Human Resources Committee on May 1st, 2008

[Yves Giroux]

Even if it were a blame, I could take it.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

You deserve a lot of credit for explaining to us the government policies provided to you. A lot of credit, indeed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I want to thank the guests as well. Before we finish, though, Ms. Sgro had one more follow-up question. Then we're going to let the witnesses go, unless there are any closing comments.

Ms. Sgro.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

I have a couple of comments, because I want to make sure that I'm following it.

It's very easy to understand setting up this EI fund, regardless of whether I think it's a good idea or not. All this transparency--that's easy. You collect $2 million; that's where it is, and when you have more, you reduce the premiums. That's really simple, okay? That's not a difficult thing.

My concern goes back to this: up until now, when we did the whole issue of the consolidated revenue, at the end of the budget year we have $50 million that we can reinvest. Some of that's coming from those same premiums that our employers are paying. They had a right to complain when it was as high as it was, but there were reasons that it was that high. Now it's down to a much more reasonable level, but a lot of the money they pay doesn't just go into paying EI benefits: it goes into job retraining programs and so on.

I don't think you're going to be able to answer this question; it's really a question for the minister, and I'll ask if we could get the minister back here for a short period of time before we conclude, just so we can get our questions answered.

I'm concerned with the money. Now we're going to roll it; we're going to have it over there, and then we can reduce premiums, which is just fabulous, but where are we going to get the shortfall of money that up until now was going into providing job retraining programs and all the wonderful things that HRSDC does? There's going to be a shortfall in the money they would normally be getting. I'm concerned that the shortfall for the people who are unemployed isn't going to pay the price when they need job retraining programs and so on.

It really isn't a question for these poor people, who are simply saying this is what this crown corporation's doing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Judy, my understanding is that it doesn't change. That's what's in the program now, so that's what we continue to pay rates on, unless the minister or the government decides to change the benefits; then it would be done separately. Isn't that correct? It's built into the system right now through the rates we pay.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

It's Parliament that decides.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Exactly. Once again, it is the mechanism. I think what everyone's trying to understand is whether this changes it. Does it just deliver the same benefits in a different way?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

But we may not have the money that's needed. We're going to reduce the premiums because we have a surplus and based on that surplus, but that money before would have been all part of a big consolidated fund that--

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

But they're not entitled to change the program. The program has to be changed by Parliament.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Then we're going to have to make sure HRSDC is getting enough money to offset whatever would have been there before. Hence the reason, prior to our completing the study, to ask the minister if he could come for half an hour to hear the concerns we have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

We'll talk to Lynne and see what's--

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

I think Ms. Harrison--

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Hold on. I've got a bunch of people here.

Mike, did you have one final comment?

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Yes, I do.

This is the whole point of the transparency behind this. If we're going to pay for something that does not fall under EI through HR and you're looking for a way to pay that, then the proper procedure to do it is to put it in the budget and vote on it as Parliament. Put it in the budget as a budget item if it's not something that falls under the EI program. That's transparency. What we're trying to accomplish with this is not to hide things that don't fall under EI within EI revenue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Okay. Lynne is next, and then Mike and then--

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

I think Ms. Harrison wanted to say something, so I'll ask her that.

The other thing we have to remember is that the premiums don't change for a subsequent year. If you do have that surplus, it'll be a year before the premiums go down, and then you have a little bit of a cushion if something happens--if there's a deficit or a downturn in the economy, because we probably won't have further deficit.

Then again, the premiums will go up if it looks like a projected.... Am I right, or is it not even a projected surplus? I think there will be enough forethought on the premiums' rate-setting to make sure there will always be money there.

I think there has to be a shift in thinking at committee, first of all. They have to forget about the $54 billion in surplus. I think that's what we can't seem to grasp here.

I'd like to hear what you were going to say.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I know Mr. Lessard doesn't want to forget about it, anyway.

I'm going to have one final comment from Mike, and then I'm going to dismiss the witnesses.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you.

Further to Judy's point about the minister, I've had some questions answered here today. I appreciate what you've given us. I think you've given us a very good start on this.

It does highlight that there are unanswered issues about this philosophically and in terms of where the government's going to go with this. Not much information has been given. I think this little study we're doing is the right thing to do. We have to hear from other witnesses; we do need to have the right, though, to ask the minister to come back if these questions continue to be unanswered after we've heard from other witnesses.

But I appreciate the work you've done for us today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

There is, I think, a better level of clarification, and there will be still more with the coming witnesses.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

I would think he would come, because I think he'd be very happy, after he's heard—

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

You'd like to talk about it.

Well, why don't we put the request and tell him we're thinking about bringing him back for the encore performance: “We loved you so much, we want you back again.”

I want to thank the witnesses once again for being here today.

I will remind the subcommittee that we're going to try to deal with the witnesses over the next couple of meetings.

With that, I'm going to dismiss the meeting and thank the witnesses once again for being here today.

The meeting is adjourned.