Human Resources Committee on Nov. 28th, 2013

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

So there is a fear, then, when we're looking at the clawback of the money with the LMAs, it may jeopardize in some provinces any further investment or continued investment in youth programming; that potential exists.

[Frank Vermaeten]

In fact the funding for the labour market agreements isn't decreasing. It will continue to be $500 million. It's just the question of what tools the provinces and territories will use to support youth and to support the labour markets.

In the case of the Canada job grant here, the goal is to try to make the labour market agreements more effective by getting employers involved and helping youth and others transition into the workforce as fast as possible.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

You say the funding is remaining the same, but now the funding is being specified for the job grant from the LMA.

[Frank Vermaeten]

Yes, the funding is going to be specified for the job grant. The purpose, though, is to make the funding more effective.

[Ian Shugart]

I think as well, Chair, there's no single program other than the youth employment strategy that is specifically targeted at youth—although, as was discussed earlier, the first nations job fund, just from the demographics of that, is targeted at 18- to 24-year-old aboriginals on reserve. So that's another piece of the jigsaw puzzle.

The supplementary (B)s do contain an additional $70 million in that career focus component of the youth employment strategy, so that is additional. One of the key concerns is that first attachment to the labour market on the part of young people, and that's what drove that additional investment.

The other component is the skills link stream of the youth employment strategy with, I believe, consistent or stable funding, which is, as you know, directed to youth who face particular barriers in coming into the job market.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

That's the end of the time. You're way over, Mr. Cuzner.

Monsieur Boulerice.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for being here, everyone. There really are a lot of you. Lots of you might have pertinent information for us.

Essentially, my questions are going to be about the Homelessness Partnering Strategy.

If we refer to the 2012-2013 Departmental Performance Report, we see that the program under-spent its planned spending on projects to assist the homeless by almost 10%. That is almost $13 million. Though an amount of $12.8 million was budgeted and set aside, it was never spent. I would like to understand what happened and what we have to do to make sure it does not happen again.

I have spoken to people from organizations in Montreal who, too often, have seen projects fall through because they had to wait too long for an answer. They cannot go back and they cannot pay people for the work that should have been done six months ago, but that eventually did not get done.

There is some resentment. They know that they are short of grants and short of money and that, in the street, the needs are great. Money has been set aside for action but they just wait and wait.

Why did that happen in 2012-2013? What do you plan on doing to improve the situation and prevent it from happening again?

[Jacques Paquette]

First, I must mention that the funds that were not spent last year have been brought forward to this year. The funds have not disappeared.

However, the minister mentioned some of the reasons why we had difficulties of that kind. The main reason why some funds had to be delayed is that there were a lot of infrastructure projects associated with this program. There, this program is not unique. It often happens that infrastructure projects undergo delays because of factors that are sometimes beyond the control of the people who established them.

That is why we made sure that the amounts were brought forward. The need for the infrastructures remains and the funds are used to finish the infrastructure projects that have been set up. That is the main reason why the funds were brought forward.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

In the report—

[Jacques Paquette]

Most of the funds you see in the supplementary estimates (B) today are actually associated with infrastructure projects that were not completed in time.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

If I am not mistaken, the amount unallocated in 2012-2013 was $12.8 million and today, in the supplementary estimates (B), you are asking for $13.3 million. Am I to understand that part of the $13.3 million is the $12.8 million that stayed in the kitty or is this an additional $13.3 million?

[Jacques Paquette]

No, it is—

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

If it was not used, it was brought forward?

[Jacques Paquette]

Correct. In the supplementary estimates (B), when we bring money forward to a subsequent year, it is not new money but unspent money that we are spending this year, if you see what I mean.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Okay. That means that of the $13.3 million requested in the supplementary estimates (B), only $500,000 corresponds to new funds. The two figures aren't exactly the same; there's a $0.5 million discrepancy.

[Alain P. Séguin, Chief Financial Officer, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development]

Perhaps I could shed some light on that.

There is a real amount that was not used at the end of the year. There is a discrepancy between the expenditures for 2012-13 and the authorized amounts for that same period. At the end of the year, the amount was $16.3 million. An amount of $13 million was reprofiled in supplementary estimates (B), which you are looking at today, and there is $3 million for 2014-15. That means that the full amount that was not used was carried forward to future years, in other words this year and next year.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Right.

Thank you very much for that clarification.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

You have 10 seconds. Would you like to end? You just used up the 10 seconds. Time does go quickly.

We'll go on to Mr. Butt.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I thank all of you for being here today.

My questions will be focusing on the housing side of the department as well.

Let's do a little follow-up on the homelessness partnering strategy. In my previous life, I was directly involved with a program in Toronto known as streets to homes, which was funded through the HPS program.

Could somebody explain a little more and give us some examples of the types of programs we are funding through HPS? As I understand, it's direct federal-to-municipal government funding; I think we bypass the provinces. We provide money directly on the ground in communities for direct homelessness prevention work, which I think is tremendous. That's exactly what we should be doing: getting money directly on the ground in communities is making a difference.

Other than the streets-to-homes program that I'm familiar with in the city of Toronto, can you give me some other examples of the kinds of programming that HPS is funding?

[Jacques Paquette]

Yes.

I should add that there's one exception. With Quebec, there's a joint agreement with the departments in Quebec for the implementation, but otherwise, you're right: this is really a community-based approach.

As the minister said, people on the ground know better the type of solution that should be brought forward. What we are doing essentially is that we are asking the communities, the major urban centres across the country where there are homelessness issues, to develop a community plan. The community plan has major advantages.

The first advantage is that they're looking at the overall issue of how they are going to address it. Second, they bring together all the key players around the table. This includes municipalities, not-for-profits, for profits, provincial authorities, and so on. They can coordinate and integrate the services to address the issues on the ground.

At the federal government level, we look at the plan and the priorities they are putting forward, and then we provide them with the funds. They're the ones who then will select the right projects to implement. That will vary from one city to the other, depending on the nature of the problems they're facing, and also on the types of services already in place.

It can vary a lot. We were talking about capital projects, for example. One way of using the HPS money is to refit apartments to make them available for permanent housing for some of the homeless people we're trying to get off the street. In other cases, it's to provide some kind of service; I'm thinking of social services. As you know, people on the street are facing a multitude of problems that you need to address, so you need people to be able to do that. That's where you can get the right people to do that.

Those are the types of projects that could be funded through HPS.

At the end of the day, what we're really looking forward to are results, where there will be a reduction in the number of homeless people across the country.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

In the economic action plan 2013, the Minister of Finance announced a five-year renewal of HPS as well as a five-year renewal of the affordable housing initiative.

Where are we on the status of our negotiations and discussions with our provincial partners? This is new funding, effective April 1 of next year.

Where are we now in our discussions with the provinces around the renewal of the affordable housing initiative and on signing those agreements? I do know that the agreements are slightly different, given different provinces. Different provinces have different affordable housing needs: you can't compare P.E.I. with downtown Toronto, and you can't compare Toronto with the Yukon.

When we're negotiating these agreements, we know we must have flexibility. We know we must have a sense of reality of what the housing needs and situations are in different parts of the country.

Can you give me a quick update—I'm sure that will be the end of my time—as to where we are on the renewal of those agreements, considering they'll be effective on April 1, 2014?

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

We're already over time, Mr. Butt. Someone might address that in a future question, perhaps from the government side. You could do it that way. But you were actually over time, Mr. Butt.

I'll move to Madam Sims.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Thank you very much.

We are hearing a lot about the skills shortage and that skills training is a priority of the government. But when I looked at the figures from the public accounts, the government has sat on over $138 million that had been approved to support skills and job creation, rather than transferring that money to organizations, cities, aboriginal bands, and post-secondary institutions. All, by the way, could have used those funds to support skills training, essential skills, literacy, and job experience. Of those funds, 11% was earmarked for apprenticeships. In the budget the government had 20% for grants to diverse organizations, including private sector and industry groups to support the competitiveness of the Canadian workplace through skills training.

All of that money just did not get spent. I'm wondering if you can comment on these training investments and why they did not take place?

[Alain P. Séguin]

I suspect you are referring to the lapse of funds in some of these programs. I can't speak to all the details and permutations, as there are very many programs. Many will be reprofiled.

You talked about skills.... I have to make sure I get the right ones here. It's not apprenticeship grants, but there are labour market agreements, and we have reprofiled many of these. For example, the labour market agreements at $24.7 million. I'd have to look at the various programs that we have. Many are reprofiled into future years.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Maybe you could get back to us with that through the clerk. That way we can all have that information. When you say “reprofiled” are you saying the money is moved forward into this year?