[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, December 5, 1995
.1542 
[English]
The Chairman: Good afternoon. Welcome everybody. We have a quorum, so I'd like to begin with our first witnesses on Bill C-96, an act to establish the Department of Human Resources Development and to amend and repeal certain related acts.
We begin our consideration of this legislation with officials from the Department of Human Resources Development. We have before us this afternoon Kathy Burnett, policy adviser, insurance; Mr. Robin Cook, justice counsel, Department of Justice; and Mr. Gordon McFee, director general, insurance policy.
We will carry out the first part of our meeting this afternoon until about 5 o'clock or 5:10, after which the committee will go in camera to consider future witnesses on this legislation.
I'll begin by asking our witnesses if they have any opening remarks to make before we turn to questions.
[Translation]
Mr. G. McFee (Director General, Insurance Policy, Department of Human Resources Development): Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a brief statement to the committee, and then I will answer your questions.
First of all, I would like to thank you for this opportunity to appear before you. Today I would like to explain the background of the Bill, give you a brief overview of the department, and explain the main parts of the bill. Then we will answer your questions.
As you know, the Bill is the last in a series of bills whose purpose is to complete the reorganization of the government, particularly at the bureaucratic level. This one is Bill C-96. However, there are at least ten other bills that have been introduced as part of the reorganization.
.1545
[English]
I guess the point I'd like to make in that context is this is not the first bill the House of Commons will have examined in the context of your organization of government. There are now, as you are probably aware, seven bills in force. Those bills deal with revenue, citizenship and immigration, industry, foreign affairs, natural resources, agriculture and agri-food, and heritage. The other three bills are now in the parliamentary process. You're aware of the one we're discussing this afternoon. Bill C-52 is at report stage, and Bill C-95, dealing with health, completed hearings the week of November 27.
You are all aware, of course, that a bill was tabled in the House of Commons last week that has a fairly profound impact on what the Department of Human Resources Development does. The human resources department is comprised of employment insurance programs from the former Department of Employment and Immigration. Employment insurance means what one normally understands under labour market, and insurance of course is a euphemism for unemployment insurance. It's also composed of all the programs and services of the former Department of Labour, the social development programs from the former Department of National Health and Welfare, and the social development programs of the former Secretary of State.
At the present time, the department is in essence pieced together by a series of orders in council. One of the purposes of this bill is to complete and formalize that process by removing the piecing together and replacing it with a statute for the department as a whole.
[Translation]
In other words, I could say that the purpose of this bill is to provide the legislative framework required to establish the Department of Human Resources Development.
You have quite likely had an opportunity to review the bill, and I am sure you are familiar with its contents. I would just like to describe the main parts of the bill, very briefly, before we move to questions and answers.
[English]
The bill is divided into four parts. The first part, clauses 1 to 22, establishes the department, the deputy head, and the associate deputy head. It's sort of a standard affair. Part I sets out the mandate of the minister and the department and provides for certain additional powers for those individuals and for the department. It also contains certain cost-recovery provisions. It provides the authority to appoint boards, committees, and councils
[Translation]
with the approval of the Governor in Council.
[English]
It continues the National Council of Welfare,
[Translation]
and it allows the Minister to make commitments and enter into agreements with various bodies,
[English]
and provides authority for delegation of powers.
Part II, which includes clauses 23 to 32, continues the Canada Employment and Insurance Commission, provides for related and associated authorities, and also, on the administrative level, establishes that the staff of the commission become employees of the Department of Human Resources Development.
The other part of the legislation I'd like to mention is quite long and includes clauses 33 to 111. It is composed of transitional, conditional, related and other kinds of amendments, repeals, coming into force provisions, and the usual kinds of things you ladies and gentlemen will have seen many times in the past when you were debating bills in the House of Commons. It's the sort of administrative clean-up stuff that has to be done to make the whole project work.
In general terms, that's what you're dealing with and that's what's in the bill you're dealing with. I think that's about as much as I should say for now.
[Translation]
Mr. Chairman, we can now move on to questions and comments, if you wish.
The Chairman: Thank you Mr. McFee. As usual, we will let the Official Opposition start the first ten-minute round of questioning.
Mrs. Lalonde, would you like to begin?
Mrs. Lalonde (Mercier): Clause 6, which deals with the powers, duties and functions of the Minister, expands the Minister's current areas of jurisdiction.
.1550
I believe that you are using the various acts, including the constitutional amendment on Unemployment Insurance and the constitutional amendment on Pensions, and you are expanding the powers to cover the entire area, which includes, ``all matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction relating to the development of the human resources of Canada not by law assigned to any other Minister, department, board or agency of the government of Canada''. These powers, duties and functions ``are to be exercised with the objective of enhancing employment, encouraging equality and promoting social security.''
The government is thereby taking a control, which Quebec has always asked for, over economic and social policy. There's one level of government too many in this one country, fighting for control over this area of jurisdiction, and we can see what the results of this have been. Yet, in this bill, you are expanding the Minister's current powers.
Mr. McFee: I don't have a specific answer to your question, Mrs. Lalonde. But if you don't mind, I will say two things.
First of all, the purpose of the bill is not to expand the Minister's powers. Its purpose is rather to establish the department, which of course already exists, and to provide a legislative framework for it.
This Bill is not about sharing powers. That issue should be the subject of other discussions - within the context of Unemployment Insurance reform, for instance, or in some other such context.
Mrs. Lalonde: You are a senior official, but really these questions are for the politicians, since these are policy issues.
You certainly may say what you wish about the purpose of the bill, but I am talking about the effects of the bill, and one consequence is that it is going to create a major political problem. I am not talking about a technical problem or a drafting problem; this is a political problem. Quebec is going to have a pretty hard time accepting this, barely one month after the 30th of October. I hear what you are saying, but you are not answering my questions at all.
Mr. McFee: Mrs. Lalonde, I just wanted to say that I am not really the one who should decide about the political aspects. This is rather for the Minister to decide.
Mrs. Lalonde: That's what I meant.
Mr. McFee: Fine.
The Chairman: Are there any other questions?
Mrs. Lalonde: I have some other questions along the same lines. Clause 20 states:
- ...the Minister may enter into agreements with a province... agencies of provinces, financial
institutions and such other persons or bodies as the Minister considers appropriate.
In my view, Mr. Chairman, these are political amendments, not technical amendments.
I do have other questions, but these are the essential ones.
Mr. McFee: Mrs. Lalonde, I'm sure you know that there was an article in La Presse today about an action taken by Quebec's Minister of Employment, Ms Harel. I believe that the federal Minister is ready to meet with Ms Harel to discuss the matter. Let's hope that it will be a productive meeting.
Mrs. Lalonde: Yes, but the same thing would also have to be done for Bill C-96.
.1555
I would also like to ask a question about a bill that I read carefully and annotated. I didn't bring it with me, but I would like to ask you why the word ``officer'' has been replaced by the expression ``a person authorized'' in the amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act.
I don't think that's a technical issue. In the eyes of those collecting unemployment insurance, the officer that they deal with represents the State, which is a guarantee of reliability.
For this reason, the expression ``a person authorized by the Commission'' gives the impression that responsibility for unemployment insurance could be assigned to just anyone, and the people who rely so heavily on this service would lose confidence.
Mr. McFee: First of all, in many cases it depends on the kind of work that the person does. Normally an officer of the Commission deals with claimants, and that person is always a civil servant. When we talk about people who are authorized by the Commission, I suppose we're talking about situations where we could entrust some other bodies with some of our work. In any event, I don't believe that this would change anything in the dealings between our department's officers and unemployment insurance claimants.
Mrs. Lalonde: I will find the specific clause. I still have some other questions.
The Chairman: I think that Mrs. Lalonde has hit upon a fundamental point. We have to ask ourselves whether the bill is expanding or shrinking the federal government's area of power.
We would certainly like to take your word for it, but could you suggest someone who could settle the matter for us?
Mr. McFee: To some extent, Mr. Chairman, I think I'm able to settle the matter, since I work in the part of our department that has done a great deal of work on developing this bill. Furthermore, the officials with me have also worked on this particular bill.
I'm just saying that the effect of this bill is a kind of status quo. In other words, we have no intention of expanding the Minister's or the department's powers.
As far as your question is concerned, Mr. Chairman, I may not be the best person to provide an answer. You should ask the Minister that question.
The Chairman: Mr. Crête.
Mr. Crête (Kamouraska - Rivière-du-Loup): In the same vein, I would like to know whether you asked for a legal opinion about the constitutionality of this bill. Did you check to see whether this bill would hold up in court to a constitutional challenge? This bill deals with a whole set of practices that have developed over the years, which makes it a very special bill. And now we are legislating on this matter.
All these practices have been going on for a number of years. Now we want to pass some legislation but we are no longer facing the exact same situation. That is why I am asking you whether you have done some checking and whether you have asked for legal advice in order to ensure that the bill is legitimate before you introduce it.
.1600
Mr. McFee: During the development or preparation stage of any bill, we work together with the lawyers from the Justice Department. They are responsible for making sure that any bill to be introduced is not in violation of the Charter or any other statute. I cannot tell you specifically what legal research has been done in that regard, but I know that the lawyers have put some serious effort into this.
Perhaps Mr. Cook has some more specifics on that subject.
[English]
Mr. R. Cook (Justice Counsel, Department of Human Resources Development): The only comment I'd like to add is that the words in the mandate clause in this particular bill in clause 6 are words that have been reviewed by the Department of Justice. The wording is similar to the words found in the other departmental statute mandate clauses.
It's fair to say, I believe, that the phrase found in clause 6, ``include all matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction'', has been put in there to make it very clear that the minister will only be able to operate in areas over which Parliament has jurisdiction. So that clause is in there as a constitutional protection.
The Chairman: That finishes the first round. I'm going to go the Reform Party andMrs. Brown. You have ten minutes.
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Chairman, I do apologize for being late. One of my colleagues was doing a presentation before the House committee to get a motion votable and I wanted to be there to support her. I really did not want to miss this opportunity to talk to you today, so I appreciate having some time.
I'm going to ask three questions. I'd like to address the first one to the annual report and the estimates. The second one will be with respect to the appointment of the Minister of Labour, and the third question will relate to clause 20.
First of all, with respect to the annual report and the production of the estimates, the changes that are going to be introduced probably won't be ready for two to three years. Given that we are no longer going to have an annual report, it seems to me that information is going to be less available during that interim period. Does it not therefore make some logical sense to dispense with the annual report three years hence or two years hence, rather than right now?
Mr. McFee: My understanding is that the information that is presented in the annual report is available at main estimates now. I understood that the reason for dispensing with the annual report was because it ended up being somewhat repetitive in the sense that the information it contained - in fact more information than it contained - is available in the main estimates. That's not much of an answer, I admit, but that's my recollection of the sort of genesis of that part of the bill. In other words, it would be less expensive, to be very blunt about it, to produce that information once a year rather twice a year as we do now.
My colleagues may want to expand on that, but that's my understanding of the situation.
Ms K. Burnett (Policy Adviser, Insurance, Department of Human Resources Development): I might add that not all of the previous departments had a requirement to table an annual report anyway. Three of the four did, but Labour, for instance, did not. That's why you're coming to the difference in words between review and report. The review was not statutorily required.
My understanding is that in terms of the reform of the estimates, which as you know is ongoing, I don't know the precise timetable, but the most recent document I saw from October of this year indicated there had been a canvass of members of Parliament. I think there were somewhat conflicting demands as to what should be given and published in the estimates. Some people thought there was too much, some people thought there was too little. I think they have to sort of come to grips with some of the requirements that are commonly necessary in order to proceed with an estimates that perhaps meets the demands of most if not all people.
.1605
Mrs. Brown: I guess it was just in the interim, as the estimates for the production are going to change. It's going to take a couple of years for all of those to roll out. If indeed we don't have the requisite information, the question was just whether it would not make sense to dispense with the annual report once the estimates change and the production of those changes has been completed. That was really the sense of the question.
Ms Burnett: I'm not sure what the department is planning to do in the interim, but I don't think there is any sense of not making information available. If worse comes to worst, there's always access to information. But presumably if there were a need for some particular information, the program areas or the minister's office would provide that quite readily.
Mrs. Brown: Thank you.
The bill also allows for the Minister of Human Resources Development to have a minister of labour, should he choose. I was wondering if any other department you're aware of has such a provision. Given the answer to that, why should it remain at the discretion only of the Minister of Human Resources Development?
Ms Burnett: There is a parallel provision in the foreign affairs act for the Minister of International Trade, I believe.
Ms Cohen (Windsor - St. Clair): On a point of information, if I can assist, there is a second provision, for a Minister of International Relations, I think, which was just passed in the House, after debate, under the same sort of process.
Mrs. Brown: Thank you. That's very good.
The third question I had is on clause 20. We talked a lot about clause 20 when this first came out. Because clause 20 gives the federal government the opportunity to deal directly with the provincial agencies, what would be the legal implications of such a change to the legislation, in your opinion?
Mr. Cook: I think there are agencies now with which the department does sign agreements. I'm thinking, for example, of the workers compensation field, where the department asks the provincial workers compensation tribunals to administer the Government Employees Compensation Act. So agreements or contracts are signed with agencies now. What this clause does is it follows the precedents that appear in other departmental statutes and puts the wording in the legislation to make it absolutely clear those agreements can be entered into.
Mrs. Brown: Is a specific list of the agencies available, or do we know in a comprehensive way what those agencies might include? You mentioned workers compensation and the accompanying tribunals. Are there any others you are aware of, off the top of your head, or could we get a list?
Ms Burnett: We don't have any list available. Certainly workers compensation boards.... I might add as well that the act that relates to the Department of the Environment has a similar provision. Heritage recently went through a reorganization also, and it specifically mentions the word ``agency''.
Mrs. Brown: Just for my own information, is it possible, Ms Burnett, to get some listing of those agencies and who and what they are? It would really be helpful in the ongoing debate.
Ms Burnett: We'll see what we can do. I'm not entirely sure what would be available beyond the workers' compensation boards. That comes off the top of our heads. The department signs an enormous number of contracts and what not, with a variety of entities. We're talking about thousands per year. I'm not sure how long it would take. We'll do what we can, certainly.
Mrs. Brown: I'm talking about the major ones here. If you're dealing with thousands of them over the course of a year, clause 20 really does give a great deal of power to the federal government to deal directly with agencies without actually having to go through agreements with provincial governments, as it is suggested, and has been suggested, he would do.
Mr. McFee: I would simply say there are probably different levels of agreements. I'll explain what I mean. There are, for example, agreements with workers compensation, for example. There are also agreements with provincial welfare agencies, in order that we can assign benefits when people receive welfare while they're waiting for UI to come, and then they have to pay it back. There are agreements of that kind.
.1610
Then there are other agreements - the generic word won't come to me right now - where it's a one-on-one intervention with a client or someone like that, and there might have to be a passage through a provincial agency or a private sector agency or whatever.
We'll do what we can to see what we can put together, but in the context in which you asked the question it might not be an incredibly long list. In other words, if you're looking for the major partners with whom we have agreements, I don't think you're looking at a terribly long list, in the context in which you asked the question.
Mrs. Brown: That was a most interesting answer, and quite enlightening. Thank you.
Ms Minna (Beaches - Woodbine): I want to pick up on clauses 20 and 6, which seem to be problematic for some of our colleagues.
Having been in the private sector and having dealt with the department over the years through the municipalities and what not before being elected, I don't see, with what is happening here - and you can correct me, this is why I'm bringing it up - any different or new powers that this bill gives or ascribes to the minister of that department other than those he has had for many years.
The department does have jurisdiction over unemployment insurance and unemployed individuals and the servicing of these people.
I want to make sure - and I think you said it earlier, so maybe it's just a matter of reiterating - that basically this bill does not give to the current minister any more powers than he has had over the years in this area. Nothing changes really, except that it's now under a different name and a different department. Before it was under two or three different ones, but in essence the functions are very much the same as I've always understood them to be, including contracting with other bodies, in addition to provincial governments, in order to service the clientele for which it is responsible under its jurisdiction.
Mr. McFee: Yes, you're quite right.
In this bill, the department being created - and it has been operating for over a year now - is composed of three or four other departments that existed before, and therefore some of the language that you see in the bill is an attempt to bring those disparate entities together and put it in the appropriate language.
But you're quite correct when you say that the effect of this on the minister of the department is no greater than the composite of what was there before. There are no extensions of powers or additional powers. There is no taking on of power or authority that didn't exist in one of the departments before the bill was introduced.
Mr. McCormick (Hastings - Frontenac - Lennox and Addington): Going back to clause 6, I thought I would ask a question here, because I realize that my colleagues across the table are trying to refer everything to how we've been panicking since Hallowe'en, which some people would call a bit scary. I don't believe the government is just reacting to those people now.
Mr. McFee, excuse my ignorance, but for how long have you been director general of the insurance part of the program?
Mr. McFee: I've been director general for about four or five months now. I've been director since the beginning of time, it seems. I've been in the department for over 20 years, sir.
Mr. McCormick: That must have been back when the capital was in Kingston.
Going back to clause 6, the responsibilities of the minister, I know it's very close to repeating what a couple of other people have asked, but are the responsibilities any different under clause 6 than they are for any other minister or any other department, given the way this is written?
.1615
Mr. McFee: The answer is no, they're not, in the sense that there are statutory powers the minister has under the current legislations that are being combined into this bill.
What I can say, though, is that in the drafting exercise one can proceed in one of two ways in writing a clause such as clause 6. One can, I suppose, enumerate all of the authorities, powers and duties, which would therefore mean that the duties the minister had in respect of unemployment insurance, employment programs, labour programs, Secretary of State type things, CPP and all the rest of it could be enumerated in that clause, or they could be described generically.
So to answer your question, what I would say is that clause 6 attempts to describe generically what the powers and duties of the minister would be but does not expand upon anything that is not already there.
Mr. McCormick: Certainly clause 6 recognizes that all three levels of the government do have legitimate roles to play, and this is very good. It has worked very well in Quebec up to now. It makes sense to almost all Canadians that if everybody cooperated, we would have more opportunity to put people back to work and to create programs.
I have one other question, which may be outside the time for now. I'm from Ontario where we recently had an election. Are you at all familiar with whether or not OTAB, the Ontario Training Adjustment Board, is proceeding at this time?
Mr. McFee: I'm not aware of that.
Mr. McCormick: Thank you very much.
The Chairman: Thank you. I think it's a little bit outside of the terms of this meeting.
Are there any further questions on this side? No? Then we'll begin a second round of ten minutes or less, and we'll begin with the official opposition again.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: I would like to come back to the answer that you gave to my colleagues opposite.
You said that nothing in clause 6 gives any new powers. I took the trouble of reading the previous bills and, with all due respect, I believe that this is not so.
Let me give you an example: the National Training Act. It is the only act that empowers the government to intervene directly, but only after consulting the provinces.
I could not find in any other act currently in force the power granted by clause 20, with the exception, of course, of the pension plan. In the pension plan, pension benefits are paid out; in the unemployment insurance scheme, unemployment insurance benefits are paid out. But when you group all these various schemes together, you are extending the powers obtained by virtue of a constitutional amendment to all the others, to anything that comes under the Human Resource Investment Fund, for example.
So you are going well beyond the existing framework. That is what Mr. Bourbeau was telling Mr. Valcourt in an exchange of correspondence in 1991 or 1990. By doing this, you are going well outside the framework. I would add that, in substance, clause 6 gives a mandate for economic and social policy development that, in my opinion, is under the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec and the other provinces.
I have always been reluctant to speak on behalf of the other provinces, because matters of centralization and decentralization appear to me to be a fundamental element in that debate. I know that I can speak forcefully on behalf of Quebec, but I cannot do the same for other provinces, at least not to the same degree.
I think that we will differ on the exact meaning of the legislation. You know that, in Quebec, the Société québécoise de développement de la main-d'oeuvre, the government, the major editorialists, everybody shares my point of view on this. So it is clearly a political problem.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mrs. Lalonde: But if he has anything to say...
[English]
The Chairman: There was a statement. I didn't gather there was a question in there, but you may wish to answer.
.1620
Mr. McFee: The only thing I would say, Mr. Chairman, is that the question is a valid question. It might not be appropriate that I, as a bureaucrat, deal with it though. I can only repeat what I said before: clause 6 does not have as its purpose the addition of any powers for the minister or the department that it did not have before in its constituent elements.
The other issues raised by Madame Lalonde are probably not ones I ought to discuss. Rather, they will be discussed in a broader context that includes Bill C-111, which was tabled last week.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: If we compare clause 6 to what is contained in the Health Act, it is more or less the same wording, except for one thing. In the Health Act, it says we have a mandate for the whole area, except for what specifically falls under provincial jurisdiction.
Legislators are not supposed to use empty phrases, so if similar wording has not been included in this legislation, it can only mean that they do not want to recognize a provincial jurisdiction that just might exist; they deliberately want to avoid the legal debate that might arise on that issue. In the case of health, we do not have any choice, because the matter of national standards is already included in that area.
Is there much difference, can we make that kind of distinction between the two pieces of legislation? If so, would not that be tantamount to recognizing that the mandate that is being given in the area of human resources goes well beyond what was given in the area of health?
Mr. McFee: I cannot give a perfect answer to your question, sir. I would say that...
Mr. Crête: But do you recognize that this difference between the two pieces of legislation does exist and that the spirit is different in the two clauses?
Mr. McFee: The powers and the functions defined in that legislation are presently given to the federal government by Canada's Constitution. In the case of unemployment insurance, for example, there is a specific constitutional clause that deals with it.
In my view, and this is only a supposition on my part, which could therefore be dangerous, there is no violation in the sense you are indicating because the powers, duties and functions are currently federal in nature.
Mr. Crête: If it had been stated that the powers of the Minister in the area of human resources must be exercised without impinging on provincial jurisdiction, in the same way that it is provided that the Minister may exercise powers in any area ``not by law assigned to any other department'', would that not have delineated the federal mandate more precisely? There are areas of provincial jurisdiction that provincial governments will use as an argument for imposing some limitation, including the area of education, while with the proposed legislation, the limit will be blurred.
Mr. McFee: I certainly do not underestimate the seriousness of your question. In response, let me say that, in all likelihood, we are not considering resolving that issue with this legislation. That is not the intent.
In other words, the status quo is presently being reviewed. We are fully aware of that, and Canadians are, too. The aim of that legislation is not to put this issue on the agenda, but rather to establish the Department's position, after one year and a half. Other matters will be settled in other ways. That's what I really mean.
Mr. Crête: We could have created the department and enshrined in that legislation the same limit that is specified in the Canada Health Act, which would in no way have called into question the department's mandate. So we are left to wonder why it has not been included .
Mr. McFee: As you know, that legislation was tabled for first reading on June 7. Perhaps it is only a matter of timing.
Mr. Crête: In any case, it was not amended after October 30.
[English]
The Chairman: Mrs. Brown.
.1625
Mrs. Brown: I want to come back to clause 20. When we talked about the legal implications of the federal government now dealing with provincial agencies, I found it quite interesting that you indicated there would perhaps be thousands of these agreements the minister would enter into at any given year or timeframe. I'd like to ask another question about legalities: What is a legal definition of what constitutes a provincial agency in terms of clause 20?
Mr. Cook: I think an agency, as used in that clause, is an entity or an organization that is somehow connected to the provincial government. What this clause is saying is that agreements can be signed with these kinds of entities, but signing the agreement is a two-way street. It cannot force the agency to sign the agreement if the agency does not want to sign it. If the provincial government wants to prevent an agency from entering into an agreement with the federal government it can do so, because there are ways to do that. This is just saying the Minister of Human Resources Development can sit down and sign agreements with agencies. There's an underlying assumption here that the agencies themselves want to enter into the agreements. They don't have to sign if they don't want to sign, and clause 20 can't be used to force them to sign.
Mrs. Brown: But the definition of that provincial agency, from what I've heard you say, is that it is something with some connection to the provincial government.
Mr. Cook: The wording used is ``province or group of provinces, agencies of provinces''. So it would appear to me that it means there is some connection to the provincial government.
Mrs. Brown: That's your interpretation, but there isn't really a legal definition of ``provincial agency'' here.
Mr. Cook: This is a clause that is found in at least one of the other departmental statutes. For the people involved with that legislation, that's the understanding of how that clause operates.
Mrs. Brown: Thank you, that's helpful.
I'd like to also look again at this question of the minister. Maybe this is just a question of semantics or legal choice of wording, but where it says ``The Minister may authorize the Minister of Labour'', why would the term be ``may authorize''? If the minister is going to have the authority, why would it not just say ``The Minister will authorize''? I don't understand why the word ``may'' was used there. If it is indeed part of his discretion, should that not be well defined within the scope of that clause 21? And why should it thereby be just at the discretion of the minister in such a loose fashion?
Mr. McFee: I think clause 21 tries to allow the minister.... By the way, it talks about ``the Minister of Labour, the Commission or any other person or body or member of a class of persons or bodies''. It refers to the department and the ministers, and I think what it says is that the minister can authorize those people to do things that ordinarily he would do. I don't think it stands for anything more than that.
For example, it says in the current UI legislation that when a claimant applies for benefits the commission shall consider the claim and issue a decision in writing. The commission is composed of three individuals, so what they have of course done is delegated that authority to the front-line people who work in the local offices to make those decisions for them. Theoretically and legally, if I can put it in those terms, the commission makes the decision. By delegating it to the front-line people, however, it in fact lets them make the decisions because they're the closest people to the claimants. Of course the commission couldn't make them if they had to do them all themselves.
So I really don't believe that clause 21 is anything more than a delegation clause.
Mrs. Brown: I guess the point I'm getting at here really is in respect to the Minister of Human Resources Development being given the opportunity for a Minister of Labour.... Our point here really was whether or not a Minister of Labour should exist. That's really the point. If not, why should this department have one?
.1630
Mr. McFee: Watch me duck.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Ms Cohen: I have a point of order. Obviously that's a question for the minister, not for the bureaucrats. It's not up to the bureaucrats to determine whether there should or shouldn't be a Minister of Labour as a matter of policy.
The Chairman: I don't know if that's a point of order.
Mrs. Brown: I was just curious.
The Chairman: I guess the question is should the law provide for the possibility of creating the position of Minister of Labour? It doesn't mean a Minister of Labour has to be created. It just means that the law provides for the position to be created.
Mrs. Brown: And at the discretion of the Minister of HRD.
Mr. Cook: Could I refer you to clause 4 of the bill? It's the clause that provides for the appointment of the Minister of Labour. That provides that there may be a Minister of Labour appointed under the Great Seal. That's the way ministers of Parliament are normally appointed. The other provision in subclause 4(2) sets out the powers the Minister of Labour will have. That, in effect, is a separate mandate clause for the Minister of Labour.
So the Minister of Labour is not getting his or her powers from clause 21. Clause 21 is a side clause, which really provides that the Minister of Human Resources Development can delegate some powers to the Minister of Labour if he or she wants to. But as soon as the Minister of Labour is appointed, if that decision is made, clause 4 gives the Minister of Labour a clear mandate to deal with all matters that relate to labour.
Mrs. Brown: The point here is that we've had a Minister of Labour in place for quite some time now. She has delegated her duties well. She entered into great debate almost immediately upon her appointment after she was elected.
It seems to me that we're just trying to catch up with something that's already been in place for quite some time. She has been a decision-maker in the cabinet for a long time. Your comments are rather interesting, given the timeframe that we now find ourselves in after having had this position for quite some time.
Mr. Cook: You're absolutely correct. The Minister of Labour presently derives her powers from orders in council that were made at the time of the reorganization. They're specific orders which contain specific powers. It was thought advisable when dealing with the Minister of Labour that if there is going to be a departmental statute those powers should be legislated and not given to the Minister of Labour by way of an order in council. That's why clause 4 is in the departmental statute now.
Mrs. Brown: So we're kind of playing catch up.
Mr. McFee: If I could, let me just add that when I joined the department approximately300 years ago, my first minister was a Minister of Labour and there has been one ever since as far as I know.
The Chairman: The last round is for the Liberals for ten minutes if there are further questions. Mr. Nault.
Mr. Nault (Kenora - Rainy River): Mr. Chairman, I'm just following up on the intervention. Besides the fact that of course the Minister of Labour is appointed by the Prime Minister of Canada and not by the Minister of Human Resources, I think the real question that should be asked is why the Department of Labour is rolled up in Human Resources. What are the efficiencies of and the reasons for having labour as part of the human resources envelope? What administrative costs or savings are going to be forthcoming because of that?
That's the reason it's there in the first place. We've got these things all lumped together for efficiency's sake. I don't think we're arguing as to whether there's a need for a Minister of Labour. At least I'm not. The act also allows the Prime Minister not to appoint a Minister of Labour but to in fact appoint a minister of state for labour, which is very similar to the minister of state for youth. It goes on and on. That's in the act as well.
I'd be interested to know your views about what functions HRD does for the department of labour, or what the labour section does within Human Resources Development, because I understand there is some sort of new reorganizational structure that deals with that issue.
.1635
Mr. McFee: My understanding is that the rationalization for bringing together into the Department of Human Resources Development the disparate groups that were brought together is mainly predicated upon the fact that those disparate groups in essence serve the same groups of people, from slightly different angles, I admit, but in essence the same groups of people, and that it would be - and I believe you used the word yourself, sir - more efficient and more economical if all the people who deal with those particular clients were in the one department rather than being in the three or four departments that existed previously.
I don't have much more of a profound answer than that, but that's the general thinking, at least as I understand it.
Mr. Nault: The last question relates to this whole debate about powers in general.
Is there any other way, besides having the minister come here as he's done probably a hundred times already in the last number of months, to say in a political forum to the nation and to the provinces and all the different agencies and organizations we're involved with as far as HRD is concerned that in fact the powers that were there are still there, there has been no extension of powers, there are no changes, that in fact any agreements or changes in how we do business are ones of a political nature and ones that will have to be negotiated between ourselves and the provinces, and that this is basically a housekeeping bill that allows us to get on with the formation of a new department that was the coming together of a whole series of different functions?
Mr. McFee: I would say the following. As a bureaucrat, I can take safety in pointing out that this is, as I said in my preliminary remarks, the last of ten statutes that have effected a reorganization of several government departments at the federal level. I think you will have noticed over the last couple of years when this initiative first began that there has not been even a minor, let alone a major, restructuring of government power or authorities, or whatever.
In fact, in some cases ministries have disappeared and in other cases ministries have been created. But when they have been created they've normally been amalgamations of other separate ministries that existed before.
What I can say is that given this series of statutes, seven of which, by the way, are now law - and this is the tenth in that series of ten statutes - its purpose from the beginning when it was first announced, which was long before it was introduced, of course, was to effect the reorganization of government in a housekeeping - I believe you used the word and I think it's an appropriate word - sense.
To the best of my knowledge and belief - and I've worked on this stuff - it is not intended to increase or decrease or modify...well, modify slightly where required, of course, when you create a department of three or four, but certainly not to increase or decrease the powers of anyone.
I would suggest, with respect, that issues like that are beyond the purview, beyond the scope, arguably, but certainly beyond the intent of this particular piece of legislation. That I can say.
Mr. Nault: The last question to the witnesses is this. These agencies Mrs. Brown is talking about - I've had a lot to do with some of them in the province of Ontario. For example, as recently as weeks ago, HRD entered into agreements with colleges for training. Is that the kinds of agencies you're talking about, in the thousands?
I know, of course, that's one of the delivery mechanisms we use in Ontario, with agreement of the Province of Ontario to deliver our training programs. Now you have to go to the college directly and sign a contract, which is an agency in its own right separate from the Province of Ontario but created by provincial statute, of course. Is that the kind of agency clause 20 deals with?
Mr. McFee: That would be an example. When my colleague used the expression ``thousands,'' that shouldn't be overly reacted to.
One could say, for example, in the sphere of UI, that one issues millions of cheques and billions of dollars. Those are big numbers, admittedly, but when you look at the size of the labour force in this country and the number of interventions that have to be made in order to assist individuals either to be trained or to be educated, or whatever, the multitude of things, the multitude of interventions on a personal basis that are made to help individuals hopefully get jobs and keep them, the numbers can pile up pretty quickly.
.1640
My assumption would be that you're quite right, there are, for example, agreements with community colleges. Some of these things are creatures of the provincial government. Others may be creatures of the municipality. I think what my colleague was talking about was that when you add all that stuff up, you get pretty big numbers.
Mr. Nault: My point is that you've probably underestimated it. Probably in my riding alone thousands of contracts dealing with HRD are signed, from individuals to agencies.
Like Mrs. Brown, I would like to get a copy of the categorization - not so much every individual contract, because we'd have a stack a mile high, but I think you could give us categories for the different kinds of agreements we do sign, just to give the committee a feeling for the kind of agencies and the variety of people HRD deals with in order to deliver the kinds of programs that were out there in the past. Of course they're always renewed and they sunset after the training is over, so it's finished. Then there are those out there in the private sector always competing to get these programs. I think it would be helpful if you could categorize them for us.
There are different levels. There are the small ones, six weeks or twelve weeks or six months long, to ones that last for a number of years. I think that would be helpful to the committee.
Mr. McFee: We'll do that and we'll submit it through the clerk to your committee.
The Chairman: I have a couple of questions before we wrap up today.
First, Mrs. Lalonde asked a question earlier about the development of policy, which was in reference to clause 6 of the law. Is there anything in the formulation of that clause that the minister can do now but that he wouldn't be able to do at present, before the bill is passed? The Government of Canada formulates policy at present, under the existing statutes. Will the minister have any authority to formulate policy that he doesn't have now?
Mr. McFee: I just want to think this through and make sure I give you an accurate answer. I hope somebody on either side of me will elbow me if I am not correct.
From the very beginning of the conception, as far as I'm aware, at least - I have been involved with this bill - the purpose of this bill has not been to change that stuff at all. The reason, in looking at the powers and functions and attributes of the minister, one might draw that conclusion is that the generic clause that was created in order to describe what the minister does.... I think I spoke a few minutes ago about the difference between doing that and enumerating all the powers in a list. Part of the drafting technique used in this particular bill was to describe them generically rather than enumerate them.
I guess that kind of thing could be read into it. I personally don't. When I read that clause.... I know the department fairly well. I've been around for a while. I say that only to explain why I'm going to say what I'm going to say now. I see nothing in that part of the legislation, or in the bill itself, as a matter of fact, that has any effect on any expansion of anyone's powers. What it does is it brings together the three or four constituent departments that existed before and makes them into one department. Therefore some language is taken from statutes of those three or four departments. Some of the language from those statutes is put in this bill. Some language from another department might be put in this bill. That's what you get.
Where, for example, the Department of National Health and Welfare statute best described that part of what's going to be done, that language was used. Where the Department of Employment and Immigration statute was perhaps the best describer of a certain aspect of what's being done, that was used.
That's also why, when you look at the bill - and you will, I assume, at some time be looking at the bill's clause-by-clause structure - you'll see so many transitional clauses. If there's a demonstration you might want to have as to how this bill in essence combines those three or four departments into one, when you look at all the transitional conditional clauses in the back of the bill, that's why they're there. If it weren't a combination of those departments, you wouldn't need all those clauses.
.1645
I'm sorry to go on so long, but to answer your question, Mr. Chairman, as far as I'm aware, at least, it's not the purpose of this bill or the desired result of this bill to expand or decrease anything.
The Chairman: What about the relationship between the minister and the Governor in Council specifically in relation to clause 20? Is there any alteration in terms of the role of the Governor in Council in the administration of the department as compared to the role of the Governor in Council in the administration of the predecessor departments?
Mr. McFee: The role of the Governor in Council in this bill as compared to the constituent departments that make this department is not changed. It's the normal function of the Governor in Council. There has been no change that I'm aware of.
Mr. Cook: I wonder if I could just clarify one minor point. There's a provision in the bill that deals with POWA contracts, a program for older workers. There are hundreds of these contracts that go through. I believe in the previous labour legislation Governor in Council approval was required. That requirement has been deleted. My understanding is that it's for purely efficiency reasons. There are an awful lot of these contracts going through that are being reviewed, and that requirement has been deleted. So there is that minor change.
The Chairman: That's all I have for this afternoon. If I open this up, it will be a five-minute round. We didn't use our rounds the last time. That's why I'm closing the meeting.
What I prefer to do is to go in camera now and discuss how we proceed further with this legislation. As far as our officials are concerned, you'll be dismissed for the moment and will be at the call of the chair.
We'll have one last very short question from Mrs. Lalonde, with a very short answer. If it's longer, I will cut her off.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: You said there were no new powers. The spending power is conferred by the Constitution, but there are some aspects of that power that are not dealt with in any legislation. The government is using its spending power to do things that are not based on a legislative mandate.
We are saying that what we have here is legislation that incorporates spending powers that, in our view, are not yet enshrined in the Constitution. That is a problem.
So, were these powers already incorporated into some statutes, or are they powers that flow from the spending power?
Mr. McFee: Perhaps it would be better if I didn't plunge into the spending power issue. That would require more expertise than I have.
All I wanted to say was that, to my knowledge, there is nothing in this legislation that affects powers. It is only a matter of consolidating them in a single piece of legislation and in one department. As far as I know, there is no playing around in terms of the exercise of powers.
Mrs. Lalonde: Thank you.
[English]
The Chairman: Are there further questions from anybody else for the purposes of fairness?
Thank you very much. You'll be hearing from us.
Mr. McFee: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, members of the committee, for your patience.
The Chairman: We'll suspend for five minutes to allow the officials and all other persons who are not required for the in camera session to leave the room.
[Proceedings continue in camera]