Human Resources Committee on June 6th, 2006

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

That's interesting, I was in Moscow last week at a meeting of the education ministers of the G-8 and this was a very common topic, not quite at the table but once we got away from the table. It is recognized, as I mentioned earlier, that to be competitive in today's world we're going to have to take advantage of all of our resources. For those with a range of challenges we're going to need to make sure that we get them at the most productive and competitive.

We also recognize with the case that we were just discussing, older workers, that some people have limited mobility geographically. So we're going to have to provide what assistance we can there. We do have a lot of regional programming already recognizing that. So we're going to be going ahead with programs that will help us help people to live better lives. As I said in my opening remarks, better quality means being more fruitful, taking advantage of the talents and skills that they have and helping them develop those for their sake and for the country's.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

I appreciate that. I certainly share your view that social economy is important. I know that in some countries where I have travelled, like Ireland and Finland, and in Europe in particular, the social economy is growing in importance and scope. But it seems recently that the Treasury Board has frozen the funds that were put in place by the previous government. I believe the Quebec funds are still flowing, but the funds for the rest of the country, which were actually flowing through the regional agencies, are frozen.

I know that in northern Ontario, where we still struggle with a slow economy and a changing economy and have difficulty because of the various forces at play--the high dollar, the price of energy, and so on--the social economy was an important vehicle for us. FedNor was the agency that was going to deliver not only to northern Ontario, but to the whole of Ontario. They were a fair way down the road in actually determining what programs might be funded. There were people out there waiting and ready to go.

Could you let us know what you might do to help unfreeze or get those funds moving again so those agencies, those organizations, can in fact play the role we know they can in stimulating and growing those economies?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Well, fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your perspective, this new government was elected, and our number one priority, as we stated, was accountability. To that end, Canadians are expecting us to make sure they're getting good value for every dollar that is spent.

The Canadian government has a really broad range of programs. Over $180 billion a year is spent, mainly on programs to assist Canadians. It is quite an undertaking to try to review all those programs to make sure that value for the money is there. That's why so much of the funding has been frozen while we review it.

We don't want to be creating unrealistic expectations. We do, however, want to make sure that good programs get through. So we are looking at them just as quickly as we can. That money, as you rightly refer to, is still sitting with the regional agencies. Everybody has been talking to them to try to get them to release the funds as quickly as possible. So there's quite a bit of pressure on them already.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Do I have more time?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

You have two minutes left, Mr. Martin.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Okay.

A topic that everybody around this table has heard me talk about since we've come back in this Parliament is the whole question of the social transfer.

You mentioned a few minutes ago the issue of accountability. I know that the federal government flows literally billions of dollars to the provinces every year to deliver programs like social programs, post-secondary education, and so on, but there's no framework within which that flows. There's no mechanism to determine whether we're in fact getting value for the dollar, whether those programs are being effective, if they're delivering on expectations. I'm encouraging the committee to actually do a review of that very important contribution that the federal government makes to communities and the lives of families and individuals across the country.

I'm wondering, would you be willing to support such a review and such a study if it were to happen and you were given the lead by this committee?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Ms. Finley, there's just one minute left for Mr. Martin, so if you could....

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Well, there has been a commitment made, particularly in the area of post-secondary education, that recognizes exactly what you're talking about. We want to ensure accountability. You're right; historically there hasn't been a lot of it. Provinces have been free to do what they wanted with the money they've been given, in large part. That's why on the post-secondary education and training side, I'm going to be carrying out extensive consultations with the provinces and the territories, as I mentioned in my speech, so the roles of the various levels of government can be defined. That way we can identify the expectations, who's responsible for what, what deliverables should be there, and what form of accountability is necessary.

Right now, most of the funding for post-secondary education goes through the Canada social transfer. So we're going to have to look at that and see how we break it out, whether there's going to be separate funding for post-secondary education and training, and if so, on what basis, so that Canadians know they're getting the value they expect for their money.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Martin, for the questioning.

We're going to move to the last questioner of this round, Mr. Brown, for seven minutes.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Minister Finley, first of all, thank you for appearing before us today.

Service Canada, of which you are the minister, is a relatively new initiative of the Government of Canada. Its stated objective is to provide better one-stop service to more Canadians in more communities. Could you please provide the committee with a progress report on Service Canada?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Thank you very much for that question.

Before I continue, I would like to introduce my deputy minister, Alan Nymark; and the deputy head of Service Canada, Maryantonett Flumian. I'm glad for their presence here today.

Service Canada is becoming a success story. For those of you who aren't familiar with it, its goal is to provide one-stop shopping for government services to Canadians--where they need it and when they need it.

To that end, our goal for this year is for 90% of Canadians to have access to a Service Canada site within 50 kilometres of where they live. That access might be once a week or once a month, but nonetheless, they will have access where they didn't have it before.

A lot has been done in the last year. We've added 125 new points of service right across the country, bringing us to a total of 440. We've been able to do that quite efficiently and effectively. We have cars that will go into communities and set up shop once a week in somebody else's facility. We're sharing facilities with other levels of government. If you go to Ottawa's city hall, for example, you can deal with provincial, municipal, and federal government departments all at once.

Service Canada has expanded the range of services it's offering. We've been working with a wide range of government departments. We've launched the Canadian Agricultural Skills Service program through many of them. Passports can be taken there now. And you can even get your boating licence there--or as we call it, the canoe registration--through a Service Canada outlet.

We're making a lot of progress. We have appointed a fairness adviser in terms of accountability. What else have we done? We've launched a service charter, an office for client satisfaction, an external audit committee, and an advisory council that will be looking at governance issues as well as performance. It will be setting the standards so we can ensure accountability and realize the savings to which we have committed.

And by the way, it was Service Canada managing the EI moneys and saving the money that allowed the EI rates to be dropped.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

That was all your questions?

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

All right. Does anyone else want to share any time, or is that it for this round?

Mr. Storseth.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, thank you very much for coming today.

One of the concerns I have is with the previous government's promises to establish programs in my riding. They have consistently let down the people in my riding who are looking for something that is more responsive and flexible.

My request to you, Minister, would be to ask you to comment on the benefits of the new universal child care plan to Canadian families.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

This is something that I talk about in my sleep these days.

The universal child care benefit has two parts, as you probably are aware. The first is a $1,200-a-year allowance directly to the parents. This is a cash payment; it's not a tax credit or anything else, but a payment directly to the parents of each child under the age of six, right across Canada. This is regardless of their status or where they live—on reserve, off reserve, rural, or urban.

The purpose of this allowance is to provide parents with some resources to help them access the choice in child care that best meets their needs, whether it's nine-to-five in the city, seasonal, weekends, night shifts in other areas, staying home—whether it's one parent at home with the child or granny—or formal day care. We want to help parents because almost half of Canadian families have a parent staying at home. As well, we want to make sure they get some help if they need to go to the doctor and can't tote three toddlers along with them.

The second part of our plan is to create 125,000 new spaces for child care, right across the country, at 25,000 per year. We're going to be doing that by providing incentives—tax or otherwise—to businesses, both large and small, as well as to community and not-for-profit groups.

In the past, large businesses have been provided with incentives to create the spaces. That wasn't always an effective program. That's why we're going to be consulting, and these consultations have already begun with a wide range of stakeholders to make sure our program is designed to be effective and get those spaces created, so that parents will have even more choices of where they can get their child care.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

You've got one minute left. Did you want to add something, Ms. Yelich?

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

I'd like to ask Minister Blackburn a question. He talked about violence in the workplace.

Will you be using whistle-blower legislation or anything similar? You didn't really say you were addressing it. You said you were recognizing it, but you didn't say how you're going to recognize violence in the workplace. I would like you to comment, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

You have just 45 seconds, Mr. Blackburn.

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Jonquière—Alma, QC]

We do not plan to go ahead with measures like whistleblowing. We prefer to use regulations and other measures to provide support for those people, so that they're protected from such forms of violence in the workplace.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

We're going to move into our second round now, which will be five minutes for each questioner.

I'm going to start with Mr. Coderre. You have five minutes, please.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Blackburn, you are the employability watchdog. In Canada, you are responsible for the workplace and for working conditions. Moreover, you are the minister responsible for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the regions of Quebec so you have the tools to achieve what you wish to do.

The anti-scab bill is now at second reading. As labour critic for the official opposition, I support the anti-scab bill. You could give me a non-committal answer, and say that you are waiting for the report on part III, but I know that you're not afraid to answer.

You are also a Quebecker, with a great deal of workplace experience. You know that the anti-scab legislation works well in Quebec, and that employer-employee relationships are harmonious under it. Unfortunately, some employers are going to change their provincial charter over to a federal charter, so that they can hire strike-breakers.

After a private member's bill was introduced by the Bloc Québécois, I was happy to see that there was acceptance of our amendment to the effect that the bill comply with current practice in Quebec and British Columbia. My question is a simple one: do you support federal anti-scab legislation?

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Jonquière—Alma, QC]

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Coderre, our government does not intend to proceed with Canada-wide anti-scab legislation. I would like to remind you that Quebec has had anti-scab legislation since 1977. British Columbia introduced similar legislation in 1993. Twenty-nine years elapsed between 1977 and 2006. In 29 years, only two Canadian provinces opted to introduce anti-scab legislation. Had the other provinces thought that such a law was necessary, they would have introduced it a long time ago. In 1993, Ontario attempted to introduce anti-scab legislation, it was defeated in 1995. Ontario reviewed its labour laws in 2005, and once again decided not to introduce anti-scab legislation.

Mr. Coderre, it is important to maintain a balance on this matter. The fact that the unions are massively in favour of such a law does not necessarily mean that the government should acquiesce. It is important to maintain a balance between employers and unions. It is also important to remember that while the current act, which was amended in 1999, provides for the use of substitute workers during a legal strike or lockout, an employer is never allowed to use the services of such workers with the intent of undermining the union. If union members or other employees feel that their rights have been violated, they have protection and can file a complaint with the Canada Industrial Relations Board.

That is how the system works; and I would reiterate that we do not intend to proceed with this bill.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Minister, with all due respect, it is not your role to specify the balance that should exist between employers and employees. We are working neither on behalf of unions or employers, our job is to prevent problems. Quebec and British Columbia have enjoyed harmonious employer-employee relations because they opted for a progressive approach.

I would remind you that, in Ontario, it was Mike Harris's government that withdrew the bill that had been previously tabled. Should you not blaze your own trail rather than lagging behind, waiting to see what happens elsewhere? You know full well that there is potential for problems to arise. We should not wait for a complaint to be lodged with the Canada Industrial Relations Board. As a watchdog, your role is to ensure that labour conditions are conducive to employment.

Again, I would ask whether you are always going to wait to see what happens in other jurisdictions? If that is not your intention, are you going to lead the way by offering real protection to workers and employers, so that we can avoid the horrendous costs of strikes?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Blackburn, there are about 20 seconds left.