Human Resources Committee on March 15th, 2010

[Liseanne Forand]

I do not have the answer to the member's question, but I will find out and get back to him, perhaps during this meeting, if possible.

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

Okay, thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Merci. Thank you very much. That's all the time for this round.

Mr. Martin, please.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Thank you.

Thank you for being here today.

I want to speak to you about the money for housing that was announced both in the budget and in the stimulus plan. I would guess it will be managed, in some part, by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

I have spoken to advocates out there, and also looked at my own community, where we applied for two projects and got turned down, and I have found, having talked to people across northern Ontario, that very few, if any, projects have been approved. Then in talking with the advocates, we heard that only a small percentage of the money budgeted actually got out the door, got spent, and was used to build units.

I read and heard in your presentation here today that you believe a lot of that money has gone out the door and that significant projects are up and running. But that's not my experience; it's not the experience of members of Parliament from across northern Ontario, and it's not the experience that has been shared with me by people out there who are watching housing and looking for social housing to be built. They're saying that a very small percentage of that money has actually flowed out.

In the announcements you're making for this year, I'm wondering how much of the new money that's been committed for this year is actually just money you didn't spend last year.

[Sharon Matthews]

The amount of money that we are talking about in terms of the stimulus has nothing to do with budgets in previous years. This is all new money, to answer your last question first, to be clear.

In terms of the money and how quickly the expenditure is going out, if you recall, in my opening comments I said that about $1.5 billion of the stimulus funding is being delivered through provinces and territories. With that delivery, we are doing it under existing agreements, and provinces and territories are actually cost-matching; so we're doing 50%, they're doing 50%. So that money that the federal government is actually spending is being leveraged and doubled in terms of the money that's being spent out there and the number of projects that are getting done and put on the books.

In terms of what was approved in Ontario, because of the cost-matching and its being delivered through the provinces and territories, I really couldn't speak to the Province of Ontario's decisions in terms of a specific project or not. Under the accountability framework, they have the ability to design and then deliver those programs.

We will be auditing and we are monitoring very closely. As a province makes a commitment to a group—for example there may be a group in northern Ontario—if the province decides that the group will get the funding, they'll then submit that information to CMHC and then at that point CMHC will expend the funds and give it to the province so that they can proceed with the housing project.

In terms of actual expenditures, it's important to appreciate that housing is one of those things that take time to deliver. A 100-unit project doesn't get put up overnight. So while we will have expended our money, we will have given it to the province and the province will only get that money when they've actually made the commitment to a sponsor group. And under our accountability framework, they must start construction within three months of getting that actual commitment, for us actually paying for the commitment that they've made. Then they have, I believe, to March 2011 to actually get everything fully expended and fully out the door. And it recognizes the fact that housing.... As I say, a 100-unit project or a 50-unit project isn't going to get built overnight, but it's important to get the work going and started. So in our accountability framework we've built in, once we pay for that commitment made, the province has about three months to get the project under way and started.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

It isn't what we're hearing from the advocates out there, who are saying that the money just isn't flowing, the houses aren't getting built. We're doing a study here at this committee of poverty, and one of the things we've heard over and over again as we've travelled across the country is the need for affordable social housing and that there is no affordable social housing going up. We get hopeful when we hear in budgets and stimulus announcements that in fact there are billions of dollars being set aside and budgeted for housing. And then we hear from people, and we actually feel it ourselves in our own communities. I have two first nations in my own backyard. No new housing going up there. We have a city of 75,000 where we have almost a zero vacancy rate and no housing. We applied for two and got turned down. We now have seven in, and we're hoping that maybe out of those, we'll get one or maybe two.

I'm also hearing from across northern Ontario particularly, which is what I can speak to most knowledgeably, that we were lucky if we got two or three units or projects announced. So what you're saying and what the government is saying in terms of budget is one thing; what's happening out on the ground it seems to me, from what I'm being told and seeing personally, is another thing.

[Sharon Matthews]

Again, I can speak to how CMHC is managing the money. As I said, the provinces and territories are accountable for the design and the delivery of the programs. We won't make a commitment in terms of expenditure to the province until they have a commitment in hand with that sponsor group, and they have a time period upon which they must get that construction started, and they will be audited on that at the end of the day. We have an accountability framework to make sure.

If you went to the CMHC's website, there are all sorts of examples of where work is actually up and running and projects are being announced daily as they get rolling. So I can't speak specifically to northern Ontario, because it really is the provinces designing and delivering it, but I can tell you housing is getting built, and it's getting built at a pace that I've never seen in my career.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Well, we're not seeing it in our neck of the woods. That's what I'm saying to you here today. I'm also sharing with you what I'm hearing from housing advocates in Toronto, for example, because I was there at a forum about three weeks ago: they're not seeing it either.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Thank you very much, Mr. Martin.

We'll now go to Mr. Komarnicki.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I certainly thank the presenters for their various presentations.

There's no question that our economy has been showing signs of recovery. The job numbers we've seen most recently, with 21,000 in the last five of seven months, showed positive gains. That's certainly good, but we've come through a difficult period and things are still fragile.

Certainly, recovery from the global recession is an important aspect for everyone, and HRSD, of course, does play a vital role, not only in service delivery, but I think in supporting many Canadians during this global recession.

I'm trying to put some of this in context. I know that a number of programs were a result of the economic action plan, which has been extended over two years. We're into year two. I'm trying to get some numbers around those programs, if I can.

The work-sharing program was one that was put in place over the last year and has been extended under the new budget. Most recently, I had an opportunity to speak to Mr. Georgetti, who was talking about that particular program and seemed quite pleased with it. It has been working reasonably well with respect to some of the employers and employees I've talked to.

Can you give us some sense of the job numbers that may have been preserved as a result of that program and how many are in place now, and what the department may have done with respect to the eligibility requirements and ensuring that this program is fully flowing? Can you give me some idea about that?

[Karen Jackson]

Yes, I'm able to provide some additional information about the work-sharing program. At this point, our estimate would be that there are somewhere between 150,000 and 160,000 participants in work-sharing, under about 6,000 agreements with particular employers. Over the period of time since budget 2009 and the changes that were made to work-sharing at that time, we think there have probably been in the order of 225,000 Canadians who have benefited in some way from work-sharing.

Then, I would just explain that what the government did announce in Budget 2010 was a further extension. At the moment, work-sharing agreements can run for 52 weeks. In Budget 2010, the government announced that they're going to allow them to run a further 26 weeks, for a total of 78 weeks, and that will remain in effect through to the end of March 2011.

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

Thank you. I appreciate those numbers. I know they certainly have meant a lot to many employers and employees. There is no question about that. It's good to see that program extended through to March 2011.

Another part of the program, of course, is the additional five weeks added to EI benefits. Again, could you give us some numbers on that? More recently, I was involved quite extensively with respect to Bill C-50, which extended the benefits to long-tenured workers from five weeks to twenty weeks. Again, there are a number of people who will be affected by that. Some of them are benefiting now, and some will continue to benefit. If you could give us some perspective or background to that, I'd appreciate it.

[Karen Jackson]

Thank you for the question.

There are really two parts to this answer. It was Budget 2009 that first extended across the country an additional five weeks of benefits. We are tracking those numbers. As of this date, over 500,000 workers have benefited from that change. The estimates on the cost of that to the EI program are about $575 million in each of the two years.

Your other reference was, as you said, to Bill C-50, which took another step last fall to allow for longer EI benefits to be collected by long-tenured workers. Depending upon their circumstances, those extensions can range from a further five weeks up to a further twenty weeks. In that case, those changes came into effect in November. Since that time, we estimate that about 46,000 Canadians have benefited from that change.

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

Do you anticipate what your prognosis or expectations might be with respect to the uptake of the program during the time it's available?

[Karen Jackson]

We have some estimates that in the neighbourhood of 190,000 workers will be able to benefit from that Bill C-50 change over the period during which it will be in effect.

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

To round out those numbers--I'm interested in numbers--and I'm not sure if you're able to say.... There was a portion of the budget specifically directed to skills upgrading and training. Do you have any numbers as to what the uptake was and what it might be expected to be?

[Karen Jackson]

That's a trickier question.

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

If you don't have them....

[Karen Jackson]

I'm going to have to find those. Principally, the funds committed to additional training and work experience programming are actually being provided by the provinces and territories, either through the labour market development agreements, which are relevant to EI recipients, or through another set of agreements that are there to provide support to those who are not EI-eligible. I probably have those figures. Maybe I can find them before you do.

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

If they are not readily available, that's fine.

Is my time up?

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Your time is up.

We'll begin our second round. This is just a reminder that you will have five minutes each. We'll begin with Madam Minna.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I just want to say at the outset that I agree with Monsieur Lessard's questions on GIS. It would be nice if we could get some information on the number of people on GIS now and on what's happening there.

I'd like to go to Mr. Streiner to start. You mentioned, of course, the importance of occupational health and safety. It's very important. Am I correct in understanding that there will be a cut, that 18 out of 40 board positions are being cut? Who will that impact?

[Scott Streiner]

I think the reference is to the Council of Governors of the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety. You are correct that in the recent announcement made by the President of the Treasury Board on GIC reductions, included were 18 positions, provided for in law, on the Council of Governors of CCOHS. In reality, those positions have not been filled since the mid-1990s. The legislation provides for a council of governors of up to 40 governors, representing provinces and territories, workers, employers, and representatives of federal departments. Eighteen of those positions have been left empty since the mid-1990s as a result of budget reductions at the time. What this reduction announced by the President of the Treasury Board does is actually just codify the existing practice.

The council will continue to function with the number of governors it has had. There will be no impact on the functioning of the council.

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

I want to go to anyone here. How would you describe what is occurring with respect to EI premiums when an increase occurs? In this instance, you would consider it a payroll increase for premiums, which I would suggest is an increase in taxes.

Does the EI board actually have discretion in this case? My understanding of the rules is that they have to keep the fund in balance, and if they go into deficit or below, they have to raise premiums, and so on. Is the fund in deficit or not? Does this board actually have discretion? The government announced increased premiums in the budget. Is the board making that decision, or is there no discretion left?

[Karen Jackson]

Thank you for the question.

To begin with, both in Budget 2009 and then again in Budget 2010, the government froze the premium rate for two years. That takes us up to this year. The Employment Insurance Financing Board is now in existence, and it will assume its responsibility this fall for setting the premium rate.

In setting the premium rate, there are parameters. It must balance the revenues and expenses over a period of time.