebec, where there are serious problems.
What type of savings to you expect to make with C-54? Are these savings to be found in the budget before us?
[English]
Mr. Dennis Kealey (Project Manager, ISP Redesign, Department of Human Resources Development): Mr. Chairman, the department itself is also very concerned about service levels, both for walk-in clients who come into our offices, like St. Hyacinthe, as well as for our clients who phone in to the various telephone centres across the country. That is why we've undertaken an investment in completely re-engineering the service delivery system for income security programs; that's both OAS and CPP.
We are into the first year of a three-year implementation of this new delivery network to try to bring about service improvements to our clients and to eliminate backlogs. We know right now that many of our clients have difficulty - waiting good periods of time - in getting answers on their applications as to whether or not they are eligible.
We know that we have difficulties with many of our clients, particularly at the end of the month on cheque days, when everybody tries to phone in at once. The phones jam up and our technology in the past has not been satisfactory to handle that demand.
As well, when they can't get through to us on the phone, we are quite aware that they then come down to our walk-in centres and the waiting rooms are filled. That is why we are undertaking this new initiative of ISP redesign.
It will be at least two more years - we are in the first year of a three-year implementation - before we get the full impact of the service-level improvements. In the meantime, though, we have taken some interim steps to improve our services in various areas; for example, in the telephones. Rather than waiting for the new telephone system to be fully installed, we've put in new automatic call distribution systems in fourteen of our telephone centres to try to manage the flow of calls, particularly at the peak periods of the months when a lot of people are calling.
We have assigned additional staff to telephones as well to help us through this transition period until the new system is in place. We have set up a special overflow new telephone unit in Bathurst, New Brunswick to handle - notwithstanding the other measures that we've put in place - peak periods, peak workloads, where we cannot manage the telephone calls. That overflow is being directed to Bathurst, where we're handling those extra calls.
.1555
To give you a sense of what this is accomplishing, in 1993-94 we were only handling 43% of our client telephone calls. At the end of 1994-95, by these temporary measures we've put in place, we're handling 86% of the demand. That's a substantial improvement from what we were doing before. But the full answer to improving our client service will rest when we have fully implemented the ISP redesign project.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: And what about the savings resulting from C-54?
Mr. Ganim: C-54 does contain a certain number of provisions. The one that will generate the most significant savings is the change in the renewal procedure for the guaranteed income supplement.
Once the bill is passed, we'll be able to work in closer co-operation with Revenue Canada. It's not something we'll be doing necessarily but we'll have this possibility. First of all, this will obviate the need for our clients to fill out an application for the supplement. Instead we'll be using the information we obtained directly from Revenue Canada. That should result in savings amounting to about $20 million.
The other procedure will make it possible for us to do away with the present audit of information provided to us by the client in March with information received from Revenue Canada in April. We shall be simply making use of the information from Revenue Canada. Thus we will be able to avoid the overpayments that occurred in March until the audit took place in the fall.
With these two provisions we expect savings in the neighbourhood of $20 million.
Mrs. Lalonde: As far as I know not everyone earning only pension income fills out a tax return.
Mr. Ganim: That is why we are working with Revenue Canada to do exactly...
Mrs. Lalonde: But these people don't send in a tax return.
Mr. Ganim: Yes, but we'll still have the information provided by our clients in our files. In such cases we'll develop the appropriate procedures for people who have not filed a tax return. Will we be considering a return or will it be based on what was done the previous year? Why ask people for additional information when the information remains unchanged from year to year?
Mrs. Lalonde: This is a concern I raised in a number of occasions and I was told I would be shown a copy of the regulation that I'd never seen. So I'm asking again. I was told that because of automatic renewal, which is a good thing, the people who were entitled to a guaranteed income supplement would be contacted.
However, because this new legislation does make it possible for the government to go back five years, an elderly person who has acted in good faith and whose circumstances have changed but who has not filed a tax return, and once again this is not uncommon among such people, could find himself in a situation where he had been receiving the guaranteed income supplement without any entitlement because of changes in circumstances.
I was told that these people would be contacted every year to verify the situation. I would like to have some assurance that this is done because otherwise the government would be responsible for creating conditions resulting in an overpayment and then of course the need to reimburse such overpayments.
Mr. Ganim: Until the legislation is passed we cannot say...
Mrs. Lalonde: No, that didn't come into play. But with C-54, you will no longer require signed forms.
Mr. Ganim: Once C-54 is passed, we will work with Revenue Canada to establish, through regulations, procedures that will have to be followed by our clients to make an application. As for payments to clients who do not file an income tax return, at the present time no procedures have been developed.
.1600
Mrs. Lalonde: I have no choice but to accept your answer. There's no guarantee. We'll have to wait until next year to put the question to you again. There's a definite danger, especially since you'll be cutting back on costs, and there's nothing in the lesgislation requiring the government to be careful. It wouldn't be the first time that... I'm not accusing anyone but there is a system that is stupid and nasty.
Mr. Ganim: Our system will make it possible to identify those who have not filed a tax return to Revenue Canada.
Mrs. Lalonde: Will a person who was entitled to a guaranteed income supplement the previous year be contacted the following year?
Mr. Ganim: As I already said, the procedures have not yet been developped and we do not know how we will operate once Bill C-54 is passed. At the present time, clients are all contacted but new people who have not established their claim to the supplement do not receive a form but must make an application every year.
Mr. Lalonde: Not with C-54. That's what I've been telling you. It's been changed by C-54. That's what you want to change to make savings.
Mr. Ganim: To save time so that the person doesn't have to fill out two forms. People who do not fill out the form at the present time and who are no longer entitled to the supplement altough they were entitled the previous year will have to fill out a form. We have to have some procedure. At the present time, C-54 will not result in any change to that.
Mrs. Lalonde: We haven't read the same Bill. It undoubtedly does make changes. You yourself said so at the beginning.
Mr. Ganim: We are eliminating two forms for those who file an income tax return. Those who do not file a return will still have to make an application. There are already procedures in place. How will they apply? It will be based on the information they have given us the previous year and if they are still entitled, they will continue to receive their cheques. Or else there will be a new application.
Mrs. Lalonde: There is no requirement for an income tax return in the Act. That isn't how it's written. But you say that you'll check it.
Mr. Ganim: Yes.
Mrs. Lalonde: Have you prepared the regulations relating to C-54? If so, when can we see them?
[English]
Mr. Kealey: No, there's no guideline or regulation on that. I think the basic requirement is in the OAS-GIS legislation. There are some amendments to it that withdraw the requirement to submit a form annually, but the basic requirement to contact the client each year is still in the basic legislation.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: No it isn't. That is what we're worried about because previously the government was able to go back only one year. From now on you'll be able to go back five years. That makes a difference and if you don't set out the appropriate procedures, ordinary people will end up being penalized. It's the elderly who are the most vulnerable.
[English]
Mr. Kealey: We can look into that, Mr. Chairman, and get back to the committee.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: I hope you understand what I mean.
[English]
The Chairman: Yes, I think the point's been made and the differences of view are on the record.
Perhaps now we could turn to the Reform Party, Mrs. Ablonczy, to pursue the questioning.
Mrs. Ablonczy (Calgary North): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As I understand it, gentlemen, we in this committee have a responsibility to examine the expenditures you have placed before us to see whether they're as effective and efficient as they can be. I'd like first to ask you about overpayments under OAS and CPP. Can you tell me how much is currently owed back to the government because of overpayment?
Mr. Ganim: The estimates of overpayments on both of those programs range in the vicinity of $140 million to $220 million. That estimate has been validated by the Auditor General in his 1993 report and is based on statistical sampling in terms of the number of accounts and the error rates that could exist in those accounts.
.1605
We have no argument with that number from the AG. It's a reasonable number done on a reasonable basis; it's based on what we know about our programs. That's basically a reasonable number of accounts receivables that could be out there in terms of overpayments that we have to try to collect in terms of the amounts.
Mrs. Ablonczy: I understand from the last budget that the pension system will be re-examined and that there will unfortunately be some cut-backs in benefits, so of course it's important that people who aren't entitled to benefits aren't getting those benefits so that we can reserve them for those who do need them. I'm wondering what you're doing to collect those overpayments and also what you're doing to identify overpayments before they occur.
Mr. Ganim: We have a number of initiatives that have been on the go for a number of years to collect those accounts receivables that are properly due the Crown. On that we are doing relatively well.
We've initiated with the corporate finance people a re-examination of our accounts receivable system and we're developing a new accounts receivable system for OAS and CPP to help us manage the accounts receivables on that basis. At the same time the system is being developed, we're going through a clean-up exercise on the accounts receivables and collecting some of those accounts that are due.
On those issues that were raised by the Auditor General, we also have a number of initiatives that have been funded by Treasury Board to plug some of the holes that are in the system while we're awaiting the redesign of our delivery system, which is coming in 1997. We've initiated a number of initiatives, working with Revenue Canada to correct some of the problems with the GIS overpayments that were identified.
Also, the disability area was an area where the Auditor General talked about overpayments in the vicinity of $65 million. We initiated a project back in 1993 to review all disability clients and their continuing eligibility for benefits. To date, that project has generated $32 million in savings, and that project will be accelerated in the next year and a half with special funding from the board to make sure we get through the whole database.
As we go through the clean-up and move toward this new system we are developing, we are finding areas where there are problems and we're correcting them, in terms of making the corrections to the clients' accounts, and either remitting, if it was our fault and not that of the client that the overpayment existed, or going after collection in terms of the account. To date, of the approximately $140 million, we have identified and collected something along the lines of $65 million in terms of those initiatives we have had to date, in terms of moving towards that.
You have to look at overpayments and you have to talk about overpayments per se that are identified and that we're going to have collections on. When we fix a problem, we call that cost avoidance. If you look at the total to date that we have generated with these initiatives, since the Auditor General's report, in both the OAS and CPP, we're talking about $77.8 million that we have saved, both in cost avoidance and in overpayments.
Mrs. Ablonczy: Under Bill C-54 the overpayments can simply be forgiven and really ignored at the discretion of the minister and the department. How is that going to impact on your collection of overpayments?
Mr. Ganim: We currently have that provision for remitting under the CPP legislation. It can be used in specific areas. It gives the minister the right to remit in specific areas.
I could be corrected by Rodney, but I think Bill C-54 basically brings OAS up to parallel with CPP. I don't think it's going to affect the accounts receivable in a negative way. What it's going to do for us is to allow us to forgive those clients who have an overpayment through no fault of their own so we don't have to collect it from these clients. I don't think it's going to affect our activities on the collections side in a negative way. It's just going to give us the ability to not collect those accounts on the OAS side from those clients who don't deserve to have to pay the money back.
Mrs. Ablonczy: Under CPP, of course, the pay-out for disability has risen quite remarkably. In fact, the forecast now is that it's going to rise in the next few years by up to, I think, about $5 billion. I forgot my sheet, but that's the number I remember as the forecast. You probably know it better than I do.
.1610
I'm just wondering whether that causes the department any concern. It seems like a remarkable increase in disabled Canadians being forecast. I wondered if you could give us some background on why that increased expenditure is forecast.
Mr. Rodney Hagglund (Assistant Director General, Income Security Programs, Policy and Legislation, Department of Human Resources Development): There has been a significant increase, particularly in the last five years, in the number of CPP disability benefits. We now have close to 300,000 persons receiving a disability benefit of the Canada Pension Plan.
This is not something that has happened just overnight. When one looks back over the history of the program, the number of disability beneficiaries has been increasing faster than the size of the population for some time. But the recent increase is of particular concern to the chief actuary because it hasn't shown an indication of quickly returning to a lower level, as might have happened in past recessions.
There is a certain degree to which our disability benefits are naturally affected by labour market effects. The disability benefit is based on a medical condition, but a person who isn't able to work, for reasons both of medical and other forces, may be more likely to apply for the benefit than someone who despite physical or medical problems is still able to work.
We clearly have a great concern about the administrative workload, about what it means for our clientele, and about what it means for social policy to see an increase in the Canada Pension Plan disability beneficiary population. A great deal of work is going on in identifying possible causes and looking at whether those causes are legitimate, whether there is some change in processes that could identify persons who may not be eligible for benefits.
It's not a phenomenon that's associated strictly with the Canada Pension Plan. Other countries, such as the United States, for example, are experiencing increases in their disability beneficiary population.
We will be undergoing a thorough review by the finance ministers of the impact this has on the financial structure of the CPP, based on the last actuarial report, this fall. It also is something that will be looked at in the context of the paper that's being developed on the future of the pension system.
There are many different possible causes one could allude to. Some would say that the answer might end up being that all these things are factors and the only question is what weight they have: high unemployment, economic restructuring, a greater awareness by the public that disability benefits are available from the program than might have been the case in the past, because they may not have been aware that CPP provided disability insurance.
There certainly have been in the recent past a great number of referrals from provincial governments that have examined their social assistance case-load. Many of them have special disability benefits, so they can actually identify those who have disability benefits in accordance with their legislation, and they have taken steps to refer those people to the Canada Pension Plan. In Ontario, for example, a special project was set up based in Peterborough to handle the case-load of the people who were sent by the Ontario government.
There's nothing incorrect about that action. The Canadian Pension Plan was designed to provide benefits to people who have paid in and became disabled while insured. But it has represented a specific additional workload in recent years. I think that's the kind of thing that can happen in a short period of time, but that doesn't necessarily represent a long-term change in the case-load.
.1615
Mrs. Ablonczy: But the long-term forecast is that this is going to grow exponentially.
Mr. Hagglund: It has been growing exponentially. The long-term forecast is that it will grow further and then taper off. The chief actuary's forecast shows a flattening of the growth of the beneficiary population, but not immediately.
That growth will mean, in his estimate, that the costs of CPP disability benefits will be higher. If the experience in the future with the program - through changes, re-examination of administrative practices, etc. - changes that, the chief actuary will alter his estimate again. Of course those are always projections.
Mrs. Ablonczy: So that will be taken into account. I think a lot of people who are expecting CPP benefits are concerned about the financial stability of the fund. Of course the growth of disability payments is a big factor there. You are aware of it and are taking that into account when you're looking at that plan.
Mr. Hagglund: Yes. The program's financial structure is established to deal with fluctuations, because by the very nature of a social security system, not everything that happens is what was forecast. The program was set up and the financial structure we now have was established by legislation that took effect in 1987. It requires that a schedule of contribution rates be in place that's reviewed every 5 years. It's established the contribution rate for 25 years in the future.
Every 5 years, ministers of finance from the federal government and the provinces get together to determine whether the 20-year remaining rate schedule is adequate to meet the needs of the program, and to establish what the rates should be for the following 5 years. Within very narrow limits, in normal circumstances right now those rates would have to be legislated through an act of Parliament.
In addition, the plan carries a fund. The fund is not intended to provide all the benefits, but it's there to provide a buffer in the case of economic fluctuations, so you don't have to immediately raise the contribution rate to pay next month's cheque. The program fund right now holds about two and a half years' worth of benefits. The legislation targets the long-term intention to be a 2-year benefit fund.
Mrs. Ablonczy: Thank you.
Ms Augustine (Etobicoke - Lakeshore): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the deputies for giving their time and effort to this.
I want to ask about children, support for children, children's programs, initiatives in child care, and national child care information. There are a whole series of things that are scattered throughout. I'm trying to bring it all together in some way in response to the progress we're making and the decisions we've made to date.
I know some interaction has to take place with the provinces. I'm asking where all of this is and whether we're arriving at some framework that speaks to best practices or standards or principles. I'm trying to find this. I know there are different places where you've cited new initiatives. Maybe if we can start on the new initiatives and work our way backwards, we can have some notion as to where the expenditures are in terms of children.
Mr. Good: Mr. Chairman, a point of order. We discussed the social development and education program this morning with Mr. Green who was here and who is the ADM responsible for the area that includes child care. Regrettably, this afternoon those who are with us have responsibilities for the income security program with the elderly. So I must indicate that we're really not in a position to provide a definitive answer to the question that's been raised.
However, I can take it under consideration. If I understand the question, it was to get a clearer sense and to more precisely identify where the child-related initiatives are and where they stand within the rather heavy estimates in part III.
.1620
Offhand, I'm not personally in a position to do that at this moment. But I can undertake to examine it in more detail in the course of this meeting and perhaps provide some broader direction.
I apologize to the committee inasmuch as.... Those who were here this morning -
Ms Augustine: It was my understanding this morning that this was under the ISP and it was to be in the discussion this afternoon. You don't have to apologize. We just miscommunicated.
The Chairman: That was your question?
Ms Augustine: That was the area I wanted to pursue.
The Chairman: You have no further questions at this time?
Ms Augustine: No.
The Chairman: Ms Minna, would you like to carry on?
Ms Minna (Beaches - Woodbine): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to touch base on a couple of areas. One is the child tax benefit. It says here that Revenue Canada will basically be taking over all of the administration of that program.
Who does the program review of that program? Does HRDC do the program review, in terms of seeing whether or not the program is doing what it was intended to do, who it's benefiting and who it's not, family income, demographics, all of that?
Right now it's being co-managed, I gather. If Revenue Canada is going to take it over, does HRDC continue to do or does it now do any program review in terms of effectiveness and whether or not it's...?
Mr. Kealey: The measures being taken with respect to the transfer mean that the full responsibility for the administration of this program will be with Revenue Canada. That occurs in the middle of this current fiscal year, in August 1995. The program review of that would come under Revenue Canada then.
Ms Minna: So the program is leaving HRDC entirely.
Mr. Kealey: That is correct. In 1992, a large part of the administration, the determination of the amounts of money being paid, was transferred - in the budget of 1992, I think it was - to Revenue Canada. The only portion of the administration that remained with HRDC was the determination of eligibility, a small portion of the administration.
What is happening in these estimates is that final part of the administration is being transferred over to Revenue Canada so that the client at the other end, we feel, will be better able to deal with one administration rather than two, which they do right now.
Ms Minna: Part of the reason this interested me is that I'm having, and I've had all along, some difficulty with what programs are for social assistance and who evaluates. We have tax expenditures over here, social policy in this department, chunks of direct moneys. Program review isn't being done on the tax expenditures side, which would be child tax benefit, really by anyone.
My concern is this. If program review is not being done by HRDC, I'm not sure what criterion Revenue Canada is going to use and whether or not it will do tax expenditure on the basis of social assistance, social programming, and whether or not we're accomplishing in our society what we intended to accomplish with these programs.
Mr. Good: Let me try to respond to that. The member is asking a very good question, which is that the government uses a number of instruments to pursue public policy - one being the direct expenditures on the expenditure side, as well as tax expenditures in the form of the refundable child tax credit.
As my colleague has indicated, the overall responsibility for the administration of the tax expenditure on the child tax benefit and others rests clearly with Revenue Canada. The Minister of Human Resources Development does retain overall and broad responsibility in the area of children, and you recall the discussion this morning with regard to the human resources investment fund as set out in the budget. One of the purposes of that fund is to not only deal with helping in a more active way with the unemployed and helping people find new jobs, but also addressing the broader question of combating child poverty.
So the broader social overlay, if you will, or social review, clearly rests with this department in terms of the broader context of poverty and children in that context. The overall responsibilities then, save for the actual delivery of that program, would rest in this department.
.1625
Quite clearly, matters like this require extensive consultations between departments: the Department of Finance, given their tax responsibilities; the Department of Human Resources Development, given our responsibilities for social policy; and obviously, the Department of National Revenue, given their responsibilities in the delivery system. So it will require a coordinated approach.
I guess, for the record, I want to indicate that there is a policy responsibility that does reside in Human Resources Development Canada.
Ms Minna: To follow up, has HRDC done any evaluation or analysis at this point of the child tax benefit in terms of its effectiveness, which is whether or not it's meeting the objectives for which it was established vis-à-vis the issues we were just discussing, such as child poverty, and so on. Have there been current analyses or evaluations done in the department of that program?
Mr. Good: I can't provide a definitive answer, but my colleague from this morning, Mr. Green, could perhaps do so.
I would simply indicate that, in the context of the human resources investment fund, one is currently looking at the question of child poverty. But as to the specific question, I am not qualified to give an answer. I'm sorry.
Ms Minna: I will leave that area alone for now.
With regard to appeals under the charter, could you tell me what sort of charter challenges we will we be getting against the income security programs?
This is a double-edged sword type of question, you might say. On the spousal allowance, the only way to receive that is to be married. If you're a single or divorced person, you're not eligible for spousal allowance. Is that correct?
Mr. Hagglund: You're just about correct. There are two marital statuses, if you wish, by which to receive a spousal allowance.
If you are a spouse of an old age security pensioner, assuming all the other criteria are met, and you are 64 years of age, you could receive a spouse's allowance. It is an uncontested benefit.
There is also a spousal allowance, called the widow's spousal allowance, that is available to widows and widowers between the ages of 60 to 64 who otherwise meet the criteria of the program.
So there are two groups that receive forms of spousal allowance at the moment.
At present, and for some time now, we have been in the process of litigation under a charter challenge. Fortunately, because of various delays, it has not yet reached the first level of the Federal Court. That is expected to happen within the next twelve months.
This is the case of Granek, Taylor, Ward, Campbell and Collins, which is usually referred to as the Granek challenge. It alleges discrimination against single, divorced, and separated persons of 60 and 64 years of age. It also alleges sex discrimination in the process of the claim being made. The trial is actually not expected to get started until the fall of 1996.
There are several other challenges against the programs on various grounds. Of course, the most recent and well-publicized one was the case that was decided by the Supreme Court of Egan and Nesbit, which came down last Thursday. The determination of the court was that the program legislation was in keeping with the Constitution.
Ms Minna: Women make up one of the most disadvantaged groups in the pension system because they generally have not paid as much into the Canada Pension Plan as men in some cases, in previous years, and so on. Is there any data within the department on gender analysis with respect to those who are single or divorced or what have you who are not eligible? Does this break down evenly? Is it mostly women who tend to be left out of this puzzle of allowance assistance because they are single, divorced or separated?
Mr. Hagglund: There has certainly been a great deal of analysis related to the court challenges. In the course of preparing defences, those sorts of questions are raised and examined by both sides. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that any information in those processes is going to be available until the court challenges are heard because of the solicitor-client privilege that surrounds a case once it's before the courts. But we could check on what information is available.
.1630
Ms Minna: It would be interesting to know, if you did have it available or if it had been done in any way, just how that breaks in terms of the people who are being left out of that equation - those who cannot access it - because that's an area that is of interest.
The other has to do, again, with Canada Pension. On page 4-17, under appeals, they seem to have doubled from 1989 to 1994. Obviously, the requests have increased. Now, I understand that the increase has been entirely on the side of disability requests. So do the appeals all have to do with disabilities?
Mr. Ganim: The largest majority of appeals have to do with disabilities. On average, around 25% of the initial applications, which are hovering around 100,000, appeal at the first level. So it's around 25% of 100,000. So that's basically the ratio. It follows the same levelling or the increase in the number of applications that come in.
Ms Minna: What percentage of the appeals are being won, and what percentage are being lost - won by the client, I mean?
Mr. Ganim: Right now we're moving around a 50-50 split at the first level - 50% are upheld and 50% are denied at the first level of appeal. That percentage is continually coming down as we get more up to date on the number of applications we have in the appeals process.
There was a time when we had a significant backlog in the appeals. They were dealing with appeals that were a year, a year and a half, and two years old. Therefore, on medical grounds, the individual has either got worse or better. In the majority of cases, they're getting worse. It went as high as 60%.
But as we get more up to date on the processing of our appeals, that percentage is coming down. We hope to get it down by the end of this fiscal year to around 40%, if our plan holds true in terms of getting the backlog of appeals down.
Ms Minna: Okay.
To what do you attribute this huge increase? Are more people becoming disabled all of a sudden? Is there a change in...?
Mr. Ganim: I think Rodney referred to it a little earlier in his previous answer.
We've done a number of studies internally, and we're all preparing for the fall review and the meeting of the ministers of finance with the provinces. There's not really one condition that stands out more than the other. You can add them all in. There's not one that takes the majority of the lead.
You can take economic conditions, the employment factors, the changes to legislation as a result of Bill C-57, the changes to legislation in terms of contributory requirements in the late 1980s, and issues like referrals from the provinces, which are significant lately in terms of Ontario. You can list a number of factors that we are looking into to try to find out exactly where they are and if there's anything we can do to either correct the problem or adjust our numbers, as the actuarial...has done.
So that's what we're working on right now in line with the fall review that the ministers of finance are going to be doing to the contribution rate.
Ms Minna: Thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you, Ms Minna.
I'll now turn it back over to the official opposition for another short round by Mme Lalonde.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: Do you know how many people entitled to the Guaranteed Income Supplement do not file income tax returns?
Mr. Ganim: I do not have the figures here today, but we could obtain that information.
Mrs. Lalonde: Could you send it to us?
Mr. Ganim: Yes.
Mrs. Lalonde: Let's talk about the Canada Health and Social Transfer which we strongly oppose... Administratively, have you thought about enforcing paragraph 48(13)(d) of Bill C-76 which stipulates that the government shall develop a set of shared principles and objectives... Unfortunately, I do not have the text here. You must have a copy of Bill C-76. It is clause 48, with a ``A'', the one that Mr. Martin amended before saying that we were out in left field.
.1635
In paragraph (d), it says that the government, through the Canada Health and Social Transfer will develop a set of shared principles and objectives, but in relation to what the provinces have agreed upon. It's not written like that. It's unclear. Have you imagined what kind of support the Department could give paragraph (d): ``Principles and Objectives''?
Before dismantling the administrative team responsible for the CAP, are you going to wait and see whether or not this team will be used to develop other national standards, objectives or principles?
[English]
Mr. Good: I can give only a very general answer, because this again is the responsibility of Mr. Green, who has responsibility for social development and education and the Canada Assistance Plan.
The answer is yes, in the context of examining, I believe, the 100 FTEs that Mr. Green referred to this morning to reduce the requirement for the Canada Assistance Plan. There will indeed be a requirement to retain a portion of those to deal not only with the outstanding accounts that are required, but also with the other questions that you raised with respect to the question of conditions and the non-residency requirement, which is a part of that bill.
I'm afraid I can't give a more detailed response than that, but that, I think, is the general position of the department.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: On the question of the Canada Pension Plan, is the increase in disability requests under the Canada Pension Plan linked to provincial government policy relating to social assistance or income security? Are certain provincial governments encouraging people to use the Canada Pension Plan instead of going on social assistance?
[English]
Mr. Hagglund: To some extent, the answer to that is yes. It would be premature and probably wrong to suggest that is the primary reason the disability-beneficiary population has increased.
But the Ontario government, for example, in response to criticism by the provincial auditor about its lack of systematic approach to the issue of Canada Pension Plan eligibility and, I think, eligibility to other benefits as well on behalf of the social assistance population, has made a concerted effort to examine its beneficiary population to see whether some people to whom they are paying social assistance benefits might be eligible for other programs, in particular the Canada Pension Plan.
.1640
Our administration has cooperated fully with that effort in the sense that we are in the business of providing benefits to people who apply and making sure they have an opportunity to do so.
Every effort was made to ensure the applications that came in from those people were processed promptly and decisions made for or against. This example has been seen by other provinces, and I think several of them have expressed similar interest.
It's not from such long-standing origin, though, that you could say that's the reason that our beneficiary population has risen. It was rising in the late 1980s and has continued to rise in the 1990s, and that recent exercise in the period around 1992-93 has certainly contributed to the caseload and the workload of our administration over that period of time.
It's of course the business of the Canada Pension Plan administration simply to ensure that people who do apply receive benefits, and there's never an effort to discourage people from applying.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: If you allow me one comment, I would say that all the aspects of income security are interconnected. When a government wants to make savings there are no real savings, because someone else is going to have to pay. What you gain on the swings you lose on the roundabouts.
[English]
Mr. Hagglund: That's correct. There are important advantages to a social assistance recipient from their point of view -
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: It depends on the provinces.
[English]
Mr. Hagglund: - to get a Canada Pension Plan benefit. It's something they've paid for, and they have more or less earned the insurance that's there. By receiving a Canada Pension Plan benefit for disability, they also protect their future entitlement to a pension when they reach age 65. Otherwise, those non-earning years, when they're receiving social assistance, might count against them in the averaging that goes into the calculation of their benefits.
So there are important advantages to be achieved by being on Canada Pension Plan benefits. Not only that, but, in some cases, once the person is receiving Canada Pension Plan benefits, the amount that we would pay could be greater than the amount they would receive from social assistance, and they might cease to be a social assistance client altogether.
The Chairman: Just before I continue with the second round for the reform, I want to alert the committee members that I'm going to try to finish our questioning by 5 p.m. so that we can deal with the rest of our business before the vote, which is anticipated for 5:15 p.m. This is just to give you an idea of what the timetable I'm working with is.
I'll now turn to the Reform Party for additional questions, if you have some.
Mrs. Ablonczy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
On vote 25, operating expenditures, these expenditures have risen from last year, from around $96,000 to close to $111,000. I was wondering what accounts for that increase, which is fairly substantial.
Mr. Good: On page 4-25 of part III of the estimates, one can see the items for increase indicated, and in the area of salaries, there has been a slight reduction from $141,000 to $137,000. The areas of increase have been in the area of professional and special services, from $42,900 to $72,300, and in examining that table, most of the other areas have remained approximately the same, so that has been the main area of increase.
Mrs. Ablonczy: Can you detail a bit more what that entails?
.1645
Mr. Good: I don't have at my fingertips a further breakdown of professional and special services. My colleagues may.
Mr. Kealey: I can offer some insight into it. I don't have the breakdown relating to these items, but a good portion of this relates to the special initiatives undertaken by the administration to improve some of the problem areas we had: in appeals processing, in the phone service, the communications strategy for CPP, the disability reassessment project, a patrols project, and improvements to the accounts receivable system. A number of special initiatives were taken to improve the control of the expenditures as well as the client service related to those expenditures.
Mrs. Ablonczy: One of the things in vote 25 is this program, the CPP communications strategy. The strategy proposes to conduct focus testing, environmental analysis surrounding CPP financing, brochures, fact sheets on different CPP benefits, handbooks for social workers, information kits for lawyers, and a series of articles and presentations to various groups. This item is stated on page 4-19 to be budgeted to spend $4.4 million in 1995-96. Can you give us some justification for this expenditure?
Mr. Ganim: The CPP communications strategy was put in place starting in 1993-94 in response to three major thrusts or initiatives. One of them was the CPP advisory board had prepared a report to the minister. It was tabled in the House. It reported on the inadequacy of...people's knowledge of CPP was totally inadequate.
The second reference was made in the Auditor General's report, where they made an observation and recommended that we increase the communications on CPP because people who are paying into the fund don't know what they're entitled to or what they paying for.
The third area that initiated the strategy and the implementation of the strategy was the survey done in the early 1990s, which indicated to the department that there was a very low understanding of the Canada Pension Plan in the country by Canadians.
In response to those three initiatives, or three reports, the department launched a review and a strategy, and basically we adopted at that time a low-keyed, persistent, targeted strategy with regional delivery on those issues. The objective is to bring Canadians' knowledge of their plan up to date on the various issues.
The things you have enumerated are some initiatives we've undertaken to meet those objectives of bringing Canadians up to date on what their pension plan is all about. We plan some more for this year. This year, 1995-96, the emphasis will be on development partnerships with the private sector in delivering that information, for example working with the credit unions, working with the local caisse-populaires in talking about exactly how we can get into things, because we're in the same type of business; it's all related. The strategy is in response to those three reports or observations.
Mr. Johnston (Wetaskiwin): When I was looking through the main estimates I noticed in vote 50 they have been allocated two-thirds of their budget to cover interim supply, when, for instance, votes 15, 20, 40, and 45 have been allocated 25% of their budget to cover interim supply. What in the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety program expenditures would require two-thirds of their budget to be allocated in the first quarter?
Mr. Good: This is a question concerning the responsibility of the Minister of Labour and dealing with the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety in Hamilton.
.1650
I frankly don't know the answer to why there has been a higher level of interim supply given. I will undertake to get back, through the chairman, to the committee with an answer to that question.
The Chairman: Mr. Johnston, are you dealing with the income support programs component of the HRD department this afternoon? That's it? Okay.
Back to the Liberals; Ms Minna has further questions.
Ms Minna: Just a very brief one, Mr. Chairman. I know we're running close to the end.
On 4-19, the New Brunswick disability project...I am just curious to understand what the project is doing? What was happening before? Were people who were disabled residents of New Brunswick not applying or not qualified under CPP disability like everyone else?
Mr. Ganim: Basically, the New Brunswick project is exactly a mirror image of the Ontario project. The province was not systematically referring their clients for CPP disability benefits when they applied for social assistance. So they've basically gone back and reviewed all people receiving social assistance benefits who have made contributions to the Canada Pension Plan and may have been eligible for CPP benefits.
We've been working very closely with them in terms of looking through their file database and seeing if there are people receiving social assistance from New Brunswick who have valid contributions, who have been disabled in accordance with our legislation, and then referring those accounts to us for processing. In fact since April of this year we have been putting some of those benefits in pay within the Canada Pension Plan system.
So what we started in New Brunswick is the mirror image of what they did in the province of Ontario.
Ms Minna: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That's all.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: On page 4-25, it says that there is $120 million in recoverable expenditures from the Canada Pension Plan. Is this for administrative purposes? Is it in thousands of dollars?
Mr. Ganim: Yes. With respect to income security, we have two programs: old age security based on votes from Parliament and other funds which are votes for the Canada Pension Plan. Our administrative costs are charged to the Canada Pension Plan.
Mrs. Lalonde: It is equivalent to what is charged to the unemployment insurance fund. What percentage of the administrative costs does this represent. Is it the full amount?
Mr. Ganim: No, it is not the full amount. Another section of the book gives a breakdown of the expenditures. It represents roughly 50% of these expenditures.
Mrs. Lalonde: Fifty percent.
Mr. Ganim: Revenue Canada and Supply and Services Canada charge certain fees on the CPP for collecting contributions and issuing cheques.
Mrs. Lalonde: The unemployment insurance fund is a separate contribution.
Mr. Ganim: Yes.
Mrs. Lalonde: Okay, I withdraw what I said.
A major reform of old age security programs has been announced and, as far as we can see, it may include the guaranteed income supplement and perhaps the Canada Pension Plan as well. Do you currently have any studies available? If you announce this reform for the fall - , I've read that in several places, in the Budget Speech - are there studies to guide you, studies that you could release immediately? If you promise us a document for the fall, someone must be preparing it somewhere. I'm not talking about the document itself, but studies that are being used to prepare it.
[English]
Mr. Good: At this stage there are no studies available for release. The Minister of Human Resources Development and the Minister of Finance, pursuant to the commitment made in the budget, are working closely together. There is the commitment to proceed with a public document in the fall; that is on the public record and it is the position of the government. At this point, we do not have any studies to make available.
.1655
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: Would I have better luck on page 4-22 which deals with administrative service standards? You say that there are service quality standards that are being established within the context of the ISP Redesign Project where 11 targets have been defined. Could we have a list of those targets and an update on the program? You say that clients will be contacted throughout the implementation phase. The same could also be true for the Committee. It would be a good way of making us aware of what is wrong with the services, of telling us what our electorate thinks.
[English]
Mr. Kealey: The references on that page are referring to the improvements we are making in the administration and delivery of the income security programs. I have here a list of the service-level standards that we're hoping to achieve and I would be pleased to share that with the committee.
I'll give a couple of examples so that you have a flavour for the nature of these targets. The first one would be no less than 99.9% of the number of claim payments to clients will be issued on time. Our actual experience right now might be something like 97%. What we are trying to do is establish a high level, 99.9%, that will be achievable by the improvements that we are bringing into place.
As I said, I would be pleased to share these standards with the committee.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: But the problems occurred a few weeks ago, and as far as I know, have not been resolved.
[English]
Mr. Kealey: These particular performance standards that I am referring to relate to the system we will have in place by 1997. We recognize that there are continuing and ongoing problems with the delivery and with the service levels. I described earlier a number of interim measures that are basically being used to try to hold off the problem until we have that new system.
I mentioned one example being the automatic call distributions that we have in our telephone centres to smooth out the workload on busy cheque days.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: If there's someone we could call when similar cases occur in our ridings? Could it be centralized somewhere? Could you do something quickly? It is ridiculous. Some members of Parliament have had to make out cheques. I do not know if it is the same in your area, if you are affected by the same faulty software program, but there are people who have absolutely nothing, who count on their pension and who are forced to go and see their member of Parliament. That is ridiculous. It is not a new application; it is a cheque that is not sent out with a guaranteed income supplement.
[English]
Mr. Kealey: In most ridings there is a client service centre -
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: Yes, but -
[English]
Mr. Kealey: I am not sure if there is one in the area you are referring to. It's St. Hyacinthe, I believe.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: Saint-Hyacinthe is just one of the areas where there are problems. Yes, someone can be contacted, but nothing happens.
[English]
Mr. Kealey: We have procedures in place to issue emergency cheques for situations such as the one you've described.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: We'll call you if it doesn't work.
[English]
Mr. Kealey: They may not be able to issue the cheque on the day the problem is identified, but they have a pretty good record of getting those cheques out. If it is a matter of 10,000 cheques, if that were to happen, obviously a volume like that might take a little bit longer than if the problem related to 100 cheques, but they do have procedures and they are a point of contact for MPs to direct the service complaints to and have them dealt with in a quick and efficient fashion.
.1700
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: I was told about somebody who was without any income for more than two months. Members were telling me that they were starting to have cases similar to that in their riding. Could you maybe implement some kind of transition measures, because so many people didn't get their cheque? Some of them might have other sources of income, and it's okay, but for those who do not -
[English]
Mr. Kealey: As I said, measures are in place, and I'd like to offer a couple of possibilities here. First, I'd like to be made aware of the case, if possible, so I can find out what the situation was.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: In that case, would you give me your telephone number?
[English]
Mr. Kealey: Secondly, in each region the regional director, I can assure you, will look immediately into any problems you raise. If you have raised it with the local client service centre and it has not been addressed in a quick fashion -
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: That's exactly it.
[English]
Mr. Kealey: - the regional director - and I can give you the name and telephone number of the one in Quebec -
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: We already have it.
[English]
Mr. Kealey: They will address it, I can assure you. We would be concerned about the situation you describe.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: Thank you very much.
[English]
The Chairman: Before we conclude, I'd like to come back to questions that were raised by Mrs. Ablonczy a little earlier about the CPP disability reassessment that is described on page 4-19 of part III of the estimates. I'd like to ask about the methodology of the assessment a little more specifically than was addressed earlier.
Could you explain exactly how the assessment was carried out and whether it resulted in individuals who were receiving disability benefits being told at some point in the study that they were no longer eligible because their circumstances had changed and they hadn't informed the department? In fact, how was the assessment carried out and on what clientele?
Mr. Ganim: There are four general types of assessments we're doing. The first type is third-party complaints; those where we get a complaint in from an individual complaining about another individual that they shouldn't be receiving benefits, and where we do a follow-up. That is not a large proportion. It's a large time-consumer but not a large proportion of people where we end up by ceasing benefits or continuing benefits.
We also have the cases where people advise us that they've returned to work. That would sound very easy to the members, that as soon as somebody advises you they have returned to work you should be able to cut them off. It's not as easy as that, because in some cases they're returning to work that may be less than gainful employment. They may be just going back and working a couple of hours a day here and there. So we have to examine the possibility -
What that generates is an assessment of the file in a medical sense to see if the client has regained capacity for gainful employment. So when somebody says to us they've started to work, we re-examine the file, we send out a questionnaire to the client and a questionnaire to the employer, and we examine the file to see if the client has regained capacity for gainful employment.
The third type that happens is that we verify with Revenue Canada on a yearly basis those who have declared revenue to Revenue Canada from income sources. Again, it sounds very straightforward, but it isn't, because box C, as you know, on the T4 slip contains a lot of other things that are not income-related in terms of work. It includes things such as interest income and bonuses paid. So again, there it generates an investigation we carry out to find out - and again, a number of questionnaires to the client, questionnaires to the employers, to find out if it's gainful employment, if it is employment.
The fourth type of reassessment we carry out, which is the most time-consuming and less productive in return, is where the medical condition has improved. In fact, we do very little of that, because it becomes a very time-consuming, medical-to-medical assessment, often pitting specialists against the GP, on the regained capacity.
What we've been doing since the project started is really concentrating on third-party complaints, returns to work, and our record of earning assessments. To date we have, as I mentioned earlier, generated savings in the vicinity of $32 million a year.
.1705
The Chairman: In regard to the fourth category, medical reassessment, I suppose the department would have built up a fairly good understanding of the various classifications of diseases, maladies, ailments and problems that render someone either fully or partially disabled, according to the act. Is that correct?
Mr. Ganim: The automated system we have dates back to the early to mid-1960s. It is not very good in user segregation to allow us to do that type of analysis. The coding blocks we initially developed with the system were very basic in terms of the classification of the various elements. That system has not been kept up to date. Now as cases get developed and as there are new medical discoveries with the medication, a lot of those classifications now have - You know, heart failure is now broken down into about 45 sub-elements.
The costs have increased on this because we have developed a special project to download the elements from our master benefit file on the CPP main system into another computer system to allow that segregation to be done more easily on a more user-friendly basis, so that we can do that type of analysis on our total client population base to see if there are some trends in some of the conditions. Are there trends in some of the issues? For example, we may be looking at people with MS versus heart conditions versus blindness.
We have taken the system that we currently use and we are redesigning it under the big system. While that's coming into place, we've introduced this small system to allow us to do that type of analysis on the conditions our clients may be suffering from. We're also doing a better selection of those clients so we don't talk to clients or worry clients who have terminal illnesses. We're trying to narrow it down so that we don't contact clients dans un façon inutile.
The Chairman: Thank you very much. I don't have any further questions, and since we're already beyond 5 p.m. I think I will end questioning at this point.
Now we will do the last part of our consideration of the estimates, which is to consider the votes that the committee has to deal with concerning the Department of Human Resources Development.
We have a number of those votes and what I'd like to do now is to proceed with them in sequence and ask the committee to -
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: This is not a bill?
The Chairman: No. It's in the estimates, we have a number of votes to consider.
[English]
We have a number of categories of expenditures under the Human Resources Development envelope that are votable. I would like to invite the committee to consider these votes and to essentially determine whether we will be adopting the expenses of the Department of Human Resources Development as is, or whether we will be making suggested changes to those components of the estimates that are votable.
As I mentioned this morning, the committee has the option of reducing a vote. We can't increase a vote.
What I'd like to do is begin with vote 1 -
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: I would like to make a general comment. We are very much opposed to the Canadian Health and Social Transfer, and we are going to vote against it sans exception.
The Chair: Against all credits?
Mrs. Lalonde: That's right.
.1710
[English]
Mrs. Ablonczy: To let the committee know where we stand, I'm going to move a motion on each of votes 1, 5, 25 and 30 that we reduce those operating expenditures by 5%. I can give my rationale to the committee now or later, but I bring it up now so the committee knows what's in the works.
The Chairman: Which votes are those?
Mrs. Ablonczy: They are vote 1, corporate services program expenditures; vote 5, employment and insurance program operating expenditures; vote 25, income security program operating expenditures; and vote 30, social development and education program operating expenditures.
My colleague has some other motions as well, but those are the four I will be proposing to the committee. I would be happy and also eager to speak to them.
The Chairman: What I'd like to do is take each vote sequentially and be mechanical. We have one choice for all committee members. We either vote for the expenditure as is or entertain the motion to reduce and then vote on that.
Your motion in all cases is minus 5%? I have a dollar amount.
Mrs. Ablonczy: I have a dollar amount too.
The Chairman: Then you can say what the dollar amount would be, and then we'll vote on that amended motion. Is that clear to everybody? Okay.
We begin with vote 1.
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
- Human Resources Development Employment and Immigration Corporate Services Program
Mrs. Ablonczy: I move that vote 1 for Human Resources Canada, in the amount of $62,763 be reduced by $3,138.15 to $59,624.85.
The Chairman: I think we're talking about thousands of dollars.
Mrs. Ablonczy: No wonder everyone gasped.
The Chairman: Why don't I simplify it for you?
Mrs. Ablonczy: That would probably be a good idea, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: The motion is that vote 1, less the amount voted in interim supply, be reduced in the amount of....
Mrs. Ablonczy: It's $3,138,000.
The Chairman: That's the motion on the floor.
Mrs. Ablonczy: Might I just speak to that briefly, Mr. Chairman? I don't want to waste everybody's time. I think we'll either be inclined to do this or not.
It seems to me we have a situation where benefits to Canadians are being cut back under these programs, in some cases fairly significantly. I think we would send a good signal if we kept the administrative overburden of these programs as lean and mean as possible.
I think a 5% reduction here is very modest. It still allows for a fairly significant increase in vote 1, but the committee would be sending a signal to the department that we do expect them to find even greater efficiencies. In a sense they're not finding any efficiencies, since they're already increasing operating budgets by quite a bit.
I do think we could expect them to find some significant savings there. Overpayments could be pursued more vigorously. Some administrative programs really aren't necessary; they're kind of frills. I really think this committee could send a good message to the department by supporting this rather modest cut-back in the proposed expenditures.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Is there any further commentary on that motion, which I think is fairly clear?
.1715
Motion negatived
Vote 1 agreed to on division
- Employment and Insurance Program
The Chairman: Shall vote 5 carry? This is the employment and insurance program.
Mrs. Ablonczy: I have an amendment to vote 5.
My amendment is that amount be reduced by 5%, being $9,747.35.
Motion negatived
Vote 5 agreed to on division
Vote 10 - Grants and contributions $1,329,481,000
Vote 10 agreed to on division
- Labour Program
The Chairman: We move to votes 15 and 20, the labour program. Mr. Johnston has an amendment. Is it a motion to reduce?
Mr. Johnston: Yes, it is a motion to reduce by $4,965,187.
The Chairman: That's $4,965,187. Shall the motion to reduce carry?
Motion negatived
Vote 15 agreed to on division
Vote 20 - Grants and contributions $7,429,000
The Chairman: Shall vote 20 carry?
Mr. Johnston: I have an amendment there, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Is it a motion to reduce?
Mr. Johnston: I move to reduce by $835,762. I'd like to speak to that very briefly.
I think this is a duplication of something that can be conducted by the Canada Labour Relations Board, or these two areas could be amalgamated.
Motion negatived
Vote 20 agreed to on division
- Income Security Program
Mrs. Ablonczy: I have an amendment to reduce by 5%, $5,535,000.
The Chairman: All those in favour?
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: I know. Are those votable items?
The Chairman: Yes.
Mrs. Lalonde: So it's only on vote 25. On division.
[English]
Motion negatived
Vote 25 agreed to on division
- Social Development and Education Program
The Chairman: Votes 30 and 35 are under the social development and education program.
Mrs. Ablonczy: I have an amendment to vote 30 to reduce by 5%, by $1,948,000.
.1720
Motion negatived
Vote 30 agreed to on division
Vote 35 - Grants and contributions $375,339,000
Vote 35 agreed to on division
- Canadian Labour Relations Board
Mr. Johnston: I have an amendment there, Mr. Chairman. I move to reduce, less the amount for interim supply, by the amount of $1,184,999, leaving a balance of $1. The rationale for this is that labour grants and contributions should be consolidated with Labour Relations Board programs, thereby effectively doing away with that one area entirely.
The Chairman: You've heard the motion. All in favour please raise your hand.
Mr. Johnston: Mr. Chairman, are we on vote 40 at the moment?
The Chairman: We're on vote 40.
Mr. Johnston: I'm sorry, I moved the wrong motion.
The Chairman: It's withdrawn.
Mr. Johnston: I'm on vote 40. The motion would be to reduce it by $937,287.
Motion negatived
Vote 40 agreed to on division
- Canadian Artists and Producers Professional Relations Tribunal
The Chairman: You have a motion to reduce?
Mr. Johnston: Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman. That's the one to reduce by $1,184,999. I've already given my rationale on that.
The Chairman: We heard it.
Motion negatived
Vote 45 agreed to on division
- Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety
Mr. Johnston: I have a motion there, Mr. Chairman. I move that vote 50 be reduced by $101,300 to $574,033.
Motion negatived
Vote 50 agreed to on division
The Chairman: Shall I report the estimates to the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Thank you very much for your cooperation. You may now proceed to the vote.
The meeting is adjourned.