HUMA Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT AND THE STATUS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DES RESSOURCES HUMAINES ET DE LA CONDITION DES PERSONNES HANDICAPÉES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, May 8, 2001

• 1112

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Colleagues, if we could begin, the order of reference for today's meeting is that the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002, votes 1, 5, 10, 15, and 20 under Human Resources Development, laid upon the table on February 27, 2001, be referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

That's an extract from the journals of the House of Commons of Tuesday, February 27, 2001.

I'd like to welcome our witnesses. Before I do, I would like to apologize to them for the slight delay. Witnesses, you should know that the committee had another meeting that began at 9 a.m. and finished at 11 a.m., and we've simply transferred to this room from that meeting. So I do apologize.

We're very pleased to welcome the Honourable Claudette Bradshaw, Minister of Labour. Minister, it's very good of you to appear before this committee.

With her, from the Department of Human Resources Development, we have Warren Edmondson, Assistant Deputy Minister for Labour. Warren, welcome to you. And we have Susan Scotti, Assistant Deputy Minister for Homelessness. Susan, welcome again to our committee.

[Translation]

Also with us is Guy Tremblay, the Director General of Financial Services. Welcome to the committee, Guy.

[English]

Minister, we're in your hands, and if you have anything to say we'd be glad to hear it. If your colleagues do, if you could just so indicate, we'll proceed with the meeting.

The Honourable Claudette Bradshaw.

Hon. Claudette Bradshaw (Minister of Labour): Mr. Chair, members of the committee, I am pleased to have this opportunity to meet with you again.

Since meeting with you last May, I have had a busy year, both with the labour program and the homelessness file. As you may recall, last year marked the 100th anniversary of the labour program, and we celebrated this milestone in a number of ways. Of specific note, we launched a special commemorative stamp with our partners at Canada Post, and we produced a series of historical vignettes that you may have seen recently on television.

Though these activities serve as special reminders of history and the importance of the federal labour program, they also emphasize our main goal: to ensure safe, cooperative, and fair workplaces for Canadians and to promote constructive labour-management relations in Canada.

[Translation]

As members of this committee, you know that the primary legislative focus of the Labour Program falls within industries and workplaces under federal jurisdiction. But it is clear to me that the influence of our legislation and our policies and programs is far-reaching.

• 1115

In many ways, we affect the actions and labour policies of businesses throughout Canada and even abroad. Many industries and workplaces under federal jurisdiction are linked to national and international businesses (the transportation sector is a good example). It is not surprising then that workplace practices spill over into these businesses.

At the same time, employees and employers under federal jurisdiction face many of the same workplace issues as their counterparts in non-federally-regulated sectors. I am referring to issues such as work and life balance, the use of new technologies or the impact of globalization. It is issues such as these that we are presently working to address.

And we are committed to helping develop innovative solutions in these areas. We have a legal responsibility to promote safe and healthy workplaces, and as these change, so too must we. That is why it is so important that we continue to review and update our legislation and our program activities.

And we will do just that.

[English]

As I stated last year, we are firmly committed to the free collective bargaining process and to supporting and facilitating positive labour-management relations. This year, I can again report that the Canadian industrial relations system is working well.

Strikes and lockouts remain at their lowest level in over 20 years, and over 90% of disputes in workplaces under federal jurisdiction were settled without work stoppage. Clearly, these results are a positive reflection on the work of the officers of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service.

We only need to think back to last summer when we faced the possibility of a major disruption to domestic and foreign airline service, which would have stranded thousands of passengers during the busy summer holiday period. But it was the quiet efficiency of officials within the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service and the effort of both parties that brought about a peaceful resolution of the dispute. That is just an example of their good work last year.

As we look ahead, we will continue to rely directly on our mediation and conciliation skills while at the same time exploring new approaches to encourage positive labour relations in the workplace and foster joint problem-solving initiatives. Through the use of various preventative mediation and alternative dispute resolution techniques, we will continue to encourage unions and employers in the federal jurisdiction to establish and maintain constructive working relationships.

Another of our important accomplishments last year was the passage of Bill C-12. This bill modernized the occupational safety and health regulations under part II of the Canada Labour Code. Basically, it brings an increased role and accountability to employees and employers in matters of safety and health. Since the bill was passed, our public education efforts have concentrated on promoting the new law so that all rights and obligations are fully understood. In addition, as resources permit, we are introducing preventative services to help strengthen workplace relationships and to minimize the number of formal complaints filed under the legislation.

These proactive services aim at increasing voluntary compliance with legislation. They also complement national public events such as North American Occupational Safety and Health Week, which is this week, and Fire Prevention Week in October.

But our work modernizing the Canada Labour Code is far from over. We still have a number of other legislative review matters on our agenda. They are ongoing consultations with stakeholders on part III of the code, a section dealing with labour standards, including hours of work, minimum wage, equal wages, vacation, maternity and parental leave, sick leave, termination, sexual harassment, and so on. I am particularly interested in ensuring that Canadian workers are protected in cases of family or medical emergencies.

• 1120

There is also the upcoming review of the Employment Equity Act. The act aims to remove barriers to inclusion facing four groups—women, minorities, aboriginal people, and persons with disabilities. It is all about ensuring that Canada's workplaces fully respond to the needs and concerns of all their employees, regardless of gender, heritage, or physical attribute.

And there is the work of the Bilson Task Force on Pay Equity.

[Translation]

In all these instances, we are working to meet our responsibilities under Canada's labour laws so that we can foster more harmonious, safe and equitable workplaces. Our objective is to consult with stakeholders and to make sure our policies and legislation reflect the changing nature of work and the needs of Canada in the changing international environment.

And there is no doubt that we are part of a changing international environment. In today's world, and in the context of increased globalization and economic integration, co-operative international efforts have become a vital aspect of the work of the Labour Program.

For example, we have taken a leadership role within the International Labour Organization (ILO) on child labour issues. We are continuing to work with other international partners to implement the ILO Convention aimed at the global elimination of the labour practices which exploit children.

We are also working with our counterparts in other countries to ensure that labour issues are factored into international trading agreements. A good example of this is the labour side agreement signed a few weeks ago with Costa Rica.

As the FTAA discussions move forward, my officials and I will have a key role to play in ensuring that Canada's labour interests are central to the discussion.

[English]

A special highlight for Canada this year will be the 12th Inter-American Conference of Ministers of Labour, which will be held in Ottawa this October.

As Canada's Minister of Labour, I will host the ministers of labour from the 34 democratically elected governments in the Americas, as we meet to consider hemispheric labour issues. The Minister of Labour will represent Canada as chair of the group for the next three to four years. Thus, we will be responsible for overseeing the plan of action that this year's conference will produce. Taken together, these activities spell out a very busy agenda working on labour policy issues both at home and abroad.

In addition to this, we gather and analyse data on workplace issues that have become a respected source of information for the industrial relations community and other governments. We will continue to devote resources to this important function, as well as develop new information products and tools that meet Canadian workplace needs, including educational needs.

Let me turn now to the very important matter of my responsibilities as federal coordinator for homelessness, to say a few words about the progress we have made on the homelessness file.

As you know, the best solutions to homelessness are to be found at the community level. That is why developing new partnerships and building sustainable community capacity is at the core of the Government of Canada's homelessness initiative.

The initiative, which was launched in December 1999, engages all levels of government and community partners in the development of appropriate responses to the priorities identified at the local level. Over time, these responses will assist homeless people to move from the streets and emergency shelters to more secure lives.

[Translation]

Our approach emphasizes a strong Government of Canada leadership role, not an ownership role. It builds on the vital work already underway within communities, by fostering stronger linkages between the different groups involved. It focusses on developing the capacity of communities for concerted planning, prioritizing and administration of initiatives addressing local homelessness issues.

• 1125

The Initiative has several components, and involves a variety of federal partners. But the cornerstone of the Initiative is a new program, the $305-million Supporting Communities Partnership Initiative (SCPI). The goal of the SCPI is to provide a flexible means for communities to plan and implement comprehensive local strategies to help reduce the number of homeless people and prevent those who are "at-risk" of becoming homeless.

Through the SCPI we are working with other levels of government and with community organizations to identify how best to alleviate and reduce a range of problems associated with the homeless.

I am pleased to say today that we have been very active in supporting investments in communities across the country, and in helping them address their specific priorities around homelessness.

Communities are responding positively to the challenges we are presenting. In a variety of ways, they have come together in relatively short order to identify priorities and begin a process of developing more sustainable, planned responses to homelessness.

Remarkable progress has been made in large cities with significant numbers of absolute homeless. But good news is also coming from smaller centres.

Community groups and service providers in small communities such as Red Deer, Peterborough, Prince Albert, Victoria and Grand Prairie have also succeeded in coming together, setting priorities and closing service gaps to better meet the needs of homeless people in their own communities.

[English]

In terms of investments, the Government of Canada has contributed over $145 million for 285 homelessness-related projects under SCPI—the supporting communities partnership initiative—the youth employment strategy, and the urban aboriginal strategy alone. The funds are being used to support a variety of investments to address homelessness. Two examples include the construction of a new building providing a range of services for homeless Calgarians and funding for counselling, outreach, and overnight shelter for youth at risk in Winnipeg.

Additional investments have been made through other components of the homelessness initiative such as the relevant program of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, not to mention many ongoing homelessness-related activities initiated by other federal government departments.

Our investments so far have leveraged $405 million from other sources, including the private and not-for-profit sectors.

I would say we have made a very good start. By 2003, I believe we will see communities continuing to build on their abilities to work together to help their neighbours.

I also expect that by this time next year we will be able to assess how well this model can work and serve as an example for other government investments in communities—one based on the combination of leadership, partnership, and leverage.

Although I am encouraged by the progress we have made to date and by the commitment of the many other partners that have come to the table, the fight is far from over. We can still do more to help communities address this issue. Communities need us to develop stronger linkages between federal departments, programs, and initiatives so that we can support them effectively. Homelessness is a national issue, and all levels of government must be prepared to work together to meet this challenge.

• 1130

It is clear that we still have a long way to go to alleviate the problem of homelessness. It is a grave situation that all Canadians must become aware of. I am taking it as a personal challenge to keep this issue high on the government's agenda.

To sum up, Mr. Chair, Canada's labour program is continuing a proud tradition of service to Canada and to ensuring workplaces that are harmonious, safe, and equitable for Canadian workers. We are working to meet this responsibility both at home and abroad.

At the same time, my staff in the homelessness secretariat and I are working hard with other levels of government, with community-based organizations, and with volunteers all across the country to find solutions that will meet the diverse needs of people in Canada who are without permanent shelter.

That concludes my presentation. I will welcome questions and comments.

Merci. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Do any of your colleagues have anything to add at this time? I see none.

Minister, just so you know, on this committee the way we work is we have the normal rotation between the parties. We try to aim for four or five minutes for each exchange. I say this to all the witnesses as well as to my colleagues, because the questions and the answers go into that time zone. We find that if we can keep it at that, people will often get a second or sometimes even a third chance to ask a question.

So I'm going to begin with Dale Johnston, then Joe McGuire, Monique Guay, Alan Tonks, Libby Davies, Diane St-Jacques, Peter Goldring, and Judi Longfield.

Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, CA): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Madam Minister, for your presentation.

When amendments to part I of the Canada Labour Code were introduced, the Minister of Labour came before the committee and pledged that by the end of 1999 section 87.7 dealing with the west coast ports—and section 87.7 is the grain exemption, you will recall—would be reviewed.

On page 42 of the estimates you say you will be consulting and reviewing much of your legislation. I'm wondering, in light of the fact that chemical producers, petroleum producers, potash producers, and other organizations are becoming increasingly frustrated with the unreliability of the west coast port, to the point that they had considered during the last work stoppage to use alternate ports in the United States... It's a move, I would predict, that would not be a temporary one.

If those producers are forced because of work stoppages in the west coast port to seek out alternate ports on the west coast of the United States to service their Asia-Pacific customers, my feeling is that this would be on a permanent basis. The west coast port of Vancouver would suffer, the British Columbia economy would suffer, and so would Canada, as far as the general economy is concerned and certainly in employment.

I wonder if the minister could give some assurances to those people that she would put in place a mechanism that would allow the parties to continue to work while they negotiate their contracts.

The Chair: We always talk in this committee through the chair, except for the members, of course.

Minister.

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: As for part I of the Canada Labour Code and the grain, you'll remember that you and I were sitting on this committee and attended many meetings and heard a lot of different groups come and speak to us. I was a member of the HRD committee at that time. It was done to protect our farmers.

Having said this, you will also remember, as I remember very well, November 1999 when they had the Vancouver strike. I got the call and we went to Vancouver immediately. The dispute was settled without a strike. But during that time—and you and I spoke about it at the time—the longshore foremen were also going to go on strike. And they settled that fairly fast.

• 1135

So I'm quite confident that on the west coast the ports are going well. We have not heard of a dispute since the longshore foremen's strike, and that group did not go on strike; they settled. So I'm confident in my understanding, since we worked so hard to solve the other one, that there isn't a problem in the port in the west.

On the grain issue, I believe it was the right thing to do at the time when you think of all the groups we had presenting to us. We didn't make that decision easily. We had a lot of groups come in front of the committee. It was the right thing to do at the time.

When I look at it now, while there was a strike, the grain went on, but the positive part of this was that the workers were still working, so it kept the communication going. So I don't foresee a problem there at all, and I think we made the right decision at the time and I believe it's still the right decision today.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Mr. Chairman, I want to point out, and I'm sure the minister is already aware of this... I have some figures before me that indicate there are something like 6,800 tonnes of petrochemicals a day that pass through the port of Vancouver, and some 7,100 tonnes of petroleum pass through it.

I want to alert her to the fact that the petroleum industry... I had a meeting with the largest producer of petrochemicals in Canada at NOVA in Alberta over the weekend, and they made it very clear to me they are growing increasingly impatient with work stoppages that take place at the west coast port. I think I would be derelict in my duty if I didn't point this out to you.

I appreciate the optimism you put forth in regard to the labour peace at the west coast port, but we just don't have the ability to look into the future. I'm pleased to hear that the minister supports maintaining the services in the port, and as you know, I am a proponent of a system whereby they would be allowed to continue to negotiate and continue to work as well, so there would be a win-win situation for everybody.

The Chair: I'll go to Joe McGuire now.

Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, Minister, to the committee.

I was wondering, Madam Minister, about the federal regional hiring practices and the effect it's having on policy. I can't help but reflect that maybe the seriousness of the potato wart problem in Prince Edward Island really wasn't that well understood in the centre and that we had great difficulty really impressing upon people the serious effect it was having on the economy of Prince Edward Island.

I'm wondering if the fact that we didn't really have anybody from Atlantic Canada, from New Brunswick, or P.E.I. who understood that particular industry here in the centre is reflective of the regionally based hiring practices that have been in effect for the past ten years.

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: It's a possibility, Joe. It's probably something we would have to look at. I think it goes beyond the Department of Labour. You and I have discussed this on many occasions. You know how I feel about regionalization. It's probably a discussion we should continue having.

Mr. Joe McGuire: Is there any consideration, though, of having, say, more people from western Canada and eastern Canada open for competitions in the Ottawa region? Is that policy of regionally based hiring practices actually working for the betterment of the country?

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: You're putting me on the spot, Joe. You know what my personal feelings are on it.

• 1140

We know within our labour program what our hiring practices are. I remember when I first became Minister of Labour, I was told that I had the best staff on the Hill. I have to tell you that having been there now for two and a half years, they were right. We're very careful that the people we hire know the dossiers well and are capable of working in that field.

Warren, you might want to add...

The Chair: Mr. Edmondson.

Mr. Warren Edmondson (Assistant Deputy Minister, Labour, Department of Human Resources Development): All I can add is that as far as the operations of the labour program are concerned, almost half of the people employed by the labour program in fact are located in the regions. We make great efforts to ensure that the communication between our regional inspectors and our headquarters operations, and between regions, as a matter of fact, is maintained on a regular basis.

Mr. Joe McGuire: Does your influence on that policy extend beyond labour?

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: No.

The other thing too, Joe—and maybe it's something this committee should be looking at. I don't know if you realize just how powerful you are as a committee, and it might be something you want to look at.

But I'll tell you something. One of the things that really hit me when I got into labour... They have a conference every year—if you want to call it that—and they have the labour staff from across Canada coming to this conference. What really hit me at those conferences was that they bring the employee and employer groups as panels, so that our staff are always aware of not only what's happening in the region, because they're front line, as you know, in labour, but also what's happening across the country. For the two days they're there, they don't meet just labour staff alone and talk labour jargon. They're actually there with the employees and the employers from across this country.

So it might be something that this committee would want to look at, to see how we can, at the centre, better our relationship with each of the regions. I guess that's why we get travel points as MPs, so we can travel across the country, because we make the decisions.

But it's not a bad idea, and I would encourage you to maybe bring it to this committee. It's something I believe we should be looking at.

The Chair: Let's move on.

The reason I like people to address their remarks through the chair is not, by the way, for this specific case, Minister. It's just that every now and again we get situations in which witnesses and members yell at each other. We aren't doing that now, and I love chatting, but it is better if the chair is mentioned from time to time.

Monique Guay, Alan Tonks, Libby Davies, Diane St-Jacques.

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): We do not intend to yell, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning and welcome, Ms. Bradshaw. I have some very specific questions, which I will ask right away. I will not make any major comments, except perhaps on Part II of the Canada Labour Code, on which I have worked a great deal. I put forward some major amendments which, unfortunately, were not accepted. However, I hope they will be taken into account and that the work will be done once again for Part III.

You have your work cut out for you, Ms. Bradshaw, because when we come to review Part III of the Canada Labour Code, you will encounter all the frustration not dealt with in Part I and Part II. You will find that many unions and other groups will be lobbying on Parliament Hill regarding Part III.

You said a few moments ago that Part III would be reviewed, Ms. Bradshaw. I want to know when this will be done.

You also spoke about the Employment Equity Act. I would like to know when we are going to be talking about it.

Third, I would also like to know when the work of the Bilson Task Force on Pay Equity will be submitted. You say that it will be next year, but I would like to know whether it will be in the fall or in the spring, so that we have some idea about the work we will have to do.

Ms. Claudette Bradshaw: On the whole issue regarding Part III of the Canada Labour Code, Monique, I am not...

[English]

Peter, it's my personality.

[Translation]

The Chair: The chair is still here, Madam Minister.

[English]

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: It's my personality. What do you want me to do? Mr. Chair, I'm good at it in question period.

[Translation]

I will tell you about the discussions under way at the moment on Part III of the Canada Labour Code. What you said is absolutely true, and we know how difficult it will be.

• 1145

We will have to look at a number of matters. As you know, we have to work with employee and employer's groups, but we also have a responsibility toward all the provinces. We have three task forces. In addition, some individuals in Canada are not subject to the Canada Labour Code but do take part in it, in particular the banks.

If Part III of the Canada Labour Code is to work as well as Part I and II, we will have to work in partnership with everyone.

We know that some issues will be very difficult, for a number of reasons. We also know that we are entering a new economy and that everything will be on the table. For example, we are talking about family-friendly workplaces, of the whole issue of parents and work.

I will have to make a decision. The groups are now meeting, and we are already facing certain difficulties.

Ms. Monique Guay: When will it be discussed, Minister?

Ms. Claudette Bradshaw: We are in the process of discussing it now. The discussions are open.

What I am wondering about is this, Mr. Chairman. Should we review just one section of Part III of the Labour Code at a time, and adopt it if people agree on it? Or should we review the entire Part III as we did for Parts I and II, which took seven and eight years? I must admit, Mr. Chairman, that this decision is being made at the moment, and it is up to me to do so.

Ms. Monique Guay: We must not wait another seven years. This must be done quickly.

Ms. Claudette Bradshaw: That is the issue, Mr. Chairman. It took eight years to review Part I of the Labour Code, and seven years for Part II. The decision I have to make regarding Part III will be made in consultation with employer and employee's groups and with my staff. There are two opinions on this. Some people want us to adopt items immediately, as soon as we agree on two or three points, and then to continue working. Others say that the review of Parts I and II went very well and the same approach should be used again. The decision will be made shortly, Mr. Chairman. With respect to the Bilson Task Force, we want to make sure that its terms of reference are properly defined. They are now working on these terms of reference. I cannot give you a date. As you know, Mr. Chairman, I, as the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Justice do not have a date as such. However, I can tell you that we trust Dr. Bilson. He has a good reputation, and I trust him. So, I cannot give you a date.

Ms. Monique Guay: But you say it will be next year.

Ms. Claudette Bradshaw: I would like to tell you that it will be next year, but I cannot give you a date. I could be here next year and you could tell me that I said...

Ms. Monique Guay: When will something happen with the Employment Equity Act?

Ms. Claudette Bradshaw: Is it for two years from now? It is for 2001.

Ms. Monique Guay: So it is for this year. It will be reviewed again this year. Fine. You are answering my questions.

Do I have a little time left? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will proceed as quickly as possible. I have a great many questions. It is unfortunate that we do not have more time.

Canada will chair the XIIth Inter-American Conference of Ministers of Labour on October 16, 17 and 18. You mentioned it to me earlier. I have many concerns about it and I would like to read you a brief statement that has been made. I quote:

I would define globalization as the freedom for my group where it wants, for as long as it wants, to produce what it wants, by obtaining supplies and selling where it wants, and by having to deal with as few constraints as possible in the area of labour law and social conventions.

This was written by Percy Barnevik, the president of the transnational ABB.

You say that we are an example, and so on. That is all very well, but what types of standards will we be establishing with the other 34 countries? We must have labour policies that represent the people.

[English]

The Chair: Minister, we've actually run out of time, so please bear that in mind. I'll move on, if you don't mind.

Monique had a long question. Alan Tonks, Libby Davies, Diane St-Jacques, Peter Goldring, Judi Longfield.

Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, if we're going to get into any yelling between you and the minister, I can tell you whose side I'm going to be on.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

• 1150

Mr. Alan Tonks: I'd like to follow up on my colleague's question with respect to the FTAA, Minister. And I did appreciate seeing you on the television firmly ensconced at the Summit of the Americas conference.

I've been made aware, and it was quite staggering to me, that only 8% of the population come under our jurisdiction and are governed by federal labour code laws. I assume from that, as I'm learning, that provincial labour codes with respect to specific legislation click in, and we attempt to bring into harmony our codes on equity, safety in the workplace, and whatnot.

Following up on the question that was asked, does the FTAA conference—and I understand it's the twelfth conference, not the second dealing with international labour issues—provide you as a minister with a platform that gives you the opportunity to position those universal labour principles that we in Canada have been working on for a long time? I think what the question is attempting to bring out is, can we find common ground? In fact, can we be not only appearing to take the high ground with respect to universal principles of equality and equity, but in actual fact be doing so, and thus avoid the kinds of activity that went on during the free trade agreement? I think that's the sense of the question.

I would be interested, as I think the committee would, Mr. Chairman, to hear perhaps a more expansive response to that.

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: Thank you for your question.

If you haven't seen me a lot in the House lately, it's because we are chairing the meeting of the Americas and I am travelling to meet as many ministers of labour as I possibly can. There are a couple of reasons for this.

One is I was not at the summit in Quebec. I was at the People's Summit. I had gone on the Wednesday, and that's where you saw me. I wanted to make sure I was at the People's Summit in Quebec because it was important that I be there with the group to listen to what they had to say.

There are a couple of things I'd mention. One is that we're fortunate we have the 1998 ILO convention, which looks at fundamental principles. So with the 34 countries we're going to be able to work on those issues at our meeting.

There are also two things on the agenda. One is the management of labour departments and the other one is globalization. In October we're going to be seriously looking at those important issues with the 34 ministers.

Another one is the fundamental principles of the ILO, which are very important. They are the right to organize, the right to strike, the right to collective bargaining, and child labour. We're going to be able to look at all of those issues in October.

The reason I'm travelling and I want to try this—and people who know me know I'm pretty open about trying anything—is because what came out loud and clear to me from the CLC at the People's Summit—and we work very closely with the CLC on the international front—is they want to be part of the process. So I'm travelling and I'm encouraging the ministers of the 34 countries to bring their union representatives with them to our meeting in Canada.

This has never been done before. Last year I brought some union representatives with me to Washington. I feel very strongly that if we can have other ministers of labour from the 34 countries invite some of their labour unions...

We are going to be working very closely with the Canadian Labour Congress here in Canada on everything having to do with our meeting in October. We have a good relationship with them already because of the Canada Labour Code.

I was the first minister to ever be invited last week to Washington to speak to the ORIT meeting, which brings together the ministers of labour from around the world. It was an honour for me to be there as the labour minister from Canada to be able to speak to them. So I'm hopeful that this is going to work.

• 1155

I'm confident that other ministers are going to be inviting some of their union members. How the staff is going to put it all together we don't know, because it's never been done before. But I believe that when you look at our country and what we have to offer in labour law—we are 100 years old—we can serve as an example and we can open doors. It would be unfortunate for us to have a meeting of the Americas and not be willing to take the gamble to open up some of these doors.

As to what the end result is going to be, I might come back and find you're very upset with me, but at least you won't be able to say Bradshaw didn't try. So that's what I hope to do, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Alan Tonks: Any assistance this committee—it should be self-evident—can provide in respect of what you just said, Minister, about exploring every opportunity for the committee to be with you as you develop that strategy, I'm sure we would offer.

The Chair: I have to move on, but I would endorse your previous suggestion. I think the committee, for a number of reasons, in the last 12 months has not been seized of the labour part of its mandate, and we'd be glad of suggestions.

It's Libby Davies, Diane St-Jacques, Peter Goldring, Judi Longfield, then Dale Johnston.

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Through the chair, thank you very much for coming today, Minister.

In your comments this morning you said the best solutions to homelessness are to be found at the community level, and I would totally agree with that. But I also know that if you go and talk to people who are very active on the front line dealing with homelessness and lack of housing, they will also tell you—I know they've told you many times—that the essential ingredient in finding those solutions is to actually construct affordable housing. What I find really astounding is that the initiative was begun in December 1999. So more than a year and a half later we've got all these initiatives going on, but they actually don't address the fundamental problem: developing affordable housing. In fact, today you've talked around it, with better shelters, counselling, all of these programs—which are fine, I'm not detracting from that—but all this doesn't deal with the fundamental point. So that's one question—how can you have a homelessness initiative that fails to deal with the provision of permanent housing for people?

Second, I think you're aware that the National Coalition on Housing and Homelessness has just recently written to your colleague Mr. Gagliano, and I think you received a copy as well. They are very aware of the initiative that's now before cabinet, and people are very distressed that yet again, instead of actually focusing on the development of a housing supply program that's not for profit, we're going to be looking at rental subsidies. I'd like to ask you what you are doing in your capacity as coordinator to ensure that there is actually a not-for-profit housing supply program, so that we can get beyond the shelters. It's not good enough to say that people are going to be in better shelters; they need to be in permanent housing.

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: Mr. Chair, the member and I have had many discussions on this front, and I've been out in the communities listening to what people say. On the homelessness front, when it was decided where we would put our funding, coming from the background I have, I knew we needed to help support services, I knew we needed to help the food banks be up to par, I knew we needed to help the shelters, I knew there were a lot of emergencies there for winter readiness—and we have done that. But that's going to last for a little while, and most of the communities I knew were going to go beyond. How many shelter beds can you have? How many food banks can you help? And it goes beyond that on the homelessness file.

What we decided to do—and if you wish, we got away with it, and I'm happy—is to say, it's not my ministry, so I can't touch housing, but what I can do is touch transitional housing. To me, transitional housing—and we are funding several projects—means that there can be shelter for someone for a year or two or three or four, but always with the intention that they are going to be coming into the community. So I stretched my portfolio as far as I could on that—and there are other members who want to ask questions on housing also.

• 1200

Mr. Chair, I received for SCPI funding $305 million. Minister Gagliano received $268 million through RRAP funding. So if you're going to speak about homelessness, I would recommend that you invite Minister Gagliano to come in front of your committee to speak to you on the RRAP funding, because I cannot answer on the housing component.

What I will say is this: when I got appointed to coordinate the homelessness file, the ministers of housing had not met in six years. There was just no discussion. There was a meeting of the ministers last September. I was asked to attend that meeting. And I said, “No, I'm not going to attend the housing meeting, and I'm going to tell you why. I want you to spend your time talking about housing, not about homelessness. It's a grave issue. I have my mandate. I'm working on my mandate. I want you to spend every minute of every hour talking about housing.” So I was encouraged that they had that meeting.

Also, when we did the infrastructure program, I was encouraged that we had put housing in it. When I travelled, 17 out of 23 mayors told me we had a crisis in this country because of homelessness. I was hoping we would see many mayors take advantage of the infrastructure funding for affordable housing. My understanding is that not many mayors have taken advantage of this funding. I'm hoping it's because it's the first year and they had so many other things they wanted to do, they just didn't look at affordable housing within the infrastructure program. I'm hoping we will see it later.

Ms. Libby Davies: Just to respond, Minister, I think you create your own box. The way you respond to the issue is to imply that somehow some external force has prevented you from dealing with housing issues, but your mandate on homelessness, I think, is very much linked to the issue of affordable housing. So again, I really fail to see why that mandate is not being covered off in this new initiative that is now being talked about.

The municipalities, when it comes to the infrastructure funds, had to make very difficult choices between transportation, housing, environmental issues. We need housing dollars. If there were housing dollars allocated, would you agree with that? If there is a choice that could be made to actually allocate dollars for a housing supply program, that choice is the government's.

The Chair: I'm going to move on. Libby, we'll get back to you.

It's Diane St-Jacques, Peter Goldring, Judi Longfield, Dale Johnston, Anita Neville, Monique Guay, Georges Farrah, Libby Davies.

[Translation]

Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to thank Ms. Bradshaw for being here this morning. We appreciate it very much.

My question is about the SCPI. We know that much of the program targets the large municipalities, but that a percentage of it is for small regions. I would like to know how this is going to work. Even though homelessness is less apparent in small regions, it does exist. There are fewer homeless people in the regions, of course, but they are there. I would like to know exactly how the program will work for the regions. Twenty percent will go to the regions. I would like to know how organizations can have access to these programs.

Ms. Claudette Bradshaw: With respect to the SCPI, when we got some money for the homeless, we decided to use it in larger communities. I never felt comfortable with that. I told the staff that it did not make sense, and that we also had to help out smaller communities, because they have homeless people too. The smaller communities started wanting to get organized. Throughout the country, people said they wanted to help the homeless in their area, so that they would not go to Toronto, Montreal, Calgary and Vancouver. I said I agreed and that we would earmark 20% of the money for small communities.

We distributed the money almost a year ago, last June, Mr. Chairman. If I had to make the decision again, I would spend 40% of the funding in small communities and 60% in our larger communities. Let me tell you why.

• 1205

We are supposed to have 10 communities; and we now have 62. There are 62 small communities that are taking charge of their own situation. In your small community of Peterborough, Mr. Chairman, things are going very well. The communities get together, draw up work plans and undertake projects. There are 62 communities involved. We are expecting that 90% of the plans will be completed by September. It is not easy for communities to get together, to draw up a work plan together, to decide on priorities and to decide who will get the projects.

Most of the provinces signed an agreement with the government of Canada last June. So things have started to move forward. As you know, things took a little longer in Quebec. We thought that we were going to be signing an agreement in August, but that did not happen. Then there was the election campaign. In the end, we signed the agreement with Quebec in February. We will be working with the regional boards in Quebec. As I understand it, the regional boards are beginning to meet with their communities and the plans are being drawn up. I will be getting a briefing on this this afternoon. If you would like to have more details, I could provide you with them. We will be going to Quebec at the end of May to meet with certain communities. I am expecting that in Quebec, the process will be undertaken with both small and large communities. So the negotiations took longer.

Ms. Diane St-Jacques: The communities will have to work together, by region, because there will not be enough funding for all communities. Is that correct?

Ms. Claudette Bradshaw: Canada is so wonderful, and we work so well together. Some communities will be involved in the process. Let me give you an example. Some small communities were meeting together. One of them had some difficulties. The communities got together and devised work plans. Three members of Parliament said that the little community in question should be included with them. They decided to share the money they received with that community.

I do not see any difference in Quebec. I do not know whether your community will be involved in the process, Diane. I would have to look into that, Mr. Chairman. However, I am sure that if your community is not included, the members of Parliament from the surrounding ridings will tell your community to come to their table. That is what happened in other regions, and some small communities got funding in this way. Things are working very well with the small communities. It is incredible.

Ms. Diane St-Jacques: Is that so?

Ms. Claudette Bradshaw: If you want to fight for more money for the small communities, you are most welcome to do so.

Ms. Diane St-Jacques: Fine, we will remember that. Do I have time to ask a brief question?

The Chair: Not a question, but perhaps a comment.

Ms. Diane St-Jacques: My question is on a different matter. I will be very quick.

The Chair: We will come back to you.

Ms. Diane St-Jacques: All right, I will come back later.

[English]

The Chair: Okay.

So it's Peter Goldring, Judy Longfield, Dale Johnston, Anita Neville, Monique Guay.

Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton Centre-East, CA): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for appearing today, Madam Minister.

My first question has to do with a question I placed on the order paper on approximately March 16, so it's just about 60 days now, or two months. What I would like you to do today, and because maybe the question has a complexity to it... For example, from eight reports I read through and analysed on the homeless I came up with 36 different definitions, and this gets to be very confusing. I would like to have—and I think it would be important for the government to have—these three points clarified, in order to be able to address the issue of the homeless and affordable housing. I wonder if you could commit yourself today to giving a response to that question on the order paper on these three issues. Understandably, it would take some time to do it, but perhaps you could give me some date.

Number one is the definition of homeless. Number two is a definition of affordable housing, and this would be as it relates and applies to single persons. Number three would be a definition of poverty.

Would it be possible for you to respond to that by a particular date? How long would it take to have that answer in writing?

• 1210

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: I'd like to respond to you in two ways, if I could.

To answer for now, you can send your questions to me.

Mr. Peter Goldring: I have.

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: Okay. I'll have to work with other ministers on the definition, for example, of affordable housing. I don't know what CMHC uses as affordable housing. I would have to check with Minister Rock or Minister Stewart as to their definition of child poverty.

Mr. Peter Goldring: This is understandable, and that's why, again, if you could give it to me—

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: What I'll do is I'll check with the departments to see where it's at—

Mr. Peter Goldring: And table it in two weeks?

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: Yes. We'll check with other ministers for that definition.

Mr. Peter Goldring: I could explain why we're having some difficulty. In your comment a few minutes ago, you talked about transitional housing—one to four years—and my gosh, that sounds to me an awful lot like a rooming house. We seem to have different definitions of what an SRO is, what a rooming house is, what transitional housing is, what affordable housing is. These are all important things that I'd like to have answered and more than prepared. Two weeks would be just fine, if you could commit to an answer in two weeks.

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: We'll get you that.

But let me answer you this way. We've had a lot of... and nothing is black and white in this world.

Mr. Peter Goldring: No, but we need some direction.

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: If we lived in a black and white world, I don't think I'd like to live in that country.

Let me give you an example. We have a definition of—and we talked about a definition for transitional housing—

Mr. Peter Goldring: Well, I'm wondering if you could take the time to explain that, because I have a couple of other important questions here.

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: I'm going to explain it to you, yes.

Mr. Peter Goldring: I think it would be a little complex to explain in a few minutes. I would sooner see it in print with the interpretations, if you don't mind.

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: Sure. I can do that for you. No problem.

Mr. Peter Goldring: I have a second question, if you don't mind, Madam Minister.

That question concerns Edmonton directly, the Edmonton Housing Trust Fund and the allocations of federal funds. This fund is meant to be an amount of $50 million for the City of Edmonton to approach housing and homeless issues. Madam Minister, what is the federal portion of it? My understanding is it's approximately a third. Could you be a little more specific on how much federal funding has been contributed to that Edmonton Housing Trust Fund?

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: Mr. Chair, I was trying to answer his first question and it would have answered his second one.

What we tried to do on the homelessness file is not to block anything in. When I met with the community groups, the community groups said whenever you come out with a program you block us in and we have to think that big or we don't get any funding. That was number one.

Number two was to fund them directly. We tried to do that so each community is organizing themselves the way they want. In Vancouver we had the Vancouver agreement. In Calgary they have a foundation. The foundation sits at the table—

Mr. Peter Goldring: Excuse me, Madam Minister.

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: —and in Edmonton—

Mr. Peter Goldring: My time is very limited here. I'm wondering whether you could answer my question.

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: Well, I'm trying to answer you.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Thank you.

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: Or you can just ask me questions and I'll mail them to you. It's up to you.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Well, no—

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: We can do both, if you'd like.

Mr. Peter Goldring: I asked a specific question on the funding for the Edmonton Housing Trust Fund.

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: No, but if you like, you could put your questions and I could...

Mr. Chair, if the honourable member would like, he can put all his questions, because I know he's interested in this and I'm trying to answer him. And I think his questions are very good. If he'd like to send me a list of questions, we would gladly send them back to him.

Mr. Peter Goldring: I thought that was the purpose of this meeting.

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: I know he's interested.

But what I want to say to the committee, because they need to understand this, is that—and I know it's hard for the honourable member to understand—the process we put in place for homelessness has never been done before. Neither the Government of Canada nor any of the provinces have ever put this process in place. What we're trying to do is to have the Edmonton foundation, like the Calgary foundation, at the table with the community groups.

The other part of my job is not only homelessness, but it's being the coordinator, and being coordinator means getting as many provinces—

Mr. Peter Goldring: Mr. Chairman, just on a point of order, if I may.

The Chair: Sure.

Mr. Peter Goldring: I was very much interested in the linkage between the foundation and the set-up of that foundation and the Edmonton example.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Peter Goldring: With great respect, I'd like to hear the minister out.

The Chair: Fine.

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: To answer your question on the foundation, it's $17 million.

The Chair: Just a minute.

A comment, Peter, and then you're finished; we'll come back.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Well, my comment on this is—and I want to lead to the third part of this—

The Chair: No, a comment.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Well, my comment is to the relevancy... My question was very direct. I asked how much had been contributed by the federal government to this housing trust fund.

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: It's $17 million.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Thank you very much.

Now—

The Chair: Okay. Did you get that?

Mr. Peter Goldring: Now my follow-up question—

The Chair: No follow-up. We'll come back to you. You're a minute over.

• 1215

I know, Peter, it's different. We have an 18-person committee normally. We try to keep to these—and, Minister, the same thing applies. The exchange is the time I use. In this case, by the way, we're over seven minutes, and we're normally five. Just so you know, Peter—I know you're new here. I appreciate the comments.

If I can comment on the table questions, for two years I was PS to the House leader, where my job was to coordinate those responses. The most difficult responses were always the ones that involved several departments. You know that.

Mr. Peter Goldring: I'm hoping to have an answer to my question.

The Chair: I understand that and I think you had a response to that.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Thank you.

The Chair: We're going on to Judi Longfield, Dale Johnston, Anita Neville, Monique Guay, Georges Farrah, and then Libby Davies.

Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have questions that relate both to labour and the homelessness. I'll start with your responsibility, Minister, on coordinating the homelessness, particularly SCPI. I think one of the most positive outcomes of the SCPI program has been the bringing together of all of the stakeholders and those community plans. We've talked about 62 community plans that are very different one from the other and that respond to the needs of those communities. They actually sit down. I think in the long run, having brought these people to the table to come up with a plan is going to assist perhaps...

You talk about your disappointment in the infrastructure program, and I too feel this. I just don't understand why communities haven't jumped to it. I think probably it was because they didn't have a plan. I think now that they have a plan, hopefully we'll see in year two or year three that they now will understand that addressing affordable housing is absolutely critical.

One of the things you mentioned is if you had to do it again...it may be 40% in small communities. Given that this is a three-year program, is there any possibility in year two or year three of perhaps adjusting that percentage?

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: We're seriously looking at that, Mr. Chair. As I said, the smaller communities are really coming out and really want to help. It really makes you feel good that smaller communities, such as Red Deer and Grand Prairie, say they want to help them in their community, so they don't have to move to Calgary and Edmonton. That really warms you. They don't want to send their children and their families outside. They want to keep them within.

So it's something we're seriously looking at. I would probably be very open to it, and we're discussing it now. But it's only been a year. We also want to see how the big urban communities are going to do.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Yes, I see that, living in an area that is adjacent to a large metropolitan area. Obviously, what's happening now is some of those people who can't find jobs or who can't find affordable housing move from the region of Durham into the city of Toronto, and it creates a bigger problem for Toronto. So if we could deal with it in our own communities...

The next section has to do with labour. The fair wage schedule—you didn't mention it in your presentation—is something you enacted early in your mandate. I'm just wondering where we are with that. Has it gone across the board?

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: The fair wage is going well. We're working very closely, as you know, with Statistics Canada. It's working well.

We ran into some problems in B.C. We've taken the people it was affecting...we met with them and with Stats Canada, and we think now they're also on the right track. I believe everybody has really appreciated fair wages. They're all in line, and now we need to work with the Yukon, the Northwest Territories, and the Atlantic provinces.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: All right.

The Chair: Very, very quickly.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Under employment equity, we know there are sanctions for non-compliance, but I've always found it a case of the carrot and the stick. It's one thing to say we're going to bring down sanctions if you don't comply, but what are we doing to highlight the many companies that exceed the minimums—in fact go well above?

The Chair: Forty seconds, Minister.

• 1220

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: We have an employment equity award. I would also suggest you read our annual report. When you look at the tabling we are doing now, it clearly shows you where companies are at. It shows you which ones are doing well and which need to improve. These two things—the award and the tabling we now do—are very good.

Ms. Judi Longfield: I have a brief comment.

I've read the report and I see it there. But as a government, one thing we don't do very well is highlight the good things. I have a suggestion: perhaps there could be much more information, not only for the general public, but also for those companies who are doing it. There needs to be more than these internal awards.

The Chair: Dale Johnston and then Anita Neville.

Mr. Dale Johnston: I have some very brief questions and I anticipate very brief answers.

To clarify, Madam Minister, can I get a commitment from you to honour the previous commitment by the minister to review section 87.7, the part I of the code?

The previous minister committed to do this by the end of 1999. I asked you this in my original question and I didn't get an answer.

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: As I said previously, we've only had one experience, and it was a short strike. It worked well for us.

Mr. Dale Johnston: However, Madam Minister, there was a commitment by the previous minister to have the department review that particular section by the end of 1999. I would like to know if we can expect you to review it.

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: Yes. For us, it's working well.

What kind of a review would you... I don't mind discussing this with you. How long of a review would you...

Mr. Dale Johnston: You'd probably have to take that up with the previous minister. Anyway, time is of the essence here.

Switching to audits, could the minister tell us the date of the last grants and contributions under the labour program audit? What was the date of the latest audit, and could the committee be provided with a copy of this audit?

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: We'll provide you with it.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Thank you. Could you tell us how often those audits are undertaken? Are they yearly? Are they every six months, or quarterly?

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: Annual.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Annual audits?

What follow-up measures are used to monitor funds and projects in this area?

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: Perhaps we could make it simpler for you. We only have one contribution program and it's for $1.6 million. It's the labour-management program. It's really the only labour program we have where we give money out.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Okay.

The Chair: Briefly, Dale Johnston.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Yes, I do have another brief question.

What progress have we made from the discussion paper to consolidate federal labour boards, specifically the CLRB, the Artists and Producers' Tribunal, and the Public Service Staff Relations Board? Has there been any progress made on consolidation, Madam Minister?

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: Mr. Chair, I'm going to let Warren answer this, because negotiations on it are ongoing.

The Chair: Warren, please continue.

Mr. Warren Edmondson: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

This is certainly something the minister has been planning to engage in. There have been some concurrent initiatives. You may have read about the one currently taking place. Mr. John Fryer is reviewing the public service labour relations regime and the Public Staff Relations Act. The Public Service Staff Relations Board is in fact one of the boards we would consider in any analysis of a possible merger or consolidation of boards.

I understand Mr. Fryer's report is scheduled to be released some time in June. From our perspective it is important to see whatever conclusions Mr. Fryer will arrive at before we proceeded with our internal review.

Also, as you know, the government has appointed Mr. Ranald Quail, I think it is, former deputy of Transport, to take a look at the whole human resources regime within the federal public service. There may be some implications there as well for the consolidation of labour boards.

The Chair: Moving on...

Mr. Dale Johnston: Could we get a copy of the report due in June?

The Chair: We'd be grateful. Thank you very much.

Anita Neville, Monique Guay, Georges Farrah, Libby Davies, Alan Tonks.

• 1225

Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Welcome, Madam Minister.

My apologies to both you and to the committee for arriving late. I've been deeply immersed in another committee hearing, to put it mildly.

I don't think I have a five-minute question, but I'm going to put it out and let you do what you can in the time you have.

I was interested in your comments to Mr. Goldring. You and I met with a group of young people in Winnipeg, young people very much at risk. It became clear that their issues were well beyond those of homelessness. They were multifaceted issues.

I am interested in knowing the horizontal nature of your activities, the response to the individual communities. I'm also interested in knowing about two outcomes—the audit you're doing of your management structures. I understand a formal audit is in place. When will it be forthcoming?

Also, I'm interested in the manner and potential time of the outcomes for the homelessness initiative. When will those be forthcoming, and how are you measuring them?

I don't think this is a five-minute question, but I would appreciate whatever answer you can give me, please.

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: This is what I was trying to explain earlier.

When we went across Canada to look at the problem, and to Treasury Board to look at the process of how to deal with the homelessness file—because it isn't an easy file; we had gone across Canada to listen to different groups—several things were quite clear to us.

I mentioned these earlier. We tried to say to communities that we really wanted to listen to what they had to say and we would fund them directly. They would get all the money we're talking about, $305 million under SCPI, $59 million under the aboriginal portfolio, and $59 million under youth initiatives.

It's been a long process; one of the criticisms we received was about when the money was going to move. Getting communities together to do their plan is a long process, as you know, Mr. Chair, because you did it in Peterborough. But once the communities are together, the plan is in place, and the proposal for funding comes in, then we see things move fairly quickly.

The process is different in different communities: Vancouver is not the same as Calgary; it's not the same in Edmonton, in Ontario, or in the Atlantic provinces. What the community asks us to do is how we're doing it, and we feel it's working very well, especially as we've gone from 10 communities to 62.

The other part of my job is the coordination. This means my cabinet ministers must come on board. We must look at the prevention of homelessness, at housing. We have to look at how, for example, the Department of National Defence has played a major role here in Ottawa with Rockcliffe. It has played a major role in other communities. We can also look at different federal properties.

We need to bring the health department to the table. We need to bring DND to the table. We need to bring Indian Affairs to the table. We need to bring the provinces to the table with their programs, because they're involved with health and with child poverty. And then we have to bring the private sector to the table. I'm starting to put something in place now on the private sector, so over the next two years... Now that the process is in place—and it's working well—over the next two years we should be able to do this.

As far as working on outcomes goes, what we want to make sure we do and do well is accurate evaluations—good outcomes and good numbers—because one of the big problems we have had is how homeless people are counted. In different areas it is being done in different ways.

The outcome and the evaluation of this in the next three years is going to be really important for us. We hope to have something in place by the end of the summer.

The Chair: It's Monique, then Georges, Libby Davies, Alan Tonks, Peter Goldring, Diane St-Jacques, and then the chair.

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to come back to the issue of the Free Trade of the Americas Area, because this is an issue in the news, and one that affects our future. Let us not dwell on the past, but rather talk about the future.

I am pleased to hear that the minister was at the Peoples Summit, because it is important to be present at such events and to hear what people have to say. However, I am disappointed to learn that she did not take part in the summit itself, because it was a special opportunity to present the position of workers and to try, thereby, to protect our social fabric. I would have really appreciated seeing some representatives of working people at the summit, minister. That is not what we saw.

• 1230

There are some very important concerns. With respect to the meeting to be held on October 16, 17 and 18, which we will be following very closely, I should add that we hope to be invited to attend. We also hope the minister will have an opportunity to review the situation and to show that we must be leaders and forward-looking in this area. She will have all the powers she requires to do this, because she will have our support. I should also mention, Ms. Bradshaw, that I will be leaving a document with you. It is an article written in last Saturday's Le Devoir on the Free Trade Area of the Americas. It was written by Mr. Parizeau, who is a major advocate of free trade, but it also comments on and analyzes the FTAA in the context of our social fabric and all that has been done by workers to protect their rights.

I will not say more on the subject, but I will give you the article before I leave. It is very important that you see it.

Second, you spoke about the homeless, Ms. Bradshaw. You told us that $305 million had been earmarked to help them. I would like you to give us a breakdown of the $145 million invested per province and I would like you to tell us what the administrative costs were.

Ms. Claudette Bradshaw: On the first question, Mr. Chairman, there will be a round table in Ottawa on May 25 regarding the meeting in October. We are inviting people with an interest in the issue. If Ms. Guay would like to attend, I can send her some information about the meeting.

Ms. Monique Guay: Definitely.

Ms. Claudette Bradshaw: In addition, I would appreciate getting the information, because, as you know, Quebec is doing very, very well in labour issues, with its Labour Code. The former Minister of Labour, Ms. Lemieux, is a great friend of mine. I would like to see the report, because we could certainly use it in preparing for our meetings.

I can certainly send you a list of the provinces and the money received by each for the homeless.

Ms. Monique Guay: If you could send it to the committee clerk, it would be distributed to us, the members.

I have one final comment, Mr. Chairman.

You know that for several years now, Ms. Bradshaw, we have been dealing with protective re-assignment of pregnant women and nursing mothers. As you know, Quebec has forward-looking legislation on this matter. Women are very well protected. You promised that we would talk about this during the review of Part III of the Canada Labour Code. I am very impatient to see this issue on the table, and I can guarantee you, minister, that I will be on your heels regarding this amendment that we are calling for. I will not necessarily be focusing on you, as the Minister of Labour, because you have not always held this portfolio, but my party and myself have raised this issue in the House of Commons constantly. We very much hope that women will be protected by both the federal and provincial governments.

Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. It's Libby Davies, Alan Tonks, Peter Goldring, Diane St-Jacques, and then the chair.

Ms. Libby Davies: Thank you.

Still on the issue of homelessness, one of the strategies you announced—and you've mentioned it today—is urban aboriginal. I think this is a very critical area. If you look at different populations, probably the population that has been most at risk in terms of being on the street and not having adequate resources has been aboriginal people, particularly in the urban environment.

The question I have, Minister, is what do you foresee now? Your programs basically go for three years. What do you see now in terms of longer-term initiatives? When people end up in semi-permanent shelters, where do they go after that, and what will then follow that? I'm particularly interested in this in terms of aboriginal people in the urban environment.

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: Again, I can't stress enough that the process we've put in place is unique, it's new, and I can't stress enough how happy I am that it's working. I travel as much as I can, whenever I can get away from the House, to go and see how the process is working.

• 1235

Perhaps I can give you an example on urban aboriginals. When I travelled for those six weeks, I met with urban aboriginal groups. When I walked in, they said to me “Minister, you need to know that not a lot of these groups are really getting along, and you're going to run into a problem here.” We went into the meeting. There would have been about 25 or 30 people at this meeting from the different groups. And they were right, the discussion was not an easy one.

I went back a month and a half ago to meet this group. They had the elders there. When I walked into the room they said to me, “Minister, we decided to put our politics outside the door. We decided that this process you have in place is what our people need. We realize just how bad our people are.” And they said, “Do you see those two white people there? We're even giving them some of our money, because they help our people, and we're sharing our money with them.”

Ms. Libby Davies: But what is the longer-term—

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: To answer you, at the end of this three-year process—and this is why I was trying to explain the process a little while ago—I'm hoping that my coordination part will have come in, that these groups are meeting, that we have other funding at the table, and that for once in our lives the money will be going to the right place. We'll have all levels of government at that table. We'll have the private sector at that table. More importantly, we'll have the people in our community who work on homelessness, who work on housing, and who work on prevention meeting the people with the money.

Ms. Libby Davies: So are you saying that, for the aboriginal people who are in that short-term transition housing, at the end of three years there will be some sort of proposal to allow them to move into permanent, stable, secure, safe housing that's affordable, where they're not paying more than 30% of their income for rent, which is the CMHC definition of affordable housing?

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: What I'm saying to you—and I'm very hopeful here—is that I see what we've done in one year with this process, and I'm very hopeful that in two years, at the end of my mandate of three years, we will have not only the group sitting at the table but all three levels of government and the private sector. That's when we'll start looking at prevention, the reality of today, and the long term. I'm confident that will happen.

Am I naive? I don't know. I'm an Aries. But I'm hopeful.

The Chair: Thanks, Libby.

Alan Tonks, then Peter Goldring, Diane St-Jacques, and the chair.

Mr. Alan Tonks: That's a good entrée for me, Mr. Chairman, because I'm an Aries also.

As a follow-up, Minister, I still want to understand the affordable housing/supportive housing duality. Some people in my riding have been involved at the non-profit level in making applications for the supportive housing initiative. In fact, three of the organizations have built cooperative housing, and they are labour organizations.

The question they ask me is, first of all, how can they get into the affordable housing mix? They say that the same constraints that exist for them exist for the private sector. They want to understand how they can access this whole provision of affordable housing should we announce a policy on it. They talk about tax reform and so on and so forth.

Let's take part III, which had several thresholds in terms of evaluating the supportive housing initiative. Is there there any way—and I know you don't want to cross over, for the reasons that you've given—in preparation for an affordable housing strategy, that you might take the gaps, and the opportunities that come from that experience, and the audit, which was mentioned as one of the thresholds, to provide you with an opportunity to at least put some added dimension to Mr. Gagliano...and perhaps to the CMHC and to Paul Martin's ministry, to come up with some strategies and some tactical responses to the affordable housing mix?

• 1240

Thanks.

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: First, when a community makes a plan, housing always comes up and there's a housing component to that plan. When we get the plan and it has to do with RRAP funding or it has to do with housing, we send that to CMHC. So that's why there are some areas of the SCPI funding where you will see RRAP funding also. That's why I'm recommending that it wouldn't be a bad idea for you to be able to bring in Minister Gagliano to speak about the RRAP funding part of the homelessness file, and I think you should probably do that.

Second, again, my role as coordinator, which is what I'm really going to be working on the next two years, is going to involve modelling of this process, because we didn't know if the process was going to work, Mr. Chair. It was a process we were putting in place because that's what we had heard. So we hope that through the modelling of this process other departments are going to say, wow, this is working, we'd like to be part of this, or we'd like to do it the same way, so then you're into communities. Because as members of Parliament, it doesn't matter what party we're in, we all work with our communities. So we all know our communities very well. What I'm hoping, as the coordinator of it, is that I will be looking at those other issues with the different ministers and that I will be coordinating around the cabinet table.

And I hope to play a bigger role. We're even talking right now about maybe having one or two conferences on different issues, where we could bring different ministers to the conference. It wouldn't be me doing the conference or Minister Rock doing the conference; we'd be doing it together. So the next two years for me is going to be that part of the job, now that the process, the secretariat, and the staff are all in place.

Mr. Alan Tonks: Okay. Thank you.

The Chair: Peter Goldring, Diane St-Jacques, then the chair.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Mr. Chairman, thank you.

Madame Minister, in particular with the Edmonton Housing Trust Fund and possibly with other funds in other cities in other areas, could you tell me why these funds are only available to non-profit agencies and not to private industry?

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: It's community driven. As a matter of fact, I invited you to go for a briefing in Edmonton with our staff there. You will see many private sector people sitting around the table. When I was in Edmonton, I met with the real estate people and I met with the private sector. As a matter of fact, I have a meeting with the private sector people in Edmonton wanting to be involved in this file. So if they're sitting at the table and they have a project or a program and they want to participate in the process, we certainly invite the private sector. One of the reasons Calgary and Edmonton are so good is that you have such a good private sector involved in that whole process.

Mr. Peter Goldring: I want to relate to you one example, and this is of a private enterprise person. In Edmonton, to relate to the numbers, their homeless count is indicated at approximately 1,100. This private enterprise person, one block away from the primary shelter—there are 500 people in the shelters—put forward a development to house 200 singles. And recognizing that 90% of all people who live in shelters are singles, this was 200, 40% of the entire population in shelters in Edmonton. His proposal would accommodate those and carry on as a private enterprise afterwards. What he was seeking was funding to help him renovate this project, so he could do it. He was turned down because his is a private enterprise for profit—specifically, in writing, he was turned down. Why is this?

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: If you want to send me something, we'll take that under advisement, and I'll check with RRAP funding. I'll also check with our facilitator in Edmonton.

Mr. Peter Goldring: This wasn't RRAP; this was with the Housing Trust Fund.

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: I'll check with our facilitator, and when you go for your briefing, you can also check with her.

But the other thing to keep in mind is that with this process it's a community decision.

Mr. Peter Goldring: With this $50 million in funding... And here again, to put it in perspective, we're talking 1,000 to 1,100 homeless. If you take $50 million, it's a $50,000 home for each and every one of them. Look at it.

• 1245

My concern is you said there had been movement made since 1999 on the homeless front across the country. Yet in Edmonton, the largest single population of people in need of housing want rooming houses for singles. For those in the shelters, it's the largest single need. Since 1999, could you explain why not one single new rooming house room, the largest single need, has been built in the city of Edmonton? Not one has been built.

I would dare say across the country there has been a dramatic void recognizing the RRAP program is separate from yours. It follows through with a RRAP program. Ninety percent of their funding is going to 10% of the cause, whereas 90% of the requirement is for rooming houses. Yet, once again with the program, 90% of the funding goes for apartments and home renovations. Can you explain why? Why is the greatest majority of the problem not being addressed and has not been addressed? What are the plans to address it?

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: Mr. Chair, as I said before, now that we're going through the communities and the communities are making the decisions, hopefully the problem is going to be addressed. The decisions are going to be made by the community. I'm very hopeful that finally we're going to know where our money is going. Finally, the needs of the people in each community will be met.

I don't know if the honourable member knows Harvest House in Edmonton. They do wonderful work with chronic homeless people. They are going to be moving into a brand-new rooming house hopefully very soon. It has been funded in Edmonton with our money.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Do I still have time?

The Chair: You have time for a very brief comment.

Mr. Peter Goldring: As an example of this, and understandably the RRAP...I think there should be communication from the RRAP program to the homeless file. Recently, their entire funding for the year, $1.8 million, was allotted to the McDonald's warehouse conversion to create $500-a-month apartments to where, two blocks away, not one single person from the Herb Jamieson singles shelter could possibly move. Can you explain why we're not creating housing for the largest single need of rooming house rooms?

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: Again, Mr. Chair, all decisions made in Edmonton are made by the community. They've done the plan. They know what their needs are. The proposals come in to them and are done with the business community in Edmonton. They have a strong business component and a very strong community component. Edmonton and Calgary are two of our best communities for making decisions on this. I don't question the decisions they've made at all.

The Chair: Diane St. Jacques.

[Translation]

Ms. Diane St-Jacques: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Before I ask my question, I would just like to respond to the Minister's invitation regarding supplementary estimates. Tell me what has to be done, and we will support you. We will help you get the money, because this is an important cause. Homelessness is a serious problem.

My question is about the comment you made in your presentation about our leadership role as regards child labour within the International Labour Organization. What are we proposing to do about the serious world problem of child labour?

Ms. Claudette Bradshaw: As you know, Diane, we ratified Convention 182 last year. When I was in Geneva in June, we were not sure we could achieve this, because the provinces had to sign on. In February, we met with the Ministers of Labour. I think three provinces had signed on. By the end of May, all the provinces had signed the Convention. In this way, we were able to ratify Convention 182. In light of the work that I have done for 32 years, that was important for me.

We also gave $13 million in support of this issue to the ILO and to CIDA as well, which, as you know, is very much involved in this.

When I travel to other countries as Minister of Labour, I always ask to meet with the NGOs to find out exactly what is going on. I ask to meet with unions, as Minister of Labour, but I also ask to meet with NGOs.

• 1250

So we can be proud. There is a great deal of work to be done. Of course, some of the things we see when we travel are hard to take. But I do think that Canada can serve as a model.

When ministers travel, I think it is important that they ask to meet not only other ministers. I think they must also ask to meet with unions and NGOs. They must also ask to see what CIDA is doing in the country. When we give $13 million to the ILO, and when we ratify the Convention, people know that we take this matter seriously.

Ms. Diane St-Jacques: Have there been any developments on this issue? Have we managed to...

Ms. Claudette Bradshaw: If the House is not sitting and you want to come with me, I could take you along and you could ask the ILO—

When we provide funding, we make sure we get results. We know what work is being done. We get reports all the time. We have staff there almost full time. Sometimes, we send our own staff. We send members of provincial legislatures. For example, some Quebeckers went to the meeting in Geneva last year. People do not realize how many hours these individuals work. They think they go to Geneva as a vacation. I hosted a wine and cheese party as Minister, and I also had another meeting. I was astounded to see that our participants were the last ones to arrive, at 11 p.m., because they had been in a meeting until that time.

The ILO takes issues such as this very seriously. I repeat: I think Canada is so well respected that it has an important role to play there.

Ms. Diane St-Jacques: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: If I could make a comment as the member for Peterborough before I close the meeting, Minister, I greatly appreciate your mentioning Peterborough, and you're quite right, it is an example of success in one of the smaller communities. They've been able, starting with a very early workshop, to get the dimensions of the problems of homelessness in the rural areas, as well as in the city. They've moved very well. We have the real estate board, the private sector involved, the various public sector agencies, and so on, and there are very interesting things, such as free lots and moving houses that have been donated onto the free lots. They're very interested in a local housing trust or foundation, and they have remarkable, I think, coordination.

But I have to say to you—and it applies to the part of your speech about federal leadership—when umbrella groups as they are now, perhaps 30 or more groups, depend a lot on the local level in a jurisdiction like mine, they are effectively dealing with eight, nine, or ten municipalities. As it happens, in our case, in various ways they've been able to get those municipalities together and they have been very cooperative. But it only needs one or two of them not to be, and then it becomes very difficult for the whole. Some provinces have been more forthcoming than others. I don't want to comment on my own province, but it has been a bit less forthcoming, I would say, than some of the others.

So I would urge you to continue to stretch your personal authority within the federal system, because you are the only person, the only place where there's a focus of the federal energies, and one of the weaknesses we have as a government is that our departments operate in silos. So I would urge you to maintain the federal influence in every way you can and continue to lead the ship, because it's going well, and you can take a great deal of credit for that. We appreciated your visit and all of those things. But I'm sure there are other places where it's not going well, and you need the federal input.

Minister, I want to thank you and your colleagues, Guy Tremblay, Warren Edmondson, and Susan Scotti for being here today.

Colleagues, I'm going to call the HRDC votes when we've completed looking at the estimates, which will be after our meeting with the Honourable Jane Stewart.

The committee meets again at nine o'clock on Thursday to continue our consideration of the EI report we're doing. And then at 11 o'clock our chief witness for the estimates on Thursday will be the Honourable Jane Stewart.

• 1255

The meeting is adjourned until Thursday. The committee meets again at nine o'clock Thursday.