Human Resources committee  Mr. Chairman, my only concern here would be that its set-up gets delayed inordinately. That would be my only concern, and I think there is some tweaking we're going to have to do down the road in any event. But please, in your deliberations, don't delay this. When you get your pocket picked once, you don't want to walk around with your pockets open forever.

Human Resources committee  We would agree also. There's some historical reference for this. When the development we used for this was first set up, it was agreed that management and labour would have some control over how those funds were spent. That was what became the Canadian Labour Force Development Board.

Human Resources committee  It's worth pointing out that the crown corporation, as I understand it, is not going to have that power.

Human Resources committee  Just covering the employees' costs was intended to get them off EI, which would entail savings. The problem with the previous measures was that they were only for permanent relocation, but an industry like ours is temporary. That's what I believe you are now recommending through the employability study.

Human Resources committee  Can I answer that?

Human Resources committee  First of all, it's going back to the way the system used to be. That's what we're asking for, because that multiple was not always there. Secondly, the one good thing about having this separate, independent fund now is that hopefully legislators and policy-makers will put more attention on whether this new program we want to introduce is best funded under the EI fund or through the consolidated revenue fund?

Human Resources committee  It depends on the program.

Human Resources committee  I'm talking about a new program. This is my concern: the fact that if you have a reserve that gets extremely high, some program will come along and somebody will say, “We can fund it there. It won't affect the fiscal situation. Let's throw it on the backs of employers and employees.”

Human Resources committee  First of all, we saw what happened when the government was backstopping the fund under the status quo system, when bad days didn't really come along too often in the last number of decades and there was no requirement for the federal government to contribute to backstop the fund.

Human Resources committee  I would echo those comments. I also think there are reasonable concerns that have been expressed about the low limit of the reserve. However, I have a concern about what happens on the other end in the event that the fund generates huge surpluses in that reserve. If the reserve is very high, there is a temptation then--because this is now a stand-alone fund--for our legislators to want to dip into it and use it, particularly now that it's not on the government's books.

Human Resources committee  Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Canadian Construction Association welcomes this opportunity to present its views on the proposed new governance and rate-setting reforms for the employment insurance program. We are the national voice of the non-residential construction industry, representing some 20,000 individual firms from coast to coast to coast, 95% of which are small businesses, the majority of them Canadian owned.

Finance committee  First of all, I think it's fair to say that public-private partnerships are only one tool in the toolbox. They aren't a panacea. They aren't necessarily the best way to go in meeting all of Canada's infrastructure needs. As I am sure you are all aware, in order to go to a true public-private partnership situation, you have to guarantee a certain flow of revenue for the private sector investors.

Finance committee  That's certainly one of the suggestions that's been made, but I think we would have to see the details and know exactly what the mix of representation on that governance board would be. There are a number of other concerns about the EI fund that are somewhat beyond the control of employers and employees.

Finance committee  I think I should point out first that this new EI rate-setting mechanism was put in place by the Liberal government--

Finance committee  --so I think it's an apolitical feathering of the nest that's been going on for some time. But in all seriousness, it is very disturbing to my members, 90% to 95% of whom are small business employers, to have what amounts to a payroll tax and then find out that the government is taking more than is required for the needs of the fund, knows it's taking more than is needed in the fund, and then ties the hands of the chief actuary and the Employment Insurance Commission and absolutely forbids them to look backwards in setting future rates.