Human Resources Committee on June 6th, 2006

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Let me turn, if I may, Mr. Chair, to post-secondary education.

In the Conservative platform, there was a commitment to remove post-secondary education funding from the canada social transfer and create a dedicated transfer for post-secondary education and training. I think it was on page 32 of your platform. Of course, that wasn't in the budget, so the first question is why you did not keep the promise that was made in your platform to do that. Is it still the intent of the government to move to dedicated transfers, and if so, when? Will you have to consult with the provinces and territories before doing that?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

I'm sorry, I missed the last part. Did you say “when” or “why”?

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

All of the above, but mostly “when”. “Why” could go on for a while.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

There has been a lot of demand, at the provincial level, that there be recognition of the cost of post-secondary education that the provinces have to bear, and we'd like to make sure that the contribution of the federal government in that is recognized.

During the campaign we talked about a dedicated transfer. We don't want to do this arbitrarily. We don't want to come up with a program and just impose it on the provinces. Our relationship is far too interdependent to do that. I have already begun informal consultations with a wide range of my provincial colleagues on this subject. We are going to be going through formal consultations as well, because if we're going to go to this kind of dedicated transfer and remove it from the Canada social transfer, we want to develop a program that specifies the rules and responsibilities of both levels of government, so that both levels of government can be held accountable for performing and meeting the objectives of their roles. In the case of the federal government, most of that is in providing the financing, and the role of the provincial government is in how it's spent.

We want to make sure that if we're handing over billions of dollars to the provinces for post-secondary education, that's where it's being spent and that it's being spent wisely. We believe we owe that to Canadians.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

This leads me to the question of access. If your intent is to still have that dedicated transfer, as you suggest, I guess the question is whether you intend to use that transfer to fund the commitment in Bill C-48 from last year, which provided $1.5 billion to enhance access to post-secondary education. In fact, Bill C-48 specifically earmarked funds “for supporting training programs and enhancing access to post-secondary education, to benefit, among others, aboriginal Canadians, an amount not exceeding $1.5 billion”.

I understand that the government committed $1 billion in its budget for infrastructure. As we indicated in our platform in the election, we had $1 billion for infrastructure for universities, which was important, but we also had a lot of money for access.

It turns out from what Minister Flaherty has now said before the finance committee this week that the $1 billion in fact is from Bill C-48, which, as I said, was supposed to be for access.

When you talk about people who are aboriginals or low-income Canadians, what I don't see here is any help for those people, especially when they need it. A tax benefit that comes six months later isn't much good for a person who is from a low-income family and who's trying to pay his tuition in September. I guess the questions are what are you doing about that, where is the $1.5 billion that was provided for in Bill C-48, and why isn't it being used for access? Will you sit down with the provincial ministers, with the finance minister, whoever else it takes, to get this moving so we have something real for access for students?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Minister Finley, if you could take ten or fifteen seconds, as we're running out of time.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

The $1 billion you talked about for infrastructure also covers access of a different kind, and that is physical access for students with disabilities. We are hoping some of that money will be used there. There are an awful lot of--far too many--campuses across this country where people with disabilities have a terrible time accessing them. I've become much more sensitive to things like cuts in curbs these days, since I have had my little challenge. I find that all too often, that's not there. Part of that $1 billion is to go towards that. That's part of another definition of “access”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Minister Finley.

We're going to move on to Mr. Lake.

Mr. Lake, I'm very sorry about your Edmonton Oilers last night. I went to bed after the second period and thought they had everything under control, but apparently that wasn't the case. Maybe we'll have to stay up a little later next time.

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

I was going to say that the biggest issue in my riding to do with labour is our impending goal-tending shortage.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

I have a point of order. I recall at the last meeting, Mr. Chairman, I think, as the clerk is reminding you--

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

No, we're in the third round now, Geoff. The third round goes back and forth. I have it under control.

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

But apart from our goal-tending shortage, in my riding, foreign credentials is a major, major issue. I hear time and time again from people who have come to the country thinking one thing and when they get here, they find out things are a bit different. That's the recurring thing I hear. When I talk to people, I think we have probably about the highest qualified taxi and convenience store workers in the world in my riding. We have engineers, doctors, all sorts of people working there who should be working in other places--either in my mind or in their mind.

I guess I have a couple of questions. My understanding is that some of these people feel they're getting bad information when they're making their decisions before they come here. They think they're coming to do one thing, but when they get here, they realize they're less qualified than they thought. Some feel they have qualifications and there's simply a backlog that's causing them problems. That's a recognition issue. Some, actually, may even relate to our internal transfer of employees, when they come to one place but then want to move to another place and realize the rules are different.

I want a bit of feedback in terms of what you might have identified--I know it's early on--as the biggest issues that we need to address in terms of this recognition.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

There are a number. Everything you have said is absolutely true. We have way too much talent out there that is being underused, to the dismay of the country, or to the detriment of the country, but also to the detriment of these individuals and their families. They could be much better off both economically and psychologically if they were productively employed in their chosen field, in which they have skills. This is why we're spending so much time and energy on this, working with the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

One of the steps that we see in helping get over this barrier and this lack of communication is the foreign worker program through which employers in Canada who can't find the skills they need here, having exhausted the market in a search, then go offshore to find them, and bring people in for a limited time period. The benefit that comes out of that is twofold. Firstly, the employer gets the skills and services they need. Secondly, the foreign workers get Canadian experience. One of the biggest hurdles for immigrants in getting their credentials recognized is a lack of Canadian experience. It's the old story of no job no experience, no experience no job.

Through the foreign workers program, we are starting to get around that in some specific professions. My hope is that we will be able to do more of that, and also more formally recognize this experience. That's why we want to go ahead with the new agency through which we can specify Canadian credentials and standards, so that people coming here will know ahead of time what to expect, where to expect it, and where they will be able to work. They might be able to work in New Brunswick but not Saskatchewan because of the provincial standards and provincially regulated bodies. We're really trying to get more programs like the Red Seal, through which there can be provincial standards for each, but also a common national standard that allows people to move across the country, because that's better for everybody.

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

I have another short question concerning the universal child care plan, and actually more specifically concerning where we're coming from. Are there any studies or any numbers to do with what percentage of families use the institutional day care as opposed to other non-traditional child care?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

One of the challenges with measuring how many use it is that there is a shortage. The second question then becomes what are parents' preferences. I frankly think that's a more important issue. Where do parents want to have their children cared for? Is it at home? Is it in a formal day care? Is it with family, friends, or neighbours? I think that's the most important one.

When you start looking at those surveys, parents' first choice is to take care of the child at home. They can't always do that for economic reasons. I've actually talked with parents who have said, “You know what? I have three kids under the age of five, and that's $3,600 a year. With the difference between what I make and what I pay in child care--because I have to go to work--versus what you're providing me, it's not worth it for me to work any more. I now can stay home and raise my kids myself. Thank you.”

Others are saying, “I wanted to go back to work. I wanted to put my kids into child care, but I couldn't afford it. This is going to make it possible for me to go back to work, or to go back to school, even, on a part-time basis.”

What we're trying to do is provide parents with choices. In terms of how many are actually doing it, the real question is how many would like to.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Minister Finley.

In reference to Mr. Regan's comments before, since we have the ministers here--I know that we normally like to go to motions--do I have the will of the committee to continue? I know there are a few people who would like to ask additional questions. Would that be all right? We are at the will of the committee.

Mr. Regan, go ahead, please.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Chair, I must tell you that in fact in view of the nature of this meeting, with the ministers here, I assumed we wouldn't be going with motions on this particular occasion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I just want to make sure we have the will of the committee on that. Okay? If that's all right, we'll continue.

We'll have Mr. Lessard, then Mr. D'Amours, and then Mr. Martin.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

To follow on from what Mr. Regan just said, I think that we should consider having the ministers back before the committee, separately, to give us the opportunity to further explore certain issues. I think it would be helpful for the committee.

My question will be brief, because I want to allow Ms. Lavallée time to ask another question in the five minutes that we have.

Minister, you made a comment that both shocked and surprised me. You said that the almost $50 billion that were misappropriated from the employment insurance fund belonged to all Canadians, and that all Canadians had benefited from it. You know full well that the EI fund is made up solely of employer and employee contributions for the purposes of EI benefits. During the last election campaign, the current Prime Minister made a commitment to establish a stand-alone employment insurance fund to put an end to contributions being used for other purposes. I would like to know exactly what you meant by what you said, given that, mere months ago, you made a commitment that mirrored our convictions.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

There is a lot of confusion on this subject, no question. When the term “misappropriated” is used, in my mind that conjures up images of theft, collusion, and pocketing for personal benefit--in other words, employees or members of the government of one form or another actually getting personal gain.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

We have a point of order here.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Yes, and it has nothing to do with the answer.

Could we please have a little respect here? I would ask that, if you have a cell phone, you put it on vibrate, as otherwise it disturbs everybody.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

I did not use the terms that the minister used. I never alleged theft; I simply said that the money was used other than for its intended purpose.

I am only trying to understand. Is it the minister's intention to maintain the status quo, to use the EI fund other than for its intended purpose?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

Mr. Coderre really only wanted to make sure the cell phones were off, out of respect for the minister, so you could be on vibrate mode, if you would do that.

Minister Finley, you may continue.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

I'd be happy to.

In the past there were considerable surpluses in terms of the amount of money that was charged to employees and employers for EI premiums as opposed to how much was spent on benefits. There was a big gap, and over the years that surplus accumulated to around $50 billion.

That being said, it was recorded as a surplus, but the actual dollars, the cash, went into general government coffers and was spent on all kinds of other programs. It didn't go back into the EI program but it did get spent on benefits for Canadians. So the money no longer exists in a separate EI bank account, shall we say. It's only on paper. The money has actually come and gone and been spent under other names.

We have taken a number of measures to ensure that this doesn't happen again. The first is that each year new rates for the premiums are determined by actuaries along with the commissioner and others, based on the expected expenditures. What we want to do is make sure that the premiums charged match the expenditures so that there is no surplus and there is no shortage. We're doing it so that they match.

We're also getting more efficient--