Human Resources committee  Mr. Chair, the caregiver program changed in its nature midway through the audit. At one point, the department or the government made a decision that caregivers did not have to live in. The larger point is that we found the department did not do inspections of employers of caregiv

Human Resources committee  Our field work ended on August 31, 2016. At that point we started the draft report and discussed recommendations with the department. In any performance audit we have to have a cut-off period, at which point we stop doing the field work and start drafting the report. It was no mo

Human Resources committee  In the area of enforcement activities, we did see that they started to do more enforcement activities, the on-site inspections, for example. As we stated in the report, they started 173 of them, and at the end of our audit they had only completed 13. They were starting to go in t

Human Resources committee  Mr. Chair, I have one small point to add. The department itself identified inspections of caregivers as crucial, because this was a higher-risk area. However, during the course of our audit, we did not find that any inspections were done of caregivers. Another area where there i

Human Resources committee  If I could, Mr. Chair, to the extent we looked at reforms, we looked at the three of the key reforms: for low-wage workers, allowing them to stay only one year as opposed to two, which we speak to in paragraph 5.22; putting a cap on low-wage temporary foreign workers in individua

Public Accounts committee  Mr. Chair, unfortunately, we wouldn't be able to answer that question. Our audit only included the period from April 1, 2012, and it looked at the new tribunal.

Public Accounts committee  Mr. Chair, as I indicated previously, it was when both sides were ready to proceed—

Public Accounts committee  —but to perhaps make a bit of a larger point, this was a relatively small number of cases. There were only 137 over the two fiscal years.

Public Accounts committee  Mr. Chair, in this case it was from the point in time when both parties indicated the case was ready to proceed.

Public Accounts committee  Mr. Chair, the example we're referring to in paragraph 6.19 refers to a number that's right on. It's $1.60 per kilogram for the full subsidy for one community, and it's five cents per kilogram for the subsidy for the other community. Those numbers don't vary.

Public Accounts committee  No. The subsidy rates vary by community.

Public Accounts committee  That's correct.

Public Accounts committee  Yes, it varies by community.

Public Accounts committee  Mr. Chair, perhaps I could start. The consultation included of course the three territorial governments, but it also included other major stakeholders located in the territories—larger NGOs, private sector companies. It really was a consultation that tried to capture what people

Public Accounts committee  That's correct. A five-year investment plan was finalized for each of the territories. That covered the years 2009 to 2014.