Human Resources Committee on May 13th, 2009

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

This is a point of order, Madam Chair. Nevertheless I will try to ask my question in the four minutes remaining.

The Department itself has acknowledged, in its own figures, that only 67% of the people contributing to employment insurance are receiving benefits. However, considering all the people who are losing their EI benefits and who, de facto, are excluded from the system because of certain restrictions, only 46% are actually receiving benefits. Those are the Department's own figures. Ours are even lower.

So, you are absolutely right, Madam. They attack Mr. Mulcair for what he said, but at the same time, they are attacking you, since you said exactly the same thing. I find that regrettable.

My question is for Ms. Chevrier. She can certainly enlighten us on this. The premise of my question is an observation that clearly reflects the current state of our society. When an economic crisis arises, women are the ones that suffer the worst effects of it. And, when the only way they have to come through the crisis is taken away, as we saw recently, things get even worse.

You said that you are calling for recognition of everyone's right to food that meets certain criteria. As you see it, what can the federal government do to ensure that such a right can be exercised?

[Germaine Chevrier]

A few minutes ago, in between discussions, we were forced to witness your political games, which made us very uncomfortable. We did not come here today for that.

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

My apologies, Madam, but I only spoke the truth.

[Germaine Chevrier]

I wanted to express my discomfort in that regard. We did not come here this morning for that.

We talked about housing programs. Our colleagues in Quebec who are fighting for affordable housing are doing excellent work. Housing meets an essential need.

However, it is clear that people seem to have forgotten that food is also an essential need. When the costs of housing or transportation go up, what do people cut from their budget? Food.

That is why we think action has to be taken to ensure that people can eat better. In fact, eating healthy food has an impact on an individual's physical and mental health, and so on. There need to be programs that will help people to eat properly. That way, they will have more energy to go back to work or school, depending on their circumstances.

There have been significant advances in the battle over housing over the last 20 years. However, the battle over food has not advanced at all. I think this is a priority that you should consider. Earlier, I named a number of organizations that have proposals to make in that regard, including the Collectif pour une politique nationale de l'alimentation in Quebec, and Food Secure Canada. I urge you to contact them to find out what specific solutions they can propose in that respect.

We also talked about the economic crisis. However, I am anxious to hear people talk about the economic and social crisis, because the economic crisis affects people. It affects industries, but it mainly affects people—people who end up with no food and no money to pay for their housing. When these individuals are in trouble, the first thing they do is seek help from community organizations, such as the one Ms. L'Archevêque represents, and the 1,400 community kitchens that are providing services all across the province.

I would like to close with a comment about the specific needs of community kitchens. According to our assessment, community kitchen groups needed some $6.5 million, just to carry out their mission. In some organizations, there are 300 people waiting to join a community kitchen group. But we simply do not have the means to give them a spot in these groups.

Once again, I just want to emphasize the importance of our demands with respect to the right to food.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Thank you, Ms. Chevrier.

We will finish with Mr. Komarnicki, who has asked to speak.

Mr. Komarnicki, I give you three minutes. This will be the last speaker.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Thank you. I have just a couple of questions with respect to some of the suggestions for enhancements to the employment insurance program.

Has either of you done any costing as to what the cost might or might not be? That's the first question, and I have a couple of others.

Go ahead, Ms. Gibeau. No? Okay.

With respect to the forest workers, I know we had a $1 billion—

[Élisabeth Gibeau]

Could I—

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

It is Mr. Komarnicki's speaking time. If there is any time left, you can respond.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Did you have a comment you wanted to make? Go ahead.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Sorry.

[Élisabeth Gibeau]

We have not done any calculations, but I know that the costs would certainly be lower than the amount of money that has been accumulating in the Employment Insurance Fund and which has been diverted for other purposes.

One of our suggestions for funding the proposed EI reforms is simply to use that money for the unemployed people who now need it.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

I appreciate that.

My comment on it would be that of course the benefits, if you're going to have them, would cause the premiums to go up unless we froze the premium rate. If you were to increase benefits in the future.... We froze them for two years, which I think is a step in the right direction. The previous funds that were built up in the EI system went into general revenues, at a time when we were necessarily government. Good or bad, that's how it worked, so there is no fund existing presently that you can draw on. It would have to come from budgeting.

Another step we took with respect to EI was extending the job sharing program, loosening up the rules and increasing the number of weeks to which work sharing can extend up to 52 weeks. There is a comment here from the Forest Products Association of Canada, who say:

Extending the Work-sharing program will keep thousands of forest-sector employees gainfully employed until market conditions improve, help workers retain valuable skills, position companies to take full advantage of the eventual economic recovery and lessen the impact of layoffs and mill closures on communities.

Would you agree at least that this is a good step and should be increased, and do you find that this has been helpful in that sector, to some degree? I appreciate what Ms. Boucher, I think it was, said, that the $1 billion under the community adjustment fund has not been moving but eventually will.

Go ahead, Madame Boucher or Madame Gibeau.

[Denise Boucher]

We certainly do not intend to oppose any positive steps. The problem is that you have provided more support to Ontario than to Quebec, even though the crisis there, notably in the forest industry, is just as significant. In Quebec, making one's livelihood from the forest is a priority. We do not have an automotive industry in Quebec, but we do have a forest industry. And, there is a global crisis affecting softwood lumber and trade in lumber with Canada. As for work sharing, some people have taken advantage of it, but very few people have had an opportunity to do so. We believe the government has to do more.

[Élisabeth Gibeau]

I fully agree with the idea of extending the number of benefit weeks, but the fact remains that this does not make people who are currently ineligible any more eligible for benefits. Those people are still without any income, although eligible individuals will be able to receive benefits for a longer period. They have addressed one problem, but not the fact that less than half—and I want to emphasize that—of the people who are entitled to EI actually are able to access it.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

I would ask that Committee members remain behind for two or three seconds so that we can deal with a couple of administrative matters before lunch.

The meeting is adjourned.