Finance Committee on June 5th, 2012

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

On division.

(Clause 595 agreed to on division)

(Clauses 596 to 601 inclusive agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Those carry unanimously. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. MacGillivray. I hope you enjoyed the debate.

We are then going to division 42, clause 602. I don't have an amendment on this, but there is discussion.

Ms. Nash, and then Mr. Brison.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

We discussed this when the officials came here earlier.

I just want to make the point that current provision in the law stems from a human rights complaint. The judge's decision on that complaint was that there had been systemic discrimination against women applying for non-traditional work. At the time, I believe it was at CN Rail. That situation was difficult to prove on an individual case, but collectively, in looking at the overall employment data of that company, it was clear that not only had women been underrepresented, but also that there were barriers that had, intentionally or unintentionally, discouraged women from working in those sectors.

I would argue that in many work environments, women have made great progress. There are women who have made breakthroughs in areas that are very non-traditional. Ms. Glover, for example, is an example of someone who has experience in an occupation that was, up until 10 or 15 years ago, very non-traditional—and still, the numbers of women in it are low compared to the overall hiring rate.

The purpose of the employment equity legislation was to oblige employers under federal jurisdiction, or those who take contracts at the federal level, to address systemic barriers to the hiring of women, people of colour, first nations people, and people with disabilities. I understand that this change does not affect employers under federal jurisdiction, but it would affect federal contractors, in that they would no longer be obliged to do the outreach and to report annually on what steps they have taken to comply with federal employment equity legislation as federal contractors.

Let's think about who some of these federal contractors are. They could be major aerospace companies, major auto companies, telecommunications companies, or IT companies—some of which may have an excellent record of hiring people from these four groups. But I would suggest that some still have a ways to go. Although some may have made progress, some, I would argue, would not have made progress if there had not been the requirement to report on an annual basis.

While I would argue some things have improved for some groups in some occupations, there is still a long way to go. I think it is a step back when it comes to the defence of human rights, equity, and fair representation of all people in the workplace to remove the requirement for mandatory compliance and reporting that exists today for federal contractors.

So we are opposed to this change.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Mr. Brison, please.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

I will speak to the impact on visible minorities and aboriginal persons. Aboriginal and first nations people are socially and economically disadvantaged as it is. I don't see the compelling arguments for reducing, diluting, or scrapping employment equity provisions for federal contractors.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Brison.

Mr. Adler, please.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Ms. Nash, I have to say, I feel your pain, but I've got to tell you, this legislative amendment proposes to remove the burden for employers to prepare an employment equity plan under the FCP. Organizations winning federal contracts will still be required to meet their obligations with respect to employment equity, but this obligation will be made purely contractual and stipulated in contractual documents to be signed between the government and the employers winning the federal contracts.

Modernizing, of course, the operation of the federal contractors program will reduce the administrative burden on small and medium-sized businesses, and was a key recommendation of the red tape reduction commission.

I'd like to ask Mr. Child or Ms. Buchanan if they could speak to the fact that this will remove a lot of the administrative burden on small and medium-sized business so they can focus on job creation and long-term growth as opposed to being concerned about paperwork and meeting legislative criteria.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Ms. Buchanan, do you want to speak to that?

[Judith Buchanan, Acting Senior Manager, Labour Standards Operations, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada]

Yes, it should reduce the burden on employers, as you indicated, by no longer requiring them to create a plan. They would still have other obligations to measure their workforce and to create programs that would increase the representation and create an inclusive and diverse workplace.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Where they could focus on creating jobs.

[Judith Buchanan]

Yes. Well said.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Adler.

(Clause 602 agreed to on division)

I'll thank our officials for being here tonight.

I will move to division 43, which includes clauses 603 to 619, amendments to the Employment Insurance Act.

We have an amendment that deals with clause 605, so I'll ask for discussion on this division.

Mr. Marston.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Do you want to do the amendment first?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Perhaps I can have the discussion first, and then I will—

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

So you want the discussion on all the clauses first?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Yes, if I could.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

That's fine.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Then I'll deal with clauses 603 and 604, and then I'll ask the NDP to move the amendment to clause 605.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Okay.

Well, clause 603 we're against.

Clause 604 allows for insurable earnings to be calculated in the best weeks, not just total weeks. Some regions will lose when the pilot program ends. Workers in all regions will benefit from the introduction of a best-weeks' calculation. If I understand that correctly, then we would be for that.

Now on clauses 605 to 619, not including the proposed amendment at this point, the government is asking Canadians to just trust the minister. From our side, we don't think the bill gives us enough detail in that particular area. Again, it's like looking at the Canada Pension Plan. The Canada Pension Plan is funded through the premiums that employers pay and the premiums that workers pay. EI is funded through Canadian workers in exactly the same way. It's an insurance program purchased by those two groups of people for when people are in crisis or if there's a layoff.

In some instances, particularly in the east coast provinces, there's a lot of part-time work, seasonal work, and you don't have the alternatives to turn to, so people have come to rely on unemployment insurance, as we used to call it, which is now called employment insurance. Now we're looking at the potential that a person who leaves one job will have to accept a 30% cut to take other employment in work that's outside of their field.

Earlier tonight we had Pat Martin here, who is a carpenter. I recall in the eighties there was a huge downturn in construction in Ontario, and we had something like a 63% unemployment rate in those skilled trades. Now you're saying to people they're going to have to give up the standards they're used to having.

You'll recall one of our witnesses, economist Andrew Jackson, who was here. He said:

In the high unemployment regions in Atlantic Canada and Quebec, there is something in the range of 10 unemployed workers for every job vacancy that's reported by employers.

He continued:

It would seem to us that we're very far from a situation where there are jobs going begging because of unemployed workers turning them down.

And that's what we hear from the government side: the implication that workers don't want to work.

He also noted that particularly

in the higher unemployment regions where wages are relatively low to begin with...obliging some subgroup of the unemployed to take significant wage cuts could further depress wages.

I think we're opening the door here to driving down the wages in those areas that are hard-pressed already

So we have a great number of concerns.

How's my time, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I'm being flexible, but you're about three and a half minutes in.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

That means I can say a little bit more.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

You have about 30 seconds left.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

I'm from the east coast, but I'm not that slow, Mr. Chair.

The other economist who was here from the CAW, who gave us some good testimony, said that “most unemployed Canadians do not receive EI benefits“ right now. The figure I've heard used is that there are 800,000 Canadians who are not even using it right now.

From his perspective, there's an enormous shortage of jobs, not a lack of work. There's not a lack of work ethic. That, in his opinion, explains the decline in the employment rate. So he was offering that “policies should be designed not to compel more labour supply but rather to support Canadian families in an era where there's a chronic shortage of jobs that dominates the outlook for our labour” capacity in this country for quite a while.

I believe that would use up most of my time.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Marston.

I have Ms. McLeod, and then Mr. Brison.