Evidence of meeting #64 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was csis.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Andrew Jackson  Chief Economist, Canadian Labour Congress
Pierre Céré  Spokesperson, Conseil national des chômeurs et chômeuses
Jason Clemens  Director of Research, Macdonald-Laurier Institute
Greg Smith  Vice-President, Finance, Risk Administration and Chief Financial Officer, PPP Canada Inc.
Paul Kennedy  As an Individual
Jane Londerville  University of Guelph, As an Individual
Michael Zigayer  Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Jerome Brannagan  Deputy Chief, Operations, Windsor Police Service
Stephen Bolton  Director, Border Law Enforcement Strategies Division, Public Safety Canada
Superintendent Joe Oliver  Director General, Border Integrity, Royal Canadian Mounted Police

6:10 p.m.

Spokesperson, Conseil national des chômeurs et chômeuses

Pierre Céré

Since last Thursday, the reaction in Quebec seems to be quite unanimous. We mentioned the media, and the commentators and columnists from all the newspapers. But we have also heard from employers. Last Thursday, the chief economist of the Quebec Employers Council said that things were going way too far and this was not what employers wanted.

We keep an open mind. In 2010, less than two years ago, sir, we brought together the principal, very senior, employers' representatives around a big table in Montreal to talk about employment insurance. There was the president of the Quebec Employers Council, the Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, Manufacturiers et Exportateurs du Québec, as well as leading union representatives. The meeting lasted an entire day, right in the middle of August. There was unanimity between the employers and the unions: the government is doing what it likes with the employment insurance program and with our premiums, with money belonging to the employers and the workers. The employers also told us very clearly that the government in Ottawa was not listening to them. That is why the reaction in Quebec is unanimous in opposition to the government's proposals.

6:10 p.m.

NDP

Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC

Do I have time for two more questions?

6:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Yes.

6:10 p.m.

NDP

Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC

It has often been said that the proposed measures are going to put a downward pressure on salaries. Do you agree with that?.

I am sorry, Mr. Smith. Mr. Céré, you can start, and then Mr. Jackson and Mr. Clemens.

6:10 p.m.

Spokesperson, Conseil national des chômeurs et chômeuses

Pierre Céré

Certainly. Take the example of a carpenter making $20 per hour in his region. He is a seasonal construction worker and he is laid off. Starting in the first week in which he is unemployed, he has to take a job at 80% of his previous salary. Starting in the seventh week, he has to take a job at 70% of his previous salary. Any employer could offer him the same job as a carpenter, for example, but at $14 per hour. If he refuses, he will lose his benefits.

6:10 p.m.

NDP

Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC

Mr. Clemens, do you agree that it could put a downward pressure on salaries?

6:10 p.m.

Director of Research, Macdonald-Laurier Institute

Jason Clemens

The changes in OAS?

6:10 p.m.

NDP

Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC

No, EI.

6:10 p.m.

Director of Research, Macdonald-Laurier Institute

Jason Clemens

Sorry, I didn't prepare for EI.

6:10 p.m.

NDP

Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC

Mr. Jackson?

6:10 p.m.

Chief Economist, Canadian Labour Congress

Andrew Jackson

I'm somewhat torn on how to respond to this because I think the reality right now is that what workers do, for the most part, as they near the end of their claims, is to accept jobs at lower wages. So I'd like to know what evidence there is of workers in the current situation turning down suitable job offers. I think it's hugely exaggerated. Certainly in Ontario throughout the recession, we saw workers accepting jobs at much lower wages, especially older workers, than used to be the case.

So I think it's very exaggerated, this idea that unemployed workers are sticking around with.... But if it's going to make any difference at all, it is going to push down wages for some, especially in the high unemployment regions.

6:10 p.m.

NDP

Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC

Thank you, sir.

I was asking the question because, in my constituency—

6:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Mr. Caron, your time is unfortunately up.

Ms. McLeod, please.

6:10 p.m.

Conservative

Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I too would like to thank the witnesses.

I have two quick comments and then a question.

Certainly, I've looked at the arguments for and against the sustainability of OAS and though I'm not an economist, given the numbers I've seen, intuitively I really do believe we have a significant issue and that the government has had to make a very difficult decision in moving forward on that issue.

I thought Mr. Clemens' comments were very interesting on there perhaps being some opportunity in the future to address how we look at that piece. Nonetheless, I thought as an individual that if I were to have my OAS clawed-back—which wouldn't be popular—I would almost say, “You know what, there are bigger safety net holes for children than there are for seniors”. So I think that's a completely complex and different discussion that we could have.

In terms of EI, again, I don't think anyone here can disagree with the fact that people on EI should get regular notices of opportunities above and beyond the job bank. If you do, maybe you can put up your hand and we can engage in that debate.

I don't think anyone would argue with Canadians really knowing what opportunities there are around the temporary foreign worker program. I think, again, what we have a debate on is reasonable. Certainly, the government's opinion on having some very modest reforms and not relocating people to different communities is reasonable, and not looking at people making dramatic changes, but just providing those supports so they can move forward. Certainly, I don't think it's as dramatic as has perhaps been indicated.

Having said that, those are my two pieces that I wanted to talk about. I do notice that Mr. Clemens has some expertise in health care. I know it wasn't what you prepared for today, but I do want to quickly touch on it because I think it's important to all Canadians.

I had the opportunity in mid-2000 to do a lot of work around international comparisons. I went into that process very proud of Canada and our system, thinking that I would leave that process believing that we're the best in the world. I was quite quickly dismayed about what we were doing and where we were going, especially in terms of outcomes for expenditures.

You have probably noticed that as a government we have made significant commitments in terms of increasing these expenditures out to 2016-17. We believe there are many opportunities, and I think many countries have shown us that there are opportunities, within our current expenditures. Would you like to talk about your perspective in this area?

6:15 p.m.

Director of Research, Macdonald-Laurier Institute

Jason Clemens

Sure. I think the Liberal reforms of 1995 and 1996 to the welfare system are the framework for reforming health care. The Liberal government essentially removed most of the national standards and cut the block grant, but gave the provinces significantly more freedom to experiment, innovate, and learn from one another.

I think that general framework is to some extent the path we're on, although I do think there are still significant federal impediments to experimentation and innovation based on successful models in OECD countries who provide universal health care. I spent three and a half years in the United States, and it is not a model that we should replicate, although there are some lessons we can learn from it. I think we should be looking to countries such as France, Germany, Switzerland, Sweden, Australia and, to some extent, Japan.

What I would hope for is that we could have a conversation on making a universal, portable Canadian system that is the best on the planet, by learning the lessons from those countries as to how they deliver universal, portable health care. I think the next step for the federal government, which is a very difficult one, is going to have to be a discussion about the Canada Health Act and how aspects of the Canada Health Act prevent reforms that we see in other OECD countries who have universal health care.

I don't underestimate how difficult that conversation is going to be, because most Canadians, for one reason or another, have a false dichotomy in their heads that we either have the status quo or we have the American system. The reality is that there are a number of lessons we can learn from other countries who have universal systems, whereby we can improve health care dramatically within the current envelope of spending. That would be the general framework that I'd suggest. There are obviously more specifics, if you'd like.

6:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Okay.

We're out of time here, so thank you, Ms. McLeod.

Ms. Glover, please.

6:15 p.m.

Conservative

Shelly Glover Conservative Saint Boniface, MB

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I welcome all the witnesses.

I'm going to ask a couple of questions. First of all, I'm going to ask about the rate-setting mechanism in the EI section, and I'm also going to ask Mr. Smith about the P3 project.

Let's start with Mr. Jackson, if we could. What do you think of the EI rate-setting mechanism changes?

6:15 p.m.

Chief Economist, Canadian Labour Congress

Andrew Jackson

Well, as you'll recall, our preference was basically for the premium payers to pay for the cost of the program in terms of regular benefits, for what I'd describe as a normal rate of unemployment, which would be about 6%, and then for the government to pick up the cost of recessions.

By effectively capping—

6:20 p.m.

Conservative

Shelly Glover Conservative Saint Boniface, MB

Do you know what it is?

6:20 p.m.

Chief Economist, Canadian Labour Congress

6:20 p.m.

Conservative

Shelly Glover Conservative Saint Boniface, MB

You know what it is?

6:20 p.m.

Chief Economist, Canadian Labour Congress

Andrew Jackson

I know what it is.

6:20 p.m.

Conservative

Shelly Glover Conservative Saint Boniface, MB

All right. Because we've had a conversation about it before.

6:20 p.m.

Chief Economist, Canadian Labour Congress

Andrew Jackson

It's going up by five cents.

6:20 p.m.

Conservative

Shelly Glover Conservative Saint Boniface, MB

No, no, about the mechanism—not the premium, but the mechanism.