Human Resources Committee on May 30th, 2006

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

In this case, then, he was talking about a situation where, for example, he works 40 or more hours for 50 weeks, versus someone who works 40 hours for 26 weeks in another more seasonal type of work.

[Bill James]

In terms of qualifying, they accumulate qualification at the same rate. In terms of benefit payouts, however, if someone meets the qualifications for unemployment during, say, that six-month period, they would be eligible for unemployment insurance.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

So they would both work for $39,000, but one person would receive employment insurance because they work six months of the year for their $39,000 and then get employment insurance on top of that. Is that a reasonable...? Does that happen?

[Bill James]

If a person loses their employment after generating enough hours to qualify and they meet the other conditions for applying for EI, yes, they can receive employment insurance during that period.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Okay.

[Bill James]

There's one additional thing that I should mention. As was alluded to earlier, the benefit entitlements and the qualification rates are dependent on the unemployment rate in the regions, so it tends to be responsive to areas of high unemployment.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

I have one really quick, final question. Is there a mechanism to use the EI fund to encourage workers to move to places in the country where there is more employment? It's a big issue in Alberta, where we're from.

[Bill James]

In terms of current provisions of the Employment Insurance Act, I don't believe there would be a provision that encourages movement of unemployed workers per se. I could look into whether there have been programs in the past. I believe there was a program somewhat before my time a number of years ago, under which certain costs for moving were considered to be eligible.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

But there's nothing right now.

[Bill James]

No.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

There's nothing that's recently been studied at all.

[Bill James]

Not that I'm aware of, but I'll undertake to look into it.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Okay. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

In terms of the committee, I'd indicated when we first started that we'd like to get into some of our motions at 10:30, which means not everyone is going to get a chance to ask questions. Before we get close to 10:30, is there anyone else who wanted to ask a question?

If we've got three or four people, it's then going to be up to the committee to continue the questioning, but you need to realize that we're going to cut into the time for dealing with motions. How many individuals want to ask a question?

Ms. Bonsant, Mr. Storseth, and then Mr. Coderre.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

I will finally get some answers to my questions.

On page 9 of your presentation, it says that the budgets for ridings were reduced by more than 30%, which is incorrect. We provided you with the figures last year. Some lost 66%, and I would like that to be corrected.

I have a great deal of difficulty with some officials. You say that the placements within the Summer Career Placement Program should be decided by members of Parliament. Certain sectors of Service Canada do not allow members of Parliament to become involved with the Summer Career Placement Program. You should communicate with all of your people in the field to tell them that the final word or the final signature is up to the member, because if the official is able to decide, this is all for naught.

You have a 97-million-dollar budget for all of Canada. I am alone in my riding and my share is $1,350,000. As part of our 14 recommendations, we had asked for an increase in the budget. According to my calculations, for 51 members of Parliament alone, the budget would be $75 million. Do you know if there is a budget increase planned for 2007? This is very important.

We tabled 14 recommendations for 2007. Are you aware of any changes that will be implemented in 2007? Do you agree with the committee's report and when will you sign off on it?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

That's one question with three parts. Is that right? Okay.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

It is a very complex question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Very quickly.

[Robert Smith]

I think there are two main points.

Concerning the budget for 2007, those decisions are made later on in the planning year with regard to the availability of funds. As you know, the minister decided to maintain the budget at $97.5 million for this fiscal year.

That's an overall increase of the base budget, so those decisions have to be made later on in the year, as the new fiscal year comes up, in order to see if there is the availability of funds to make that decision. So I can't respond positively or negatively to that question.

With regard to the 14 points in the report, as you noticed, there are two that we've highlighted specifically that we're looking at. Our policy colleagues in operations in Service Canada continue to look at how to make the program better, and we are looking at those recommendations.

With regard to your question concerning what I think about some of them, some of them are more problematic than others, in that the terms and conditions of the youth employment strategy are for those aged 15 to 30. So it's not a quick decision with regard to changing that. The fact is that the youth employment strategy is a program designed for those aged 15 to 30. I know some members are concerned about mature students, and so on. I just put that point out. That's just a fact, that the terms and conditions state that.

On the other issue, regarding allocations, one of the recommendations is to get rid of the regional cap and just go straight to federal constituencies. If you look at that just in terms of pure numbers, we multiply the full-time student population times the full-time student unemployment rate. If you look at the last chart in the document, the annex, if we hadn't multiplied variables but went straight with youth demographics, you would notice that if we got rid of the regional caps, those regions that lost youth potentially could lose money. Newfoundland lost 17%. So if you got rid of that cap and went straight to allocating at the federal constituency level, depending on how the variables work, Newfoundland could potentially lose 17%.

I just throw that out as a cautionary note, because I know the committee at the time was obviously rushing to get the report out. That's just an observation on my part on that report.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Storseth, a quick question, and we'll finish up with Mr. Coderre.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to comment quickly on Mr. Lake's comments about the EI report and how the committee's recommendations to include mobility assistance in the employment benefits weren't in it. I think it is something that's very important for the department to consider, especially in light of some of our areas. I know in my riding we very much have labour shortages. It's really starting to impact the economy of our ridings.

The other thing I would ask you, though, is to spend just a couple of minutes explaining to me what the department is doing in regard to maternity and parental benefit coverage for self-employed workers. Is this something that's being considered, in particular for individuals such as farmers?

[Bill James]

I'll speak first to the issue of maternity parental benefits provided under the EI program, if that's okay, and I'll then speak to the issue of coverage for people earning their income from farming. These are somewhat different questions.

With respect to maternity parental benefits coverage, the current program does not provide coverage to self-employed persons. That's a common characteristic with respect to all the benefits in the program. It's something we monitor in the context of the program's coverage of the different aspects of the workforce, but with respect to maternity and parental for that population itself, it's not part of the government's current policy.

The additional comment I would offer is that under the provisions of the employment insurance program, a province can implement, if it so chooses, its own maternity and parental program. In one case, in the case of Quebec, the government reached an agreement with Quebec, and it has since implemented a program.

I'm mentioning this just to draw it to your attention that the program implemented by Quebec is the first one that I'm aware of to provide that type of coverage to self-employed persons. They're in the first year of establishing that program, which provides an opportunity for all governments to see how it works.

Generally speaking, the work characteristics of self-employed persons are very different from those of employed persons. That is the general reason why self-employed persons haven't been covered to date under the employment insurance program, which was designed more specifically on employment relationships.

With respect to the coverage of self-employed persons with farm income, generally speaking those persons are not covered under the program for the general reasons I just mentioned. There are specific situations in which people living on farms can be eligible for unemployment insurance in respect of their earnings from an employment situation, but there are quite complex rules around that. I'd be happy to have someone who's better informed than me address it.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Jean-Claude D'Amours]

Thank you, Mr. Storseth.

We will now go to Mr. Coderre.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

I would like to move quickly, because we have motions to pass.

Mr. Smith, you did not answer my colleague's question regarding the Summer Career Placement Program and the issue of signatures and the role of members. I find that in an accountability context, we are the people in the best position to sign because we best understand what goes on in our ridings.

What has just been said troubles me somewhat.

Is it true that you have some ridings where the bureaucrats or the officials are saying that they, not the MPs, should decide in the last resort?

Is that true?

And if yes, where?

[Robert Smith]

With regard to the context of your comment, we agree that MPs are connected to their ridings and understand their labour market. That is why MPs are part of that concurrence process.

With regard to the views of some individual officials who believe that MPs should be out, our view is that our directives state that they're in--to concur with our lists, to review the lists we do, and to give input on the lists.

We do have assessment criteria that outline--