Finance Committee on Oct. 7th, 2009

[Bastien Gilbert]

Pardon me?

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Would the $12 million also be managed or administered by the Council for the Arts?

[Bastien Gilbert]

It would be managed by the Council for the Arts. One of these programs was managed by Foreign Affairs Canada and the other by Canadian Heritage.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

We are asking that the Council's funding be increased to $300 million. That is what was promised in 2006. Every time someone says that the government is cutting cultural programs, it says that, on the contrary, it is allocating more to other programs. Would it not be easier to say that you need $350 million by 2011, 2012 or 2013, and that 20% of that amount would be allocated to international programs and 10% to other programs?

Why not ask the government to turn over responsibility for these programs to you instead of asking for $12 million here, $13 million there, $300 million there.

[Bastien Gilbert]

Our sectors are funded by the Canada Council for the Arts and by Canadian Heritage, which does have certain responsibilities, especially in terms of disseminating performance arts. These programs were renewed recently, and we are happy about that.

For example, last year the Liberal Party announced in its platform that it would increase funding for the Canada Council for the Arts to $360 million. We thought that was great news. We hope that the party's next platform will be similar. Foreign Affairs Canada is now saying that it will no longer support international dissemination, which will now be the responsibility of the Canada Council for the Arts. We agree with that. That is what we want. Canadian cultural diplomacy is very important. The Canada Council for the Arts does not have an agent in Berlin or London. The Canadian embassy is supposed to provide that service, but it has been put on the backburner or changed, so we no longer get the services we used to. But not everything can be transferred to the Canada Council for the Arts. Foreign Affairs Canada has to hold on to certain responsibilities and take back some of those it dropped.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Thank you.

Ms. Vézina, we sometimes confuse organizations that need money to address homelessness issues with those that need money to address affordable housing issues. You mentioned that in your presentation. The $50 million you want for the program would cover recurring costs. It would not cover investment in affordable housing or building infrastructure, but ongoing support programs. Every year, money is allocated to people coping with homelessness. Is that correct?

[Marie-Claude Vézina]

It is a combination of the two. In Montreal, for example, in 2007-09, half of HPI's budget was spent to renew ongoing programs, mostly in intervention. The other half was spent on new projects, such as capital works, including the renovation of buildings that belonged to community organizations.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Do buildings still need renovating?

[Marie-Claude Vézina]

Yes, because in Quebec, except for in Montreal, we cannot undertake any new housing project because the budget is not big enough.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Patry, you spoke at length about all kinds of issues, but you did not talk about employment insurance. I have not read everything in the papers about it, but I do know, because economists have said so, that employment insurance contributions will go up because of this reform. Can you comment on that?

[Pierre Patry]

On what, exactly?

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Apparently, employment insurance contributions are expected to rise over the coming year.

[Pierre Patry]

Do you mean benefit payments?

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

No, I mean contributions.

[Pierre Patry]

You mean contributions from employers and employees?

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Yes. This increase will affect all of your members.

[Pierre Patry]

Yes. We have two particular concerns about employment insurance. First is accessibility, which is the biggest problem. Fewer than half of the people who become unemployed actually collect employment insurance. Second is increased benefits.

With respect to setting contribution rates, the Conservative government created the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board a few years ago. The problem is that the government is now allowing the organization to finance itself properly, to accumulate a surplus when the economy is in good shape—better shape that it is in now—so that the extra money can be used during recessions or when the unemployment rate rises. The government is not giving the board the freedom to set contribution rates above what it needs to meet immediate needs.

Because this is an insurance program—

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Like when the Liberals were in power—

[Pierre Patry]

Except that you filched a few billion from employment insurance to put more—

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Thank you.

[Pierre Patry]

May I complete my response? They took $50 billion to balance federal finances. That money should be for employment insurance and the unemployed.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you very much, Mr. Pacetti.

Mr. Laforest, it is your turn.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am glad that Mr. Pacetti raised the issue, because that is what I wanted to talk about.

Your statements are in line with the Bloc Québécois' thinking, especially when it comes to eligibility for employment insurance. You are asking the federal government for a complete overhaul of the employment insurance system because half of all unemployed workers are not entitled to employment insurance. That is disastrous, and I would like you to comment further.

In your brief, you referred to a Toronto Dominion Bank study estimating that it would cost $1 billion to reduce the employment insurance eligibility threshold to 360 hours so that more people can benefit. It is a tragedy that so many people do not have access to employment insurance after having contributed for years. That is the problem, because for the past 15 years or so, Liberal and Conservative governments have taken $57 billion from the employment insurance surplus.

Now they are saying that it would be hard to bring in measures like this, which would cost $1 billion, and to put money back into the pockets of unemployed workers where it came from.

I would like you to comment on that because you did not mention the $57 billion.

[Pierre Patry]

That is the problem when we only have five minutes to present our positions.

Successive Canadian governments did take $57 billion from the employment insurance fund, and they cut benefits. Yes, the contribution rate went down, but the main problem is that now, over half of all unemployed workers are not eligible for employment insurance.

In many cases, people who are not eligible for employment insurance end up on social assistance as a last resort. Earlier on, she said that this could increase homelessness. I do not want to blow the link between the two out of proportion, but it is clear that more and more workers are losing their jobs and facing a serious poverty situation.

If the federal government had acted more responsibly with the employment insurance fund and had not taken the $57 billion, it could have spent the past few years making the program better. It makes sense to keep a surplus in reserve as a hedge against tougher times when people who lose their jobs need access to employment insurance benefits.

Yes, this is about social needs. This is a social program, but as I said earlier, the employment insurance program also helps stabilize the economy because every dollar given to an unemployed worker, compared to tax cuts, will be put right back into the economy because it gives the recipient buying power. If that person cannot collect employment insurance and has to rely on social assistance as a last resort, he or she will have less buying power, which will just prolong the current economic crisis.

I think that the government should be more proactive when it comes to employment insurance by improving the program and ensuring that in good times, the fund accumulates a surplus so that it can weather the tough times that will undoubtedly follow.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Patry. My time is limited, so I would like to ask Mr. Lafleur a question.

You talked about your appearance before the Standing Committee on Finance this spring. It was actually a joint session of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology and the Standing Committee on Finance. We talked about the issue then. I moved a motion to consider the issue you brought up that is facing the Retail Council of Canada a priority. This is a very important issue.

You said that the federal government must adopt appropriate measures. The expression “appropriate measures” may be a bit vague.

This spring, you also talked about the Australian model. Do you think that the Standing Committee on Finance and the government should consider moving toward greater control?

The whole issue with MasterCard and Visa wanting access to the debit market will soon be up for study, and you seem to think that this is a pressing matter. You talked about $4 billion in fees. That is not a drop in the bucket for retailers, and the number keeps going up.