Human Resources Committee on Feb. 10th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

What we can do is come back to that in the Liberal round and maybe get the details then.

I'm going to move now to the last individual this round, Mr. Komarnicki. You have seven minutes, sir.

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

Are we splitting the time between you and me, or not? The seven minutes are mine?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

The seven minutes are all yours.

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

Okay, I'll split it with Mr. Cannan.

There's been a lot of debate on and confusion about EI accessibility and the variable entrance requirements, and perhaps a misunderstanding. There's some notion that because there's a variance between regions in terms of the number of hours required to qualify and the length of benefits, it's somehow discriminatory or unfair.

I wonder if you could explain why there are variances between region and region, and even perhaps from month to month within a region. And can you explain the equity of that and provide some examples of it, and why it might change from month to month in a particular region?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

There is a lot of confusion, and some of it is deliberate. There are people who are trying to mislead others, unfortunately.

As I mentioned earlier, the country is carved up into 58 geographic regions. The employment statistics for each of those regions are tracked monthly. There is a complex formula, but the essence of it is that every month the local employment conditions are reviewed and the regional definition is adjusted. For example, if an economy worsens in a particular region, it's easier for the local people to get EI benefits. They have to work less time to qualify, and they get those benefits longer. A really good example right now is Oshawa, Ontario. In the last year there has been a tremendous number of layoffs. But those who are getting laid off now, when it's even tougher to find a job than it was a year ago, can work two fewer weeks to qualify for EI and get those benefits for four more weeks than they could a year ago.

So as that local economy has worsened, they're automatically getting more benefits as they need them without anybody having to interfere through legislation, regulation, or anything else. We're seeing this across the country. It's a very responsive mechanism.

Comparing one province to another is grossly unfair because it varies significantly, not just from province to province but within regions. So when the people are getting laid off in Oshawa, they get easier access to EI compared to some other part of the country that might be experiencing a boom. We believe that is fair. It's most responsive to the people who need it most.

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

So if the system is going to be responsive to unemployment in a particular region, it's going to vary from one part of the country to another. On what is the same, it is equally responsive to areas that have suffered increases in unemployment rates. Is that correct?

Although 82% of those who pay into EI are generally entitled to receive it, there are those who are not. You have taken that into consideration, as you mentioned earlier, and you also have a fund that would apply to those who want to get training or increase their skills.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

That's right. We want to make sure that if somebody who is self-employed is not having a very good go of it at their business, they have the opportunity to get access to training for the skills they'll need for the future. It gives people, like my cousin, who have stayed at home for some time the opportunity to upgrade. People are needed to fill these positions. We need people with these skills, and we want to make sure that all Canadians, whether they're EI eligible or not, have the opportunity to upgrade to get jobs that are going to last them a long time.

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

Thank you.

I'll pass it over to Mr. Cannan.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to Madam Minister, her staff in the room, and all those who are not here but are on the front line working diligently. I have to say that Service Canada employees in my riding of Kelowna—Lake Country have done a stellar job. Throughout our country I think all the staff are working 110% at the programs we have in place. The coming programs will be even more onerous on their time demands, so we thank them in advance for the work they will be doing.

A lot of good things have happened with the programs in place. In 2007 we saw a downturn in several sectors in communities across the country. In the manufacturing sector they've been working with the work share program. It's been well received, and the extension of 14 weeks is greatly appreciated.

Like my colleagues around the table, we had round tables in the community. The extension of EI and the work share program were front and centre. The Canada disability savings program was also well received by parents whose children have disabilities. They now have a chance to leave behind a legacy for them. I appreciate the empathy of Madam Minister and all her staff.

One of the concerns in my riding is a housing shortage. I have the highest demographic of seniors of any metropolitan area in the country. In both the supplementary estimates and the economic action plan there are references to funds being allocated to modernize and renovate our existing stock.

I have two quick questions. Can you expand on how these investments will help improve our country's housing situation for those most in need of social and affordable housing? How will these investments help with the economic stimulus that our action plan will deliver on the economy?

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

There's one minute to go.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Thank you.

I'd be glad to do so.

Back in the 1990s, responsibility for social housing was devolved to the provinces and territories. That said, we want to make sure as a government that those who need housing the most, those who have the hardest time getting affordable, safe, stable housing on their own, have access to it, and we are prepared to step up to the plate and help provide that.

A lot of the social housing stock across the country right now is in very poor shape. That's why we're investing $1 billion in upgrading it so that people can have safe, stable housing that they can afford.

We're also investing a significant amount of money in building new social housing for seniors, for the disabled, for the far north, and for aboriginals, because we know these people have the least opportunity to provide it for themselves. That's why we're investing in it, and in the process we'll be creating a lot of jobs, and preserving jobs in the construction industry but also the spinoffs. Up to 80% of the materials used are made in Canada, so we'll be creating jobs for those people as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much, Mr. Cannan and Minister Finley.

Now we're going to move to our next round, which is going to be five minutes each. I see that we have about 15 minutes left. I'm hoping we can get at least four interventions in. If we could do that, that would be great.

We're going to start with the Liberal Party.

Ms. Minna, you have five minutes.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Madam Minister, thank you for coming.

I'm looking at categories that are identified as early learning and child care in the 2007 federal budget. One of the categories refers to the multilateral agreement on early learning and child care: $350 million. That was the 2003 agreement under the Liberal government some time ago. But then in 2007, for child care spaces initiatives there was $250 million, which goes to the Canada social assistance transfer, but no reporting specifically, although the previous one did. So there's a total actual transfer of $600 million, not the $1.1 billion that I know the government claims.

But to continue, the category also lists things that I find rather interesting. On the universal child care benefit for $2.4 million, even a government website indicates that people are using this for anything but child care—for RESPs, family recreation, paying the bills, and so on—not to mention the fact that for those people who do need child care spaces, after they pay taxes they really don't have enough. So this is really not a child care program.

In addition to that, the next category is child care expenses through the child care expense deduction. This is a deduction, not direct funding of child care spaces.

The next one is even more curious. It's the Canada child tax credit, which is an income plan for children. It is not a child care program. Then it says total early learning and child care expending claimed by the Conservative government is $5.6 billion or $5.7 billion.

Out of all this, I'd like you to clear up something for me. It seems to me, from what I've seen here, with the exception of this $350 million, which went way back to 2003, and then the $250 million that your department put in for 2007, that there is no other direct transfer to provinces for child care spaces. Am I right? That's what the category shows in your budget of 2007, and I cannot consider the other categories I've just enunciated as having anything to do with child care spaces or early learning and child care at all.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

No. In fact, as you're aware, it is the responsibility of the provinces to provide child care spaces. Heaven help the federal government that steps into that provincial jurisdiction. We're not prepared to do that, but what we have done is to provide them with funding: $250 million through the social transfer, with that amount going up 3% a year.

We're also providing incentives for business to create child care spaces, through the tax system. That would not show up here. The key thing, though, with the universal child care benefit is that we're not telling parents they have to spend it on child care. They have the choice, and if one of the parents chooses to stay home to look after their children, as should be their right, then paying the rent or paying for the groceries, or even crayons so that they can teach the child to express themselves and develop artistic skills, is all part of that early learning development, and I think we owe it to parents to allow them to have that choice.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

But with respect, Minister, I would like it if you could give this committee the specific number of spaces that businesses have actually created in child care. It's my understanding that there has not been much, if anything at all, in that area.

The other thing is that, after taxes, the universal child benefit does not provide anything approaching the necessity of what it costs for child care, especially for families who need it and especially in this environment. After taxes, this comes down to about $50 a month. I have been talking to families this last week who've come to me. One family is spending $1,300 per child on their child care. One woman broke down and cried because she couldn't find space and her only option was to quit her job because there were no spaces available; there's a two-year waiting list.

So the categories in the budget are somewhat misleading. It talks about early learning and child care, when in fact we've got the benefit, which isn't that; we've got the deduction, which is fine, but you need money in order to deduct. So it doesn't create spaces. And then of course the child tax credit is even more bizarre because it's an income program, not a child care program.

So I would suggest that your documents be redone in the next budget to make it clear. I would like you to tell this committee, if you could, exactly how many spaces have been created by the $250 million transfer and how many have been created by the business community.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Is that something we could get back to at a later point in time? We're out of time on this question.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Well, maybe somebody else will ask a question where I can provide that answer.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Okay, thank you very much.

We're going to move to Mr. Lobb for five minutes.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank Minister Finley and her staff for coming here today on short notice. It's very much appreciated.

I would like to point out that I believe this meeting was for supplementary estimates, and I haven't heard a question yet on supplementary estimates, but that must be a testament to you and your staff's good ability.

I'd also like to point out that I appreciate the seriousness and the compassion with which you conduct yourself on a daily basis. I really think the people of Canada appreciate a minister who takes her job seriously and is compassionate about the issues that Canadians see. So on behalf of the people here in Bruce, I would like to thank you for that.

I also appreciate the spirit in which you've put together your programs by actually talking to Canadians. I think a lot of the items we've seen in the budget through the economic action plan reflect the wishes of Canadians. Specifically, we've received numerous appreciative calls in our constituency office regarding the five-week extensions. As a person who used to work in the finance department of a company, the freezing of EI rates is definitely appreciated in the business community, as well as by the employees, because that comes directly off the paycheques of Canadians. There is no better stimulus than the freezing of EI rates. So on behalf of the people here in Bruce, I thank you again for your efforts.

I also know your staff is working very hard to put the wheels in motion, and so are the people in the field with Service Canada. We have a tremendous relationship with them, both in Goddard and Kitchener, and I know they're working extra hours. They've put more people in the field to work overtime to make sure no one gets left behind, and I really do commend you on those initiatives and those actions.

As a member of Parliament from Ontario, we've heard a lot about Ontario's fair share, and I just wondered, on the topic of EI accessibility, if you could address the so-called Ontario fair share argument that is currently being made. Some look at the numbers and say there's a lower percentage of people in Ontario eligible for EI and they suggest that it's somehow due to the unfair treatment of Ontario within the EI system. Minister, would you be prepared to clarify that issue today?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Thank you very much. I appreciate the recognition for the staff and the officials who really are working very hard to make sure we get these programs out the door quickly, that we get the benefits to the people who need them as quickly as possible.

There has been a lot of talk about provincial disparity. As I mentioned earlier, we don't look at EI that way. What we do is on a regional basis. Until very, very recently, for example, Vancouver had about a 3% to 4% unemployment rate, whereas parts of northern British Columbia had a very high rate. They'd had different accessibility and different terms of benefits for EI.

Ontario's rates vary as well. In the last three months, 11 Ontario regions have experienced increases in their unemployment rate, and that has resulted in lower accessibility standards. In other words, they could get at it easier and have longer benefits.

One of the interesting things about Ontario is also that it has a much higher percentage of self-employed people, which is a great spirit of entrepreneurism. One of the challenges with that, though, and it's a risk of being self-employed--I've been there myself--is that you don't pay EI, and EI is, by definition, insurance. It's like house insurance. If you don't pay the premiums, you can't collect the benefits.

That being said, in this economic action plan, we are including opportunities for people who are self-employed to get the benefits that one would normally get under the part 2 portion of EI, which is training for a new position, getting skills that will help them transfer into another job in another sector where they could have jobs for a very long time. I think that's a very special part of this, and it's one of the reasons I'd like to see this budget pass quickly, so that we can have the authorization to go ahead and get these expansion programs out to the people who really need them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Twenty seconds, Ben.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

I would just like to say further that I believe what you're saying. In my riding we've lost a number of jobs, they've been able to receive the training immediately, and I'm sure they'll get right back into the workforce.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Lobb.

We're going to move now to Madame Beaudin for five minutes.

[Josée Beaudin, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for being here today, Minister.

Let's continue talking about employment insurance. We want to improve access for people who pay their contributions. Let's take the example of a person who is currently on his 30th week of employment insurance benefits. Would he be entitled to the additional five weeks? If so, starting when?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

The budget has to be passed before any change can be made. The budget has to be adopted for the changes to go into effect.